Reply With Quote
yep, Spurs offense was mostly stagnant, honoring the Spurs' tradition of losing or playing badly in 1st home game of 1st HCA series
Perhaps I am looking to deep into game 1 vs. the Mavs, but the ball movement was basically nil from the Spurs. I know people are claiming Parker to be dribble happy and for the most part I agree. That is when this thought occurred to me.
The Spurs I do believe have the player matchup advantage, but what truly has made the Spurs a marvel to watch this season has been their ball movement and overall team play. Dallas seems to have forced the Spurs into a game of one on one matchups during long stretches of the game. I would take advantage of Nowitzki and Dalembert every day if I were Parker. That is to my advantage to have the ball in my hands. Marion guarding Duncan? Ellis guarding Leonard? These three mismatches are hard for anyone to want to pass up. The Spurs (especially the bench outside of Manu) need the ball to move to be truly effective. Being stuck in an advantageous position stops that.
I guess that my point is could Dallas be onto something with the Spurs? The explosive bench of the Spurs was neutralized, the assists were down, and the Spurs advantage from outside the arc was non existent. Was Dallas forcing these mismatches to stop the ball from moving and make the Spurs offense more predictable and therefore have easier defensive rotations?
I know it is hard to imagine a team doing something like this on purpose since the Spurs have the advantage talent wise, but that talent isn't 1 on 1 play. It is in team basketball. Playing a game of one on one basketball will force the Spurs to beat the Mavs one on one. That is a strength that the few Spurs really have, and that is evident in the box score. Outside of the big 3, no other Spur player could be as efficient offensively (I know Manu shot something like 40%, but he had the most free throw attempts on the team). Those three have proven they can win in any game type.
I believe the Spurs will still come out on top this series, but it may take a bit longer than I had originally expected if this is indeed the Mavs defensive game plan. I am somewhat grateful for it because it is an opportunity for the Spurs to learn more ways to improve to help the team individually and become a more effective unit.
Thoughts????
yep, Spurs offense was mostly stagnant, honoring the Spurs' tradition of losing or playing badly in 1st home game of 1st HCA series
I think the mavs are limited defensively and bad match ups are bound to happen. I think they are more intent on running the Spurs off the 3 point line more than anything else (Spur's bench thrives on the 3).
If I'm the mavs, I'm more worried about the offense because there is no chance of beating the Spurs if you don't score over 100.
I had a similar sense in watching the game and thought also that the Spurs might benefit (assuming they can get 3 more from the Mavs) from having to deal with someone like Carlisle trying to pick them apart and find ways to stymie the offense and limit role players. I thought part of the Spurs' offensive malaise was trying too hard to exploit the Leonard-Ellis matchup through Leonard post-ups and trying to run offense from there. I think they have to go to that some, but perhaps not as much as they did, mostly because the more they initiate offense through post-ups, the less movement of ball and men they seem to have going on.
There was a possession at 61-59 in the 3rd (http://on.nba.com/1fgrhUd)(apologies if you get an ad before the play runs) where the Spurs' motion and passing was back and they seemed to have found something (the possession resulted in a Duncan miss, but Diaw managed an offensive board that ultimately led to a Duncan bunny to tie the game), but by the end of the day, that looked more like a blip than the norm.
I think a lot of people are curious about this and Wednesdays game will tell a lot about whether or not this strategy is truly a good one. They definitely caught the spurs a little off guard with it and now they have two days to counter.
I'd chalk it up to pretty much being playoff basketball. Iso and mismatches have always been what dominates the playoffs. I'd say the finals last year the spurs had to use their ball movement to hang with Miami's trap/zone defense. However if you have such a matchup mismatch like this series is, you have to do it. Make the defense change their game and win however you can. Good observation.
I'm not sure its so complicated. The Spurs were lacking in several areas and seemed sloppy all around. I'm glad they gutted this one out and expect things to be easier from here on out. The Spurs' biggest challenge in the first round comes from within.
The Spurs had little reason to pass the ball when the starters were out there. Parker and Duncan pretty much got whatever they wanted. I think people are overthinking this. Dallas didn't play good defense against the Spurs; they played such terrible defense that the Spurs didn't even get to use their real offense very much.
That was the Mavs' game plan, and Dirk said as much in post-game interviews that "it's no secret we were trying to run them off of the 3-point line." They had to pick their poison, and they chose to limit ball movement and hope Duncan/Parker couldn't beat them in the paint, that "2 points was better than 3." Up until the 7:40 mark of the 4th Q, they were right.
My concern isn't with the Mavs, because they lack the bigs to ultimately contain Duncan. What concerns me is if this strategy is successfully employed down the line by OKC, where Ibaka will provide much more bulk and better defense against Duncan in the post. Relying on Duncan to go 2003 mode for an entire series against OKC is unrealistic.
I'm pretty sure it was by the Mavs' design. They wanted Parker and Duncan to try and beat them 1 on 1 rather than get the entire team fired up. The Mavs know getting the Spurs to play iso ball is really their only shot to beat the Spurs. And it almost worked.
It's a solid blueprint on defending them over a 7 game series, daring the Big 3 to beat you. TP's had a down year and Duncan is 38 years old. They showed up in G1 but i'm not sure if they can do it throughout a series.
Dallas doesn't have the personnel defensively for them to execute it to a series win but other teams with more athletic bigs (HOU/OKC) can definitely employ it to their advantage.
The Spurs' advantage is they have the best 8-9 man rotation in the league. When you nullify half of that rotation and make it a game of the Big 3 + Kawhi challenging the top 4 of the other team, the Spurs' strengths are greatly weakened and they become highly beatable tbh.
Like Downtown said, it might be a good thing that they're encountering it this early against a team that doesn't have the horses to pull it off. Should help if they can advance further into the playoffs.
Mavs had a great game plan in shutting the Spurs 3 point attack down. But the basically left the paint open to exploit. I wouldn't be surprise to see a lot of give and go off the 3 point next game. On this 13 games win streak against the Mavs, I have watched about 9 of those. And this was the best performance they had in those games I watched.
Problem with the Mavs is that they are old and had to play their starters alot of minutes in the regular season. They were completely worn down by the 4th quarter. Mavs are a good team. But I don't see them sustaining a level of play to beat the Spurs for 4 quarters each game in a 7 game series.
Last edited by davidbowie; 04-21-2014 at 12:08 PM.
who knows
Our opponents are for sure gonna try to disrupt the Spurs ball movement which will increase the load of those who can create their own shots.
I do like the fact, as stated by mugen that the spurs have to cope with dat early in that serie rather than later.
It's by design as Carlyle suggests in his post-game interview. They'd rather TP and TD beat them with 2s as opposed to leaving shooters open for 3s. It's kind of a throw back to the 2011 Grizz strategy. Problem for the Mavs is that Dirk kept getting caught in the switches against TP, which you have to think impacted Dirks energy on the other end. The Mavs aren't full of spring chickens either, so this will likely have an impact as the series goes on.
I think the fact that Dallas had a good 1st half is making us believe they had found the secret formula to beat(?) the Spurs.
Some of the shots Dallas made were bad shots. I dont think they will score so easily next time, and if that happens, players get angry, run less...spaces open...Spurs start to take 3s, which is one of the most important aspect of Spurs game, specially for the bench.
Lets see what happens...1 more game for the sample would be nice.
Denying the three ball hurts our second team much more than it hurts our starters, and that was on full display yesterday, when our bench was so badly outscored by the Mav's bench. Going forward, we will have to figure a way to get our second unit better looks at the basket.
Their constant switching is what most teams do who are able to beat us. It nullifies our ball movement and makes us a one-on-one team, which is not our strength. So, as others have pointed out, we might as well figure it out against Dallas because we are going to see it every time from every team we face.
Thing is, even though our bench couldn't /didn't score much, the fact that they were out there running the Mavs all over the place was a contributing factor to the Mavs being worn out by the end of the game.
If Dallas continues to stay home against our three point shooters, our guards should continue to dribble around them to wear their big guys out. Folks complain about our guards over-dribbling, but if no one is open to give the ball to, there is damn little they can do about it.
I was wondering how to word it, then i read your comment. You summed it up perfectly.
The Mavs defense was so bad we didn't even have to move the ball. Just run the PnR and get a switch. We could have easily gone into our passing offense, but there was no point
Using football terms, I'd say this is like a defense who makes it their goal to limit an offense's play-action passing game. So they game-plan to keep their safeties back and for the linebackers to ignore the running back whenever the QB moves to hand him the ball. That indeed stops the play-action, but it also allows the offense to constantly pick up 12 yards each first down on the ground. What's the point of limiting the counter if you don't stop the initial action? Not much besides keeping the score low. That's Dallas' aim. They want the Spurs to shoot twos so that their offense has a better chance of outscoring the Spurs. But they can't allow themselves to be gashed as much as they were yesterday. The Spurs defense is too good to allow the Spurs' offense to come away each possession with an easy basket. Something has to give.
It's how OKC beats us all the time. Sure Tim and Tony can go iso on the Mavs ty defense but that won't work vs OKC.
To be honest we were not ready, the Mavs had played a playoff type game against the Grizz and they brought that into the first game. That was there best shot and they lost and they know it, they don't have a lot of heart and they will implode as always.
The reason we loose is cause we live and die by the three no player other then Tony can create their own shots by taking it to the whole. Our ball handlers are few and far between so teams know this play the three and the passing lanes. Our offense shuts down and we end up turning the ball over....this has been like this every year...
Spurs tried to get role players involved, but they just sucked yesterday.
I wouldn't say that.
The Mavs played a lot of zone defense and denied the 3s. This may have been a result of that, trying to break down the zone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
