Kings @ Lakers in Vegas

[pillwenney]

Uh, I've seen games where JT literally blows assignment after assignment, mostly on help D, and we suffered greatly for it. I don't think it can be understated whatsoever.

With Landry, Evans, Cousins, and the others we still have on the team points shouldn't be a problem. As indicated last season with basically the same team with no Cousins.

Not always, you have more than a few players out there that will have downright dominant games here and there and then completely no show the next 2 or 3. JT is in this category. 25 and 15 one game, 8 and 7 the next.

Hahaha, more like the anti-Nellie. More like '94 era Knicks maybe. Fouls are an important part of the game, without them I might agree with you, but since there is still a limit on how many you can get in one game I say test it. Having teams change their entire game plan because of it might be a huge positive. Like I said, depends on the matchups. If you're getting killed switch. Like I've said before, when Daly gets back it might be the only way 1 or 2 of Landry, Daly, Thompson, or Cousins don't get squished into platoon minutes.

He's not as bad as you say he is. He's really not. And again, we're comparing him to Carl Landry.

Regardless, this is getting away from my main point, which is that we should have one of our 3 main scorers coming off the bench, so that when our starters go to the bench, we have somebody in there around whom we can kind of center an offense. It's about keeping things stabilized as much as anything.

And even when JT has a good game, it's not really dominant. He's just in the right places more often and makes more of his shots. His good games still don't come with the offense really running through him. I think we both agree that's just not the player he is.

It's totally Nellie-esque just in the opposite direction. The point is that the mentality is the same of "Let's put a ridiculous mismatch out there and hope we get them worse than they get us." Just because it's with bigs instead of wings doesn't mean it's suddenly a good strategy.

[SacKingZZZ]

He's not as bad as you say he is. He's really not. And again, we're comparing him to Carl Landry.

Regardless, this is getting away from my main point, which is that we should have one of our 3 main scorers coming off the bench, so that when our starters go to the bench, we have somebody in there around whom we can kind of center an offense. It's about keeping things stabilized as much as anything.

And even when JT has a good game, it's not really dominant. He's just in the right places more often and makes more of his shots. His good games still don't come with the offense really running through him. I think we both agree that's just not the player he is.

It's totally Nellie-esque just in the opposite direction. The point is that the mentality is the same of "Let's put a ridiculous mismatch out there and hope we get them worse than they get us." Just because it's with bigs instead of wings doesn't mean it's suddenly a good strategy.

Well it is in the sense that it gives you all the advantages in aspects of the game that are considered crucial to winning on a bigger stage. Foul shooting, post dominance, and high percentage shots. Like I said, the foul issue is a major part of it. I agree, if the idea is to play them as you would a standard lineup then it's pointless. I liked what I saw from JT in the post at SF a few years back. I don't think that should be overlooked.

[pillwenney]

Well it is in the sense that it gives you all the advantages in aspects of the game that are considered crucial to winning on a bigger stage. Foul shooting, post dominance, and high percentage shots. Like I said, the foul issue is a major part of it. I agree, if the idea is to play them as you would a standard lineup then it's pointless. I liked what I saw from JT in the post at SF a few years back. I don't think that should be overlooked.

Why not go all out and go with a Landry/Thompson/Whiteside/Cousins/Dalembert lineup? I mean, that one would really dominate in the post, right?

The point remains that, first off, we'd likely have trouble spreading the floor unless I guess we did this without Tyreke. But more importantly it's the kind of thing where the other team could get us back just as bad on the other end, if not worse. Our lineup would have poor ballhandling and if it's Thompson/Landry/Cousins, well that is just a terrible defensive front line.

[RIPskaterdude]

Thompson would be destroyed by 90% of the SF in the league if he was forced to guard them.

[SacKingZZZ]

Why not go all out and go with a Landry/Thompson/Whiteside/Cousins/Dalembert lineup? I mean, that one would really dominate in the post, right?

The point remains that, first off, we'd likely have trouble spreading the floor unless I guess we did this without Tyreke. But more importantly it's the kind of thing where the other team could get us back just as bad on the other end, if not worse. Our lineup would have poor ballhandling and if it's Thompson/Landry/Cousins, well that is just a terrible defensive front line.

Don't need to with a 240 pound PG.

Once again, it's not about defense. It's about capitalizing on mismatches for a period of time, and I'm sorry but if you're not the top team in the league with the most balance (select group of about 2-3 teams), you have to do that to a degree.

[SacKingZZZ]

Thompson would be destroyed by 90% of the SF in the league if he was forced to guard them.

It's just like the argument that Carl Landry can't rebound therefore he's not worthy of starting. Yet, the statistics showed last year that our rebounding wasn't really hampered as a whole with him on the court. Thompson has played there before and I don't recall him getting "destroyed". Besides, the SF position isn't really the deepest in all of the league in terms of guys that capable of "destroying" anyone. I do however recall him getting "destroyed" in the post by bigger stronger players.

[KF10]

Thompson may had the capabilities of guarding certain SF's with relative success in his rookie season. But right now? With his bulkier, heavier frame? I don't think so.

Thompson is still one of those big man with light feet but there is no way he can guard the SF with success today.

[SacKingZZZ]

Once again, the argument isn't about him stopping opposing SF's. If there is a SF in need of "stopping" by all means find another matchup if you think they can single-handedly dismantle your team.

He switched off onto the perimeter more than a couple times in that Laker game, and it's the first time in a long time I've seen him play some truly effective defense. As said, it's not about stopping the other SF, it's about the other SF staying in the game long enough to stop him.

[pillwenney]

I want to write a movie about SacKingZZZ's memory. It will be called "Memento 2."

[a-rod]

I want to write a movie about SacKingZZZ's memory. It will be called "Memento 2."

classic...

[SacKingZZZ]

I want to write a movie about SacKingZZZ's memory. It will be called "Memento 2."

I think "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 17: I Saw It" is a much better title.

Seriously, it's amazing how when something works relatively well it kind of just pops out at you. And when you watch someone's hole get bashed in time and time again it pops out at you in much the same way.

Oh forgot to add that he almost played SF for a couple of defensive sequences too.

[pillwenney]

Almost?

[Cruel_Ruin]

Good lord no Thompson at SF.

[Cruel_Ruin]

That was unreal Reke

[SacKingZZZ]

Almost?

Yeah, had to add that in there. Knew even an "almost" occurance would drive you crazy!