Will the Kings win more than 19 games this year?

Travis_Knight · Post #1 » by **Travis_Knight** » Tue Sep 8, 2009 7:14 am

I'm an optimist, I think they will win 20 games.

Smills91 · Post #2 » by **Smills91** » Tue Sep 8, 2009 11:54 am

Travis_Knight wrote:I'm an optimist, I think they will win 20 games.

I think 24 sounds right.

darkadun · Post #3 » by **darkadun** » Tue Sep 8, 2009 4:29 pm

More than likely. You just never know how the season will progress, with injuries or future trades that change the shape of the team. But with the team we have right now, I think they can win 20-25 games easily.

Post #4 » by **ICMTM** » Tue Sep 8, 2009 11:57 pm

I think the upgrade in coaching will get us 27 wins.

Bac2Basics · Post #5 » by **Bac2Basics** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 1:06 am

I'm thinking 26 with a +/- of 3

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #6 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 1:58 am

I'm expecting anything from 25-30.

KM44 · Post #7 » by **KM44** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 2:10 am

27 has been my prediction for a while. I'm thinking slow start, better middle, we get somewhat hot around 4/5 through the year and end the season mediocre.

Norbit · Post #8 » by **Norbit** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 2:24 am

I think if healthy we should be able to win 19-25 wins realistically. I am just seriously over this offseason and just want to see this team play. I think kmart and tyreke are gonna torch opposing teams backcourts.

SacKingZZZ · Post #9 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 2:49 am

lucky 21.

Draino · Post #10 » by **Draino** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 4:51 am

this team will not be close to the playoffs, don't get me wrong, but they WILL win a lot more games than last year, book it

why? last year I don't know if you have noticed they lost A LOT of close games, and even when they stayed competitive they couldn't CLOSE OUT GAMES, that was the biggest problem. if they can step up the game just a little it COULD be a 15 game improvement (at best for now), I'm having hope for this team, not too high because I know it won't happen, but top 10-11 in the west is within reach, playoffs MAYBE next year... (but the damn west is so deep)

Post #11 » by **KF10** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 4:58 am

FWIW we were the #1 team last year in terms of losing at home within 5 points or less. haha (I think we lost at least 10-15 home games within 5 points or less).

Draino · Post #12 » by **Draino** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 5:16 am

kingsfan10 wrote:FWIW we were the #1 team last year in terms of losing at home within 5 points or less. haha (I think we lost at least 10-15 home games within 5 points or less).

I know that, which is exactly my point, they lost A LOT of close games, which could quickly turn around with a little better coaching and a little extra effort, this team is/was bad, but they are not HORRIBLE. and the Miller and Salmons trade didn't help out at all....

Post #13 » by **Wolfay** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 6:01 am

Lightning Strike wrote:I'm expecting anything from 25-30.

That's my guess. We had several close games, and add to that good health, Evans, new coach, and the continued development of our guys, and I don't think it's a stretch to predict 25-30 wins. It will be another difficult and painful season, that's for sure, but I do expect more "F*** YEA!!!" moments than last season

deNIEd · Post #14 » by **deNIEd** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 6:54 am

I expect around 25 wins, but still worst in the west

cdt3 · Post #15 » by **cdt3** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:25 pm

Easily more than 19. I have been a Kings fan for 24 years and there have been a lot of ups and downs. The Maloofs finally got the best vet coach since Adelman (Westphal's numbers are even better than Adelman). This team had not got Natted on last season they would have still come around last year after Martin came back.

Betting on rookie coaches becoming very good is a huge gamble that the Maloofs had lost many times (Muss, Theus, Natt) since Adelman who was a vet coach. When you bet on a rookie coach there are so many variables. Now they finally went with the right guy because they let Petrie pick the coach. Paul will get the most out of Evans (Westphal himself had Payton like career) and he will get the most out of the talent on the roster (he developed Rashard Lewis from a Donte Greene looking rookie) and find ways to win close games (using Evans to close out games).

I cannot believe that any fans could believe that the Kings could be much better with Evans here. Chicago and Utah were lottery teams before they got high high talent (don't give the me the Boozer stuff if he was such a lock why did he go in the 2nd round and Deron went #3 because Deron is a a clutch winner. Just like Tyreke and DRose.). And what exactly were we missing last year? Clutchness...

This team will hit .500. Theus got near .500 out of KMart/Miller/Mikki and Adelman will probably get .500 out of a team missing McGrady/Yao/Artest. Our team right now is better than either of those rosters and we also have a better coach than Theus or Adelman.

I am telling you now, the Evans/KMart/Thompson/Hawes is rebuilt to be the most explosive Kings team since the Bibby/Peja/Webber/Vlade team.

bjax24 · Post #16 » by **bjax24** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 7:37 pm

cdt3 wrote:Easily more than 19. I have been a Kings fan for 24 years and there have been a lot of ups and downs. The Maloofs finally got the best vet coach since Adelman (Westphal's numbers are even better than Adelman). This team had not got Natted on last season they would have still come around last year after Martin came back.

Betting on rookie coaches becoming very good is a huge gamble that the Maloofs had lost many times (Muss, Theus, Natt) since Adelman who was a vet coach. When you bet on a rookie coach there are so many variables. Now they finally went with the right guy because they let Petrie pick the coach. Paul will get the most out of Evans (Westphal himself had Payton like career) and he will get the most out of the talent on the roster (he developed Rashard Lewis from a Donte Greene looking rookie) and find ways to win close games (using Evans to close out games).

I cannot believe that any fans could believe that the Kings could be much better with Evans here. Chicago and Utah were lottery teams before they got high high talent (don't give the me the Boozer stuff if he was such a lock why did he go in the 2nd round and Deron went #3 because Deron is a a clutch winner. Just like Tyreke and DRose.). And what exactly were we missing last year? Clutchness...

This team will hit .500. Theus got near .500 out of KMart/Miller/Mikki and Adelman will probably get .500 out of a team missing McGrady/Yao/Artest. Our team right now is better than either of those rosters and we also have a better coach than Theus or Adelman.

I am telling you now, the Evans/KMart/Thompson/Hawes is rebuilt to be the most explosive Kings team since the Bibby/Peja/Webber/Vlade team.

I agree, this team is not as horrible as people are making it. Will we ake the playoffs? Probably not, but I still do not think teams will want to play us.

SacKingZZZ · Post #17 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 8:55 pm

kingsfan10 wrote:FWIW we were the #1 team last year in terms of losing at home within 5 points or less. haha (I think we lost at least 10-15 home games within 5 points or less).

But that's what young teams do, and it's very rare that they turn it around in year two, we'll see though.

Post #18 » by **KF10** » Wed Sep 9, 2009 9:29 pm

But that's what young teams do, and it's very rare that they turn it around in year two, we'll see though.

Absolutely.

Teams that are dominated by young players are prone to make mistakes and whatnot. Evidently, we saw that last year with this young Kings team. But don't forget that we have an incompetent coach(es) in Natt (and Theus earlier in the year). The offense was not coherent nor stable. I don't know what the **** we are running in most nights. The "system" implemented by Natt was suppose to be "simplified" but I don't think it was ever successful.

Having a legitimate coach in Westphal, in my eyes, will be significant for this team's success. Or at least, far more better than previous head coaches that we faced in terms of team coherency.

Post #19 » by **pillwenney** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:40 am

cdt3 wrote:Easily more than 19. I have been a Kings fan for 24 years and there have been a lot of ups and downs. The Maloofs finally got the best vet coach since Adelman (Westphal's numbers are even better than Adelman). This team had not got Natted on last season they would have still come around last year after Martin came back.

Betting on rookie coaches becoming very good is a huge gamble that the Maloofs had lost many times (Muss, Theus, Natt) since Adelman who was a vet coach. When you bet on a rookie coach there are so many variables. Now they finally went with the right guy because they let Petrie pick the coach. Paul will get the most out of Evans (Westphal himself had Payton like career) and he will get the most out of the talent on the roster (he developed Rashard Lewis from a Donte Greene looking rookie) and find ways to win close games (using Evans to close out games).

I cannot believe that any fans could believe that the Kings could be much better with Evans here. Chicago and Utah were lottery teams before they got high high talent (don't give the me the Boozer stuff if he was such a lock why did he go in the 2nd round and Deron went #3 because Deron is a a clutch winner. Just like Tyreke and DRose.). And what exactly were we missing last year? Clutchness...

This team will hit .500. Theus got near .500 out of KMart/Miller/Mikki and Adelman will probably get .500 out of a team missing McGrady/Yao/Artest. Our team right now is better than either of those rosters and we also have a better coach than Theus or Adelman.

I am telling you now, the Evans/KMart/Thompson/Hawes is rebuilt to be the most explosive Kings team since the Bibby/Peja/Webber/Vlade team.

Deron wasn't good until his second year, and he was older than Tyreke. I've made this argument with you before. And Rose was definitely a part of Chicago's improvement, but the bigger part was probably the Miller/Salmons trade.

Also, the team that Theus almost got to .500 out of included Artest--let's not forget that, as he was clearly the team's most important player. Point being--you still have to wait for youth to grow. It takes a while, and that's why rebuilding sucks (but is necessary).

SacKingZZZ · Post #20 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:53 pm

mitchweber wrote:
Deron wasn't good until his second year, and he was older than Tyreke. I've made this argument with you before. And Rose was definitely a part of Chicago's improvement, but the bigger part was probably the Miller/Salmons trade.

Also, the team that Theus almost got to .500 out of included Artest--let's not forget that, as he was clearly the team's most important player. Point being--you still have to wait for youth to grow. It takes a while, and that's why rebuilding sucks (but is necessary).

That and they still had/have the remnants of what was once a legit playoff team in the east. Track record is important in cases like these. Sometimes teams just work, other times they don't.