Game 33: Memphis Grizzlies (10-24) @ Los Angeles Lakers (11-21) - LOSS - 11-22

[Michael Lucky]

Lonzo's injury is showing me what a game changer that kid is. We look like a completely different team without him. And not in a good way. He needs to come back ASAP. JC/Ingram at PG isn't going to cut it.

whens he coming back?

never, we're tanking our way to the second round.

[iQon]

Just got back and only saw the boxscore. What were the positives?

Watch on YouTube

Spoiler:

We got our handed to us.

[RamonSessions7]

Hahaha "hire Mark Jackson!". Just no.

[Landsberger]

Just got back and only saw the boxscore. What were the positives?

Ingram was decent most of the game with the exception of FT shooting.

Clarkson had a decent 4th quarter after a dreadful first half.

Nance was good most of the game doing what he does.... the little stuff.

That's about it. I think we had enough offense to win if we made our FT's. The difference in the game was our inability to stop Memphis from getting to the hoop. One particular stretch when Randle was playing the 5 was as bad as I've seen this year. Memphis was calling out alternate plays when we switched at the point and then going to the mismatch. The typical Luke "hey what about this" lineups had no continuity defensively and most of the time we were missing rotations and/or assignments. Defensively it was a complete train wreck. Giving up 109 to Memphis had nothing to do with our offensive distribution. We could have won this without Lonzo offensively if we hit our damn free throws. Where we got used was on the defensive end. Lonzo would have helped there.

[Lakernut4ever]

Just got back and only saw the boxscore. What were the positives?

Ingram was decent most of the game with the exception of FT shooting.

Clarkson had a decent 4th quarter after a dreadful first half.

Nance was good most of the game doing what he does.... the little stuff.

That's about it. I think we had enough offense to win if we made our FT's. The difference in the game was our inability to stop Memphis from getting to the hoop. One particular stretch when Randle was playing the 5 was as bad as I've seen this year. Memphis was calling out alternate plays when we switched at the point and then going to the mismatch. The typical Luke "hey what about this" lineups had no continuity defensively and most of the time we were missing rotations and/or assignments. Defensively it was a complete train wreck. Giving up 109 to Memphis had nothing to do with our offensive distribution. We could have won this without Lonzo offensively if we hit our damn free throws. Where we got used was on the defensive end. Lonzo would have helped there.

Starting to doubt Luke as our long term coach that will bring us over the edge...his rotations horrible and can't make adjustments to save his life...Are we really tanking again or Luke is just clueless? Great coaches can make do with what cards that have been given and sometimes still win with an undermanned team..Pop is a great example...

[Landsberger]

Just got back and only saw the boxscore. What were the positives?

Ingram was decent most of the game with the exception of FT shooting.

Clarkson had a decent 4th quarter after a dreadful first half.

Nance was good most of the game doing what he does.... the little stuff.

That's about it. I think we had enough offense to win if we made our FT's. The difference in the game was our inability to stop Memphis from getting to the hoop. One particular stretch when Randle was playing the 5 was as bad as I've seen this year. Memphis was calling out alternate plays when we switched at the point and then going to the mismatch. The typical Luke "hey what about this" lineups had no continuity defensively and most of the time we were missing rotations and/or assignments. Defensively it was a complete train wreck. Giving up 109 to Memphis had nothing to do with our offensive distribution. We could have won this without Lonzo offensively if we hit our damn free throws. Where we got used was on the defensive end. Lonzo would have helped there.

Starting to doubt Luke as our long term coach that will bring us over the edge...his rotations horrible and can't make adjustments to save his life...Are we really tanking again or Luke is just clueless? Great coaches can make do with what cards that have been given and sometimes still win with an undermanned team..Pop is a great example...

Bad teams have a couple ways to get coaches. Overpay like crazy for a top level experienced coach or give other team's assistant coaches a shot. Rarely does a coach of the team when it sucks make all the way to when the team is good again. Think of the 90's Lakers. Del Harris guided the team to some playoff berths but it took Phil to get us over the top.

The idea that all of our draft picks are going to be a great team given a couple more years is as misplaced as the thought that Luke will grow into a top level coach. At some point potential is achieved.... most of the time it's well short of expectations.

[stan francisco]

It'll be apparent when Lonzo comes back how good his defense truly is.

[stan francisco]

Ingram was decent most of the game with the exception of FT shooting.

Clarkson had a decent 4th quarter after a dreadful first half.

Nance was good most of the game doing what he does.... the little stuff.

That's about it. I think we had enough offense to win if we made our FT's. The difference in the game was our inability to stop Memphis from getting to the hoop. One particular stretch when Randle was playing the 5 was as bad as I've seen this year. Memphis was calling out alternate plays when we switched at the point and then going to the mismatch. The typical Luke "hey what about this" lineups had no continuity defensively and most of the time we were missing rotations and/or assignments. Defensively it was a complete train wreck. Giving up 109 to Memphis had nothing to do with our offensive distribution. We could have won this without Lonzo offensively if we hit our damn free throws. Where we got used was on the defensive end. Lonzo would have helped there.

Starting to doubt Luke as our long term coach that will bring us over the edge...his rotations horrible and can't make adjustments to save his life...Are we really tanking again or Luke is just clueless? Great coaches can make do with what cards that have been given and sometimes still win with an undermanned team..Pop is a great example...

Bad teams have a couple ways to get coaches. Overpay like crazy for a top level experienced coach or give other team's assistant coaches a shot. Rarely does a coach of the team when it sucks make all the way to when the team is good again. Think of the 90's Lakers. Del Harris guided the team to some playoff berths but it took Phil to get us over the top.

The idea that all of our draft picks are going to be a great team given a couple more years is as misplaced as the thought that Luke will grow into a top level coach. At some point potential is achieved.... most of the time it's well short of expectations.

Yeah, but also no. What you say is true for most coaches. Luke's case is different. This is why:

If you wanted to make a good coach you couldn't possibly raise one in a better environment. Dad HOF center and linguist who was friends with most of the NBA players of his time. Coach John Wooden, perhaps the greatest team sports coaching mind ever, is practically his grampa. Then the years of watching Phil while playing for him, the winningest NBA coach ever and his assistant Tex Yoda Winters. Luke heard PJ preach and teach and guide them to winning rings three long seasons in a row, going to fourth finals in a row but losing. Then the Warriors and Steve Kerr experience. Add to all that, that as a player, Luke had a great eye and mind for the game and was a starting role player without any strong skill nor any athletic ability. For Phil Jackson on a championship team.

So, no, it's not the same as for some Spurs assistant whose potential might flare up and die over a few inconsistent seasons. Luke is here to stay at a high level for a long time. I'm not saying he doesn't make mistakes. All new coaches do. But Luke knows way too much not to be a great teaching coach in a million different ways, not just Xs and Os.

[stan francisco]

Let's start with the #FireWalton trending! This is beyond unacceptable, a loss to the freaking Grizzlies at home, I'm sorry but this guy has to go. Fire him and hire Mark Jackson!

Did you put cocaine on your Frost Flakes this morning?

Try being patient with this team. The goal this season is not to win, it's to improve as much as possible. Not my words, Magic's. Sure losing isn't good for morale, but this roster without Lonzo doesn't play defense.

[Landsberger]

Yeah, but also no. What you say is true for most coaches. Luke's case is different. This is why:

If you wanted to make a good coach you couldn't possibly raise one in a better environment. Dad HOF center and linguist who was friends with most of the NBA players of his time. Coach John Wooden, perhaps the greatest team sports coaching mind ever, is practically his grampa. Then the years of watching Phil while playing for him, the winningest NBA coach ever and his assistant Tex Yoda Winters. Luke heard PJ preach and teach and guide them to winning rings three long seasons in a row, going to fourth finals in a row but losing. Then the Warriors and Steve Kerr experience. Add to all that, that as a player, Luke had a great eye and mind for the game and was a starting role player without any strong skill nor any athletic ability. For Phil Jackson on a championship team.

So, no, it's not the same as for some Spurs assistant whose potential might flare up and die over a few inconsistent seasons. Luke is here to stay at a high level for a long time. I'm not saying he doesn't make mistakes. All new coaches do. But Luke knows way too much not to be a great teaching coach in a million different ways, not just Xs and Os.

Here's the reality. Luke's coaching history is one of two things. Either he's got no talent around him, which means that our young guys might not be what we think they are, or he's not getting the most out of a talented bunch of young guys. Either way the results are the results and the results are not so good. At some point the team leadership will have to change one or the other. Time is running out to keep saying lack of time is the excuse.

I hear what you are saying but I'm not seeing anything in his approach or decisions that would lead me to believe he's "different".