Reply With Quote
Zones are great, unless you want defensive rebounds. It totally opens up lanes for offensive rebounders. Dallas was already killing us on the boards, and we should have handed them more? With M2M, you have someone to put a body on.
nellie might have told small ball would beat the mavs. Remember nellie did come to our training camp before and he had a reason to see the mavs lose.
So nellie told pop how to beat the mavs and pop couldn;t do it.
As the saying goes fire pop!
Zones are great, unless you want defensive rebounds. It totally opens up lanes for offensive rebounders. Dallas was already killing us on the boards, and we should have handed them more? With M2M, you have someone to put a body on.
Sure it does, but this Spurs team isn't that great of a rebounding team to begin with, unless they come out with the gameplan to rebound. Apparently it works because GS played a zone almost the entire series and Dallas shot horribly. Spurs would have given up a lot of offensive boards to the Mavs with man-to-man, so why should they play that when a zone works more effectively?
OK, you're not understanding. Playing M2M, we already gave them 11+ ORBs per game in that series. With zone, that could have been 15-17.
It worked for GS, because they are a better rebounding, more athletic team than we are. Why do you think more teams don't play zones all the time? YOU GET KILLED ON THE BOARDS. It's the achilles heel of the zone, and why most teams only use it part time or as a change up.
Point 1. Point 2.
With you so far.
Point 3.
You lost me.
True, but Dallas thrived on 1-on-1 matchups offensively. That's why the zone worked very well against them. They are not a good passing team, in regards to running their offense. They don't get a lot of assissts. The zone makes them pass it around more, thus it disrupted their offense when GS played it. It got Dallas out of sync because they were not able to take advantage of the 4-5 guys that could play very well in 1-on-1 situations. You do give up a lot of rebounds, but who knows how it would have worked with Spurs vs. Mavs. We will never find out. Maybe just for stretches in the fourth quarter would have worked well.
If by vidicated you mean owned, yes.
Pop gets no free pass just because Nellie outcoached AJ.
Ok so Dirk would have scored on Rasho and Nazr...as opposed to everyone else we put on him?
Pop's small ball lineup was horrible because he didn't(and still doesn't) have the personnel to run it effectively against the Mavs.
Nelly = roster of 6'8 guys
Pop = No a one on the roster.
Nelly = Traded for Jack
Pop = Replaced him with Hedo
Nah...Pop doesn't get to coat-tail Nelly.
Pop was pissed because of the lack of boards from Nazr and Rasho and decided to make a point IMO....
There was at least one game we lost that all we needed was some kind of interior rebounding presence and Pop had Finley out there....
And if Dirk doesn't get injured in 03, Pop likely gets outcoached by Nelly too....although not as badly as LB in 91.
Bull . The Spurs were better than the Mavs that year. Mavs had no defense at all to stop the Spurs, and Spurs had defense to stop the Mavs.
This is stupid. Dallas was much more compe ive without Nowitzki than with him. Duncan absolutely torched the Mavs anytime Nowitzki was on the floor. Look up the boxscores. Najera's defense on Duncan was the major factor in their 17 point comeback to win game 5, and stave off elimination in the SBC Center. Finley, Van Exel, and Nash was more than enough on the offensive end to erase anything they missed with Dirk out.
Whatever....they still beat us at least one game without Dirk. And all of the games were close.
Our defense wasn't what won game 6 for us.
So you are saying the Mavs were better without Dirk? And my point was stupid?
Do you honestly believe the Mavs were better without Dirk?
I agree the games were tougher once Dirk went out...but part of that was adjustments by Nelly...that could have been made with Dirk healthy.
The games were close because the Mavs without Dirk gave us more trouble than they did with Dirk. The Spurs blew the Mavs out in the first half of Game 1 (I still don't know how we lost that game), we blew them out in Games 2 & 3 with Dirk, and we blew them out in Game 4 without Dirk. Games 5 and 6 were close (except in the fourth when Kerr hit all those threes in Game 6).
Nelly = Traded for Jack
Pop = replaced him with Hedo.
Pop couldn't tell a choker from a clutch player if his life depended on it. He'd stick the choker out there on some kind of principle.
Got it...Mavs were better without Dirk....great take.
I guess maybe Dallas should pay someone to take Dirk off their hands or something.
Yes. The 2003 Mavericks were better without Dirk when they played the Spurs. Nowitzki was the biggest defensive liability in the league at that time. Duncan and Malik Rose absolutely destroyed him in that series. If Dirk never gets hurt, that series ends in 5.
Nelly outcoaching AJ doesn't validate Pop...
Two different equations...
I am still waiting for Pop to win a series he shouldn't....the truest mark of a great coach...hasn't happened yet.
If Duncan isn't a FA, I doubt Kerr sees the court in that series...and I doubt we win it. Jack wasn't enough by himself.
Even without Dirk...which most people would consider a liability for a team.
And the Mavs did beat us with Dirk....
I just don't agree that Nelly outcoaching AJ somehow gets Pop off the hook for being outcoached by AJ.
So should we play small ball against the Suns?
Oh, I agree that as a change up, it would have worked. Throw some 2-3 at them and some matchup zone. You just can't run it all the time. The zone is fine...right up to the time the shot is released, and then it's a HUGE advantage to an aggressive OReb team like Dallas. We actually outshot them last year in that series. They just had more attempts.True, but Dallas thrived on 1-on-1 matchups offensively. That's why the zone worked very well against them. They are not a good passing team, in regards to running their offense. They don't get a lot of assissts. The zone makes them pass it around more, thus it disrupted their offense when GS played it. It got Dallas out of sync because they were not able to take advantage of the 4-5 guys that could play very well in 1-on-1 situations. You do give up a lot of rebounds, but who knows how it would have worked with Spurs vs. Mavs. We will never find out
Sure...our small ball lineup works against the Suns...
The Suns are small, probably the smallest team in the NBA...the Mavs aren't/weren't.
Our 2 guard frontline isn't dwarfed against the Suns like it is against every other team.
Just a couple of random small ball and Mav's thoughts.
A major factor in Pop's decision to go small ball was Tim Duncan. If the Spurs play Rasho or Nazr against Damper/Diop then who does Duncan guard? Duncan is an all-time great defender, but the Spurs don't want him to pick up fouls guarding Dirk. Dirk was also more aggressive last year going to the basket.
Golden State's guards are better penetrators and rebounders and are obviously better suited to the small ball concept. I believe there is a lot more to Golden State's win over Dallas then playing small ball. As their former coach, Nelson knows the Mav's and their weaknesses better then anyone (like Gruden taking over the Buc's and destroying the Raiders). Golden State played with great confidence versus Dallas. Part of that was the fact that they wanted to win for Nelson, knowing Nelson's past with the Mav's organization (Can the Warriors play with the same fire against Houston or Utah? Both of their next round opponents have legit low post players and I am looking forward to either match-up). In last years playoff series versus the Spurs, I believe Dallas benefited from the same thing because of Avery Johnson being their coach. The Mav's played their best ball against the Spurs. Mav's also get up for the Spurs because the Spurs have been done well against them (in-state rival etc). Against other teams, we have seen how mentally fragaile they can be.
Avery must be going nuts after watching a heartless effort. After being eliminated Dirk said that he has to work on his post game. We'll see...
Base and td...I get the point you guys are making and I actually applaud the insight...I agree the Mavs played us better without Dirk...
But where our beliefs diverge is that I think Nelly was the reason for that....and you guys seem to think it was just osmosis or something.
My point is that Nelly is a great coach....
He outcoached AJ, he outcoached Larry Brown...
Pop hasn't outcoached anyone IMO...he's never beaten a superior team.
Unlike AJ, unliike Nelly...unlike Pat Riley.
Maybe LA in 03...maybe, but I'd argue that Rick Fox was a bigger loss for them than anyone admits.
AJ getting outcoached by Nelly doesns't make Pop a better coach, it makes him a worse one IMO.
How does the series end up with Rasho playing?
4-1?
Were we that much better?
I was going to be nice and not post the numbers, but if you really want them that bad here you go:
Plus/Minus Per Minute
Mo Peterson: +.065
Kris Humphries: +.029
Jose Calderon: -.061
Joey Graham: -.091
Anthony Parker: -.108
Chris Cash: -.130
Andrea Bargnani: -.210
TJ Ford: -.220
Rasho Nesterovic: -.434
Points Allowed Per 48 Minutes
Kris Humphries: 87.0
Joey Graham: 93.4
Mo Peterson: 94.4
Jose Calderon: 94.7
Chris Bosh: 96.0
Anthony Parker: 96.8
TJ Ford: 99.2
Andrea Bargnani: 99.7
Rasho Nesterovic: 107.5
Rasho was owned in the playoffs, bottomline. The team was literally twice as worse with him on the court than anyone else on the team. They gave up an amazing amount of points when he was on the court. No one was even in his same ballpark of inep ude in either category. There's a reason he played 2 minutes in Game 5 and zero in Game 6.
Like I've said, Rasho is a very good regular season center. Put him on your team and he'll win you about five games you wouldn't have won without him. But for whatever reason, he's not good in the playoffs. Any sober person can conclude that from these stats.
Apology Accepted.
Hmmmm...
Game 7......might have been nice if Manu wasn't our Center.
1 point lead...need a rebound or interior presence wouldn't have hurt either...even the stupidest person on the planet could conclude that Nazr Mohammed has a better chance of doing that than Manu or Finley.
All I know is Pop turned Dirk into Wilt Chamberlain in that series....directly...that's why I enjoyed so much the arguments about 03.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
