If that's so, then what about the narrative that states that Harden has to have the ball in his hands in order to be effective? What you appear to be asking is something that is completely different from what worked for them last year.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Per Elias: Heat on Sunday the first team in NBA history to win a game by at least 19 points after trailing by a margin that big at half.</p>— Ira Winderman (@IraHeatBeat) <a href="https://twitter.com/IraHeatBeat/status/661238586684121089">November 2, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hey, HillBoy. What a way to start a championship season, hunh? Remember back in 1993-1994? When the Rockets started that season 14-0? Got to the title round and won it and all that? To a man, they all said that they got motivated by how close they came to beating Seattle the previous postseason. They realized they had a chance to be good, and didn't waste any time affirming that belief. What does any of that mean to the Rockets of 2015-2016? Not a damned thing, apparently. This game is pretty simple, really. At the end of the day, wins and losses ultimately come down to what your best player does with the ball in his hands when the game is in the balance. I don't think that "narrative" changes often at all from team to team. So it's no surprise that that paradigm is what we're holding to here with the Rockets. The problem, of course, is one that's been lingering around here now since James Harden arrived―how to build a balanced offense around a dynamic wing player. Don't shoot me or anything, because I'm only making this comparison because it fits...the Rockets are finally going to have to build an offense on more than just principle if they really intend to be in championship contention in the near future. I'll use Michael Jordan as the example, rather than our beloved Hakeem Olajuwon (because I believe that, for all intents and purposes, Jordan and Olajuwon were essentially the same player)... ...back when Doug Collins (Michael Jordan sycophant par excellánce) was coaching the Chicago Bulls in the mid-to-late-1980s, he had pretty much the same mindset as a lot of people did, especially in regards to Jordan. Give Michael the ball. Spread the floor. Get out of his way. He'll do the rest. Great players, of course, are going to be great no matter where you play them. And they're going to excel, by and large no matter what you need them to do. And it's partly why the Bulls struggled to get past the Detroit Pistons for a few years in the playoffs. The Bulls, offensively, were predictable. And when you're predictable, you're pretty vulnerable. But at some point, the decision has to be made that the guy who's there to win you the game (offensively), can't be the only offensive option you have. That guy is your anchor, and he shouldn't be weighing your team down in that role. Having a diverse offense keeps the ball moving, and gives the one player who doesn't necessarily need it, the room to be the guy to keep things from getting out of hand too often. I was going to be silent about the Rockets acquiring Ty Lawson in the offseason (as crucial as I think he, or rather his job, is going to be to the Rockets going forward), because we had to see the rubber meeting the road, after a fashion, as the team's offense needed to mature and progress. I never believed that the Rockets should have made a priority out of giving the ball to James Harden, even when there wasn't a serviceable point guard to play alongside him initially. But players like Harden are special, and they tend to skew everyone's thinking into "win now" at an accelerated rate, because getting your hands on a player like that is rare. Patrick Beverley is game, and fearless, and an ideal complement to Harden, but the Rockets were going to need to make team scoring a bit easier than what it's been in the past. Harden looked spectacular for the bulk of the regular season and the playoffs last year. But anyone who was watching objectively knew that there was only so much Harden was going to be able to do to beat playoff teams by himself on offense. As much as it might pain some folk here to hear it (or read it), the best thing for the Rockets to do (especially while it's still early) would be to make Lawson the point guard they signed him to be, and not simply Harden's glorified caddie. Ideally, that would have happened in training camp...assuming, of course, that you had an offensive "system" in place and just needed a good point guard to run it, so you wouldn't have stretches where you're looking raggedy on offense in the first place... ...and of course, defense (individual and team) is another matter entirely.... ...so there are more than a few holes to plug right out of the gate...in a particularly inhospitable conference (and division) that's going to potentially punish any team that falls too far off the pace too quickly... ...all I'm really trying to say, HillBoy, is that Ty Lawson wasn't brought here to stand and watch James Harden, or anybody else for that matter. It's not about "stars" or who's the lead dog or whatever else in trending right now. It's about the job, and whose job it is. I would SO love for the team's offense to run through Lawson...if for nothing else, for everybody to get a glimpse of just how good Harden COULD be if he let somebody else set him up...
The effort level was horrible in the second half. Not sure why players weren't benched and some of the young guys given the opportunity to put forth some effort.
Very good analysis. I'll go one step further in that like Jordan, Hakeem was the prime motivational force behind that team making it to the top. And that's what I see lacking here with Harden & Howard. Neither appears to have the frame of mind that's needed to propel this team toward becoming a championship contender.
Wow, I can post pictures. First sponge bob, then a Fournier gangrene spoiler bomb. I'm so talented Fukn noob cakes.
