RealGM

http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2013/ ... ker-dudley

Good article. Not sure if we'll ever be able to turn into the defensive team he wants us to, though. We don't have the personnel for it, and it hasn't been in our DNA for the majority of my lifetime( http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2013/ ... #149102335 )

rsavaj wrote:http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2013/3/11/4079766/phoenix-suns-nba-lindsey-hunter-defense-over-offense-dragic-oneal-tucker-dudley

Good article. Not sure if we'll ever be able to turn into the defensive team he wants us to, though. We don't have the personnel for it, and it hasn't been in our DNA for the majority of my lifetime( http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2013/ ... #149102335 )

That makes me very optimistic

Again, I could care less about this year's draft; it is a crapshoot! Build a winning culture!!

Winning culture comes from talent my friend. I think everyone knows I am not a fan of hunter. Unfortunately this team doesn't have a "necessary offensive force" needed. The team lacks offense badly. Unfortunately all hunter knows is defense so it is what it is.

I believe you have to have balance. You can't just focus on defense. Good teams have balance. Great teams are usually good on both ends.

This is one comment that irritates me "Now under Hunter, the entire focus is defense while Hunter just wants the offense to function enough to get the job done". To me that's an assistant coaches job, to focus on one thing. So I guess hunters half coaching is ok I guess. Unfortunately if the game is close don't expect hunter to contribute.

He is a head coach which means he needs to coach everything. Which he isn't.

This isn't the 90s, you can't just focus on defense in an offense enforced league.

It is interesting to think about the "offensive DNA" that we assume we have.

1) Almost none of the offensive-based people are in the organization anymore (players and staff).

2) Sarver is banking Babby and Blanks, which chose Hunter over all other easier options, so they seem to have their minds set on the defensive attitude as well. One can argue that, since they have no plan, they might change their minds any minute, but I do not follow that line of thought. I assume business men to be rational and not so short-term oriented.

3) Current players that think on offense only are being benched (hard), and that is the best and fastest way to change one's way to see basketball.

You can argue that fans will not support the new culture, and therefore falling revenues and interest will force management to change their attitude. I'd argue that if results show up, it won't really matter how we're playing - as long as we're winning, fans will show up (you always want to be remembered as the champion, not the most entertaining basketball team in the league (see Brazilian soccer team in 1982 as a good example for that).

All in all, I believe the defensive-orientation is here to stay. And it saddens me, cause I loved the offensive basketball we used to play.

MathiasPW wrote:It is interesting to think about the "offensive DNA" that we assume we have.

1) Almost none of the offensive-based people are in the organization anymore (players and staff).

2) Sarver is banking Babby and Blanks, which chose Hunter over all other easier options, so they seem to have their minds set on the defensive attitude as well. One can argue that, since they have no plan, they might change their minds any minute, but I do not follow that line of thought. I assume business men to be rational and not so short-term oriented.

3) Current players that think on offense only are being benched (hard), and that is the best and fastest way to change one's way to see basketball.

You can argue that fans will not support the new culture, and therefore falling revenues and interest will force management to change their attitude. I'd argue that if results show up, it won't really matter how we're playing - as long as we're winning, fans will show up (you always want to be remembered as the champion, not the most entertaining basketball team in the league (see Brazilian soccer team in 1982 as a good example for that).

All in all, I believe the defensive-orientation is here to stay. And it saddens me, cause I loved the offensive basketball we used to play.

I agree with everything but number 3. It's actually not true. Offensive players are being more encouraged. Players like Crawford, griffin, Nash, Parker, durant arent exactly known as defensive players but that can score the heck out of the basketball. Offense is more encouraged in today's NBA. Even recent rules have made it easier for the offensive players.

Sunsdeuce wrote:Winning culture comes from talent my friend.

I can spot a non-athlete at the drop of a dime

1. Only 1 team in the NBA currently which can be very competitive without stars... Spurs
2. Winning culture is not on court level... But ownership and FO... Ala Lakers etc who will pay 30 million tax to challenge for championship. It's a company wide policy.... Do you see Suns paying 30 million over the cap to be a contender... Certainly not without any stars at the moment. No suns player is worth max or near it currently.
3. Suns have no championships to base a model after... Meaning Suns should be taking a risk or model after a championship franchise... Spurs, Lakers, Heat.. Take a pick.

JMAC, I know your trying to be funny and all. But seriously all the great coaches say it, Talent is what wins.

Im actually really athletic, i recently won a long and brutal game of Call of Duty black OPS. Those kids are all-star gamers, let me tell you. And their parents even let them stay up late.

1UPZ wrote:1. Only 1 team in the NBA currently which can very competitive without stars... Spurs
2. Winning culture of not on court level... But ownership and FO... Ala Lakers etc who will pay 30 million tax to challenge for championship. It's a company wide policy.... Do you see Suns paying 30 million over the cap to be a contender... Certainly not without any stars at the moment. No suns player is worth max or near it currently.
3. Suns have no championships to base a model after... Meaning Suns should be taking a risk or model after a championship franchise... Spurs, Lakers, Heat.. Take a pick.

Actually that is the best way to put. Winning starts from the TOP down, meaning FO down.

1UPZ wrote:1. Only 1 team in the NBA currently which can very competitive without stars... Spurs
2. Winning culture of not on court level... But ownership and FO... Ala Lakers etc who will pay 30 million tax to challenge for championship. It's a company wide policy.... Do you see Suns paying 30 million over the cap to be a contender... Certainly not without any stars at the moment. No suns player is worth max or near it currently.
3. Suns have no championships to base a model after... Meaning Suns should be taking a risk or model after a championship franchise... Spurs, Lakers, Heat.. Take a pick.

Denver is quite competitive without any stars. They just out hustle you, guys play their role well, and Karl does a great job of handling them. Moreover, their home court record is insane, and I don't see many teams going into their building and coming out with a win. In the playoffs, having two home games consecutively, they could easily build momentum and take a series.

RunDogGun wrote:

1UPZ wrote:1. Only 1 team in the NBA currently which can very competitive without stars... Spurs
2. Winning culture of not on court level... But ownership and FO... Ala Lakers etc who will pay 30 million tax to challenge for championship. It's a company wide policy.... Do you see Suns paying 30 million over the cap to be a contender... Certainly not without any stars at the moment. No suns player is worth max or near it currently.
3. Suns have no championships to base a model after... Meaning Suns should be taking a risk or model after a championship franchise... Spurs, Lakers, Heat.. Take a pick.

Denver is quite competitive without any stars. They just out hustle you, guys play their role well, and Karl does a great job of handling them. Moreover, their home court record is insane, and I don't see many teams going into their building and coming out with a win. In the playoffs, having two home games consecutively, they could easily build momentum and take a series.

Nuggets are amazingly deep.
No all stars but 3-4 fringe all-stars or semi-stars.

Lawson
Iguadala
Faried
Gallinari

And then you have Brewer, McGee etc who come off the bench.

They have 6-7 legit contributors who would are starters on many good teams.

Suns have 2 starter calibers in Dragic and Gortat. And an ideal 6th man in Dudley.
The rest are either "still" prospects or unwanted players.

They are deep, but nothing that we couldn't have had with a better coaching staff. Brewer has done great, but remember, he was acquired with Rudy for a second round pick. They had cap space to do so, like we do, as well as having multiple second rounders to help those transactions come to fruition.

Moreover, they seem to be constantly injured at one position or another.

Again, I think much of our talent was hindered by the poor coaching staff and complete lack of discipline.

RunDogGun wrote:They are deep, but nothing that we couldn't have had with a better coaching staff. Brewer has done great, but remember, he was acquired with Rudy for a second round pick. They had cap space to do so, like we do, as well as having multiple second rounders to help those transactions come to fruition.

Moreover, they seem to be constantly injured at one position or another.

Again, I think much of our talent was hindered by the poor coaching staff and complete lack of discipline.

I know you've harped on that point quite a bit, but can you like find an article or something that says something about Gentry's lack of discipline/the player's subbing themselves in?

I don't mean this as a challenge. I'm actually genuinely curious to read what you've read.

rsavaj wrote:

RunDogGun wrote:They are deep, but nothing that we couldn't have had with a better coaching staff. Brewer has done great, but remember, he was acquired with Rudy for a second round pick. They had cap space to do so, like we do, as well as having multiple second rounders to help those transactions come to fruition.

Moreover, they seem to be constantly injured at one position or another.

Again, I think much of our talent was hindered by the poor coaching staff and complete lack of discipline.

I know you've harped on that point quite a bit, but can you like find an article or something that says something about Gentry's lack of discipline/the player's subbing themselves in?

I don't mean this as a challenge. I'm actually genuinely curious to read what you've read.

Gortat recently taked about the discipline. I'm on my iPad, so it's tough to search out articles. As for the players subbing themselves, do I really need to find an article? Did you watch games in 2010? Multiple times starters either walked back to the bench on their own, or looked back to the coach questioning whether they should be checking in.

I just googled "Alvin Gentry lacks discipline" and this was the second article:

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/ar ... entry.html

The last part, Babby mentions the need for discipline and execution. Moreover, it was quite obvious that players were allowed to do what they wanted. One of the first few games of Hunter, he called a timeout, and I said, Beasley better not be back in the game, and he wasn't. Gentry often would get upset with the squad or player, but would leave them in the game, only to make the same mistakes. We are running almost the same offense, yet we see a lot less iso plays.

Gentry is a nice guy, and a decent assistant coach. Oh well, this has been beaten to death. But it does have some ground in Hunter's coaching and the difference.

Not to be rude but as soon as babby starts saying something stop listening (or in the case stop reading).

Sunsdeuce wrote:Winning culture comes from talent my friend. I think everyone knows I am not a fan of hunter. Unfortunately this team doesn't have a "necessary offensive force" needed. The team lacks offense badly. Unfortunately all hunter knows is defense so it is what it is.

I believe you have to have balance. You can't just focus on defense. Good teams have balance. Great teams are usually good on both ends.

This is one comment that irritates me "Now under Hunter, the entire focus is defense while Hunter just wants the offense to function enough to get the job done". To me that's an assistant coaches job, to focus on one thing. So I guess hunters half coaching is ok I guess. Unfortunately if the game is close don't expect hunter to contribute.

He is a head coach which means he needs to coach everything. Which he isn't.

This isn't the 90s, you can't just focus on defense in an offense enforced league.

So to keep in line with the recent advance in civil discord I want to ask a simple question of you. Have you read any interviews by reporters of Hunter in regards to offense. There are at least two. One where he said he it was too much of a change to implement a new offense mid-season and a second where he said he will replace the offense next season if he is retained. At that point he would be coaching both sides and so I think it is unfair to make a general statement that he can't coach offense.

Now in my opinion he has made some very smart choices as a head coach ... 1) He knew Majerle and Turner would not have his back. You want your guys to support you in every way. If not you jettison them. That is the number one rule in management. You have to believe in your team and they have to believe in you. 2) He shows he trusts his assistant coaches he picked by letting Igor run the offense ... in real life that is a supervisor delegating work to his team. Happens everyday in business, 3) He has a lot young guys who really don't have much NBA experience. Both Morris' brothers are practically rookies this year. They didn't have a summer league or long training camp their rookie year because of the lockout. I would never hire an young employee and try to throw everything I could at them in the first 3 months of their job. To me again Hunter is applying a technique managers use in real life. I certainly have. 4) I don't think it is fair to say Hunter doesn't know offense. You can not be a 17 year point guard in the league and not understand offense. Plus he played on two championship teams ... one under Phil Jackson's complicated triangle offense. Nash and company had a difficult time adapting to the Princeton offense under Brown and I think we all agree Nash would make a good coach. All of us would admit the Lakers have talent (Kobe, Nash, Gasol, Howard, Peace) are all more talented than any Suns player. Why did they lose so badly. It takes time to understand the system and gel into a cohesive team.

To me you don't just make change after change (new coach, new GM, new players, etc) hoping to find a winning combination. Move a piece here and there slowly making incremental improvements. The Spurs are good because of consistent fundamentals. Minimal turnover in players, coaches, and systems have keep them in the hunt for years. This exactly opposite of the Suns, ... four coaches, five GMs, and countless players since 2005.

Also... just NOTE...

in 2013-2014 and beyond... there are a few teams who will be paying HUGE tax money...
Which in my opinion plays a big factor for 2014 FAs...

Teams with players on ROOKIE contracts (a few of them) and 30-35 Million cap space would have space to sign 2 stars off the FA list.
Suns have that chance...

Knicks, Lakers, Thunder, Heat etc... would either be paying HUGE tax and trying to lower their pay roll or trading away one of their stars for cap relief..... only 1 champion per year and is it worth paying 50-100 Million on tax?? or risk it with 1 to 2 stars with minimum salaried players.. or play with stud rookies?

Suns have opportunity to be packed with players on rookie contracts, some stud(s).... and they can make their plea to star FAs that talent is deeper down at Phoenix...

RunDogGun wrote:

rsavaj wrote:

RunDogGun wrote:They are deep, but nothing that we couldn't have had with a better coaching staff. Brewer has done great, but remember, he was acquired with Rudy for a second round pick. They had cap space to do so, like we do, as well as having multiple second rounders to help those transactions come to fruition.

Moreover, they seem to be constantly injured at one position or another.

Again, I think much of our talent was hindered by the poor coaching staff and complete lack of discipline.

I know you've harped on that point quite a bit, but can you like find an article or something that says something about Gentry's lack of discipline/the player's subbing themselves in?

I don't mean this as a challenge. I'm actually genuinely curious to read what you've read.

Gortat recently taked about the discipline. I'm on my iPad, so it's tough to search out articles. As for the players subbing themselves, do I really need to find an article? Did you watch games in 2010? Multiple times starters either walked back to the bench on their own, or looked back to the coach questioning whether they should be checking in.

I'm gonna be honest with you man...I don't remember starters checking themselves in and out of games. IIRC, the coaching staff always called them back or subbed them in. Maybe I wasn't watching closely. Anybody else get that impression?

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/ar ... erves.html

"Richardson and Lopez returned to their seats after seeing their substitutes hit big shots"

Lopez:"I looked down at the bench to coach. Alvin and I agreed that I should probably head back"

I was looking for video proof, but it's tough, because many just show highlights of the game, not the sideline story. Either way, I remember commentators talk about it during games. I remember watching players look back at the bench multiple times, visually questioning the coaching staff on whether they really should replace a guy. And I saw multiple players just walk back to the bench.

I'm not sure why I would have a bias back then, because I didn't really see the coaching issues that Gentry had, or didn't care about them because we were winning, and the team played like I would hope any true team would play (unselfishly).

I have a really good memory, and often, once I see it, I usually can visually recall it in my head. Sometimes it is a good thing, and sometimes I can recall bad things, not so good.

Oh well, I'm sorry that you didn't see it, maybe you were caught up in the the team chemistry as well (which was an amazing sight to see).