Nba's Report Card on Kings Summer

Kingsforlife · Post #1 » by **Kingsforlife** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:17 pm

http://www.nba.com/reportcard/summer/2010/kings/

Anyone else see this ****...... and look at the author's name lol.

Post #2 » by **ICMTM** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:47 pm

well we only built through the draft. Being that we drafted well (assuming things pan out as foreseen) we did what we were supposed to do. We didn't get a big name in free agency, and our big trade was to get Sam Dalembert. So to say his grade is way off base I would say so. It also appears he's in the anti Cousins group so that really would be the difference between he and I. I would have said C+/B-

Post #3 » by **ICMTM** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:52 pm

ICMTM wrote:well we only built through the draft. Being that we drafted well (assuming things pan out as foreseen) we did what we were supposed to do. We didn't get a big name in free agency, and our big trade was to get Sam Dalembert. So to say his grade is way off base I would say so. It also appears he's in the anti Cousins group so that really would be the difference between he and I. I would have said C+/B-

Even still I think looking at his grades that he's not grading just on transactions. That throws it all off because he gave OKC an A.

Kingsforlife · Post #4 » by **Kingsforlife** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:00 pm

Even still I think looking at his grades that he's not grading just on transactions. That throws it all off because he gave OKC an A.[/quote]

that was one that was hiralous cuz they didnt really do anything, while the Kings drafted better and got rid of Hawesome for a player i wanted on the Kings back when i was playing NBA2k6

Website · Post #5 » by **Nicky Nix Nook** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:10 pm

ICMTM wrote:
ICMTM wrote:well we only built through the draft. Being that we drafted well (assuming things pan out as foreseen) we did what we were supposed to do. We didn't get a big name in free agency, and our big trade was to get Sam Dalembert. So to say his grade is way off base I would say so. It also appears he's in the anti Cousins group so that really would be the difference between he and I. I would have said C+/B-

Even still I think looking at his grades that he's not grading just on transactions. That throws it all off because he gave OKC an A.

Exactly what I was going to say. This review is pretty bad, but it gets worse when you compare our grade to other teams' grades.

Another funny thing is how he didn't really say anything negative, but just gave low grades.

sacking101 · Post #6 » by **sacking101** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:24 pm

Ya it seems like he made most ratings on how good teams are not how good of offseason they had. We obviously got better and improved on what we were lacking the most. We didn't make a huge trade or sign a big FA that make us a playoff team yet so we shouldn't get an A but we did what we needed to move forward. We deserve at least a B for filling in our needs.

Post #7 » by **Wolfay** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:58 pm

When I saw the wolves getting a higher grade than us, than I knew it was complete junk, and how is it when our overall grade is a C- when the lowest grade was a C+.

Post #8 » by **KF10** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:24 pm

The overall grade does not make any sense relative to the grades given on the particular categories (the Kings lowest grade was a C+ like Wolfay indicated. Total math fail).

Heck, even Hoopsworld made a MUCH better article than the former-Bee writer, SHC, did:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?sto ... z0z8ByyyzI

ADoaN17 · Post #9 » by **ADoaN17** » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:31 pm

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:Another funny thing is how he didn't really say anything negative, but just gave low grades.

Yeah, he says the Kings got serious muscles (and he didnt even mention Whiteside) and he still gave defense a C+.
It's good this guy isn't a teacher with his inconsistent and random grades.

KiNgSbOi · Post #10 » by **KiNgSbOi** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:45 am

I don't get what this guy was thinking when he graded us, but no comment.

Website · Post #11 » by **Nicky Nix Nook** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:06 am

KiNgSbOi wrote:I don't get what this guy was thinking when he graded us, but no comment.

what was the first part of your post then?

Post #12 » by **City of Trees** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:41 am

so this guy thinks the kings are tied for the 2nd worst offseason???? Toronto being the only team to receive a lower grade!!! How do these guys keep their jobs? that article is complete garbage

RIPskaterdude · Post #13 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:46 am

Cooper is just mad that he was fired from the Bee.

KiNgSbOi · Post #14 » by **KiNgSbOi** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:55 am

Nicky Nix Nook wrote:
KiNgSbOi wrote:I don't get what this guy was thinking when he graded us, but no comment.

what was the first part of your post then?

Just babbling

SacTown Kings · Post #15 » by **SacTown Kings** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:29 am

Well I was going to read the article but after reading everyone's posts it seems like it would just be a waste of time. So instead I'll just waste my time posting this message saying that I don't want to waste my time.

RIPskaterdude · Post #16 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:32 am

SacTown Kings wrote:Well I was going to read the article but after reading everyone's posts it seems like it would just be a waste of time. So instead I'll just waste my time posting this message saying that I don't want to waste my time.

But didn't you just waste your time to write about how you didn't want to waste your time?

Post #17 » by **ICMTM** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:41 am

SacTown Kings wrote:Well I was going to read the article but after reading everyone's posts it seems like it would just be a waste of time. So instead I'll just waste my time posting this message saying that I don't want to waste my time.

Read it and draw your own conclusion. I just read the reviews of three teams. It's not written for people like us though who already know what's going on in the NBA. It's more for the casual fan IMO.

Leithid · Post #18 » by **Leithid** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:05 pm

ICMTM wrote:
SacTown Kings wrote:Well I was going to read the article but after reading everyone's posts it seems like it would just be a waste of time. So instead I'll just waste my time posting this message saying that I don't want to waste my time.

Read it and draw your own conclusion. I just read the reviews of three teams. It's not written for people like us though who already know what's going on in the NBA. It's more for the casual fan IMO.

Well, they did include an explanation of their marking system for novice NBA fans, I suppose: A is superior; B is above average; C is average; D is below average; F is failing. I counted 19 teams above average (C+ or better) and 5 teams below average (C- or worse), so those 5 below average teams, including Sacramento, must be really really bad.

I had a nice chuckle when I saw Darren Collison/Brandon Rush get two grades higher than Deron Williams/Raja Bell. I think it's not so much that the target audience is casual as the author is casual; it's not so much not written for people who know what's going on in the NBA as it is not written by people who know what's going on in the NBA.

Post #19 » by **pillwenney** » Sat Sep 11, 2010 7:47 pm

The weird thing is that he mostly has positive things to say in the comments. But then he just gives us bad grades anyway. Like, wtf.

5th pick sucks · Post #20 » by **5th pick sucks** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:20 am