Nowitzki: Lineup shouldn't matter

[ducks]

08:29 PM CDT on Monday, April 23, 2007
By BRIAN DAVIS / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

The Mavericks tried to downplay the significance of their Game 1 lineup change against the Warriors. Whether they start a big lineup or a small one shouldn't matter, Dirk Nowitzki said.

"We should be good enough to make any lineup work," Nowitzki said Monday after practice at American Airlines Center.

"Whatever the opponents throw at us, I think we're usually good enough to adjust and win the games."

The Mavs spent the day in the film room trying to determine what went wrong in Sunday's 97-85 loss. Instead of being angry or disappointed, coach Avery Johnson used the word "focused" to describe the team's mind-set.

The Mavs had to wonder if going with a small lineup might have been a mistake.

Johnson strayed from his usual script by starting Devean George (6-8) and playing Nowitzki inside instead of regular centers Erick Dampier (6-11) or DeSagana Diop (7-0). It played right into the Warriors' hands and knocked everything off kilter.

"When you've got the best record, you don't change up to go against the worst team in the playoffs," Charles Barkley said on the TNT broadcast.

The Mavs never used that starting lineup during a phenomenal regular season in which they won 67 games. With George already on the floor, the Mavs also deprived themselves of one of their better bench scorers. It energized the Warriors, who wanted to lure the Mavs out of their comfort zone and make them play their style.

"It threw us off a little bit," Warriors guard Jason Richardson said. "But it kind of helped us out, because we're a fast break team. Once we saw that team, we knew we were going to get up and down."

Johnson didn't indicate if he would stick with the same lineup in Game 2. But he didn't necessarily think it was a mistake.

"No, early in the first quarter, I would say the first six or eight minutes when we started the game, I think the game was tied, 13-13," Johnson said. "I thought when we started subbing, then our intensity went down.

"No matter what lineup we had out there, we just had poor execution and had some breakdowns defensively."
Too many misses: One of the Mavs' biggest problems Sunday was that they couldn't finish around the rim. The Mavs missed 11 layups or shots within three feet, Johnson said.

"That would have been 22 points," Josh Howard said. "We'd have covered the spread then."

Howard had an impressive dunk late in the second quarter, but he also missed several shots from close range. He finished the game 8-for-21. Nowitzki was 4-for-16, and Jerry Stackhouse was 0-for-6.

The Mavs shot 35.3 percent from the floor. It was one of their worst shooting performances of the season.

Warriors feel lucky: Golden State coach Don Nelson said winning the first game in Dallas doesn't give his team any advantage. Even Baron Davis, who fell two assists shy of a triple-double, said the Warriors "stole" the first game.

"Champions fight back, and they're champs," Davis said. "It's only one loss that they have, and they usually respond well when they lose. So we've got to be able to just weather that storm."

Who's nervous now? Playoff veterans Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington both said they didn't sense any Warriors players battling butterflies before Game 1. It would have been understandable if they were. This is Golden State's first playoff appearance since 1994.

Harrington said he sensed the Warriors relaxed midway through the first quarter when the Mavs led by only one.

Johnson wondered if it was the Mavs who were surprisingly uptight and nervous.

"I don't know why we would be tight," Johnson said. "Hopefully we can be a little loose. I think I should get them a massage, right? Maybe I should try that."

[Ronaldo McDonald]

So where can I get the Mavs 2005-2006 Championship DVD?

[thispego]

One of the Mavs' biggest problems Sunday was that they couldn't finish around the rim. The Mavs missed 11 layups or shots within three feet, Johnson said.

"That would have been 22 points," Josh Howard said. "We'd have covered the spread then."

:lmao :lmao :lmao oh please :blah

[Islymore]

^ u disagree? if the Mavs had made any of those shots, the loss might not have been a loss... thass the reality, if you make the baskets, you stand a chance of winning... and the Mavs did not make the baskets... so if you dont think that the 22 pts they missed out on, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game, then you are mistaken.

[Roxsfan]

^ u disagree? if the Mavs had made any of those shots, the loss might not have been a loss... thass the reality, if you make the baskets, you stand a chance of winning... and the Mavs did not make the baskets... so if you dont think that the 22 pts they missed out on, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game, then you are mistaken.


the funny thing is after fisher missed a cake-walk layup in roxs-jizz game 1, some mavs fan said that that is totally not acceptable...........that should never happen in the NBA......then Josh Howard and company do the same EXACT thing :p:

[nkdlunch]

if Spurs weren't in 0-1 hole also I would be enjoying this mav meltdown so much more

[Testing]

Somone should tell Baron Davis that the Mavericks aren't champs of anything...what a weird thing to say.

[Islymore]

the funny thing is after fisher missed a cake-walk layup in roxs-jizz game 1, some mavs fan said that that is totally not acceptable...........that should never happen in the NBA......then Josh Howard and company do the same EXACT thing :p:


its not acceptable. nobody is sayin it is... i mean, its the truth. and it's not acceptable. missing so many layups... 22 pts worth...?? it's definitely not acceptable to miss them no matter who does it. but i dont think anyone said it was acceptable for the Mavs to miss and no one else could either... i wasnt one of those Mav fans who said it was not acceptable about the Rox... bc i dont find it acceptable for any team.

[Findog]

Somone should tell Baron Davis that the Mavericks aren't champs of anything...what a weird thing to say.

Western Conference Champs. That aint League Champs, but it's not accurate to say they're not the champs of anything. I dunno, Tracy McGrady, Phil Jackson and others made some comments about the officiating in the 2006 Finals, I wonder if Baron Davis has similar views.

[sandman]

Western Conference Champs. That aint League Champs, but it's not accurate to say they're not the champs of anything. I dunno, Tracy McGrady, Phil Jackson and others made some comments about the officiating in the 2006 Finals, I wonder if Baron Davis has similar views.

TMac has never seen action past the first round, and Phil has never had a championship level team not lead by someone named MJ or Shaq in their primes. Not sure that I would use either one of their viewpoints to be making a case about the Finals last year.

[sandman]

Somone should tell Baron Davis that the Mavericks aren't champs of anything...what a weird thing to say.

Was that Baron Davis? I thought the Warriors had picked up LaVar Burton.

[Islymore]

Was that Baron Davis? I thought the Warriors had picked up LaVar Burton.


:clap oh man, i almost choked laff'n.

[Shank]

http://myspace-899.vo.llnwd.net/00386/99/88/386898899_l.jpg

[Findog]

TMac has never seen action past the first round, and Phil has never had a championship level team not lead by someone named MJ or Shaq in their primes. Not sure that I would use either one of their viewpoints to be making a case about the Finals last year.

Oh yeah, the we have three rings argument. I guess by that logic, we should all defer to some drunk Southie or Masshole since the Celtics have us all beat, or Jack Nicholson, since the Lakers have more than three titles. Seriously, there are a lot of intelligent Spurs posters here, and then there's the kiddie pool.

Plenty of people outside of Miami and Dallas had interesting things to say about the officiating in last year's Finals. Scoop Jackson, Bill Simmons, T-Mac, Phil Jackson, none of these people have any love for Mark Cuban or the Mavericks, and they all have two eyes. Open yours sometime.

[mavsfan1000]

I say the solution is to bench Nowitzki since the lineup doesn't matter. lol j/k

[Fillmoe]

the real question is why did gilbert arenas draw baron davis in that one "impossible is 0" commercial.

[mavsfan1000]

the real question is why did gilbert arenas draw baron davis in that one "impossible is 0" commercial.
Btw that picture in your sig is a foul. lol

[Fillmoe]

Btw The Mavs Lost!

[monosylab1k]

the real question is why did gilbert arenas draw baron davis in that one "impossible is 0" commercial.

:lol i was gonna ask the same thing.

[sandman]

Oh yeah, the we have three rings argument. I guess by that logic, we should all defer to some drunk Southie or Masshole since the Celtics have us all beat, or Jack Nicholson, since the Lakers have more than three titles. Seriously, there are a lot of intelligent Spurs posters here, and then there's the kiddie pool.

Plenty of people outside of Miami and Dallas had interesting things to say about the officiating in last year's Finals. Scoop Jackson, Bill Simmons, T-Mac, Phil Jackson, none of these people have any love for Mark Cuban or the Mavericks, and they all have two eyes. Open yours sometime.

First, I never mentioned anything about the Spurs or three rings. Quit being so sensitive - or paranoid - and inferring what is not there.

Second, of course there are more people who have comments regarding the officiating in last year's Finals. But you did not reference those people. You referenced TMac and Phil Jackson specifically. I simply stated that in my opinion, you should have more credible sources to make your point about the officiating in the Finals. You know, like a player who has actually won a playoff series or a coach who has won a championship without the two most dominant players of the last 20 years.

If you would have objectively read my post before looking under my name for my favorite team, you would have seen that my rebuttal was not about the officiating at all, but about your sources. You are the one who brought up three rings, Celtics scoreboard and Cuban hating.

[mardigan]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s79/sethhoward/6f4f8350-2810-4ef6-843d-55dba316a08.jpg

Hoohaaa!

[Findog]

You know, like a player who has actually won a playoff series or a coach who has won a championship without the two most dominant players of the last 20 years..

So are you personally not qualified to comment on basketball since you haven't been a part of an NBA team that has advanced past the first round? Or coached a team to a title? * Btw, how exactly do you win a title without dominant players?

* I'm assuming you've done neither of these things. Are you in fact a former NBA player or coach?

[ponky]

wgaf? this loss is so played out, next

[Cry Havoc]

So are you personally not qualified to comment on basketball since you haven't been a part of an NBA team that has advanced past the first round? Or coached a team to a title? * Btw, how exactly do you win a title without dominant players?

* I'm assuming you've done neither of these things. Are you in fact a former NBA player or coach?

Not to disagree, but I think he was simply alluding to the fact that Jordan and Shaq got as many or more beneficial calls than any other NBA player of their respective generations, and therefore Phil's idea of fair officiating should be taken lightly. Not completely discounted perhaps, but still.



wgaf? this loss is so played out, next


What else is there to talk about? Early season baseball? :wakeup The Eastern conference? :bang

If you have other topics, please, suggest them.

[ponky]

Not to disagree, but I think he was simply alluding to the fact that Jordan and Shaq got as many or more beneficial calls than any other NBA player of their respective generations, and therefore Phil's idea of fair officiating should be taken lightly. Not completely discounted perhaps, but still.





What else is there to talk about? Early season baseball? :wakeup The Eastern conference? :bang

If you have other topics, please, suggest them.

i'm just pissed off about all the days off in the first round, i reminisce about the old days when these games weren't all about making money. don't mind me, i'll be in a better mood tomorrow...wait, is the heat/bulls game tonight?

[sandman]

So are you personally not qualified to comment on basketball since you haven't been a part of an NBA team that has advanced past the first round? Or coached a team to a title? * Btw, how exactly do you win a title without dominant players?

* I'm assuming you've done neither of these things. Are you in fact a former NBA player or coach?

First, CryHavoc understood exactly the point I was attempting to make.

Second, anyone and everyone is allowed to have a comment about anything they damn well want to comment about. It's all about the degree of validity that we give comments from certain people and the criticism that they open themselves up to.

Third, kindly get the stick out of your ass so that we can be through with these righteous indignation posts.

[mavsfan1000]

Btw The Mavs Lost!
Thanks for saying the obvious. Btw the kings missed the playoffs. :rolleyes

[DubMcDub]

TMac has never seen action past the first round, and Phil has never had a championship level team not lead by someone named MJ or Shaq in their primes. Not sure that I would use either one of their viewpoints to be making a case about the Finals last year.

The only coaches whose opinion matter are the ones who won championships without superstar players, then?

:lol

[sandman]

The only coaches whose opinion matter are the ones who won championships without superstar players, then?

:lol

Feel free to read the entire thread before you post...

[nsrammstein]

lol @ spurs fans if you bring up that they are down 0-1 also they instantly come up with the ''hey it was only by 6 points'' a loss is a loss bitch.

[theMUHMEshow]

I totally agree with _irk.

[Findog]

First, CryHavoc understood exactly the point I was attempting to make.

In his prime Jordan averaged 10 FTAs per game. In the first round series against the Bulls last year, Wade averaged 8 FTAs per game. Playing the same way against Dallas, he averaged 17 FTAs per game. That's 9 extra points per game in a series where Dallas lost three games by a grand total of 6 points.

As for Shaq, the rules of the game were changed to accomodate him. No player has absorbed more contact than he has, because he was simply unstoppable during his prime of 2000-02, a 35-15 guy. There was no way to guard him without fouling him. So any calls he got unfairly were balanced out by the many times he was hit and battered without the refs blowing their whistles.

So, no, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think Tracy McGrady and Phil Jackson know more about basketball than you or I.

[Cry Havoc]

In his prime Jordan averaged 10 FTAs per game.

Awww come on Fin, I respect you, but I respectfully disagree here. You can't compare eras. Jordan played in a decade where you could reverse-suplex a player without getting a call and still averaged 10 FTs a game.


In the first round series against the Bulls last year, Wade averaged 8 FTAs per game. Playing the same way against Dallas, he averaged 17 FTAs per game. That's 9 extra points per game in a series where Dallas lost three games by a grand total of 6 points.

I could make the same comparison to several Mavs players in the Spurs series. Wade did get the benefit of some calls, but the Mavs weren't exactly stopping him from getting into the lane. The razor cuts both ways.


As for Shaq, the rules of the game were changed to accomodate him. No player has absorbed more contact than he has, because he was simply unstoppable during his prime of 2000-02, a 35-15 guy.

No player has initiated nearly as much contact or the degree of contact that Shaq has, either. I have NEVER seen a player who can so commonly dislocate/dislodge an opponent from their defensive position without getting a charge call.



There was no way to guard him without fouling him. So any calls he got unfairly were balanced out by the many times he was hit and battered without the refs blowing their whistles.

I disagree. Shaq got position on his man by chucking him across the court with his backside.


So, no, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think Tracy McGrady and Phil Jackson know more about basketball than you or I.

Which doesn't necessarily indicate that their logic is infallible. AJ knows a lot more about basketball than most (or all) the posters here, but that didn't stop him from starting Devean George at C against the Warriors with a team that was on pace to win 70 at one point this season.

[resistanze]

Dirk is actually right. They should win regardless of the lineup as long as he doesn't turn into a vagina in the 4th quarter. That being said, there STILL was no reason to play small ball.

[sandman]

In his prime Jordan averaged 10 FTAs per game. In the first round series against the Bulls last year, Wade averaged 8 FTAs per game. Playing the same way against Dallas, he averaged 17 FTAs per game. That's 9 extra points per game in a series where Dallas lost three games by a grand total of 6 points.

As for Shaq, the rules of the game were changed to accomodate him. No player has absorbed more contact than he has, because he was simply unstoppable during his prime of 2000-02, a 35-15 guy. There was no way to guard him without fouling him. So any calls he got unfairly were balanced out by the many times he was hit and battered without the refs blowing their whistles.

So, no, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I think Tracy McGrady and Phil Jackson know more about basketball than you or I.

I's not about whether or not TMac or Phil know more than you or I. That point was never in question. I was simply stating that Phil's intrepretation of officiating differs from most other coaches, simply because he is used to coaching championship level teams that had dominating players, all of which plays into a mindset of expecting to get the calls. I take anything coming out of Phil's mouth with a grain of salt, because he has an elitist mentality.

[Carrot Top]

:lmao :lmao :lmao Mavs are champs
http://www.allcanes.com/blog/uploaded_images/heat_champs-777955.jpg

[icem]

^ u disagree? if the Mavs had made any of those shots, the loss might not have been a loss... thass the reality, if you make the baskets, you stand a chance of winning... and the Mavs did not make the baskets... so if you dont think that the 22 pts they missed out on, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game, then you are mistaken.

well then you should also account for all the easy shots GS missed... :rolleyes

either way, mavs lose game 1

[johngateswhiteley]

^ u disagree? if the Mavs had made any of those shots, the loss might not have been a loss... thass the reality, if you make the baskets, you stand a chance of winning... and the Mavs did not make the baskets... so if you dont think that the 22 pts they missed out on, wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game, then you are mistaken.

games don't work like that. its just like if you traveled back in time, you would affect future events...

[Islymore]

games don't work like that. its just like if you traveled back in time, you would affect future events...


^thats not the point. the statement he made is the truth and it could apply to either team, period. who know's what the score would have been if either team made every shot, but you cannot say that 22 pts wouldnt have affected the game, by a Dallas team that hardly ever plays a game shooting so poorly. period. that was my point. not that i'm tryin to "change future events" or take away from the fact that GS won. i just happen to agree with the statement, give or take 22 pts, the game could have been different.

not sayin' it matters, just that it could happen. and yes, i know GS won and Dallas lost, thanx for the reminder...

[Cry Havoc]

i just happen to agree with the statement, give or take 22 pts, the game could have been different.


Next you'll be telling us that the first team to win 4 games is in good shape, and expect to get credit for it.

Congrats, captain obvious. That's like saying a grand slam in baseball "could" impact the outcome as opposed to a ground-out/double-play.

Stating the patently obvious is a waste of bandwidth and the time people take to read it. Don't get defensive when they feel the need to call you out as such. If the Mavs had made all 22 of those points, of course the game would have been different. 95% of NBA games are within 22 points, by my estimation. You can pretend that it was a personal funk of Dirk & Co. all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Golden State has given the Mavs more problems than any other team in the league the past two years. Was it a coincidence that you had a horrible night against them yet again? I guess that's up to you to decide.

Just don't be disappointed if you shoot under 40% against the Warriors again, and if you attempt to make a claim that the Mavs shot under 100% only due to their own mistakes, expect fewer individuals to take you seriously. If you go down 2-0 heading back to GS, don't expect ANYONE to pass the first two games off as flukes as you're attempting to do here. It's a bit insulting to the intelligence of other posters.

[Islymore]

Nobody is making anything out to be a fluke. U never read anything of the sort from me. Nobody said we shot under 100% DUE TO OUR OWN MISTAKES either. You sure are gathering a lot from me sayin' I agreed with his statement. PERIOD. I have always said the games would go at least 6, before the playoffs began. So how do you assume I am thinkin that GS is just so terrible? And not giving them any credit???

I apologize for agreein' with the "obvious", but I still do.