Kings Vs. Sixers @ Arco

Post #1 » by **KingInExile** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:03 am

The Kings return home for their final game against an Eastern Conference foe. The sweet taste of a thorough pounding they handed the Knicks on Friday is still lingering. But the Kings can't forget that a win tonight won't be easy. While I want to hope that what we saw Friday was the catalyst needed to get the team to finish strong...I fear that we will see the "Mr. Hyde" version of the team tonight.

RIPskaterdude · Post #2 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:39 am

Wow...Mr. Hyde was right. Good thing we beat the Knicks on Friday...

murray · Post #3 » by **murray** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:56 am

For all the people asking what it means that "Martin keeps us competitive in games", it is this first half. When Martin is having an off night we are down by huge numbers in the 1st half. So next time you doubt Martins contributions to this team, remember how ugly this team looks when he is 1-4. Without him, this team would look like they do this first half- Just awful.

Post #4 » by **KingInExile** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:10 am

Yeah...it's all Martin :roll:

murray · Post #5 » by **murray** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:20 am

KingInExile wrote:Yeah...it's all Martin

No them shooting .676 is a factor in this game too, but Im talking about the horrid offense. There is no offense for the Kings when Martin is struggling.

wiltchamberlain · Post #6 » by **wiltchamberlain** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:27 am

And let's not forget Martin's (and the teams) god awful defense. Since when does Martin keep us in games? Is losing by 30 points that much different than losing by 20?

Post #7 » by **KingInExile** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:34 am

murray wrote:
KingInExile wrote:Yeah...it's all Martin

No them shooting .676 is a factor in this game too, but Im talking about the horrid offense. There is no offense for the Kings when Martin is struggling.

The team's offense has not been all that bad overall...outside of their putrid turnover rate (what's new). Those turnovers coupled with complete inept defensive play by the entire roster is the difference. When an opponent puts up more than 60 on you in a half, the cause NEVER has anything to do with someone having an off night on the offensive end.

murray · Post #8 » by **murray** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:47 am

I was talking at about a third of the way through the 1st quarter. We had like low twentys at that point. If you think a 17 point 1st quarter is efficient offense, you are terribly wrong.

Dedicated_76ers_fan · Post #9 » by **Dedicated_76ers_fan** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:59 am

You have some nice pieces, Hawes is a solid low post player. Thompson a nice banger. It's just Udrih, after his contract season he seems incapable of running the offense.

murray · Post #10 » by **murray** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:10 am

Dedicated_76ers_fan wrote:You have some nice pieces, Hawes is a solid low post player. Thompson a nice banger. It's just Udrih, after his contract season he seems incapable of running the offense.

Thanks. Good insight. I have been very impressed by Young for you guys.

Dedicated_76ers_fan · Post #11 » by **Dedicated_76ers_fan** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:23 am

Yeah, Young's been something else. Also Lou Williams seems to have grown a insight or two on how to run a team.

Cruel_Ruin · Post #12 » by **Cruel_Ruin** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:25 am

Damn, Hawes is about to make the leap into stardom. Nearly got a triple double today. Would have been the second youngest player to get a triple double, after Lebron

Post #13 » by **KingInExile** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:29 am

murray wrote:I was talking at about a third of the way through the 1st quarter. We had like low twentys at that point. If you think a 17 point 1st quarter is efficient offense, you are terribly wrong.

It's rather interesting how you can twist the statement "The team's offense has not been all that bad overall...outside of their putrid turnover rate" into any kind of comment on offensive efficiency. Guess you're just looking for your next point to argue about.

Post #14 » by **KingInExile** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:32 am

Cruel_Ruin wrote:Damn, Hawes is about to make the leap into stardom. Nearly got a triple double today. Would have been the second youngest player to get a triple double, after Lebron

That's what we've been waiting for! With him anchoring the high post, this team can be dangerous in the next couple of years. We just need guys around him to click better.

RIPskaterdude · Post #15 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 am

KingInExile wrote:
Cruel_Ruin wrote:Damn, Hawes is about to make the leap into stardom. Nearly got a triple double today. Would have been the second youngest player to get a triple double, after Lebron

That's what we've been waiting for! With him anchoring the high post, this team can be dangerous in the next couple of years. We just need guys around him to click better.

Griffin is gonna look very nice next to Hawes 8-)

SacKingZZZ · Post #16 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:45 am

xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
KingInExile wrote:
Cruel_Ruin wrote:Damn, Hawes is about to make the leap into stardom. Nearly got a triple double today. Would have been the second youngest player to get a triple double, after Lebron

That's what we've been waiting for! With him anchoring the high post, this team can be dangerous in the next couple of years. We just need guys around him to click better.

Griffin is gonna look very nice next to Hawes

Actually Monroe might be the better fit. :wink:

Webber/Vlade part II.

Post #17 » by **Wolfay** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:51 am

AWESOME game by Martin. 16 points on 4/14 shooting (1/8 from 3), with a whopping 3 rebounds! Man, I wouldn't even trade this kid for Michael Jordan in his prime!

To be serious, I'd argue that Hawes is much more important to this team than Martin.

RoyalCourtJestr · Post #18 » by **RoyalCourtJestr** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:53 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:
xx_skaterdude_xx wrote:
Griffin is gonna look very nice next to Hawes

Actually Monroe might be the better fit. Webber/Vlade part II.

I'm worried about you. You should go see a basketball shrink to help ward off these delusions. :wink:

SacKingZZZ · Post #19 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:12 am

Don't sleep on Monroe, this kids the real deal, a TON of potential.

murray · Post #20 » by **murray** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:15 am

KingInExile wrote:
murray wrote:I was talking at about a third of the way through the 1st quarter. We had like low twentys at that point. If you think a 17 point 1st quarter is efficient offense, you are terribly wrong.

It's rather interesting how you can twist the statement "The team's offense has not been all that bad overall...outside of their putrid turnover rate" into any kind of comment on offensive efficiency. Guess you're just looking for your next point to argue about.

You said

The team's offense has not been all that bad overall

... NO 17 points on poor shooting in the first quarter does not look good. It does look bad overall. And that is no twist. Sorry but a pace for 68 points is not good offense. How did I twist that?