Charley Rosen Hits the Mark

Ern III · Post #1 » by **Ern III** » Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:00 am

Absent any evidence to the contrary, it's hard to disagree with the old man.....

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7857428

The Sheik · Post #2 » by **The Sheik** » Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:10 am

he is still a tool bag.

Post #3 » by **DelaneyRudd** » Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:19 am

Seemed spot on to me.

d-will8 · Post #4 » by **d-will8** » Sun Mar 2, 2008 8:29 am

It's definitely an accurate analysis of one game and, obviously, he's correct in saying that the Jazz's play on the road is a problem. That being said, I don't agree with Rosen that "the future is much brighter" for the Hornets or that the Hornets have a better chance of going deep in the playoffs. If you've read Rosen more than a few times, you know that he reads too much into individual games and, thus, you probably shouldn't read too much into this analysis.

Duiz · Post #5 » by **Duiz** » Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:00 pm

I agree with his analysis of what went wrong... but you must accept that the 4th seed in the most competitive Conference standings in 30 years, will get so out of sync to a 23-0 run against them, and furthermore them be losing by 27.... AND STORM BACK to be just down by 4. 23 point swing... that means that if the Jazz would have stayed in the game on the first quarter, they jazz would blowed out the Hornets by 20.

He emphasizes on the negatives, such as the defense, which is true, but in 2 1/2 quarters Williams controlled the game so much more finely than Paul and he fails to mention that, although he does give Williams props for his supreme defense on Paul.

d-will8 · Post #6 » by **d-will8** » Mon Mar 3, 2008 1:12 am

Duiz wrote:I agree with his analysis of what went wrong... but you must accept that the 4th seed in the most competitive Conference standings in 30 years, will get so out of sync to a 23-0 run against them, and furthermore them be losing by 27.... AND STORM BACK to be just down by 4. 23 point swing... that means that if the Jazz would have stayed in the game on the first quarter, they jazz would blowed out the Hornets by 20.

He emphasizes on the negatives, such as the defense, which is true, but in 2 1/2 quarters Williams controlled the game so much more finely than Paul and he fails to mention that, although he does give Williams props for his supreme defense on Paul.

Word. I'm not sure if the Jazz would have blown out the Hornets if they had played better in the first quarter, but they definitely would have had a great chance of winning the game. I especially agree that Williams outplayed Paul for most of the game. Paul just had a really good first quarter, at least statistically, which was more a product of the Jazz coming out sloppy, his teammates being on fire and a couple of calls that went his way than of Paul single-handedly dominating us. In the fourth, he got a lot of assists, but Williams was getting Okur and Harpring the same type of shots Paul was getting Pargo and Stojakovic. Paul's teammates just did a better job of hitting shots.