Reply With Quote
We play Nazr and/or Rasho significant minutes, and we lose in 5.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
Yes Pop, come to a message board where we have numerous Monday Morning Quarterbacks (what would be the basketball equivalent to that phrase?) all diagramming plays on what the Spurs should have done.
We play Nazr and/or Rasho significant minutes, and we lose in 5.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
You know what I just realized????
Where the was.........Oberto?! I recall game 3 (?) where he played significant minutes and, despite getting ticky-tacky fouls, was a pretty good rebounder, defender on Dirk. I also recall Pop saying in the postgame that he liked what he saw from Oberto and that he would be playing him more. I can understand why Pop decided to go with small ball with the way Nazr/Rasho were playing. But I don't understand is why he didn't play Oberto?
Are you guys STILL talking about this?? OMG.
I'll concede that if we played a center, we have better interior D and we have slightly better rebounding.
There is a cost for doing this.
1) You give up some offensive ability
2) You potentially put Tim in foul trouble (he can't guard Howard or Nowitzki)
3) You remove a perimeter defender and Dallas is a good shooting team
Pop has explained this over and over. Wha't so hard to understand? I saw Nazr play in game 2 and saw a VERY quick run by the Mavs.
Last time I checked, Pop has 3 rings as a HC and this board's members have 0.
Spurs lost with Dallas becouse of stupid coaching, without centers under the basket, in all this games the defens was not like before and dallas es have free road to the rim. Run and gun, and now Phoenix beat them becouse they play without real centers the whole seasno and some france guy Diaw killed them...
Not even try Rasho , i dont count that 1s playing time in whole game : Stupid, stupid. 7 players only in 7 games bull ....
Yes, he is so smart. As I said, explanations from a fishing boat are less... convincing. He didn't even try playing OUR game, so we will never know. And this is the ABSOLUTE FACT: WE WILL NEVER KNOW. If Pop says, that big ball wouldn't work, I can choose not to believe him. I have every right to do that, especially because he lost the series with his smart approach. His approach was not good enough.
So can we write down two facts and all agree with them?
1. We don't know, what would be with big ball approach.
2. Pop's approach was not good enough to win series.
Yeah, as similar as Rasho and Diaw's games are, clearly the same approach would have worked for us with Rasho.
I am trying to tell that Phoenix play that type of game the whole season, and they are good in that, but Spurs did not play small ball complete season so it is hard to win if you change the lineup in last 7 games like that, 7 players play all the time and other seat on bench and dont even try with them.... suicide...Yeah, as similar as Rasho and Diaw's games are, clearly the same approach would have worked for us with Rasho.
It's normal for teams to shorten their rotation in the playoffs -- we really only used 7 guys to beat Detroit last year. And in the past, we've often switched our rotation to matchup better with other teams.
The real problem is that Rasho was a very poor matchup, Nazr was ineffective and mistake-prone, and when we went to a smaller lineup, we didn't have a large SF or mobile PF that was good enough. Horry was the best we had, and he looked old, so we ended up playing even smaller guys.
We need to plug that hole in the roster this offseason.
You forgot another fact
So can we write down two facts and all agree with them?
1. We don't know, what would be with big ball approach.
2. Pop's approach was not good enough to win series.
3. In game 2, Nazr played about 12 minutes, and the Spurs got torched in game 2.
1. Know? No. Have a pretty damn good idea? Yeah, we do.
2. No, that's not true. What is true is that the execution was not sufficient. Since you can't claim the execution of the plan was perfect, you can't claim the plan itself was insufficient.
Don't forget -- he managed to collect 4 fouls in that span.
No, we don't. Half of the coaching staff was FOR big ball. I guess they are stupid and don't know the team.
Combined with #1 - with big ball this execution might be sufficient. We will never know. Pop's fault.2. No, that's not true. What is true is that the execution was not sufficient. Since you can't claim the execution of the plan was perfect, you can't claim the plan itself was insufficient.
No, I didn't forget. It's just a stupid fact, so I didn't mention it. You see, I don't write stupid facts. But you can do that, no problem.
Half the coaching staff? Your source for this?No, we don't. Half of the coaching staff was FOR big ball. I guess they are stupid and don't know the team.
Combined with #1 - with big ball this execution might be sufficient. We will never know. Pop's fault.
No, we don't. Half of the coaching staff was FOR big ball. I guess they are stupid and don't know the team.
Combined with #1 - with big ball this execution might be sufficient. We will never know. Pop's fault.
We are ONE FOUL AWAY from WINNING the series! WTF is it that you people don't get?
No, it's an inconvenient fact.
I don't get it. I don't understand how can this be mentioned all the time? Look... if I give you a stupid example, maybe you'll understand. Suppose we are playing against Portland in round 1. We lose the series 4-3, actually the series look EXACTLY like the last one against Mavs. You could use the same argument, saying that we were just one foul away from winning the series so the tactics just HAD to be good. You know that would be VERY wrong. Now to get back to reality and away from that stupid example - we are talking about Mavs here. But the idea is the same: we could be playing tactics that would make the difference between us and Mavs BIGGER - in our favor, of course. Now, I don't need you to agree with arguments in this topic - but do you understand the idea in last few sentences? How close we were to be playing against Suns now is not that important, if we were (somehow) capable to be even better. You don't have to agree, that we had better options, but you have to see that the "one foul away" argument is not valid! If we were better, that foul wouldn't mean anything.
I don't accept this term. There are no inconvenient facts. But I might have addressed this particular stupid fact in this thread before...
Small ball didn't work for the Spurs because they made stupid mental mistakes down the stretch of close games. They couldn't inbound a ball or made a dumb foul. There was also some obvious home cooking in games 3 and 4. But it gave us a chance to win despite not having the proper personnell to carry it off correctly. It was our only alternative. You can NOT go big against the Mavs with Rasho or Nazr, period.
Blaming Pop does not give the Mavs credit for being a good team. It's ridiculous and childish to assume that the Mavs did nothing to win this series and it was all on the Spurs and their coaching.
No. Let's just stop this here, coz it doesn't go anywhere. Our team always has more alternatives because we are a great team. Only worst teams have one alternative.
Maybe someone said that, but not me and I haven't seen it in this thread. Mavs are a great team, but so are Spurs. We can not change Mavs. We can not make them worse. The only thing we can do is, to make us better. Or the way we play, that is.Blaming Pop does not give the Mavs credit for being a good team. It's ridiculous and childish to assume that the Mavs did nothing to win this series and it was all on the Spurs and their coaching.
No, it's inconvenient to your childish worldview. So you ignore it and/or call it "stupid". Doesn't make it go away or make it less relevant.I don't accept this term. There are no inconvenient facts. But I might have addressed this particular stupid fact in this thread before...
Travis, this is ludicrous, Pop was wrong, and I will never forgive him for it, and nothing or no one can convince me otherwise. The point is dubious, because we have no way of winning this argument.
I just hope that the Suns win the series, because I would stop watching the NBA if Mark Cuban got hold of the Larrry O'Brien Trophy, for Cuban, as Machiavelli before him held, only success and glory really matter, and the means are insignificant.
Fine. I think you and your cohorts are wrong and nothing or no one can convince me otherwise.
End of argument.
But even so, I might still addressed it and it is your chilidish worldview, why you choose to repeat it over and over without noticing it was already answered. Do you want it one more time? The TEAM was playing bad. B-A-D The T-E-A-M. Nobody said in this topic, that another center in the game can solve the situation by himself. They are role players. R-O-L-E. Role players can't do for you when you are 30 down. The whole team needs to be playing better. I'm sure you understand now. Actually, I'm not sure, only very optimistic.
Fair enough. Why are we even fighting here, in an argument that can't be won?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions