I disagree. I guess we watched the same game but saw it two different ways. From what Van Gundy said he saw the same game I did, since he mentioned the good passing in the Bulls game. It doesn't neccesarily mean that Jeff Van Gundy and I are right, just that we saw the same things, and since he's the coach, he saw Francis playing the way he wants him to play.
haven: I wasn't addressing that specific issue. I was addressing the fact that there are MANY reasons why Yao isn't getting the ball in the low post all the time or at least as often as some would prefer. You cannot simply exclude, as MacBeth did, all of the other elements involved and focus on one thing specifically like Francis or Mobley not passing when they could or should. Everything on the floor is a judgement call based on the given circumstance. It requires split-second decision making. Yes, Steve and Cat have yet to learn that in ALL situations. They have gotten used to playing one way and changing isn't easy. BUT, simply watching a game, seeing Yao not getting the ball and then proclaiming that Steve and Cat are ignoring Yao is a complete and total oversimplification of the problem. There is much, MUCH more to it than that. And I stand by my belief that winning is more important than how you win. The first Rockets championship was labelled "Ugly Ball" and some still believe that they never would have won had Michael Jordan not left the game to play baseball. Does that really matter? I don't see anyone trying to take the trophy away. Besides, this whole discussion, so much like most of the "Boki sucks," "Boki rules," "Trade Cato," "I Love Cato," "Yao's not agressive enough," "Yao's the greatest player ever," "Trade Steve," "Steve is the greatest," threads we see on an all-too-regular basis, is TREMENDOUSLY premature. We are four games into an 82-game season with a new coach, new players, some injuries (and absences) to rotation players, new offensive and defensive systems...etc. Just like looking at Seattle's 116 points per game and thinking that they will lead the league in offense depsite the fact they've only played two games against the Clippers, trying to make any declarations about what this team will accomplish or who these players will become is an exercise in futility. Common sense tells us that there are WAY too many variables at this point to come to any kind of rational, realistic conclusion. THAT was my point.
FB- No, actually I was only viting one specific example, and yeah, it was in the NJ game. I meant it as an example...I don't off-hand recall any other instances that exceptional, but following the block, seeing Yao race down the floor, and Francis still with the ball, I assumed he was going to him. I should point out that I was raised by a basketball coach, so fundamentals have been drilled into me since I was a wee babe, and rewarding your big man for A) Covering your a$$ with a block, B) racing down court, and C) setting up with aggression is really basic. I couldn't believe Steve went right by him as though they had just met.
A) Thanks for the kind words. B) You are putting something into my argument that wasn't there. You will note, should you see better than Mr. Charles, that I said " Our coach has said that the offense should run through Yao, and we aren't doing it. That some of the blame may be attributable to Yao in no way diverts from that simple truth." As such, this is in no way a thread about blame assessment,as anyone who could and did read that sentance could assertain; if I am saying part of the blame is A, and part is B, clearly I am not saying the balme is just B, no? Clear enough now? . Of course Yao is contributing to the problem, but this wasn'y a thread trying to determine who is to blame in full; it was a response to the idea raised that it doesn't matter how we play on a given night, so long as we win. I competely disagree with that, as I stated. When quoting incidents from the other night's game, which as I said I reviewed, I was not sayiung Yao is blameless, is aggressive enough, etc. I don't see how you got that. I was addressing another element which is part of the problem, and one with a longer history, and more troubling, and unlike Yao's aggression, etc., one which winning in the short term may, and probably does, reinforce. C) As for the seperate argument you have raised, it's a chicken or egg thing; which comes first, Yao's aggression or the team prunning the offense through him. Either one not happening could easily be construed as contributing to the other one not developing properly, no? Fortunately we don't need to get metaphysical about it, as we have it from the coach's mouth that he wants the ball to run through Yao. As such, irrespective of whether or not the other players are of the opinion that he is sufficiently aggressive, that the situation dictates it, etc., is irrelevant. Do your job.
Oh, I agree. There have been noticable changes. Clearly people are taking this is my side on the Yao/Steve argument, which it isn't. Nor is this meant to suggest that we are playing exactly as we have in the past. Past play is only relevant in that it is A) What Steve et al are used to, B) an indication of what they will do 'naturally', or when other options appear more difficult, and C) as a warning of where that kind of play gets us. I agree with the rest of what you said.
Excellent stuff, Gater. yeah, I see the difference. Most of my response can be read in my previous post to Jeff, but I was not talking about numbers. In fact, in my pre-game assesment, I said that there would be a lot of opportunities for Mobes, and with Martin out, Mo. I wanted Cat to take a lot of those opportunities. I am more talking about the many instances when there weren't better options available, the double was clear or not happening, Yao was set, and still Steve, etc. chose to go another route, which is contrary to what we're trying to build. If our answer whenever another team tries to make it difficult to go to Yao is to abandon that, it is doing exactly what yhey want us to. Consider why teams are trying to prevent just that. If, instead of working/looking for a way to accomplish our desired goal we merely revert to Steve takes his man, we're doing what they want us to, which is almost never the right way to go. Particulalry against NJ...their entire defense is set up HOPING that the other team will take solo perim plays, as it allows them to break. I agree that ti will take time. It will take a lot longer if we go away from it at the first sign of trouble, and if in so doing we win, it reinforces the idea that the other way is better. THAT was my point.
Good points. Other things I hate watching are yao spotting up outside the left elbow. COmpletely useless. Teams don't even come up on him, and he invariably swings it and then looks to set up position. It's wasted effort to have a guy get the ball in the 1/2 court in a non-threat position, and all it does it give the defense extra time to make adjustments, switches, etc. Complete waste. Another thing we have seen a lot of lately has been Yao setting up on the high post. Now I'm not against that if we're gonna us it, and as it's ususally been Cato seeting up in the low post, it provides some interesting options, but whenever Yao is out there, he has been merely a pick almost every time. Cato would be better served picking, and Yao in the block, if that's all it;s gonna be. Cato doesn't command a double, doesn't convert all that many plays called his way, and sets as good of a pick as Yao. It would be different if Yao were being used as a triple threat out there, which he could be, but it never goes that way.
Yep Macbeth, that's the way I'd put it if I ever found the time to write a thesis on the subject. All good points.
I don't you can take much from what the coach said. JVG made the same comment about the Francis & Yao issue when he was with TNT, but he changed his tune after became the coach of the team. In preseason, he mentioned the "pockets of resistance", which we all know who the "pockets" are, but he went out of his way to explain that it's not Francis the second day. It's all coaches' talk. Most of us agree that Francis has been playing more controlled bball on the offensive end, put more effort at the defensive end, the disagreement is how much he has changed. Has he changed enough of his offensive game to be considered a great PG? Apparently, you think he has, but I don't. I'd go even further to say that if we had the same defense as last year, we'd have lost all of the previous games except the Bulls game, then we'd have seen all the "trade Francis" threads. --daoshi
Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear on which quote I was talking about from Van Gundy. The one I was referring to was made after the Bulls game. He said one of the reasons the shooting was good was because of the good passing, and that good ball movement usually gives players good shots, thus they make more. That was the paraphrase, of course. JVG hasn't been afraid to speak plainly to the media, so I don't think he said any of that to be diplomatic towards Francis. That's not his style. I think the reason for Van Gundy clarifying his remarks earlier was because people might have taken them the wrong way, or put way more importance on them than he ever intended
From memory - don't we beat the Nets fairly regularly? If their defense is set up so that their opponents take the perimeter play then surely that means establishing the post will be more difficult anyway? And since we have such a strength on the perimeter in our guards, perhaps Jersey need to re-think the way they defend us! I don't have a problem with the guards taking shots, mainly because they are both proven scorers! Now I want to agree with you that it would be a shame if the post is ignored, but I don't think that it is being ignored, simply that it has been defended reasonably well so far. I don't see Ming getting as many touches in the post as Hakeem did in 93, simply because we have a legitimate all-star who is in the prime of his career in another position.
Jeff, I love that you said that! That's what this team was was missing from the past. Key words: judgment call, given circumstances, split-second decision making in ALL (different) situations. The problem was that they only knew how to attack a "given circumstance" in a limited way (i.e. go ISO; take the game over, take it upon oneself). Being a specialist or "great" at one thing is fine for "role players" But not the leaders of ones team. So, that's why "HOW" the team reacts in different situations and KNOW how to attack it differently (if need be) is sooo important. Sometimes you have to learn how to win a "defensive struggle" game. But most other times you can just let the system flow (use the system to help you score "easily"). But that just depends on how well your team plays as a TEAM and how much offensive talent you have. So it will vary from team to team. But the key is having a team that can win *many* ways. Not just outscoring you like Dallas, or out defending you, like NJ. Well, let's look at that...Sure, winning is the ultimate goal. Winning the "ugly way" is fine, sometimes. But that's not the best way to achieve consistent success. You need balance. So, the team (if balanced) should make it easier on itself if they can use offense AND defense. You need to know both. So, "how" you win is dependent on how much offensive talent you have, and how much of the "system (JVG)" helps you gain that advantage. Thus, "ugly ball" may seem like it means only "lack of aesthetics." It also means "not balanced" or "limited offense" or "defensive team." So, if winning is all that matters, and you do it in a "ugly way," that could also mean that you are not utilizing all your talent within the system (Rudy ball vs JVG ball) and that your overall talent level is lacking offensively (team depth; one star vs two or more). So, "how you win" is just as important as "that you win." They are directly related. Especially if you want to win consistently, against many types of opponents, and for many years in a row, i.e. Dynasty.
