Square Pegs in Round Holes

by HighTops on Sep 27, 2008 4:07 AM PDT

It's the last weekend before training camp, so I decided to address some questions that I had before the Kings info Express hits, and the board launches into full feeding frenzy mode.

FIRST: In a recent blog about Cisco the question of when the development of Greene' would make Salmons dispenseable. So, the question I'd like to ask is "Is it a certainty, that Greene' will be our SF?"

He's already listed as 6' 11" and 226lbs. That's bigger the Mikki Moore and he's only 19 or 20. If Hawes can put on lbs of muscle in the weight room why can''t Greene'. Are we pigeon holing our rookies? Hawes is our center, so JT must be our PF, therefore Greene' plays SF. And, why must JT be the PF? He's played center in college. Because he's older than Hawes he's physique is more developed than Hawes. He already out weights him by some 30 lbs. Or, is it as someone suggested, "That we don't want to waste consecutive 1st round picks on the same position?".

SECOND: Should we only draft or trade for players that match our coaches system? Reading through some back posts I've seen some comments like "We shouldn't draft Hibbard" or "Randolf plays a slower type of game than ours". Is it an absolute that Reggie had one system and he won't change?

We've all heard of the Princeton Offense, the Triangle Offense, the Run & Gun, or Small Ball. But, weren't these styles a result of the physical characteristics of the team? You had no low post presents so you moved your center out to pull the oppositions center away from the basket. Or, your loaded with smaller but quicker players, so you try to take advantage of your speed. The coaches that developed these styles adjusted. They did what they had to do to win with the players that they had.

Can't NBA coaches and players adjust their style of play based on who is in the game? If we picked up a low post defender that rebounded but couldn't pass or shot the 3, does that mean our offense would automaticly shut down every time he entered the game? As exciting as one style might be, don't most games come down to the matchups. If you only play one style with the same type of players don't set yourself up to lose the big game because you didn't match up well?

Is the Style of play more important than winning?

I appreciate your indulgence. It's just the Andy Rooney in me and I had to ask.

(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)

5 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Maybe you should ask Andy Rooney to go home before posting!

Just kidding. Interesting food for thought.

Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.

by jjham15 on Sep 27, 2008 8:37 AM PDT 0 recs

Interesting points High Tops

I’m going to recommend this for a variety of reasons. Well thought out, some new points I hadn’t thought of really at this point, and there’s new ground being broken.

This diary me likey.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Sep 27, 2008 9:53 AM PDT 0 recs

Now that my first point was general (A compliment to HIgh Tops of sorts) I'm going to address the Basketball shiznucky

I think the point about JT, Shawes and Greene being interchangable is why Petrie did the deal to Houston for Artest. Not only that he can also pick another role player supplementary piece with next year’s lower first round pick from Houston.

Any good coach finds a system that works best for the talent they have. If the teams that Petrie are putting together are offensive by nature any coach is probably going to always have to work to get those same teams up to speed on the defensive end. It’s the nature of the beast after all. I really think no good coach is married to a system unless that talent works for it. (I’m strangely fascinated to see how much Eddy Curry will enjoy playing for Mike D’Antoni, and I despise everything about the Knicks organization, and am way too happy in a private peace sense that the Knicks have stunk for many years on end. Sorry Seth if you read this, but I just have always been irritated by the snotty snobby aura Knicks fans have. Celtics fans have earned it. So have Lakers fans to a degree. Knicks fans not so much.)

For any coach the ultimate is winning. Smart coaches realize the style of play should be customized to the talent and utilize it’s strengths while diminishing it’s weakness’. That’s what coaching is in many ways on the NBA level in my view.

Oh, and excellent diary (they call them fanposts now).

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Sep 27, 2008 10:01 AM PDT 0 recs

I agree that coaches should adjust for personell

i don’t agree that greene shouldn’t be a small forward, though. Yes, he’s 6’11, and 225 lbs. But position isn’t just a function of size. From what I read, he’s exceedingly athletic, and actually has the chance to be a freak with good training. Position is also a function of playing style. Allen Iverson is a SG at 6’0", Ben Wallace is a C at 6’9", Nowitzki is a PF at 7’0", and Charles Barkley was a PF at a ridiculous 6’4" (though listed at 6’6"). Right now, Donte Greene is a face up player with a lot of athleticism, who also likes to hoist the three. Right now, he is a small forward. However, with his size, he may eventually move to the four as his post game develops, and he fills out, as Nowitzki, Odom, and Garnett all started their careers at SF and moved to forwards, among others that follow a similar path. Even early in his career, I’m sure that greene will see time at 3 in a small ball lineup. However, right now, his skill set fits as a 3. As far as Thompson, I’m sure he could play the 5, but he should also be good at the 4, whereas, between the two of them, Thompson is better suited than Hawes to play the 4, while Hawes can be a good 5. If those three turn out to be our front line for years coming, that would be a very versatile front.

by rory_sayer on Sep 27, 2008 10:29 AM PDT 0 recs

I agree

I’d add that IMO, when setting position for the 3, 4, 5 a player should play the lowest number that his athleticism will allow. So, if Greene can play the 3 athletically(ie. if he’s quick enough to guard 3s), he should. His size will make for some very nice mismatches on the offensive end. 4 and 5 are pretty interchangeable these days what with the high post center. So I don’t think 4 or 5 matters that much on offense, as long as one of em can post up. On the defensive end your 4 needs to be a bit more mobile so my above position setting criteria still holds.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Sep 27, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

And if they both can (Shawes & JT)

Then isn’t that truly double trouble?

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Sep 27, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

Criteria spot on

As soon as I read:

setting position for the 3, 4, 5 a player should play the lowest number that his athleticism will allow. So, if Greene can play the 3 athletically(ie. if he’s quick enough to guard 3s), he should.

I immediately thought of baseball. Your best defensive gloves go on the infield. Your speed goes in the outfield. And, if your trying to fit in power with a weak glove, you stick him in right or 1st. I’m a purest and never consider DH.

I also agree 100% on

So I don’t think 4 or 5 matters that much on offense, as long as one of em can post up. On the defensive end your 4 needs to be a bit more mobile so my above position setting criteria still holds.

You see it alot were the PF will switch to defend the C on the pick & rolls or high post because his center is too slow.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 27, 2008 11:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

Love your examples

Hope you didn’t think that I was saying the Greene’ couldn’t or wouldn’t play the 3.

I merely wanted to point out the danger of assuming. Assuming that we have the SF of the future when in reality we could have the greatest PF of all time. Assuming that even though Petrie built this team for the Princeton offense, that Reggie couldn’t adapt to the addition of a dominant low post player.

And, as I said, your examples of Nowitzki, Odom, and Garnett were stellar.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 27, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well..

I think the development of Greene is going to cancel out Salmons and Greene is going to be our starting guy eventually. In a deep deep draft pool, Greene was right up there. I think what impressed everyone was his stellar summer league, so there IS a high ceiling of potential there and he has the ability to be a huge, strong, athletic SF along with JT. A lineup of Hawes, JT, and Greene has 3 athletic to super athletic guys listed at 6’11" or higher at the C, PF, and SF spots. Talk about going big.

Whereas, I only see Garcia’s ceiling at being a scorer and a dirty work guy, nothing much else. The problem here is that I only see Salmons as a scorer, as well. Garcia has the bigger contract. Salmons is inconsistent and has shown he can’t play off the bench. The odd man out here is Salmons.

by CloudyEyes on Sep 27, 2008 5:09 PM PDT 0 recs

Low Post Presents!

by DustyG on Sep 28, 2008 3:47 PM PDT 0 recs

LMAO!!!

by blako on Sep 28, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

I Wonder

If Theus has the mental flexibility to try some of the variations you discuss (?).

I’ve heard him make a number of comments like ‘well, he’s banger’ or ‘he can shoot left, his right isn’t very good’, things that make me wonder if he has already limited some players in his mind.

If the coach doesn’t think you can do something you likely won’t get the opportunity to even try.

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Sep 28, 2008 10:03 PM PDT 0 recs

Don't we all to some extent

listened to the Martin audio tapes. You realize how far these guys can develop if they try. It’s really impossible to quantify the final potential of these guys.

Reggie has to deal with the here & now. Now, GP has the hard part. He’s the one that has to decide who to draft, to trade or trade for. Not only does he have to judge the talent now, but where their going to be one or two years down the road.

But, your right! If the coach closes his mind to the possibilities of some of his players, it would certainly kill the chances of them developing like Martin did. From end of the bench and not on the playoff roster to the face of the franchise.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 29, 2008 12:27 AM PDT up 0 recs

Good post

I agree that if Greene develops he may eventually displace Garcia or Salmons in a starting role, but we are a few years away from seeing that happen. A lot of high potential guys show up in the L, then prove they are more suited for a role as a reserve or are fodder for European teams. Much as it is nice to project Greene and JT as future front court starters, it is very likely that one of the Greene-Hawes-Thompson troika will be a better bench option than starter.

In the short run, I don’t see Greene beating out Salmons this year and probably not next year either. Salmons produces when he starts and plays good D, the latter something that rarely can be said about rookies. If Greene looks like a starter in his third year, then Salmons is even easier to trade with just a year of very reasonable salary left on the books. If Greene does, as you suggest is possible, develop into an option at PF, that’s probably a dream scenario for the franchise. PFs are much more valuable than SFs in general, and it’s way too early to say that Hawes or JT have locked down starting jobs in the future.

Beware certitude.

by Reges on Sep 29, 2008 7:22 AM PDT 0 recs

I agree on PF value

Your right. It could be 6 or 7 years before some rookies develop into stars. And, I don’t really think that Greene’ will develop into a PF anytime soon, but the possiblitiy exists. That’s why I think that most of the 4 yr college grads are more valueable to teams. Most teams can’t afford to wait around to find out which rookies will make it or not.

And, we could have 7 guys on our roster next year on rookie contracts.

An interesting fact about Greene/ is that Shelden Williams had a higher standing Vertical and Max vertical leap than him. And, where Greene’ could only bench press 185lbs twice. Or, about the same as 6’ Bobby Brown while Sheden had one of the max at 25 times. So, unless Greene’ goes on Roids, he’s not going to be muscling anyone in the paint any time soon.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Sep 29, 2008 9:32 AM PDT up 0 recs

right

I’ve heard a couple of optimistic comps on greene: Rashard Lewis, and Kevin Durant.
Neither of those guys would be fours at the beginning of their careers.

by rory_sayer on Sep 29, 2008 10:26 AM PDT up 0 recs

Hell Durant wasn't even a 3 at the start of his

If Greene ends up being the 3rd best player on the KIngs, and compares favorably with Rashard Lewis, without the inflated paycheck, that will be a great Kings team I do say.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Sep 29, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up 0 recs

yeah

then we’d just have to find a dwight howard to pair him with

by furious.d on Sep 29, 2008 9:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

That's a dangerous statement

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Sep 29, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

Kwame Brown?

Takes more than just athleticism to get a Dwight Howard. Personally, I’d prefer a Shaq.

Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'

by iashwash on Sep 29, 2008 10:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

correction:

Tim Duncan.

Donte? Donte'! Donté?!?!
'spect da 'xtra E'

by iashwash on Sep 29, 2008 10:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

That would be great

As far as Durant… he was badly miscast as a 2. That was a terrible call.

Rashard Lewis didn’t go to college, so it’s hard to compare Greene’s freshman season to Lewis. However, Greene is still considered very raw, and if he can develop a ground game, he could be better than Lewis. Still, if he manages to become the second coming of Lewis, I couldn’t help but be happy. Greene seems to offer more shot blocking than Lewis also. But if Greene can become that kind of a three, Hawes continues the improvement that we saw from him last season, adn Thompson turns out to be at least average, then I like our team in a couple of years. A lot of ifs, but at least they’re ifs with decent probability. Adding our PG of the future with a terrible season and a high draft pick would be awesome.

by rory_sayer on Sep 29, 2008 2:25 PM PDT 0 recs