First of all, for those of you looking for another "bash Adelman" thread you are not going to find it here. I am starting this thread because I am so sick of hearing about Adelman's "shortened" rotation, and how he plays his starters too much. The fact is, no Kings player even plays 40 minutes/game on average. Peja is the only one how even cracks the Top 25 in mpg on the Kings. Bibby is 29th, Brad and C-Webb are barely in the Top 50. My point is, Rick plays his bench a lot more than most coaches. The only difference is that he plays only a FEW members of the bench extended minutes. As opposed to other coaches playing MANY members of the bench for very limited minutes. The fact is, with the personel the Kings have, I think he's doing a great job using the players he has. Why didn't he play Kevin Martin and Maurice Evans before Bobby Jackson got hurt? He didn't need them. He had better players available. I don't think changing coaches would change the rotation on this team one bit. I for one would like to give Adelman some credit for being at the helm of the team with the 6th best record in the NBA (Will be 5th by Saturday).
"Rick Adelman's Rotation"
- Thread starter keflanag
- Start date
Why didn't RA play the bench more?
Yup, and that's what a lot of people seem to forget. We have a fantastic group of players and it's not easy for anyone to break into that group. If they do, it's because they've earned the time. RA has never been one just to give someone minutes unless he feels they've earned them - via hard work in practice, etc.
People may have personal favorites they'd like to see get more PT, but that doesn't happen without sitting someone else down. And, on the Kings, you go with the guys who are being paid the big bucks to get the job done...
Thanks for the post, keflanag. I know some will disagree but I think it's a nice breath of fresh air.
Yup, and that's what a lot of people seem to forget. We have a fantastic group of players and it's not easy for anyone to break into that group. If they do, it's because they've earned the time. RA has never been one just to give someone minutes unless he feels they've earned them - via hard work in practice, etc.
People may have personal favorites they'd like to see get more PT, but that doesn't happen without sitting someone else down. And, on the Kings, you go with the guys who are being paid the big bucks to get the job done...
Thanks for the post, keflanag. I know some will disagree but I think it's a nice breath of fresh air.
Hey, don't you come in here with your "reason" and "logic." We don't take too kindly to Adelman supporters 'round these parts.
OK while I generally agree with you and also think Rick is a good fit for the Kings, I am getting genuinely frustrated with his non-usage of Ostertag.
Has there been a game lately where Greg did not do awesomely when he played? Yet we are getting killed last night, and instead of making the other team adjust to us, Rick leaves out our rebounder/shotblocker because-- why? He doesn't think he'll be able to keep up?
I applaud Coach for playing the rookies this year, but man, what does he have against Greg?
~~
OK while I generally agree with you and also think Rick is a good fit for the Kings, I am getting genuinely frustrated with his non-usage of Ostertag.
Has there been a game lately where Greg did not do awesomely when he played? Yet we are getting killed last night, and instead of making the other team adjust to us, Rick leaves out our rebounder/shotblocker because-- why? He doesn't think he'll be able to keep up?
I applaud Coach for playing the rookies this year, but man, what does he have against Greg?
~~
Alacron said:
Hey, don't you come in here with your "reason" and "logic." We don't take too kindly to Adelman supporters 'round these parts.
OK while I generally agree with you and also think Rick is a good fit for the Kings, I am getting genuinely frustrated with his non-usage of Ostertag.
Has there been a game lately where Greg did not do awesomely when he played? Yet we are getting killed last night, and instead of making the other team adjust to us, Rick leaves out our rebounder/shotblocker because-- why? He doesn't think he'll be able to keep up?
I applaud Coach for playing the rookies this year, but man, what does he have against Greg?
~~
OK while I generally agree with you and also think Rick is a good fit for the Kings, I am getting genuinely frustrated with his non-usage of Ostertag.
Has there been a game lately where Greg did not do awesomely when he played? Yet we are getting killed last night, and instead of making the other team adjust to us, Rick leaves out our rebounder/shotblocker because-- why? He doesn't think he'll be able to keep up?
I applaud Coach for playing the rookies this year, but man, what does he have against Greg?
~~
There's really no room to disagree with keflanag's statement -- its a fact. I have made the same point before and the statistics do not lie. What sets our minutes apart are:
1) we have MORE starters getting big minutes, not starters getting BIGGER minutes than other teams. And of course that's because we have better starters 1-5.
2) we normally have our bench minutes distributed amongst fewer players, not fewer bench MINUTES, but fewer bench PLAYERS
of course things have changed a bit this year.
The Tag thing is just dumb though. I've mentioned this before, but this team has developed a shooting/skill OVER-reliance at this point. Shooting's great stuff, its why we're better than most teams, but like anything taken too religiously its can go too far. Tag has absolutely been underutilized this year, and that one does lay at Rick's feet. He's just got to wise up there, because if we die again this year because of a lack of interior presence and rebounding and too many shooting softies on the floor, its going to cost him his job.
1) we have MORE starters getting big minutes, not starters getting BIGGER minutes than other teams. And of course that's because we have better starters 1-5.
2) we normally have our bench minutes distributed amongst fewer players, not fewer bench MINUTES, but fewer bench PLAYERS
of course things have changed a bit this year.
The Tag thing is just dumb though. I've mentioned this before, but this team has developed a shooting/skill OVER-reliance at this point. Shooting's great stuff, its why we're better than most teams, but like anything taken too religiously its can go too far. Tag has absolutely been underutilized this year, and that one does lay at Rick's feet. He's just got to wise up there, because if we die again this year because of a lack of interior presence and rebounding and too many shooting softies on the floor, its going to cost him his job.
Last edited:
Do you honestly think that whatever "non-center" Tag was guarding would have been anywhere near the paint when a guard is posting up? If we were talking about drives through the lane, that's one thing, put he was hitting turnaround jumpers on isolation posts. Not much a 7-foot center is going to do there unless he was guarding Rose.
Rick's on fire this year. His coaching has really helped us get back into some games we otherwise might have lost. The game against Boston comes to mind. Tag does deserve at least a look, but Rick did play the Bench extended minutes, and we did get back into the game. We just couldn't make key plays... Cough, Cough, ...layups ...free throws
Ryle Do you watch the games? The Kings have trailed on more than a few occasions going into the 4th in games they've won this year. His use of the bench (or not using it depending on the situation) has been working more often than not. I love how your talking about how bad we needed Tag inside when not only did we outrebound them last night we also outscored them in the paint 34 -24! If anyone had the upper hand in the paint last night it was us! We didn't hit our perimeter shots, we didn't hit our free throws. How would Tag help in those two areas? And don't just give me a "puzzled icon" for an answer, tell me facts. I'm so tired of the "blame adelman for every loss" posts. That was a horrible shooting night and that's why we lost, not because of the interior defense and not because of the rotation.
T
wow adelman needs rotate everybody if they arent hitting shots or r tired. on a back-to-back, i dont knoe y he played his starters for 30+ minutes after they played New York the night before with 4/5 starters playing for 34+ minutes. barnes deserves better than this and adelman is afraid that he'll ruin the chemistry. ostertag and barnes deserve to play almost every night (depending on match-ups) and i don't like adelmans so called "rotation"
Well, I will say thing for the rotation: On the second night of a back-to-back, Webber should play fewer minutes, and Ostertag more, no matter *how* we "match up."
I also think that Barnes should be allowed to get more minutes in relief of Stojakovic; quite aside the fact that, unlike a vocal percentage of people here, I do not actually believe that Martin and Evans are better (at least, not at this stage), I also think that his play earlier in the season should have earned him the opportunity to play himself out of his slump.
I also think that Barnes should be allowed to get more minutes in relief of Stojakovic; quite aside the fact that, unlike a vocal percentage of people here, I do not actually believe that Martin and Evans are better (at least, not at this stage), I also think that his play earlier in the season should have earned him the opportunity to play himself out of his slump.
One thing I can say about RA. His teams win. Would I have liked to seen someone else or others last night, well ya. Would we have won? I say no especially when both Peja and Cwebb are having an off night.
Of course if we don't like RA would could always get the Saint back. I think he is looking for work.
Of course if we don't like RA would could always get the Saint back. I think he is looking for work.
i would also have liked to have seen barnes in their to relieve peja a little. i am in agreement with you that martin and evans are necessarily better than matt barnes, but they have performed well as of late, and in a short rotation, matt's minutes get cut. in this game, tho, it would have been nice to see some fresh legs in there. i am also in absolute agreement with you about webber. depending on the difficulty of either team on a set of back-to-backs, webber either needs to get reduced minutes in the first game or the second. he simply cant play 38-40 minutes in both. i dont believe there is ever a need to leave webber in for more than 35 minutes a game. stamina's kindofa big deal for this team right now, with more back-to-backs on the way. as recently as this friday/saturday, in fact.
Lots of good arguments here. First let me apluad the not bashing Adelman sentement. As for the comon feeling that Tag should play more and in every game despite match ups I realy am of split mind, but I would like to see Adelman try him out against small fast line ups just to see what he does. As for Barnes, I am sure we have not seen that last of him, but who can blame Adelman for giving them long minuets givne their recent play. Is Barnes the more pollished better rounded player? Sure. But the real question is what kind of future do these three guys have? I'd say Barnes has yet to show that he will ever set the NBA on fire, but does have the makings of a solid bench palyer. Evans adn Martin, show some real promise and deserve PT to see if they what they will develop into.
I would like to see Adelman run a compleet second unit for longer streches in back to backs and that means plying Tag many more minuets and finding a replacment for Bobby, and yes that woud mean a 12 man rotation on some nights.
I would like to see Adelman run a compleet second unit for longer streches in back to backs and that means plying Tag many more minuets and finding a replacment for Bobby, and yes that woud mean a 12 man rotation on some nights.
What you are saying seems to be pretty much correct. The only problem is that he seems to not do certain things that seems to be quite obvious. The one thing that is really bothering me this season is his reluctance to play Ostertag. Ostertag comes out with a great performance one night and the next game he is not even put in even if the rest of the players are not playing well. Maybe thats his way of making the team face difficult situations or something. But I find it hard to justify this kind of actions.
And welcome to Kingsfans.com. Just a suggestion but you may have started on a bad foot here. If you want to criticize Adelman as not a "great coach" then you might offer criterea for greatness and examples of greatness other wise your post is quite likely to be disregarded sophmoric dirval.
Last edited:
How wonderfully simplistic that worldview must be -- hey, just throw out those petty considerations like players, talent, injuries, luck and just judge a coach by whether he has a ring or not. What a wonderfully deep analysis!
Next week: a discussion about whether Bill Fitch or Dick Motta was the greater old codger with a losing record and a ring.
One does wonder, is there a ceremony or something where a merely good coach gets annointed as a great one the day after he finally wins a title? I mean, did Larry Brown the good coach just wake up one morning last June, look in the mirror and metamorphize into a great coach, or did he have to wait to get the ring in the mail? And what does it mean when a merely good coach like that beats a great coach in the Finals? Does the great coach lose his greatness and have to give it up to the guy who just won? Or is the new great coach maybe not QUITE as great as he would have been because he beat a guy who obviously isn't quite as great as he's susposed to be? But if that's true how would you ever get any new great coaches at all, since you have to win titles to be great and guys who aren't winning them aren't great. Seems like it would lead to only one guy being a great coach, and he should always win of course. Or maybe it just means that only the last guy to win the title gets to be great that year, and everybody else's greatness is rescinded for being a bunch of losers? Except maybe for a smart great coach or two that decided to hang 'em up immediately after winning a title and becoming great, thus preserving his greatness for posterity.
Next week: a discussion about whether Bill Fitch or Dick Motta was the greater old codger with a losing record and a ring.
One does wonder, is there a ceremony or something where a merely good coach gets annointed as a great one the day after he finally wins a title? I mean, did Larry Brown the good coach just wake up one morning last June, look in the mirror and metamorphize into a great coach, or did he have to wait to get the ring in the mail? And what does it mean when a merely good coach like that beats a great coach in the Finals? Does the great coach lose his greatness and have to give it up to the guy who just won? Or is the new great coach maybe not QUITE as great as he would have been because he beat a guy who obviously isn't quite as great as he's susposed to be? But if that's true how would you ever get any new great coaches at all, since you have to win titles to be great and guys who aren't winning them aren't great. Seems like it would lead to only one guy being a great coach, and he should always win of course. Or maybe it just means that only the last guy to win the title gets to be great that year, and everybody else's greatness is rescinded for being a bunch of losers? Except maybe for a smart great coach or two that decided to hang 'em up immediately after winning a title and becoming great, thus preserving his greatness for posterity.
Last edited:
Bricklayer said:
How wonderfully simplistic that worldview must be -- hey, just throw out those petty considerations like players, talent, injuries, luck and just judge a coach by whether he has a ring or not. What a wonderfully deep analysis!
Next week: a discussion about whether Bill Fitch or Dick Motta was the greater old codger with a losing record and a ring.
One does wonder, is there a ceremony or something where a merely good coach gets annointed as a great one the day after he finally wins a title? I mean, did Larry Brown the good coach just wake up one morning last June, look in the mirror and metamorphize into a great coach, or did he have to wait to get the ring in the mail? And what does it mean when a merely good coach like that beats a great coach in the Finals? Does the great coach lose his greatness and have to give it up to the guy who just won? Or is the new great coach maybe not QUITE as great as he would have been because he beat a guy who obviously isn't quite as great as he's susposed to be? But if that's true how would you ever get any new great coaches at all, since you have to win titles to be great and guys who aren't winning them aren't great. Seems like it would lead to only one guy being a great coach, and he should always win of course. Or maybe it just means that only the last guy to win the title gets to be great that year, and everybody else's greatness is rescinded for being a bunch of losers? Except maybe for a smart great coach or two that decided to hang 'em up immediately after winning a title and becoming great, thus preserving his greatness for posterity.
Next week: a discussion about whether Bill Fitch or Dick Motta was the greater old codger with a losing record and a ring.
One does wonder, is there a ceremony or something where a merely good coach gets annointed as a great one the day after he finally wins a title? I mean, did Larry Brown the good coach just wake up one morning last June, look in the mirror and metamorphize into a great coach, or did he have to wait to get the ring in the mail? And what does it mean when a merely good coach like that beats a great coach in the Finals? Does the great coach lose his greatness and have to give it up to the guy who just won? Or is the new great coach maybe not QUITE as great as he would have been because he beat a guy who obviously isn't quite as great as he's susposed to be? But if that's true how would you ever get any new great coaches at all, since you have to win titles to be great and guys who aren't winning them aren't great. Seems like it would lead to only one guy being a great coach, and he should always win of course. Or maybe it just means that only the last guy to win the title gets to be great that year, and everybody else's greatness is rescinded for being a bunch of losers? Except maybe for a smart great coach or two that decided to hang 'em up immediately after winning a title and becoming great, thus preserving his greatness for posterity.