Umm...Nuggets @ Kings

[Ballings7]

Well said, mitch, this defense is just actually worse than the last two seasons so far - but at least then we had our bunch of average-notable games on that side of the floor over the course of the season.

Just disgusting.

Were not going to be doing too much of note until we get above-average and consistent defensively. Because the offense is going to be there in that form a bit later on, with the talent, skill, and people involved on the team. Going to take some time and certain moves on the former, though.

[SacKingZZZ]

I think it's more than anything a function of the fact that when you have Brad Miller on your team and no really decent playmaker, you're kind of forced to use the system just out of common sense. But when it can't run through Brad, you have to try other things.

Been through this before, I guess we'll go through it again, look at the kind of players Petrie is drafting! Look at what's been said the last year or two in regards to how they want to play, a lot of it from Petrie himself. What do they need to do before people finally get it?

And REGGIE said that is the kind of team he is putting on the floor, yet, I swear it looks like they've never even practiced it before.

[pillwenney]

Been through this before, I guess we'll go through it again, look at the kind of players Petrie is drafting! Look at what's been said the last year or two in regards to how they want to play, a lot of it from Petrie himself. What do they need to do before people finally get it?

And REGGIE said that is the kind of team he is putting on the floor, yet, I swear it looks like they've never even practiced it before.

I'm just saying that I don't think the team has really searched much for an offensive identity in the future yet, and while Geoff certainly has a type of player he drafts, I don't think he does so with the intention of telling the coach how to coach. And even then, I don't think the players we've drafted really restrict us to any style (part of the whole versatility thing). The only one of our young guys who would be really a specifically great fit for that offense is Kevin. Spencer can play both in the low and high post, Jason is really kind of decent at everything, but not great at anything right now (same with Donte, in a way), so it's hard to take advantage of specific strengths, Cisco is versatile enough for pretty much anything, and Beno and John both seem like relatively poor fits for it. I'm not saying at all that we won't go in that direction in the future, but to say that it's some kind of given is just rushing to conclusions.

As a side, note, maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember Geoff ever getting specific with anything, much less how exactly he wants the teams offense to be run. But I could be wrong.

Regardless, the offense that was mentioned at the beginning of the year was the triangle (which I have seen bits of), which isn't necessarily based out of the high post--but again, as long as Brad is here, it's wasteful not to run some things through the high post at least. But if we are running the triangle (or a variation, which is what it sounds like), well, that's an offense that is notorious for being very ugly at first. Teams that run it always have to go through some growing pains at first.

[SacKingZZZ]

I'm just saying that I don't think the team has really searched much for an offensive identity in the future yet, and while Geoff certainly has a type of player he drafts, I don't think he does so with the intention of telling the coach how to coach. And even then, I don't think the players we've drafted really restrict us to any style (part of the whole versatility thing). The only one of our young guys who would be really a specifically great fit for that offense is Kevin. Spencer can play both in the low and high post, Jason is really kind of decent at everything, but not great at anything right now (same with Donte, in a way), so it's hard to take advantage of specific strengths, Cisco is versatile enough for pretty much anything, and Beno and John both seem like relatively poor fits for it. I'm not saying at all that we won't go in that direction in the future, but to say that it's some kind of given is just rushing to conclusions.

As a side, note, maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember Geoff ever getting specific with anything, much less how exactly he wants the teams offense to be run. But I could be wrong.

Regardless, the offense that was mentioned at the beginning of the year was the triangle (which I have seen bits of), which isn't necessarily based out of the high post--but again, as long as Brad is here, it's wasteful not to run some things through the high post at least. But if we are running the triangle (or a variation, which is what it sounds like), well, that's an offense that is notorious for being very ugly at first. Teams that run it always have to go through some growing pains at first.

I don't know when or where it was but I remember Reggie saying Petrie does give insight to how he sees the team playing and/or it's style. And don't forget he's also the guy that brought in Pete Carril.

As for the players we have that fit, or could fit, it's heavily lopsided in the favor of those that can. Spencer already is showing glimpses of his high post passing. Jason was one of the rare PF's in the draft last year that was a legit passer, and just like Spencer, grew up learning guard skills (i.e. ball handling, shooting, and passing)

[pillwenney]

I don't know when or where it was but I remember Reggie saying Petrie does give insight to how he sees the team playing and/or it's style. And don't forget he's also the guy that brought in Pete Carril.

As for the players we have that fit, or could fit, it's heavily lopsided in the favor of those that can. Spencer already is showing glimpses of his high post passing. Jason was one of the rare PF's in the draft last year that was a legit passer, and just like Spencer, grew up learning guard skills (i.e. ball handling, shooting, and passing)

I'd be curious to see that quote to see what exactly to take from it. And yeah, hiring Coachie to coach a team filled with Coachie-like players made a lot of sense. But that's more about choosing the coach. I'm talking about telling the coach how to do his job.

And sure Spencer and Jason perhaps could run a system like that, I'm just saying that their skills are far too versatile to restrict it to something like that. Spencer is also starting to show his low post ability, which really shouldn't be ignored at any point in the future. Jason has nice passing skills right now for a big, but he's going to have to improve a lot to run a real high-post based system. We'll never run it as successfully as it was, so I think we should at least look to run something that is at least more flexible.

[SacKingZZZ]

I'd be curious to see that quote to see what exactly to take from it. And yeah, hiring Coachie to coach a team filled with Coachie-like players made a lot of sense. But that's more about choosing the coach. I'm talking about telling the coach how to do his job.

And sure Spencer and Jason perhaps could run a system like that, I'm just saying that their skills are far too versatile to restrict it to something like that. Spencer is also starting to show his low post ability, which really shouldn't be ignored at any point in the future. Jason has nice passing skills right now for a big, but he's going to have to improve a lot to run a real high-post based system. We'll never run it as successfully as it was, so I think we should at least look to run something that is at least more flexible.

Who says restrict??? More like point in a direction. Once again I don't get where the idea of using a high post motion offense (like we are supposedly using now BTW!) means we don't do other things too. We played in the post when we had our "Princeton" teams.

And Carril was hired before we had those "Coachie" like players, but after we did hire him we mysteriously went out and got players that fit into that system. Hmmm...go figure.

And to say that we'll never run it as well as it was is a statement with no real basis in fact at this point. In a lot of ways you could say our lack of total commitment at times back then cost us dearly. Of course with those players we had then and have now there is enough versatility to break out of the system at times if need be. And I would argue that there is hardly a more flexible offensive structure than a motion offense. It gives the players so many options and avenues to attack.

[pillwenney]

Who says restrict??? More like point in a direction. Once again I don't get where the idea of using a high post motion offense (like we are supposedly using now BTW!) means we don't do other things too. We played in the post when we had our "Princeton" teams.

And Carril was hired before we had those "Coachie" like players, but after we did hire him we mysteriously went out and got players that fit into that system. Hmmm...go figure.

And to say that we'll never run it as well as it was is a statement with no real basis in fact at this point. In a lot of ways you could say our lack of total commitment at times back then cost us dearly. Of course with those players we had then and have now there is enough versatility to break out of the system at times if need be. And I would argue that there is hardly a more flexible offensive structure than a motion offense. It gives the players so many options and avenues to attack.

Well, when you broaden it out, and just call it a "motion" offense, which is what a majority of offenses are in the NBA. At that point, you might as well just say that we're going to run an offense where we try to score points.

And no, if anything, we were too committed to the Princeton. We played in the post at times, but not very often. There's a reason that perhaps the biggest criticism of Webber today is that he played too much on the perimeter--a lot of it had to do with the fact that Rick stuck with his system through thick and thin. That was Rick's biggest weakness as a coach IMO--he stuck too much to what he was used to. That team hardly ever looked to really exploit match-ups, or to keep going to a guy on a hot hand, and it especially rarely went into the post.

[SacKingZZZ]

Well, when you broaden it out, and just call it a "motion" offense, which is what a majority of offenses are in the NBA. At that point, you might as well just say that we're going to run an offense where we try to score points.

And no, if anything, we were too committed to the Princeton. We played in the post at times, but not very often. There's a reason that perhaps the biggest criticism of Webber today is that he played too much on the perimeter--a lot of it had to do with the fact that Rick stuck with his system through thick and thin. That was Rick's biggest weakness as a coach IMO--he stuck too much to what he was used to. That team hardly ever looked to really exploit match-ups, or to keep going to a guy on a hot hand, and it especially rarely went into the post.

Somewhat, but there are many different ways of doing things, and it's far less broad than you'd like to think. A lot of teams utilize the drive and dish, others pound it inside, others have a guard or a wing that initiates the offense by the drive hoping the big men will clean the offensive boards (something we do a lot of, and I'm not a huge fan), clear outs, etc. etc. Motion offense relies on back cuts, screens, moving the ball, NOT TAKING YOUR DEFENDER INTO A TEAMMATE WITH THE BALL WHEN YOU DO MOVE!!! (this is the most frustrating part of our offense now ) etc. etc. The idea and the game of basketball is pretty simple, but what do you rely on as a team?

Now that problem IMO was that we did go in the post, but to guys that weren't really substantially adequate at that aspect of the game. CWebb and Vlade weren't players that could carry a team in the post. We went to CWebb in the post A LOT in the playoffs. Vlade was OK down there too, but neither were a legit force down low. Maybe it could potentially be different with Spencer and Jason, time will tell. The extent of what we did see in the post was typically a half hook, a fadeaway jumper, or something that didn't resemble anything a team could rely on.

[pillwenney]

Somewhat, but there are many different ways of doing things, and it's far less broad than you'd like to think. A lot of teams utilize the drive and dish, others pound it inside, others have a guard or a wing that initiates the offense by the drive hoping the big men will clean the offensive boards (something we do a lot of, and I'm not a huge fan), clear outs, etc. etc. Motion offense relies on back cuts, screens, moving the ball, NOT TAKING YOUR DEFENDER INTO A TEAMMATE WITH THE BALL WHEN YOU DO MOVE!!! (this is the most frustrating part of our offense now ) etc. etc. The idea and the game of basketball is pretty simple, but what do you rely on as a team?

Right, but a lot of teams have elements of everything. It does depend on personel, but my point is that our personel doesn't really restrict us to anything, whereas say, a team like the 05 Suns is pretty much restricted to running, and doing a lot of pick n' rolls.

Now that problem IMO was that we did go in the post, but to guys that weren't really substantially adequate at that aspect of the game. CWebb and Vlade weren't players that could carry a team in the post. We went to CWebb in the post A LOT in the playoffs. Vlade was OK down there too, but neither were a legit force down low. Maybe it could potentially be different with Spencer and Jason, time will tell. The extent of what we did see in the post was typically a half hook, a fadeaway jumper, or something that didn't resemble anything a team could rely on.

That's not how I (and pretty much everyone that has ever criticized CWebb) remember it.

And Chris had a half hook, a nasty spin move, and could also step out a little bit, where he had a stellar face-up game. We could have hypothetically run some things through him, but almost never did.

[SacKingZZZ]

Somewhat, but there are many different ways of doing things, and it's far less broad than you'd like to think. A lot of teams utilize the drive and dish, others pound it inside, others have a guard or a wing that initiates the offense by the drive hoping the big men will clean the offensive boards (something we do a lot of, and I'm not a huge fan), clear outs, etc. etc. Motion offense relies on back cuts, screens, moving the ball, NOT TAKING YOUR DEFENDER INTO A TEAMMATE WITH THE BALL WHEN YOU DO MOVE!!! (this is the most frustrating part of our offense now ) etc. etc. The idea and the game of basketball is pretty simple, but what do you rely on as a team?

Right, but a lot of teams have elements of everything. It does depend on personel, but my point is that our personel doesn't really restrict us to anything, whereas say, a team like the 05 Suns is pretty much restricted to running, and doing a lot of pick n' rolls.

Now that problem IMO was that we did go in the post, but to guys that weren't really substantially adequate at that aspect of the game. CWebb and Vlade weren't players that could carry a team in the post. We went to CWebb in the post A LOT in the playoffs. Vlade was OK down there too, but neither were a legit force down low. Maybe it could potentially be different with Spencer and Jason, time will tell. The extent of what we did see in the post was typically a half hook, a fadeaway jumper, or something that didn't resemble anything a team could rely on.

That's not how I (and pretty much everyone that has ever criticized CWebb) remember it.

And Chris had a half hook, a nasty spin move, and could also step out a little bit, where he had a stellar face-up game. We could have hypothetically run some things through him, but almost never did.

If you go back and look at some tape you'll see that we did more than people seem to remember. The fact was a lot of the time Kings fans were pulling their hair out was after somebody broke out of the system. That was a problem too, we may had to rely on the system too much.

[pillwenney]

If you go back and look at some tape you'll see that we did more than people seem to remember. The fact was a lot of the time Kings fans were pulling their hair out was after somebody broke out of the system. That was a problem too, we may had to rely on the system too much.

Nah, there's a reason that Chris never had an especially high FG% and never shot many free throws at all for big man--it's because he played out on the perimeter. And I don't think it's that we had to rely on the system too much. I think we chose to.

[SacKingZZZ]

If you go back and look at some tape you'll see that we did more than people seem to remember. The fact was a lot of the time Kings fans were pulling their hair out was after somebody broke out of the system. That was a problem too, we may had to rely on the system too much.

Nah, there's a reason that Chris never had an especially high FG% and never shot many free throws at all for big man--it's because he played out on the perimeter. And I don't think it's that we had to rely on the system too much. I think we chose to.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, so when we did go into the post it was usually not the right thing to do.

[pillwenney]

But....my point is that we didn't go into the post very often and thus his FG% and FTA were lower.

[SacKingZZZ]

But....my point is that we didn't go into the post very often and thus his FG% and FTA were lower.

I know, and my point is that if we went to CWebb in the post we weren't nearly as effective because that wasn't his forte.

[pillwenney]

I know, and my point is that if we went to CWebb in the post we weren't nearly as effective because that wasn't his forte.

But we barely ever did. That's all I'm saying.