Reply With Quote
How about their bench? As far as I can tell, you need a good bench to make a deep playoff run unless you happen to make it through without any injuries to key players.
they gave the MLE to livingston to be the backup PG... dude cashed in. bravo for him after that injury. between Iguodala and (eventually upon his return) David Lee they can still manufacture efficient offense if Curry needs a breather though.
How about their bench? As far as I can tell, you need a good bench to make a deep playoff run unless you happen to make it through without any injuries to key players.
David Lee, Andre Iguodala are the main guys, and they need one of Livingston/Barbosa to separate and be the main backup guard. They're probably hoping Jermaine O'Neal eventually decides to play, he gave them good minutes last year. I'm not buying Marreese Speights, but he's played well so far
The Spurs rotation in the playoffs was only 8 deep. Was basically just Mills/Manu/Diaw
So did Mike Brown and Jim Cleamons
Speights looks really good this yr.
Draymond green killin it tonight.
The offense and it's rotations is Gentry's work. No doubt. Few people have the vision to create rotations like Gentry. Even Pops acknowledged this after the 2010 sweep by Gentry's Suns.
Kerr hired Gentry as coach in Phoenix as well.
Kerr is smart enough to trust Gentry, even when Gentry benches a starter, and is now starting two subs from last year, and giving scrapheap players big roles.
Kerr is a smart guy, and I'm sure he's brought value to and insight to the bench, particularly as an authority figure, not just motivational speaker.
But this team is Gentry's creation. No doubt. It's almost carbon copy of what Gentry did with Suns in 2009-2010.
David Lee will never be healthy
Alvin Gentry was all over the place. I remember him being an assistant with the Spurs in the late 90's. You've got to give D'antoni credit for his offense though. He just brought back the run and gun offense and emphasized on defense after Porter got fired.
Genry btw was too emotional as a coach.
Your post is all over the place... What is it saying?
Yes, Gentry has been all over the place, but he's assisted under Larry Brown, Gregg Popovich, Doc Rivers, three le-winning head coaches, and D'Antoni's offense was opportunistic "organized" chaos that ran 7 players into the ground, while Gentry's was structured, centered around motion, emphasized high post play within spread-floor concepts, and went 10 deep with assorted castoffs all everyday roles.
The offenses had two things in common: Nash and Amare. That was it. And neither played the same in both. , Amare didn't even play same position.
That Gentry never had a system to play with. You think the 3 one year terms with Pop, Brown & Doc would be enough to pick their brain? He had one good season as a Sun's coach and never could develop talent either in Detroit, LA or in Phx. If D'antoni's offense was opportunisitc chaos, i don't what Gentry's offense is cause it sure looked the same. D'antoni would've won multiple championships had he had a defensive anchor like Tim or KG. I don't get the D'antoni hate with the Suns fans. He made your team relevant for a good 4-5 years.
If you can't see the flaws of a 60 year old coach who was too emotional, i don't know what will? I'm not surprised why GM's haven't given him an opportunity. Teams value continuity and Gentry for whatever reason doesn't care. I wouldn't be surprised if he bolts GSW if OKC or Portland come calling this summer.
BTW the 10 deep analogy is bull considering D'antoni did the same in the regular season. He did shorten the rotation in the playoffs considering how loaded the West was back then. FYI the Spurs had a 7 man rotation in their 2005 le run. Pop went one further in 2006 by cutting it to 6. Moreover the Western conference was weakest when Gentry's Suns made the conference finals in 2010.
So, you, a Spurs fan who likely saw 10 games of the Suns are telling me, a Suns fan who records and watches every game, what the offense looked like, despite the fact I've cited specific schemetic differences twixt D'Antoni's and Gentry's offenses?
off...
Let's see. You mentioned Gentry had a "structured, centered around motion, emphasized high post play within spread-floor concepts" How's that not D'antonio's offense. How's that hard for you to accept? Many coaches have tweaked that system and found found success including Pop & Coach K.
I'm merely pointing out that Gentry never had a system in place. He just brought back the system that suited Nash & Amare. Remember those two were very vocal during the Porter days and wanted D'antonio's system back. Gentry even admitted it was 90% D'antoni.
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns...ry-system.html
How is that different than a bunch of slipped screens and a -ton of over-dribbling penetration by Nash to draw double teams?
Gee, with a high post you actually run an offense, with lots of off-ball motion, off-ball screens, and some actual post offense, which Amare dedicated himself to.
You're merely very wrong.
Did you even read the article? "Gentry lauds D'Antoni's offense but did alter it. The Suns run traditional sets when Nash is out and even with him at times. There is a "continuity" offense with the ball out of Nash's hands, and that helps to save his energy."
Don't read an article and think you're an expert. I lived every game in those eras, and the offenses were not anything alike. Gentry pushed tempo, which Porter did not, and allowed the offense to be "spread" like D'Antoni liked, but who tempo and spread were utilized were not the same. Traditional sets, better depth, use of off-ball motion and high-post sets. None of that was utilized by D'Antoni who openly admitted to just rolling a ball on the floor. Nash used screens on the elbows to generate space and separation, but Amare always looked to catch and shoot or slash, not stand at the elbow and allow motion-based cuts, screens to open up a slasher or three-point shooter. He also very seldom was used in low-post. D'Antoni hated dumping the ball down low. Amare was used much more often closer to the basket under Gentry, helping his FG% make a big jump.
And as far as rotation and depth, in 2006-07, D'Antoni played 8 player rotation, 6 over 30 mpg and 2 at about 18 mpg. In 2009-10, Gentry played a 10 player rotation, 4 at 30+ mpg, 4 at 20+ mpg, and 2 at almost 18 mpg. He mix-n-matched his players to maximize complementary skills, including well into the playoffs, something D'Antoni never did.
I'm glad you think 5 les makes you a master of all things NBA, but you're not even close to correct on this.
Yes, they pushed tempo. Yes, he spread the floor. But it's not that simple. Where Porter wanted to bog down the lane and play a deliberate, inside-out game, Gentry brought speed back. But it wasn't 7-seconds or less. It wasn't organized chaos. It was organized, schemetic, and often times saw players not standing waiting for outlet, but moving, screening, slashing all without the ball, or away from the ball. It was a true high-post, motion-based offense.
That's completely different than D'Antoni's go-go-go coaching scheme...
I will wait until they are 100% healthy to make any conclusions...
We have to see how the team will adjust when D.Lee comes back and take away shots from Curry/Klay and starts over D.Green
Tonights win was the only impressive win they had this season. Just look against who they played so far.
Speights is insane this year.
12.4 PPG
4.9 RPG
55.8 FG%
58.7 TS%
26.1 PER
All that in just 15 minutes of play
Livingston was solid last year for the Nets tbh... , he was better than Deron Williams for part of the season. Haven't seen too much of him this year but I think he's a serviceable backup PG.
Anyways, I agree that GS is a legitimate contender if they can stay healthy (which admittedly is a big "if"). I said the same thing upstairs and a lot of people disagreed, but I think people are just assuming they're the same old team. Curry/Thompson has improved, Barnes is actually looking like a decent NBA player and not a complete bust, Draymond Green is one of the best role players in the league, Bogut is a great defensive big when healthy...they have a really nice squad. People say "Oh well they're a jumpshooting team. What are they going to do in the playoffs if Curry/Thompson go cold?" - they have the best defense in the league. They can win grind-it-out games.
I'm not gonna say they're favorites or anything, and I think the Spurs match up well with them, but I'm not gonna write them off either. If they can stay healthy and avoid us in the playoffs, they'll have as good of a shot as anyone.
I don't mean for the playoffs, I mean for RS. You have to have a bench that's good enough to get minutes in the RS in order to have the proverbial "x factor" types in the playoffs that you will need. One benefit for the Spurs last year was that their bench got significant minutes due to key injuries at the right time during the season, so the bench was basically a playoff contender on their own.
Spurs, Grizzlies, Blazers, Mavericks, and probably the Clippers are all really bad matchups for GSW. They look like a really good team on paper, but it's hard to foresee a team led by jump shooting PG and SG to make any noise past the first round. Almost every playoff team in the West has at least 1-2 stoppers on the wing, and Draymond Green and David Lee aren't going to take them past Dirk, Griffin, Aldridge, Gasol/ZBO. You aren't going to get far in this West with a starting PF that's 6'7 220.
Kerr is and GSW are not a contender
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions