Rosen: Cavs, Spurs going in opposite directions

[DieMrBond]

Cavs, Spurs going in opposite directions
by Charley Rosen
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9412330/Cavs,-Spurs-going-in-opposite-directions

It's a long, debilitating season, and not even the most elite teams can get up for every game. So, after a pair of embarrassing losses to Washington and Orlando, the Cavs were intent on demonstrating that they are still a championship-caliber team. With this lopsided win, Cleveland also demonstrated that the Spurs' odd-year-supremacy is kaput.

Why the Cavs can be champs

# After getting burned for 16 points on San Antonio's screen/rolls during the first half, Cleveland made adjustments in its defensive rotations, i.e., the bigs showed long enough to allow the screenees to recover, while the baseline defenders halved the distances between their men and the open areas in the paint. As a result, SA registered only five points on similar plays during the second half.

# Whereas the Spurs' S/Rs usually looked for the roller, the Cavs' S/Rs were mostly designed to create space for the ball-handlers to score.

# The Cavs' quickness into the middle effectively kept the Spurs — with the understandable exception of Tony Parker — away from the basket.

# Despite ganging up on ball penetration, the Cavs were still quick enough to challenge most of the Spurs' perimeter shots.

# Mo Williams and Delonte West (I love this guy's game!) each tallied 22 points and simply shot the lights out. Many of these points resulted from totally unselfish ball-movement by all of their teammates, but Williams and West were also able to create their own shots against what used to be a formidable Spurs defense.

# Joe Smith gave the home team a huge boost off the bench.

# The Cavs were focused on defense, and had both the power and the quickness to make scoring difficult for the Spurs.

And then there was LeBron.

If his outside jumpers can be erratic — especially when moving to his right — he certainly was on target against SA. Overall LBJ was 14-21 for 38 points, but more significantly he was 8-15 on his mid- and long-range jumpers. When James is dropping his jays, the Cavs are well nigh unbeatable.

Right from the get-go, LeBron was in an attack mode, taking full advantage of Michael Finley's all-by-his-lonesome defense with low-postups, wing-postups, and isolations. Eighteen of LBJ's points came in the opening quarter, eventually forcing the Spurs to two-time him — thereby opening up uncontested shots for Williams and West.

When a defensive switch had James guarding Tim Duncan in the pivot, LBJ fronted TD and denied him the ball. It was push-and-shove for a few beats, and LeBron proved to be immovable.

Active, synchronized defense; plus excellent, all-around, team-quickness; plus hot shooting by James, Williams and West; plus a delicious helping of home cooking definitely constitute a recipe for a championship.

However, the Cavs also have their vulnerable areas.

Zydrunas Ilgauskas must be more involved in their offense. He was 2-2 on postups, but only got six shots in 35 minutes.

If LBJ is misfiring his jumpers, then defenses can stay in touch with Williams and West. The Cavs lack a reliable shot-blocker.

And, despite their overall speed, Cleveland's transition defense is too often tardy.

Why the Spurs can not be champs

# This team lives or dies on the basis of its outside shooting. Too bad the combined jump-shooting of Parker, Manu Ginobili, TD, and Roger Mason added up to an inept 4-18.

# After playing so many minutes when Ginobili was injured, Mason looks to be just about worn out.

# After spending so much time on the injured list, Ginobili is totally out of synch.

# At age 36, Finley can no longer play adequate defense and has been reduced to being a spot-shooter.

# Ditto for the almost 38-year-old Bruce Bowen.

# Kurt Thomas is 36 and can still bang and hit open 15-footers. But his lateral quickness is history, and his rapidly vanishing north-south speed was exposed when Ilguaskas beat him downcourt on a slow-motion fast break.

# Duncan tallied only six points on 2-7 shooting, and missed all three of his jumpers. TD's knees are undoubtedly aching, and his quadriceps tendonitis is still bothersome — which is why he only played 26 rather passive minutes. However, it's also quite evident that Duncan is finally paying the price for playing 893 regular-season and 155 playoff games thus far in his 12 years in the NBA. Given his lack of bulging musculature, the pounding he takes (and gives) in his pivotal battles, and his 32 birthdays, it's undeniable that Duncan isn't the game-in-game-out force that he once was.

# Parker is still a jet-footed force who can get to the hole against almost any defender and almost any defense. But his jumper — 3-7 — is still unreliable.

In sum, the Spurs are too slow afoot to play the kind of smothering defense that was the trademark of their most recent championships. Moreover, their erratic outside shooting enables opponents to jam the paint and make life miserable for Duncan.

For sure, TD, TP and MG could conceivably rouse themselves and cause trouble in the second season.

But, while the Cavs are on the upswing, the Spurs' mini-dynasty is over.

[xtremesteven33]

Im not buying the Cavs hype.....the Cavs are a good team but i dont think they can beat a healthy Celtics team....I dont think they even beat the Magic if they play them in the 2nd round....

[crc21209]

Charley Rosen is an ugly, fat old man who has NEVER written a good article and none of his predictions have ever come true. :lol. He's hating on TP's jumper based on ONE game. Come on TP's jumper this year has been money and we all know it. Fuck this guy.

[ElNono]

I bet this game is all that Rosen has seen of the Spurs this year. You just can't say that TP's jumper is unreliable anymore. The guy is averaging over 50% shooting, and that includes using his jumper more than ever. Taking a one game sample is retarded. Then again, Rosen is retarded.

[Spursmania]

So this is how it is. Writers just shit all over our team once again. What a surprise. Unfortunately, health really is everything. I'm depressed.:depressed

[Pentagruel]

Charley Rosen is pretty much right on the money, as always. He is by far my favorite sports analyst, in fact, the only one I actually like to read nowadays

Tony Parker's jumper is still his most unreliable part of the game. When it's on, the Spurs are damn good and when it's off, they often lose. Rosen says the Spurs are heading in the wrong direction (which is true) not that they are done for the season. He simply writes that unless Manu, Tony Parker, and Time Duncan wake up for the playoffs, it's likely to end in dissapointement which is without a doubt correct.

As for the Cavs, they are a damn good team and deserve the props that they are given, and possibly more. Lebron is the only person they really talk about but Delonte West (now that he is healthy) and Mo Williams are killing it too.

Don't hate on Rosen just because he states a simple but painful truth.

[ducks]

gee keeping manu out of lane when he can barely walk not hard

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

gee keeping manu out of lane when he can barely walk not hard

In every thread today, you bring up Manu. Shut up.

You bring bad Karma to the Spurs. The Cavs are good because of your Lebron hate. I blame you.

[HarlemHeat37]

Rosen is correct here, but he's one of the worst NBA writers out there..

[Pentagruel]

Rosen is correct here, but he's one of the worst NBA writers out there..


Oh really? Care to explain why? I often agree with your posts but definately not on this one. Rosen actually knows what he's talking about. He describes specific facets of the game and points out plays that occur during the game to prove his points. Rosen isn't afraid to write voice an unpopular opinion (such as his preference of Deron Williams over Chris Paul) and he almost always backs those opinions up with logic and facts. Furthermore, as a writer he easily surpasses any other sports analyst out there. I cannot name any other NBA writer out there that's worth a damn.

[ElNono]

Oh really? Care to explain why? I often agree with your posts but definately not on this one. Rosen actually knows what he's talking about. He describes specific facets of the game and points out plays that occur during the game to prove his points. Rosen isn't afraid to write voice an unpopular opinion (such as his preference of Deron Williams over Chris Paul) and he almost always backs those opinions up with logic and facts. Furthermore, as a writer he easily surpasses any other sports analyst out there. I cannot name any other NBA writer out there that's worth a damn.

The problem is that he rates teams on the microcosm of a single game. He's done that with the Spurs in championship years and completely fucked up.
As an example, he talks about all the good things the Cavs did in this particular game, and then he extrapolates that and claims the Cavs can be champs because of that. Now, what would have been his article if he commented on the Cavs that were down 40 to the Magic just a few nights ago? Would he have written all this junk and said the same thing?

[duncan228]

I cannot name any other NBA writer out there that's worth a damn.

Ludden?

[ElNono]

ludden?

+1

[timvp]

My problem with Rosen is that he's bashed David Robinson over the years more than just about every other sportswriter combined. Even years after his retirement, Robinson is still getting bashed by Rosen.

And I have no idea how he can be considered unbiased since he is a close personal friend of Phil Jackson.

[Pentagruel]

My problem with Rosen is that he's bashed David Robinson over the years more than just about every other sportswriter combined. Even years after his retirement, Robinson is still getting bashed by Rosen.

And I have no idea how he can be considered unbiased since he is a close personal friend of Phil Jackson.

Perhaps that's so. I haven't followed his articles long enough in regards to David.

With that said, you should understand how Rosen writes his articles. He analyzes 'single' games and gives his opinion on a team based on that. Sometimes he oversteps his bounds and makes a statement that can't be decided over one game. However, his analysis of single games is usually educational and correct and frequently they do have impacts on a direction a team may be headed.

Rosen in the only analyst that actually says something. Everyone else is just empty words that are meaningless. When you have an opinion it will no doubt be disputed, but every other analyst out there doesn't say a damn thing about basketball. No one takes a risk. It's stuff I could figure out myself. Rosen clearly watches a game and gives his opinion on it, even if its not what you want to hear.

Lastly, in regards to Ludden, he's mostly one of the crowd as well; He doesn't say much at all, even if his info is accurate and his prose pleasing. He doesn't really say anything at all besides the facts; which I already know.

[Pentagruel]

To add to that, take a fool like Hollinger for example. He bases every article on statistics. This is lunacy. Stats never explain the whole game because stats can't cover every aspect of the game of basketball. Rosen never does any such thing. He clearly watches and game and gives an opinion on that game. You may not agree with but by no means are his articles 'garbage'.

[timvp]

Perhaps that's so. I haven't followed his articles long enough in regards to David. He does it about once every five articles. He'll randomly bring up Robinson just to bash him.


With that said, you should understand how Rosen writes his articles. He analyzes 'single' games and gives his opinion on a team based on that. Sometimes he oversteps his bounds and makes a statement that can't be decided over one game. However, his analysis of single games is usually educational and correct and frequently they do have impacts on a direction a team may be headed.Agreed but that doesn't explain his weird obsession with bashing Robinson or his not-so-secret friendship with Phil Jackson that skews his perspective.

I think Rosen is good at what he does but I can understand those who don't like him.

[Pentagruel]

He does it about once every five articles. He'll randomly bring up Robinson just to bash him.

Agreed but that doesn't explain his weird obsession with bashing Robinson or his not-so-secret friendship with Phil Jackson that skews his perspective.

I think Rosen is good at what he does but I can understand those who don't like him.


I haven't seen any of his Robinson bashing in the past couple of months which I am certain I could remember. Before that, maybe; it would surprise me though since I rarely find Rosen to have a particular dislike to any player, especially one as magnanimous as David. As for his friendship with Phil. That's no secret and I have no problem with it. Furthermore, I respect Phil Jackson, he is a great coach too, just like Pop. It's understandable that Rosen frequently writes about Phil since he's had a lot of experiences with him in the past.

[timvp]

I haven't seen any of his Robinson bashing in the past couple of months which I am certain I could remember. Before that, maybe; it would surprise me though since I rarely find Rosen to have a particular dislike to any player, especially one as magnanimous as David.

Really? Quick scan of Rosen articles gives me these gems:


Straight Shooting: Admiral's Legacy

Contrary to popular opinion, David Robinson was one of the most overrated players of all-time. Here's why:

Although he was a terrific shot-blocker from the weak-side, he was just an average on-the-ball defender.
He was a turnover machine.
His offense was limited to elbow jumpers and put-backs. Otherwise, he liked to take his left hand to the middle and start faking — but if his defender stayed put, then Robinson was always hard-pressed to find a decent shot.
B.D. (before Duncan), the Admiral was infamous for missing clutch free throws in the playoffs.
He played with a remarkable lack of passion, and was always reluctant to bang with the other bigs.
He never won diddly until Tim Duncan showed up in San Antonio.
But Robinson was intelligent, well-behaved, an all-around nice guy, and had nifty numbers. Good enough to fool the media, who fooled the fans.


David Robinson was relatively soft, limited offensively and lacked an overriding passion for the game. But he could come from another time zone and either block or discourage layups.


David Robinson

This guy was a cream puff. He could come from the weak-side to block shots, but he couldn't guard his own man. He could rebound, but rarely in a crowd. He could score, but only on foul-line jumpers, or only if a defender bought a head fake after he drove his left hand into the middle. He couldn't pass or handle. He couldn't stand his ground in the paint. And, according to one of his ex-coaches, he never worked on his game in the off-season simply because he really didn't like playing basketball. Had he not played alongside of Tim Duncan, The Admiral would have been lost at sea.

I actually forgot how much of a douchebag Rosen is. F him. Robinson limited offensively? He led the league in scoring. Robinson turnover prone? No, he was actually the least turnover dominant bigman in the NBA history. Robinson couldn't pass? Uh, he led the Spurs in assists one year. Soft? He led the league multiple times in free throw attempts.

Anything good Rosen ever wrote was nullified by his biased, error-filled hatred towards Robinson. This wasn't even the worst of Rosen's hating of Robinson. And someone can't claim to be a big Rosen fan and be oblivious to Rosen's repeated slams of Robinson.

[MannyIsGod]

Wrong thread for this post

PS

Rosen sucks.

[SenorSpur]

Rosen may be biased in his sportswriting, in favor of the Fakers. He may have been harshly and overly critical of the Spurs in the past. However, I cannot take any issue with his current critique of the Spurs, as painful as that is for me to admit. Speculation aside and health concerns that abound, his reasons for why the Spurs can't be champs are dead on.

[Pentagruel]

Give me the dates on those articles. If all of those are after David's HoF induction i'll eat my hat.

Regardless, I disagree with Rosen on those excerpts you posted. That doesn't mean I think he's garbage as an analyst. Currently in the NBA I think he's the only journalist that actually writes anything and gives an opinion. All the others just follow the lines of Lebron, Kobe, Lakers, Cavs, Celtics, ect.

I agree that those particular articles (David Robinson) are off the mark there but I can find you many more which are right on, including his Spurs/Cavs article today.

[timvp]

Give me the dates on those articles. If all of those are after David's HoF induction i'll eat my hat.I'd eat your hat too considering that Robinson hasn't been inducted yet :lol

I didn't mark down the dates but they were all long after Robinson had retired. The latest "gem" was only a few months ago.

[Pentagruel]

I'd eat your hat too considering that Robinson hasn't been inducted yet :lol

I didn't mark down the dates but they were all long after Robinson had retired. The latest "gem" was only a few months ago.


Ah, fuck. You know what I was talking about though. The bottom line is, you only seem to hate him because he unjustly critiqued David Robinson. Despite that he is still the best journalist covering the NBA. He cares about and watches Basketball. He actually has an opinion that he voices, unlike nearly all sports journalists. And finally he's usually right on in terms of logic when he discusses his opinions.

[Pentagruel]

I don't wear a hat btw, so I couldn't eat it. I would though, honest!

[Blackjack]

I actually forgot how much of a douchebag Rosen is.

I realize you needed to post Rosen's garbage on Robinson to prove a point, but damn... (It's bad enough my team looks like it's in need of a bedpan and a hug, do I really need to see that garbage on top of it?)

Yeah, he's pretty good at what he does, for the most part, but his D-baggery tends to take away.

I read Rosen a little like I do DX.

You can get a good feel of a player or team by reading some pretty thorough and solid analysis by both, but I've found that the conclusions I draw from that analysis, usually differ.

[Pentagruel]

I realize you needed to post Rosen's garbage on Robinson to prove a point, but damn... (It's bad enough my team looks like it's in need of a bedpan and a hug, do I really need to see that garbage on top of it?)

Yeah, he's pretty good at what he does, for the most part, but his D-baggery tends to take away.


I think that's nonsense. He may have ragged on a David Robinson and a couple of other Spurs at times by I don't think there is a team that can say he hasn't done that. His articles are insightful most of the time and well written. I usually agree with them on top of that, even if you may not, that's no reason to consider his writing 'garbage'.

[J.T.]

Rosen is far from the best journalist covering the NBA. He can break down a game better than a lot of them, but his writing is boorish and error prone. I would rather spend a day reading washed out Bill Simmons articles about his BFFs with cliched Bostonian names and his fanatical anecdotes about how he took two ambiens and made a Tom Brady hair doll in his sleep means the Patriots are really gonna go 19-0 this time.

Honestly though, a few people on this site have the talent to put ESPN out of business if they started a blog and kept up with it on a regular basis.

[Pentagruel]

Rosen is far from the best journalism covering the NBA. He can break down a game better than a lot of them, but his writing is boorish and error prone. I would rather spend a day reading washed out Bill Simmons articles about his BFFs with cliched Bostonian names and his fanatical anecdotes about how he took two ambiens and made a Tom Brady hair doll in his sleep means the Patriots are really gonna go 19-0 this time.


Bill Simmons is mediocre at best and nowhere near as well written as Rosen's stuff. I'll read his too cause it has an opinion most of the time, even if its not backed up by anything. Simmons rarely covers the NBA to add to that.

[J.T.]

Bill Simmons is mediocre at best and nowhere near as well written as Rosen's stuff. I'll read his too cause it has an opinion most of the time, even if its not backed up by anything. Simmons rarely covers the NBA to add to that.

Unwrap the sarcasm off of my last post and you will see I am not holding Simmons as highly as you think I am.

[Blackjack]

I think that's nonsense. He may have ragged on a David Robinson and a couple of other Spurs at times by I don't think there is a team that can say he hasn't done that. His articles are insightful most of the time and well written. I usually agree with them on top of that, even if you may not, that's no reason to consider his writing 'garbage'.


What about that post is nonsense?

[Pentagruel]

Your sarcasm is well hidden sir. I could point you to a place which would help you to employ such a technique properly.

Rosen is on Fox btw. Slightly less terrible then espn.

[Pentagruel]

Yeah, he's pretty good at what he does, for the most part, but his D-baggery tends to take away.

That was nonsense.

[Pentagruel]

To be sure, i'm not certain what you mean by his "D-baggery", and that is what I think is nonsense.

[Blackjack]

That was nonsense.

Rosen is pretty good at what he does.

Rosen is also a D-Bag for the type of shots he's taken at Robinson when Robinson had long since retired, and not had anything to do with what he was writing.

Nonsense?:wakeup

[Pentagruel]

Well, as I already wrote, I haven't seen these 'shots' at Robinson so I can't really comment on that. All I can say is that they can't have been too recent because I have been reading most to all of Rosen's articles.

I may not agree with those judgments but I will not call someones body of work D-baggery because of a few articles about a single player. That is what I think is nonsense.

[Blackjack]

Well, as I already wrote, I haven't seen these 'shots' at Robinson so I can't really comment on that. All I can say is that they can't have been too recent because I have been reading most to all of Rosen's articles.

I may not agree with those judgments but I will not call someones body of work D-baggery because of a few articles about a single player. That is what I think is nonsense.

Did you not read timvp's post?

Don't worry, I'm sure Rosen will oblige you with some more RECENT shots at D. Rob, with his impending induction to the H.O.F.

Every once in a while, even D-Bags have something good to contribute, but it's a lot harder to take notice because, well...

They're a D-Bag.

[mountainballer]

Rosen won't be mistaken for a sublime poet, but IMHO he is a very good analyst.
why is the fact, that he uses single games to get some conclusions about a team such a problem? the fact that he's pretty much at the point shows that he's good at what he does. he doesn't need to cover the whole season of a team to see more than all the blog writers do. (and yes, he's not the most noble writer out there. some of his shots are cheap and uncalled.)

it starts with some little observations like the one about Mason.
yes, we don't need to guess about his confidence or if Pop's experiments broke his rhythm. the guy is simply worn out. in his short NBA career Mason played 113, 43, 285, 492 and 1708 minutes per season. (plus a negligible total of 185 playoff minutes).
this season he already worked for 2280 minutes. you don't build the ability to survive a full 30 MPG NBA season by just working on the tread mill. you do it by playing heavy minutes for several seasons, especially if you are not an elite athlete to begin with.
I'm pretty sure Pop saw this coming when he started to look for a different role for him. it maybe wasn't the question about the back up PG in the first place. it was the search for a rotation spot with lower minutes and work load for Mason.

[Pentagruel]

Did you not read timvp's post?

Don't worry, I'm sure Rosen will oblige you with some more RECENT shots at D. Rob, with his impending induction to the H.O.F.

Every once in a while, even D-Bags have something good to contribute, but it's a lot harder to take notice because, well...

They're a D-Bag.


I did read his posts but Rosen's 'cheap shots' at one NBA player don't make me dislike his writing as a whole. Just because I don't agree with certain opinions of his doesn't mean everything he says is garbage. In fact, most of what he says is accurate and interesting, and that is why I like Rosen as an analyst.

And while Rosen is no poet, no sports writer is... he's a solid writer compared to others in his field.