Page 1 of 1

Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:54 pm
by moofs

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:07 pm
by MaxRider
moofs wrote:http://www.newzealand2009.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/team/p/sid/3183/tid/379/_/2004_Olympic_Games_Tournament_for_Men/accumulated-statistics.html

Can anyone spot the problem?

they blamed it on larry brown
who they said don't like to use young players like lebron, wade, melo
i blamed on bad scouting and picking players
nobody can shoot on that team
basically every country just packed the lane and force them to shoot 3
remember you can play all zone in FIBA (there is no defensive 3 seconds rule)
they can have 5 players stand inside the paint

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:08 pm
by TMU
Chuckers in Allen Iverson, Richard Jefferson, and Dwyane Wade.

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:59 pm
by Optimism Prime
MaxRider wrote:
moofs wrote:http://www.newzealand2009.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/team/p/sid/3183/tid/379/_/2004_Olympic_Games_Tournament_for_Men/accumulated-statistics.html

Can anyone spot the problem?

they blamed it on larry brown


I blame Larry Brown. To this day, no matter what anyone else does, LB will remain my #1 most-hated person involved with the NBA, because he cost us a gold medal and made us the laughingstock of the world. Unacceptable.
who they said don't like to use young players like lebron, wade, melo

He was also on record as saying "Yeah, an Iverson/Marbury backcourt doesn't seem to be working, but I won't change it because I'm the coach." Seriously? GTFO. If it's not working, make some ****ing adjustments. Maybe play the young guys! Melo/Lebron/Amare played fewer combined minutes than Iverson or Marbury. I get that they were young, and we didn't know just how good they could be, but let's be real here: in 03-04, Amare averaged 21/9, Lebron 21/6/6, Melo 21/6/3. You don't think that leaving 63 NBA ppg on the bench was a bad idea?
i blamed on bad scouting and picking players
nobody can shoot on that team
basically every country just packed the lane and force them to shoot 3
remember you can play all zone in FIBA (there is no defensive 3 seconds rule)
they can have 5 players stand inside the paint

Valid points, but a lesser flaw that Larry Brown's stubbornness. The international 3 is shorter than the NBA; that's the kind of thing that can be fixed in practice/game prep. "RJ, Melo--you're now our designated shooters. Go make 500 3's a day and we'll call it good. MOVE."

This is a touchy subject with me. Sorry. I will not budge from this position: LB cost us a gold, and I will punch him in the neck if I ever see him walking down the street.

In. The. Neck.

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:45 pm
by MaxRider
it is bad scouting
you know larry brown is the coach (who don't like young players) and you go out and give him bunches of young players
what is the deal?
if you know mike d'antoni is the coach
will you give him bunches of players with on offensive skill?

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:23 am
by Ribalding
Gah!

Those stats are a basketball purist's Kafka nightmare. Look at the assist numbers. No one even averaged 3.5 assists per game. Not a one. Stephon For Crying Out Loud Marbury led the team with 3.3 assists per game. When Stephon leads your team in ANY category, you know you're screwed.

With the exception of Duncan, that roster could contend for the most selfish team in history.

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:39 am
by kam_soluusar
The hardest thing to teach an NBA player, is how to control their Ego. We see it time and time again! Headcases, people so wrapped up in their own self worth, that they can't see past the B.S. It doesn't help that America, (and I am generalising here, so cut me some slack,) seems to put people up on a pedastal, and collectively wait for them to fall. Lebron was god in Cleveland, and now I reckon he is about the most hated male in the state of Ohio!

Look at the 2004 team, how many Headcases are there? The only thing that may have made that team worse would have been if Shaq and Latrell Spreewell had played.

The other thing was arrogance. America, (and again I am generalising) couldn't fathom that any other basketball team might beat them. Since the original '92 Dream Team, it was highly improbable that there would be any team that could run with NBA players. What they failed to realise, was that '92 and '96 won by Shock and Awe! The rest of the world caught up, (How many "International" players are there in the NBA now, as compared to 1992?)

This '04 squad had no "true" PG. and that is a major problem in International Basketball. There was also no dominant Centre either, (You have had Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, Shaq) up until this point. In international ball, they can park underneath the ring, and swat shots like flies, also, as soon as the ball hits the ring, provided it is not going down, ie not dropping off a bounce, you can grab the board. This means the need for a true Centre is Paramount. the '04 squad had no pure SG either, (Ray Allen anyone?) someone who can light it up all day off jumpshots, and is happy to do so. Most SG's in the NBA are move/slash type players, in fact, Mike Miller and Ray Allen are the only current SG's that I can think of that fit this description of "pure" shooters!

So you can blame the coach, and ultimately, he deserves his Lions share of the blame. However one must also criticize the selection process!

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:27 pm
by moofs
Ribalding wrote:Gah!

Those stats are a basketball purist's Kafka nightmare. Look at the assist numbers. No one even averaged 3.5 assists per game. Not a one. Stephon For Crying Out Loud Marbury led the team with 3.3 assists per game. When Stephon leads your team in ANY category, you know you're screwed.

With the exception of Duncan, that roster could contend for the most selfish team in history.


I was looking at how 7 players took over 50 shots, and 4 of them (including the top 2 shot-"creators" Marbury and Iverson) shot right-at to well-under 40%. Didn't notice that between both of them they only dished 5.6 a game. Combine those percentages with 39 rpg, compared to 42+ for a good rebounding NBA team, and voila!

LB was at least partially at fault for not benching two of the most overrated (by teams) players the NBA's ever had in the midst of some career-defining performances.

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:59 pm
by Buttermaker
kam_soluusar wrote:(Ray Allen anyone?)

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... ug=allen15

Re: Why we were reamed in the 2004 Olympics

Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:01 pm
by tha_rock220
Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury were why. The other teams loved watching those guys put up contested jumpers while they packed the lane around Duncan. I'm so happy neither of those jackasses ever got rings and are on their way to being broke. They cost Timmy his gold medal.