You know why I'm grinding? I watch this team nightly and cant come up with a rhyme or reason why Mike D does some of the things he does. Its insanity. He does the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome against teams with size. We're getting abused in the paint. But he continues to try to outscore teams with a small lineup.
What do mean height means nothing?? Isn't that the point of Clydeandthepearl's bellyaching?
Secondly I was arguing a specific point w C&TP. He said Mike D doesn' play guys who are over 6'8''. All I did was post clear evidence that is not the case..
And you find fault w that?? SMH
Seriously>>? That's you're excuse for not acknowledging Mike D plays defensive minded players,"I cant decipher this because Turiaf is injured so often".
Are you watching the games??
When Turiaf is available he plays. Plain and simple.
He's not a shooter.
He brings defense and rebounding.
Mike D plays him. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
You can't win. Because the game and it's goal post will keep changing each as you make your way through points.
Which means that a personal dislike for D'ant and emotional reliance on railing against him for a notion of playing defense, takes precedent over actuality; including the actual issues we do have on defense, and any real issues that exist with D'ant.
Occasionally, randomness will have it that real problems w him and the team align with the static dislike/emotion. But even then, it's fruitless because the actuality matters less than the reliance on the personal grudge and emotion.
All this talk about players above 6'8, eg; MD never playing big men; never giving youth who can play D a chance; only playing offensive players at direct expense of viable guys who can play D; that we don't want defense or rebounding and *any* good Center is useless for us (ostensibly, bc Darko and Jordan Hill didn't lead us to the playoffs and Mike D'antoni didn't personally lobotomize Anthony Randolph and have him playing like a quality NBA playe this season).
What does it mean that D'ant disgruntles and defies people's wishes; yet his success and our actual progress this season has transcended all expectations, even his most rabid skeptics?
Last edited by iSaYughh; Jan 16, 2011 at 14:12.
We could argue about fg % allowed or points per shot, but in a system in which the shot clock rarely goes down to 15 or below in our offense and opponents usually cannot resist running with us, how can you even think of points allowed as a benchmark? It just does not make sense at all. If the shot volume is about 15% above average, it would be insanely good defense to hold an opponent even at league average.
Dude...he had as much, if not MORE robust pt when Gallo has been entirely healthy!
Turiaf -- pretty athletic, can move, good heart, plays fast and hard, isn't a headcase or project, plays solid all around D.
All D'ant wants. And Turiaf is far from ideal; his total package wouldn't be starter worthy on many teams, he has worse offense than defense, and he isn't even a true center body.
Give him any quality starting C who doesn't move like a lumber Jack and he will play and be appreciated.
STAT is an all-star Center anyways...Al Horford "supposedly" was really more a 4 than 5...Pau Gasol was a lame 5 and really a 4...etcetc.
I doubt Hawk or LAK fans, or fans of other teams who employ hybrid 4/5's predominantly as starting NBA 5's moan and place such an emphasis that they don't have a stereotypical 5.
I see what Clyde's point is. Turiaf can't shoot, but he flows well with the offense, because he moves well without the ball, and runs a pretty good pick n roll. Randolph? Ball stopper, and bad shot taker. Curry? Fat, slow, ball stopper. Thats why they dont play. Moz also plays well in the system, but he is playing scared. Once he slows down, he well be an asset.
Williams should never be guarding a post player. Period.
Point differential is all that matters most. I keep saying it in game threads when same ppl complain even after wins.
What we happen to score or what our opponent happens to score is arbitrary.
I wonder if it would get the same reaction if we had an extra-ordinary defensive system, and won games 85-80 much of the time, with a league-worst type of offense.
I don't think it would beget as much misunderstanding and conflict. Mainly bc there's an emotional nostalgia and ingrained sentiment in sports that defense is the always unsung hero and true seasoned sports fans know this.
Oh, I agree for the most part. But playing players that have no shot at stopping bigs down low is a major cause in us giving up so many points in the paint. Which also has us ranked in the bottom half on defense. We have absolutely no resistance when Mike D goes small. We'll win some games like this, but we'll never win the ultimate prize.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote