But, I want to make a positive contribution here... Imagine PG instead of Thomas. The kind of shots he will get ... those that IT got (somewhat) this game. We gonna roll!!!
For the defensive woes from the Mavs game, a lot of focus on whether IT was the culprit, but no mention of the absence of Nance. IT will be a defensive challenge, but it was his first game. I saw more interior defensive issues and thought that Nance would have made a difference. So I hope they plug that gap, too bad Frye is not that kind of player.
yeah, i'm as skeptical as anyone re: thomas, but you can't pin a defensive effort like that on one guy. particularly a guard, given that it was lobs killing us (and that many happened when thomas wasn't in the game). and yes, the team will miss nance badly on that end, imo.
They were giving up layups and dunks all night long. The only part I put on IT was the end when he was frustrated and it showed and instead of trying to buckle down, he was lashing out. He's done it other times in the season as well, but it was disappointing to see him do it again in his first game with the Lakers. Defensively I think a large part of it was that the guys expected IT to be useless so they were overhelping, often on the strong side which is a huge problem. Then the weakside didn't defend in space and we gave up rebounds around the rim. I don't mind having IT in there playing 28-30 minutes because let's face it: it's not like JC was a stalwart and IT is a better offensive player than Clarkson. But down the stretch Carlisle took it at IT over and over and over again and our players failed to adjust. It'll take some time. Oh and it was frustrating seeing him walk the ball up so much out of inbounds plays. When we're successful, we're putting pressure on the defense even when we take the ball out of bounds. He's small and fast, he should want to drive immediately. The Cavs play much slower than we do so it's probably a bad habit he just has to break, but it was jarring. The encouraging part was seeing him light it up out there. I still cringed seeing him not turn the corner on big men. It's clear he's not 100% yet, but if he can still shoot effectively, it's a big boost for us. Give it a few games to come around.
I stopped reading at “slobbering.” If you call giving a guy some props when this team has been clicking on all cylinders since Jan 7th, then fine, that’s slobbering. This board was harsh with Luke when we struggled, and rightly so. When we go on a tear, we give him some credit. It’s called being reasonable.
...or maybe the whole crew was adjusting mentally and emotionally after losing two of their teammates after the trade? Their heads weren't there? Yeah, dime store psychology but... Off the highlights, Thomas' shooting looked very good. He'll space the floor well for us. Walton will have to adjust his defensive schemes to compensate for Thomas' deficiencies. I'm confident he'll figure it out even if it for less than half a season.
I didn't write it with the intent of Your Highness reading it. You didn't have to respond with some semi-condescending remark. I've chosen to use the word "slobbering". You are free to chose not to read it. Or disregard everything I say. Couldn't care less if I tried. To the actual point... Your opinion. Mine is -- we win despite Puke. Prove me wrong if you want.
Honestly Zen, that won't happen because you don't want it to happen. You hate the guy and when we're successful you refuse to give him credit, so how are we supposed to prove it to you when you won't accept it? We're a top defensive team (last night of course withstanding), we're on one of the best records since the turn of the calendar, our offensive plays are working better as the season goes on, Luke has made the adjustments with the rotations that he needed to make. Nobody is claiming he's perfect, but you're not even willing to give him credit for the things he deserves credit for. How can we prove you wrong if you refuse to be objective?
Well, I am yet to see the proof. All I saw so far is -- we are better this season or some such. We've added 4! above average defensive players (Randle, Lopez, Ball, Hart) and had an influx of offensive talent (Kuzma, KCP when he is on, even Lopez). I doubt you'd be able to separate causation from correlation, but please, I'd like to see some sort of tangible proof that Puke had anything to do with it, aside from natural growth? I can only judge what I see. He still can't adjust in time. He still does stupid lineups that backfire (although less frequently). He takes 2 month to make a change to something so super obvious, TNT guys knew it before him, and they are for-fun-morons. There are positives -- culture, atmosphere (although JR/JC treatment from the beginning of the season didn't contribute to that). But that's not enough. I didn't see growth rapid enough for me to have confidence in his coaching abilities. Add to that some confidence issues (hiring useless coaching team) and you can see how one can lose hope. Anyway, this is the IT thread (who I fully expect to play major minutes, messing with everything that was building up there)... so carry on.
i agree with real on thomas walking it up. he claims he wants to play fast, but he really wants to play dantoni ball, not steve kerr ball. more ball pounding by the primary scorer, less ball and player movement.
To the first highlighted in red portion .... honestly However I personally maintain with the second portion that Occam's Razor is highly overrated.
Refreshing to see IT was not as scary as Lebron may have passively intimated. His defensive limitations may be the true horror-show though.
I gave Luke a hard time as well in his own thread. Did you read that? The players also were awful. Are you going to argue otherwise?
I mean again, this is all your opinion and you find the negatives and weigh them heavier than the positives. That's your opinion and we've provided tangible evidence you just won't accept. To put it another way: how can you say that "player growth" is independent of Luke? How can you assume Randle is playing his best basketball just because of himself? How can you assume we're winning these games despite Luke? How can you assume Brandon Ingram is excelling at PG because of Brandon and not because of coaching? Since the start of the year team opponent FG% has dropped, team opponent RBD% has dropped, team opponent points per game have dropped, our 3PT% has increased, our TOs are dropping, our points per game have risen. He's a rookie coach and he makes plenty of mistakes, but he's been better. You aren't going to see that unless you are willing to see it though. You want to question whether or not we can separate causation from correlation, but you're no better if you're assuming all of those improvements stem simply from player improvement (never mind the fact that player improvement is also a part of coaching as well).
I think lukes come a long way but still has a way too go. When you have a guy like hart on the bench and IT is getting eatin up Defensively, its the coaches job to adjust. Especially when you have the talent to do so sitting next to you. If he continues to do that moving forward its going to be frustrating to say the least and will cost this team a few games IMO. Still to early to say Luke is no bueno though. As far as IT, he better get on the ball movement train or hit the pine.
I agree with all that. I've never said otherwise. I just don't agree with saying he's awful and deserves little or no credit for where the team is today.
Occam would not agree but eff him. Maybe Magic and /or Luke determined to throw him right into the fire in crunch time to get a good look at where he is right now?
