Reply With Quote
SA scored 39 in the 4th so even after the fouls they still had 30
He commented about allowing SA to score 30 in the 4th. Weren't about 8 of those points intentional fouls?
When you go down by 10 in the 4th, Scott, that's where your problem lies. The point total after fouling SA that many times in order to play catch up ball, that means a lot less than you make it out to mean. It ended up being a relatively close game (though out of reach still the same) point wise.
You don't lose the lead, Scott, because SA doesn't give up many 4th quarter leads, certainly not 10pt leads late, certainly not in the WCF.
SA scored 39 in the 4th so even after the fouls they still had 30
lol Michael J. Fox
Like I said... the Thunder are coached by Scott Brooks.
I think Brooks was saying his team's 4th quarter defense was atrocious and threw out a number to demonstrate that. I don't think he was explicitly saying "This number is at X and it needs to be at Y!"
The problem with Brooks' comments was that they only scored 18 in the 4th before the last 16 seconds, not that SA scored thirty (without intentional fouls). These are high scoring teams. You cannot put out 16 points in a quarter in a close game and expect to win. Never mind the last 16 seconds. They didn't get the ball to Durant at all for the 1st half of the 4th. That seems to be a recurring theme with that team in big games. Yet Brooks says they allowed SA to score too many points. If it's close, there's no intentional fouls and SA ends up right on par with OKC's 2nd quarter point total.SA scored 39 in the 4th so even after the fouls they still had 30
Truth be told, SA should have won by 15+ given the missed FTs attempts and missed chip shots by Tim.
I think Brooks is a ty coach, said so last year and he just has a load of talent on his team and a great GM/owner.
Fair enough. I agree OKC's offense sucking it up was a bigger factor, but by no means was their 4th quarter defense good.
OKC's first half defense on the pick-n-roll worked well. But in the 2nd half when the Spurs had both TP and Manu in the game, they (a) ran them off of stagger screens and (b) handed off the ball from TP to Manu to reset the pick-n-roll. That allowed Manu especially to get into the paint nicely. We'll see what Scott Brooks does to counter that in game 2.
No, it was not good, but like many young teams, their defense gets worse as they get further behind and they start pointing fingers. If the Spurs get them second guessing themselves and pointing fingers, they're beaten already. They have to keep Durant involved, he was getting to the line every time he touched the ball.
I thought it was funny how Kerr talked all game about how great OKC is until they lost, then he talked about how they're probably tired from the previous series as if all those days off were meaningless to 22 year olds.
Why did Ibaka barely play in the 2nd half?
Spurs went small, Brooks moved KD to the 4.
No idea, he should of been in at the 5, but what can ya do.
I thought the defense was pretty good until the 4th, had to get that one, SA didn't shoot well from 3, but our defense was a big reason to that. Duncan/TP didn't play great, but not horrible.
Though, on that same note, both Westbrook/Harden were horrible, and it was still close throughout, and Harden didn't get to the line, once. Gotta get Game 2.
And i don't think Brooks is a great coach, but not horrible, some of his rotations are horrible.
Disagree on this... I thought we had wide open looks other than that crazy Manu tres... I'm glad the Spurs got the "poor shooting 3s" game out of the way...
tbh, I thought Ibaka didn't play because OKC was doing poorly offensively in that quarter, and Ibaka brings nothing on that end... heck, I bet if the Spurs didn't have Tim out there, Perkins would've been sitting on the bench too...
But Brooks will adjust this, tbh
Yeah, i mean, they missed some wide open looks, as did we, but i think for the most part they defended the 3 well for the most part.
I just hope they don't go crazy in game 2, and make 13-14 3's, which sucks about this game, they can go HAM from 3 anytime.
And not much you can do when Manu is hitting like that.
No doubt about it. The spurs have the better coach.
Was there ever a doubt? IMO the reason Dallas kept it close in the first round was because of Carlisle.
Realistically, other than his rotations/adjustments, what does he do that defines him as a coach during the game? Pep talk?
Brooks' players respect him and listen to him. By no means does that make him a great or even good coach, but it makes him more effective for the Thunder than most other coaches out there. They're always be hesitant to bring in someone who might be a better X's and O's coach but doesn't command respect the that team completely quit on Carlisimo.
Yeah, Brooks isn't the biggest problem on that team or that big of a problem. Basically, they're a perimeter oriented team with no low post scorer whatsoever. And they rely on their erratic PG to be a scorer as well.
Excellent post. At the very least, the players allow him to coach.
Dude the Spurs played like crap for 3.5 quarters, so it's not like Westbrook/Harden were the only ones off. Spurs were very far from their A game. Danny Green was completely invisible out there as well and good luck having Fisher go 6-7 or whatever he was again
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
