LAL@Kings - Monday, Dec. 26, 2011: game one

[HtownPA]

The only time we were letting them get the offensive board was having Outlaw at PF and Hayes at center.

Which was my entire %^&*ing point about downsizing the frontline. If Cousins gets into foul trouble (which he will), he's not always going to have great second halves like tonight, and then what? Who is going to come in and maintain control on the glass? It's either JT, JJ, or Outlaw next to Hayes, and none of those guys will do that consistently.

They couldn't do **** inside when Hayes and Cousins were in the game. You can have Dally and his flashy blocks out of bounds. Ill take Hayes with his amazing defense, leadership, and toughness. First time in 2 years I have saw Pau having a tough time down low vs us.

You just don't get it. It's not one or the other, it's chosing to downsize and losing an advantage up front in order to play a small ball philosophy with big time perimeter weapons. That's foolsgold that won't win playoff games.

But be happy that the team couldn't control a severely weakened frontline.

It's better to be in the playoffs with Hayes than the 14th seed with Dalembert.

[Wolfay]

Hayes had 9 rebounds in 27 mins, and Cousins had 11 in 24 minutes. The rebounding suffered with the second unit, with JT grabbing a whopping 1 rebound in 18 minutes.

But yea, let's blame our rebounding on signing Hayes.

[AnDrOiDKing4]

We locked them down inside out, they rarely got open looks and when they did we closed on them. So far the only common thing I hear when people are discussing defense is "Chuck Hayes" . Everyone from Evans to Cousins made a point to play team defense because of what Hayes has been telling them.

This guy complaining about us being down 5 or 6 rebound after played amazing defense throughout the game is just reaching for straws right now.

[gold_leader64]

^ It has nothing to do about our lack of talent.

I was never making that argument, which clearly shows you don't get it.

Its all on the coach when he put Outlaw out there over JJ or Thompson.

Thanks for totally ignoring my point. Who does the coach have left to sub in the game when Cousins sits? JJ or JT? My point exactly.

For a team that supposedly dominated us in the front court, they couldn't grab a rebound to save their lives in the last 4 mins.

Do you honestly expect to be better when facing superior fronlines?

There is a reason no one wants Dalembert, he is a box score champ, nothing more nothing less, there is a reason he has been on his 3rd team in about a years time.

Yeah, because he was traded and his contract ran out, not because he's not productive. If you want a small team, fine, but don't expect any different results than have ever been had by similarly built teams...ever.

[pillwenney]

The problem on the boards wasn't with our starting bigs. Both Cousins and Hayes rebounded at a great rate tonight.

But playing Outlaw at PF is going to be a problem for that reason. The main discrepancy though with the boards was our wings--which is more of an issue of going small on the wings. I wasn't a huge fan of that. Thomas played well and Jimmer will play better but playing both of them with any consistency is going to be too much of a liability defensively. The fact that we had Isaiah on Kobe at all tonight was ridiculous.

With that said, that was an awesome game to be at. Just awesome. Our offense wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it still has plenty of room for improvement. Salmons was Salmonsish at times, but not as much as I feared he would be. Tyreke's shot was falling, but I still don't generally like the habit of him pulling up for jumpers...like ever. He did that 3 or 4 times tonight, which is actually a big improvement over last year. Still room for more improvement there.

The offense in general certainly still needs work though. But I still think a big part of the problem is that our guards are all shoot first.

The lack of turnovers was great though. FTs sure were annoying, but hopefully that gets better.

Also worth noting that the Lakers weren't at full strength tonight. Bynum certainly would have made a difference. But man, even considering that, it's hard to see that team seriously contending this year.

[boogie-reke]

WHY DIDN"T WE RESIGN DALEMEBERT , WE NEED TALL PEOPLE ON THIS TEAM CAUSE TALL PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN PLAY DEFENSE AND BLOCK SHOTS.....


oh wait nvm,

I guess you missed the part where the Lakers without their best frontcourt rebounders out-rebounded the Kings with a healthy team, as well as putting up a lot of second chance points. They didn't win this game because of their frontcourt, they won because they had too many perimeter weapons. And that kind of winning worries me, because if you live by the jumper, you die by the jumper.

The only time we were letting them get the offensive board was having Outlaw at PF and Hayes at center. They couldn't do **** inside when Hayes and Cousins were in the game. You can have Dally and his flashy blocks out of bounds. Ill take Hayes with his amazing defense, leadership, and toughness. First time in 2 years I have saw Pau having a tough time down low vs us.

Preach.

Amazing how selective vision takes over when people want to be "right" at all costs and hold on to it for dear life. with JT and Chuck we'd be just fine on the boards.

And chuck had 3 blocks btw Dalemb-who?

[gold_leader64]

Were they really making many 2nd chance points?

They took 16 3-ptrs and made only 1 shot.
They took 88 shots and missed 51 shots.

Ouch...

Lakers outrebounded: 45-40
Lakers more offensive: 16-10
Lakers more points in the paint: 44-30

Really guys, I know many kingsfans on this forum are thick, but what game were you watching? The kings won because their backcourt torched LA, not because of any frontline dominance.

[AnDrOiDKing4]

JJ and Thompson are both capable back up bigs when we have to sit Cousins, Westy just has to play them.

Get over Dally, we offered Dally a contract he didn't accept it and we withdrew the offer. Besides that he does not offer the leadership role that Hayes offers. Dally would of been bitching about his lack of touches if he only got 5 shots tonight. Dally would not be a back up for us. With your theory, we would same issue of back ups if we had Dally on this team. Also even with this height thing into question and how "good" he is, Hayes still had a better game than Dally did for the Rockets.

[ADoaN17]

It's great watching Laker fans leave the game before its over! Good win, the back court was great but the front court needs some work.

[gold_leader64]

The only time we were letting them get the offensive board was having Outlaw at PF and Hayes at center.

Which was my entire %^&*ing point about downsizing the frontline. If Cousins gets into foul trouble (which he will), he's not always going to have great second halves like tonight, and then what? Who is going to come in and maintain control on the glass? It's either JT, JJ, or Outlaw next to Hayes, and none of those guys will do that consistently.

They couldn't do **** inside when Hayes and Cousins were in the game. You can have Dally and his flashy blocks out of bounds. Ill take Hayes with his amazing defense, leadership, and toughness. First time in 2 years I have saw Pau having a tough time down low vs us.

You just don't get it. It's not one or the other, it's chosing to downsize and losing an advantage up front in order to play a small ball philosophy with big time perimeter weapons. That's foolsgold that won't win playoff games.

But be happy that the team couldn't control a severely weakened frontline.

It's better to be in the playoffs with Hayes than the 14th seed with Dalembert.

The ignorance is astounding. I'm not arguing that I'd pack Chuck's bags and drive him to the airport to have Dally back, I'm saying the team would be even more of a playoff threat if they had kept their size advantage to go along with Hayes. As it stands, they will have a tougher time on the frontline due to lack of size/depth than if they had retained him. Hayes/Cuz is good, but after that there's a steep decline, and Hayes/Cuz/Dally would be a bear of a frontline.

And with that ignorant statement, you are implying last season's team with Hayes instead of Dalembert would be any different, which it wouldn't.

[AnDrOiDKing4]

I will leave with this, I can't say really start calling out front court out when Outlaw is playing PF, he should never be playing PF, EVER. He is a good player but yeah the only reason this rebounding thing is in question because we went small ball with Thompson only getting 8 mins the entire game.

This Dally thing is what it is. We simply don't need him. We have plenty of guys that are 6-10+ on this team, its on the coach to play them.

[boogie-reke]

With who are you argueing this?

You think someone thinks we wouldn't be better if we had Dally on top of our current bigs?

The whole arguments this summer was that people wanted Hayes gone, and Dally to stay, and u defend him postgame when ppl talk about Hayes - what do you want people to think? you know that aswell as we do, and know thats what people were responding to - don't act naive.

Ofcourse it doesn't stop you from insulting and namecalling everyone else and act arrogant and all-knowing... man please.

[gold_leader64]

JJ and Thompson are both capable back up bigs when we have to sit Cousins, Westy just has to play them.

But not at C. They are PF's, and moving them to C (or even putting Hayes at C) sets the team up for another size disadvantage.

Get over Dally, we offered Dally a contract he didn't accept it and we withdrew the offer.

YOU GET OVER DALLY, because this isn't about Dally. Develop some reading comprehension skills, please. It's about deciding to take the team in the direction of small-ball, which was explicitly stated by the coach. They wanted a smaller, more athletic uptempo team, and part of that philosophic change meant acquiring a player like Hayes to replace Dalembert. If you can't grasp this simple concept, then stop responding to my posts, because you clearly aren't operating on a solid basis of understanding.

[SacKingZZZ]

Hayes and Thornton are overpaid? What?

WHY DIDN"T WE RESIGN DALEMEBERT , WE NEED TALL PEOPLE ON THIS TEAM CAUSE TALL PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN PLAY DEFENSE AND BLOCK SHOTS.....


oh wait nvm,

I guess you missed the part where the Lakers without their best frontcourt rebounders out-rebounded the Kings with a healthy team, as well as putting up a lot of second chance points. They didn't win this game because of their frontcourt, they won because they had too many perimeter weapons. And that kind of winning worries me, because if you live by the jumper, you die by the jumper.

This entire effort tonight completely flew over your head.

The defense was real and it was unlike ANYTHING seen at ANY point last year. If you didn't recognize it, it's on you and nobody else.

The Lakers played like the Kings of last year. Kings played legit team defense. They'll get better on the boards if Cousins and Hayes can stay on the floor together.

[RoyalCourtJestr]

Wowzers, come all in fired up about our excellent victory, and all I see is "IGNORANT!" posted twenty times.

Come on boys, tonight is a night for optimism! Or I guess my head is just stuck in the sand. Rather be smiling and wrong than pissed off and 'right'.

[LovingCousins]

^ It has nothing to do about our lack of talent.

I was never making that argument, which clearly shows you don't get it.

Its all on the coach when he put Outlaw out there over JJ or Thompson.

Thanks for totally ignoring my point. Who does the coach have left to sub in the game when Cousins sits? JJ or JT? My point exactly.

For a team that supposedly dominated us in the front court, they couldn't grab a rebound to save their lives in the last 4 mins.

Do you honestly expect to be better when facing superior fronlines?

There is a reason no one wants Dalembert, he is a box score champ, nothing more nothing less, there is a reason he has been on his 3rd team in about a years time.

Yeah, because he was traded and his contract ran out, not because he's not productive. If you want a small team, fine, but don't expect any different results than have ever been had by similarly built teams...ever.

The rebounding issue seems to stem from more than just having Hayes instead of Dalembert. For long stretches of the game, our back court was undersized and not interested in going after defensive rebounds. Often, it was Hayes and another big battling three Lakers for the board. Overall, the problem doesn't seem to be simply Hayes. I think that is something which can be shored up as the team comes together.

[gold_leader64]

With who are you argueing this?

You think someone thinks we wouldn't be better if we had Dally on top of our current bigs?

The whole arguments this summer was that people wanted Hayes gone, and Dally to stay, and u defend him postgame when ppl talk about Hayes - what do you want people to think? you know that aswell as we do, and know thats what people were responding to - don't act naive.

Ofcourse it doesn't stop you from insulting and namecalling everyone else and act arrogant and all-knowing... man please.

Maybe I wouldn't seem as arrogant if people here actually could understand a debate rather than post reactionary BS and never attempt to grasp what somebody else is saying.

"OMG HAYES + LAKERS WIN = HAYES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"

Dude, I thought RGM was an intelligent board.

[gold_leader64]

Wowzers, come all in fired up about our excellent victory, and all I see is "IGNORANT!" posted twenty times.

Come on boys, tonight is a night for optimism! Or I guess my head is just stuck in the sand. Rather be smiling and wrong than pissed off and 'right'.

That's because there's a difference between fanboys and basketball fans. I posted both good and bad from what I saw tonight, and then the fanboys jumped on certain comments, then started to react to a point which I never attempted to make. But hey, that's the internet for you.

[Silver Man]

Many positives came from tonight but I'll begin with the negative. My negative list only contains one item and that was free-throw shooting, but that should get better so I won't stress over it too much. As for the positives, many came from tonights game with the big ones being the defense/hustle especially from Hayes all game and Cousins at the end. Pretty much everything has been said so I won't add anything other than great start to the year.

[boogie-reke]

With who are you argueing this?

You think someone thinks we wouldn't be better if we had Dally on top of our current bigs?

The whole arguments this summer was that people wanted Hayes gone, and Dally to stay, and u defend him postgame when ppl talk about Hayes - what do you want people to think? you know that aswell as we do, and know thats what people were responding to - don't act naive.

Ofcourse it doesn't stop you from insulting and namecalling everyone else and act arrogant and all-knowing... man please.

Maybe I wouldn't seem as arrogant if people here actually could understand a debate rather than post reactionary BS and never attempt to grasp what somebody else is saying.

"OMG HAYES + LAKERS WIN = HAYES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"

Dude, I thought RGM was an intelligent board.

Dude. Hayes was HUGE today, whichever way you spin it.

What the hell do you want people to say after such emotional and exciting game?

I totally don't understand what your intetions here are, and what are you actually argueing (again, if it's saying we'd be better with Dally together with Hayes and Cousins - who in the world would argue against it? - if it's having Dally over Hayes, which is what you made everyone here believe from your first reaction, then I and i'm sure many others disagree)

And you wouldn't seem arrogant if you would ACT arrogant. simple as. don't blaim us for acting like an ass to others pal.