I'm also saying the Suns could win it... and if they do, its more of a testament to STEVE NASH than it is to their actual style of play by itself. You said Nash is good and all, but the style of play is more important... I asked you what other players could have the same impact as Steve Nash did on the Suns (turn them into contenders, while winning MVP's)... and that's where we are. But, for your argument to truly hold water (that the style of play is all a team needs to be successful)... there should be multiple teams that follow suit, and contend if the Suns do eventually win it all. You're asking for a "fun and gun" revolution of sorts. I'm saying its all very unlikely. Sure, the Suns may win... all the credit will go to Nash... and countless of other pretender teams will soon realize that you can't just fun and gun and expect similiar success (like Dallas and Sacramento realized in the 90's). Also, I arleady said that in the 70's and 80's, several teams played uptempo... but they also had the ability to play defense, and execute in the half-court if needed. To do that, your PG has to be just as good in those situations as he was in the fastbreak ones (and so far, only Magic Johnson and Steve Nash have come close). The 80's Celtics could grind it out with the 80's Lakers... it wasn't all fun and gun. You don't need to blame the Bad Boys for anything... they simply proved that playing to a team's strengths wins games. The NBA will always be about halfcourt execution, defense, rebounding, and intensity... those are the teams that will win championships. If Phoenix does it this year, they'll be the first BAD defensive team to win it all since god knows when.... but its just that much more credit to Nash and his ability to execute.
How can u say that?? U are calling JVG a top 4/5 coach when we havent done anything w/ him, and disrespecting the Suns when they have repeatedly gone deep in the playoffs in the past 3 years. And they didnt exactly get their asses whooped or anything by SA. U dont think they can win this year?? I sure as hell do. Not only are they fun to watch, they dont turn the ball over, shoot excellent 3s and FTs, are extremely diciplined for a team running as much as they do, and have quality depth, with 3 superstars. People get carried away w/ the notion of the Rockets and that their style is better than Phoenix's, etc. just because we have a center with TMAC and play great defense. But what about our offense?? Our defense will not be able to hold Phoenix, Dallas or SA to mid 80s in the playoffs. So can we put up 95-100 in a 7 game series against them and win?? Remains to be seen. But how about we actually win a series first be4 calling us better than Phoenix? JVG is an above average coach who can only win w/ great talent. But then so can about 25 other coaches in this league. He is slow in making adjustments, as easily seen earlier w/ us blowing leads this year. He doesnt trust rookies, which minimizes depth. And doenst play knuckheads, which again reduces talent on the court. I would take at least 9 to 10 coaches over him right now. Easily.
OK, stop, I have never said that it was the ONLY way to win......but said that it certainly is one way to win. And that the Suns are a very good bet to win with that style this year... I agree with you that you should play to the players strengths...... And, I think the Rockets are playing that way....for the most part. DD
Sure, its one way to win... if you have a guy like Steve Nash running the team (and note, they haven't won anything yet). Its not the best way, however, as you would need a PG that talented to make a team that ran that system a consistent contender. And so far, those PG's only come around once every 15-20 years (whereas quality big men who dominate the half-court game are in far greater supply).
I disagree that PGs only come along every 15-20 years, sure ones as good as Nash, but I would argue that there are other PGs that could be capable of running that style, but have not had the talent around them to do it, nor the coaches trust. I am merely saying that the running style can be effective....look how good Memphis is playing...with the same players? It depends on the roster. DD
Why do threads like this continue to appear on this board? Negative threads or positive threads, can we just appreciate that the man and the team is WINNING despite Yao being on the bench. To paraphrase a great man..."You would think we were 12-20". The only topic more devisive than anything JVG related is politics. Sad to see people b****ing about a coach leading an injured 20-12 team.
You're really underestimating Steve Nash and Magic Johnson if you think there are other PG's that can control the game like they do. TJ Ford and Derron Williams won't be winning MVP's at that position. Jason Kidd was close, but even he couldn't get his team over the hump. Same goes for Mike Bibby. John Stockton was the closest to Magic Johnson until Nash took his game up a notch the last 3 years (and I have a ton of respect for the guy, but I'll take Magic and Nash's open court skills, as well as their physical/athletic ability) Now you're arguing that a team needs all the talent as well as the super duper PG.... jeez, you're making it that much harder for another fun and gun team to become a contender (which is why you won't see this trend occuring/succeeding any time soon). Don't be fooled my Memphis... a playoff team last year with Pau, and now playing better that Pau is back (but still losing to better teams). They also have the element of suprise factor as teams weren't preparing for them to run... now they will. Also, isn't it funny how Memphis (who always played pretty good defense under Hubie Brown and Fratello) all of a sudden are giving up 115+ a game now? Why is it that teams that decide to run today refuse to play defense? When they start taking down San Antonio and Dallas by playing that style (or even Houston) then make an argument. Running styles are always "effective"... but if you want a team to win championships, you better well have that once in a decade PG in place, or expect to play some defense and rebound. Magic's teams did play defense and rebound under Riley... that's a big part of the reason why he was in the finals 9 out of 11 years (while Nash hasn't gotten there yet... but could this year).
Again you make leaps of logic....where did I say you can't play defense when you run and gun? My point is that if your talent is better suited to run, then you should take advantage of it.... Right now, the Rockets are not that team, especially with Yao on the floor. However, I contend that it is an effective strategy and can win it all, my pick to win it all this year is Dallas (Yeck) but Phoenix would be my 2nd choice. DD DD
I didn't say you said that.... it was just a general curiosity. Since these run and gun teams are so great at offense... why can't they be great at defense as well? Memphis is/was a good defensive team... but since they started running, they're one of the worst. Do you have any theories on why that is? The 80's Lakers played defense... so did the Celtics (who averaged 100+ every year). But, Doug Moe's Nuggets did not... even though they were scoring more than anybody around... and thus you never saw them attached to championships. Also, I'm not sure if Memphis is better suited to run (when they're a completely helathy team)... Pau Gasol needs the ball in the post/face-up, and isn't much of a transition finisher or spot-up shooter in transition (like Dirk is). He is their best player... wouldn't you want to build your team around your best player's strengths? If they want to trade him, the Rockets will gladly trade some speedy PG in JLIII or even your beloved V-Span, in exchange for a guy who could give Yao some much needed protection.
Dallas runs a decent fast break, but I wouldn't call them a running team. I don't know where they rank in fast break points, but in terms of possessions/minute they are the 4th slowest team in the league. A break down of where in the shot clock they attempt field goals, compared to some other team: Code: [B]Shot Clock DAL PHO DEN HOU[/B] 0-10 34% 44% 47% 33% 11-15 23% 30% 29% 29% 16-20 26% 17% 17% 26% 21+ 17% 9% 7% 12% Just from this breakdown, Dallas appears like they might fast break a little more than Houston, but their half court sets take much longer to develop.
I didn't think he said Dallas was a running team... in fact, they're the perfect example of how you can make a run and gun team (which they were under Nelson) BETTER... if you get them to play with more structure, and commit to defense.
Its not b****ing, its a good debate. I'm sure SA, Phoenix, and Dallas fans argue about stuff all the time despite the winning. What are u going to do on blogs otherwise? Rockets are good.....yeah, i agree.....LOL that would be quite boring besides, this is always going to be a hot topic, cause there is sooo much difference in opinion on the subject. There are people like yourself who appreciate JVGs hardwork and love him. There are others, like myself, who while respect him, treat him for the same way he treats his players on. Results. When his players dont perform, he trades, cuts, or benches them. Well, he's overhauled the roster to his liking now, and has the 2nd longest tenure for head coach currently in the NBA.........its about time he got out the first round dont ya think???
How is this posisbly right? Jerry Sloan and Poppovich beat him in tenure (off the top of my head). Then, Riley was at Miami before (even though he let SVG run the show while he was the puppet master), and Phil was in LA before (minus the 1 year break). The rest of the teams suck (or have sucked) thus you'd expect them to cycle thru coaches every 2 years (with the exception of LB in detroit fiasco).
I'm sorry, he's 3rd. I think Jerry, Pop, and then JVG. Stan was at Miami be4 last year. and Phil missed a year in the middle.
Faulty math. Also, Riley has always been in charge in Miami... don't be fooled by the puppet regime he installed in SVG. Riley killed himself trying to beat JVG's Knicks in the late 90's with Mourning, stepped down when he knew that team wasn't good enough (but still made the decisions to get Odom, draft Wade, etc.), and as soon as they got good enough (Shaq), he stepped back in.
Is it really necessary to go over all the counter-examples here? He asks that the players play intelligently and play hard. If they do those things, he gives them a pretty long leash, in my view. Sometimes too long. Rafer and Juwan have both gone through long stretches where they've performed poorly but still gotten minutes. He hasn't benched any player who wasn't already on the fringe of the rotation to begin with. You're problem isn't that he's giving up on players; it's that you don't feel he gives players you want to see play enough of a chance to get into the rotation. Which player has he traded (remind me, is he the GM again?) or cut that you thought should not have been? He's not the GM, so I don't know why you're crediting him with overhauling the roster. But even so, hasn't our roster improved dramatically over what it was 4 years ago? Outside of a few blunders, I thought most of our personnel moves the last few years have been solid. I think most of us even thought the Swift and Anderson aquisitions were reasonable, even though they turned out to be busts. The Charlie Ward signing was a cheapie. The only really questionable move in my opinion was trading Mike James for Rafer Alston.
