Only if EG lived up the expection (Amare like).... We will dominate the paint in WEST. Francis is Ok. He has changed a lot for the team. I like him.
Great game by Steve and Yao. To all the Steve fans, this is what we've been talking about all year. We don't hate Steve, we're just frustrated that he doesn't play this well (ie. last couple of games) more often. Why settle for the glass half full when you can have the full glass?
Steve got lucky that they missed a free throw and gave us a chance to make a 2 instead of a 3 pointer. That 3 he took with 8 seconds left and us trailing by 1 was simply MORONIC, and typical. DD
I don't think thats true, supported by the 95-96 season when we were swept by the Sonics. They used a psuedo zone to collapse on Dream, and we were helpless. That psuedo zone was illegal back then but is legal now. The championship team would never have been that successful if the zone was allowed back then. The zone takes away from dominant post players and guys that can take it to the rack. It rewards jumpshooting teams that can make midrange shots, and that can catch and shoot off screens like the Kings.
I really think Steive was trying to make a shot ASAP when he attempted the 3. I mean, we were trailing by one and we need as many as possession as possible. It was not like he ignored wide-open Yao/JJ and threw a prayer while three people were guarding him. If he had missed (he did), there was still some time to foul Bucks player and get it back. Had he waited around and missed the layup/J etc, we would not have had the time to get the ball back and would have lost. DaDa and the gange would argue SF is a moron because he should have shot earlier. Let's face it, SF had another nice game, 21-10-8 with 3 TOs and tied the game with an impossible layup. He could have done different than shooting the 3 in the final seconds. But calling him a moron because of that play is really a hatred to him, which, unforunately, is not uncommon these days in the forum.
I would really love to for someone to ask him what was he thinking, and ask JVG why he didn't call a timeout.
Why don't you just concede that Steve has a terrible basketball IQ? It doesn't reflect on Steve as a person. He just has terrible court vision and makes poor decisions for a PG. Now, I happen to still think he's a good player. He has many good qualities: great hustle, great crossover, very athletic, good midrange game. But why defend him on the one thing that it's perfectly obvious he's bad at? The 3 almost certainly a bad decision. There was plenty of time to get a better shot - a 2 would have meant the win. It all worked out well, today, though...
based on what? we're #5 in 3 pt % at 36.4%. i believe in 93-94 we shot something actually quite low like 33% but i could have that confused with something else.
my initial thought was it wasn't that great but on second thought it was good because it was an open shot AND left time on the clock in case it didn't go in. what was your plan for that shot? nobody for the rockets was really back at that point and we certainly didn't have time to try to set up yao in the post. at best, steve could've dribbled 5 feet closer before the D closed on him. if the D closes and he chooses not to shoot we are almost certainly limited to one shot w/ no chance at fouling b/c of the clock and we also probably weren't going to get much of an open look if we let the D get back. so basically the only improvement on that situation is to waste another second and get a few feet closer which i don't see improving the prospects of the shot that greatly. arguing for a few feet versus the benefits of more time to do exactly what we did doesn't seem correct. steve may not have been thinking any of that as he shot but as it stands taking a shot with time left outweighs taking what would've been a contested shot and left no time for extra fouling. no other scenario (at least reasonably foreseeable, i guess the bucks in the paint could've just fallen down a second later) provided the same optimum combination of scoring now and leaving time to score later. agree? disagree? edit: essentially, the team trailing always leaves time for another shot. given that 2.9 remained when we fouled after the miss, anything that steve did that took more than 2.9 seconds would've screwed us as far as getting another shot. combine that with being open on the shot and no one else being back and also open, i say that shot was the best way to play that situation. outside of a layup, a jump shot is a jump shot with 7 seconds left and taking an open one is probably the best way to go.
Don't agree with this part at all. It was a long 3, Francis isn't really any good from that range, and he wasn't remotely set. I know Steve doesn't really spot-up to shoot, but he usually is leaning back, at least... didn't get himself ready. Definitely the best thing about it. I think, actually, he probably should have tried to drive. Maybe they could have trapped him, maybe not... but all in all, I think the odds of Francis scoring or getting fouled while driving are a lot better than when he's taking a shot that long. Hell, I was afraid it'd be an airball and go out of bounds. Disagree. If the 3 had been open, but long... I might buy it. Or if Francis were Mobley and shot a decent 3pt %. But with more than 8 seconds left on the clock... and Steve with the ball... I wish he'd have tried to make something happen. It was half-transition... something could have happened. Of course, maybe he'd have turned it over. But there'd still have been time on the clock for a foul. Doesn't take a guy like Steve long to go to the hoop. Just look at the bucket that tied the game for proof of that .
I think Steve Francis knew exactly what was going to happen when he shot that 3 pointer. He is by far the most genius mind in basketball and he can not only teach us how to play basketball with his incredible mind and athletesicm, but he can teach us how to live our life. Steve Francis is one of the greatest people the world has ever seen, ranking up on the list with Ghandi and Mother Teresa. There is no greater good than Steve Francis.
We should have called time. There was no reason to take that shot. We had a timeout, there was enough time after the rebound to set up a good shot, we were only down 1, and steve isn't a very good 3 point shooter.
as for driving, if this were just any part of the game i would say yes. but i'm paranoid as hell when it comes to driving at the end of a game. you most likely will get mauled while driving and the refs in almost all certainty will not make the call. i cannot stand to watch games (the rockets or just a game i'm watching) as a team tries to take it inside for critical points, gets crushed, the refs swallow their whistle, and the game ends. i almost don't want to see a team do anything but take a reasonable jumper b/c contact will always go against you on the offense (and i'm sure we've both seen more than enough examples to know it's true). and of course there's always the turnover/bad pass scenario. the only reason the end of the game happened was that way was because it was the only way because santiago (or gadzuric, they're the same person) was right on steve and would've blocked a 3. if a buck had been playing help D, we'd probably be sitting here b****ing even more about steve's first shot and wondering why steve was bleeding on the floor but no foul was called.
while i know calling time is jvg's favorite hobby, i'd rather have the timeout for the more critical last play when a decent scoring opportunity has presented itself on the current play. it was like him calling timeout with 1 on the shot clock instead of saving it for 5.5 seconds left and us needing a shot against phoenix. i was pissed then and would've been pissed now if we had used it too early. for once we had a timeout when we most desperately needed it (i.e. to advance the ball which we had already done on that play). now all this steve defending has made me hungry and wanna play basketball so i'm off to dominate at the gym for a few hours. i will reply to any more wrong answers later .
Drives me freakin' crazy. I hate it when people say things like "let the players decide the game." What the hell? How do you have a chance of winning when your hand gets slapped on the way up? Sorry, if the other team doesn't have to play by the rules... and they know it (or are at least pretty sure)... it's way too much to expect a team to "overcome" the referring. The only thing more annoying than the referees deciding the game like that, is the fact that there are always people afterwards saying, "that call didn't cost us the game... X, Y, and Z did." It makes you want to say: "dumbass... all games are close. And yes, people make mistakes in every game. But each one is a cause in fact of the loss - including the ref's ****ty call."
