#Spacing - Steve Clifford Thread

[DY_nasty]

I still don't think Lance sucking was all on him. There's just... nothing makes sense about that. Its not like Cliff even tried to make Lance work either. He took a crap on the guy the first month of the season and never once stuck up for the guy really. Then you look at Lance on the court and its like...

Why is Lance ALWAYS operating in the same spots over and over again when he's shown that he's sporadic at best there. Lance in the middle of the court, freestyling at the top of the free throw line doesn't work - but he's ALWAYS there. Let the guy work off the wings for a while. Maybe let Lance, one of the strongest 2s in the league, POST UP and take advantage of that passing and draw some fouls too.

You look at Lance's games in Indiana and compare them to now and its clear as day that he's rhythm player and we've never once put him in a position to do that.

Also... I don't like our defense. This team should be forcing turnover and creating additional possessions for our obviously handicapped offense. We play into our own weakness by creating half-court games but what do I know...

I cant really blame Lance for his struggles, he was a bad fit that we all shouldve known wouldnt fit. We needed a guy who could shoot, especially from deep, Lance is not really a shooter, we have a system where we need ball movement, Lance tends to pound the rock. The best bet maybe to redevelope lance and make him a PG to play alongside Kemba.

Our system is pointless ball movement - not real ball movement. We pass the ball in a circle better than any team in the league.

But yeah, Lance wasn't a good straight up fit... the issue is that our staff hasn't even been creative in trying to assimilate him. Then they never really tried to help after they hit a rough patch. I'm still shocked that Lance hasn't self-destructed after it all.

Another thing - It KILLS me watching Kemba pretend to be AI or Steve Francis out there every night when he needs to be playing like Tony Parker did or Teague does now. He puts more pressure on defenses with his ability to force help/mismatches than he ever will with his passing. Dude destroys big men that jump out to stop his penetration on the regular, our coaching staff thinks that means he is open and should be taking the first shot when he needs to just stay in the lane and force the defense into react mode. We already know he's one of the best in the league in taking care of the ball (considering his touches too - he might be the best by a lot actually) but we're dumb and say he needs to shoot and its just... ugh

[yosemiteben]

Now you are grasping at straws for the rebounding thing. Great we are a tremendous rebounding team that is still out of the playoffs in the weaker conference. That doesn't matter because all that I wanted us to do this year was rebound, forget winning. His defense is solid and a number of us have said that but every other aspect of the game he has struggled with. He has even struggled with that when MKG has missed time. Both our centers rebound the ball well on the defensive end and Biz rebounds we on both. He has pieces to accomplish things yet here we are outside looking in. He has been very bad this year and that is shown in the numbers.

It is not grasping at straws to say we are possibly the best ever at doing it. I am focusing on it because I think it is useful as evidence of Cliff practicing what he preaches. When we hired him, the very first summer he came in, he said that he had some foundational principles that we had to put in place that were going to be a part of our culture and identity. Control defensive boards. Eliminate TOs. Defend without fouling. Prevent transition points. He talked about not being able to get to greater complexity in his game plans because we weren't ready to move past the basics.

Now, after a stub year and one full offseason, he has put together two seasons where his teams have been among the very best in NBA history at doing the things he preached. Reality is that he put together a plan and executed unbelievably well despite not having elite talent at pretty much any position. The problem is that his plan was not enough for a team that needs a lot of help on offense - it was foundational principles, but it's also obvious that defensive rebounding, low TOs, and preventing transition buckets is not enough to win at a level that we all aspire to. That's fair and obviously borne out by our offensive stats, and I will be the first to say that he personally needs to find a way for us to have a more dynamic offense. Part of that is because the cupboard is pretty bare when it comes to legit scoring options, and part of that is because IMO he has underemphasized basic offensive principles in order to emphasize defensive ones and has defaulted to rudimentary offensive approaches.

I am impressed that Clifford has executed on the plan he laid out the summer he was hired to historical levels. To me that says that he is capable of establishing goals, designing a system to accomplish them and executing. The issue is that now the goals need to change, and the question is whether he will recognize the need for change. It's safe to say we're there on a lot of the things he preaches - it's time to alter the game plan and points of emphasis and seek improvement in other areas that are killing us. If he can't do that, then we need more from a coach and I will be happy to move on, but IMO he deserves more time.

[BeesWax]

Now you are grasping at straws for the rebounding thing. Great we are a tremendous rebounding team that is still out of the playoffs in the weaker conference. That doesn't matter because all that I wanted us to do this year was rebound, forget winning. His defense is solid and a number of us have said that but every other aspect of the game he has struggled with. He has even struggled with that when MKG has missed time. Both our centers rebound the ball well on the defensive end and Biz rebounds we on both. He has pieces to accomplish things yet here we are outside looking in. He has been very bad this year and that is shown in the numbers.

It is not grasping at straws to say we are possibly the best ever at doing it. I am focusing on it because I think it is useful as evidence of Cliff practicing what he preaches. When we hired him, the very first summer he came in, he said that he had some foundational principles that we had to put in place that were going to be a part of our culture and identity. Control defensive boards. Eliminate TOs. Defend without fouling. Prevent transition points. He talked about not being able to get to greater complexity in his game plans because we weren't ready to move past the basics.

Now, after a stub year and one full offseason, he has put together two seasons where his teams have been among the very best in NBA history at doing the things he preached. Reality is that he put together a plan and executed unbelievably well despite not having elite talent at pretty much any position. The problem is that his plan was not enough for a team that needs a lot of help on offense - it was foundational principles, but it's also obvious that defensive rebounding, low TOs, and preventing transition buckets is not enough to win at a level that we all aspire to. That's fair and obviously borne out by our offensive stats, and I will be the first to say that he personally needs to find a way for us to have a more dynamic offense. Part of that is because the cupboard is pretty bare when it comes to legit scoring options, and part of that is because IMO he has underemphasized basic offensive principles in order to emphasize defensive ones and has defaulted to rudimentary offensive approaches.

I am impressed that Clifford has executed on the plan he laid out the summer he was hired to historical levels. To me that says that he is capable of establishing goals, designing a system to accomplish them and executing. The issue is that now the goals need to change, and the question is whether he will recognize the need for change. It's safe to say we're there on a lot of the things he preaches - it's time to alter the game plan and points of emphasis and seek improvement in other areas that are killing us. If he can't do that, then we need more from a coach and I will be happy to move on, but IMO he deserves more time.

Well if that is the straw you want to grasp at go for it. I see it as he executed his plan and we still are a much worse team than our talent should dictate. I am about as impressed with Clifford's ability to coach as I am with my infants ability to poop.

He has a long way to go because what he has done so far has set many players back offensively. We rebound well, yay, but we don't do anything on offense well. This is just you trying to find something to hold on to after getting killed on the Lance topic and every other defense you have tried to bring of his terrible job.

[yosemiteben]

This is just you trying to find something to hold on to after getting killed on the Lance topic and every other defense you have tried to bring of his terrible job.

This is me continuing a conversation I started Sunday in the Around the NBA thread.

[Hornet Mania]

Playing Taylor over PJ, when Hairston has been better on offense and defense the entire time he was on the floor tonight, is totally indefensible. Keeping Cliff for another year is just spinning our tires. His defensive "prowess" mysteriously vanishes when Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is hurt, his lineups are completely nonsensical and we don't have an offense. It's nice that we keep the turnovers low and rebound, I guess, but it's never going to overcome the latter two criticisms I just listed.

[Diop]

Playing Taylor over PJ, when Hairston has been better on offense and defense the entire time he was on the floor tonight, is totally indefensible.

unless its list management and we are playing the expiring players to see if they have any use left.

I highly doubt it though.

[Hornet Mania]

Playing Taylor over PJ, when Hairston has been better on offense and defense the entire time he was on the floor tonight, is totally indefensible.

unless its list management and we are playing the expiring players to see if they have any use left.

I highly doubt it though.

Would make sense, seems like a weird thing to do when you're in a must-win game though.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

My belief is that Cliff came in here with a mandate to develop the young guys. That's why Cody got force feed minutes last year. I suspect that Cliff hated doing that and felt like the rook hadn't earned those minutes. Then came the 'famous turning point' where Cliff told the team that folks were going to have to start earning their minutes since it looked like the playoffs were a real possibility.

This narrative has always bothered me - Cody played more minutes post-ASB last season than pre-ASB. How does the Cody case support an argument that Cliff didn't want to play Cody and halfway through the season decided not to?

I watch teams like the Spurs try to develop young guys. They don't have success with all of them, but they consistently find guys at all positions in the draft and develop them. Letting them play some is a part of that.

It's comparing apples and oranges to compare our draft history with SAS. Since 2007, the only first round picks they've made that have cracked their rotation are Kawhi (who came in much more developed than MKG and certainly Vonleh and who at 21 was getting roughly the same number of minutes as MKG), George Hill (who was 23 in his rookie year with SAS) and Splitter (who was 26 his rookie year with SAS and technically they traded for). Their history is not full of young guys getting PT. Blair was a second round pick and is pretty much the only exception.

The model for the Spurs over the last 5-7 years or so is more finding underutilized or Euro guys that are relatively unheralded that they didn't draft but picked up to plug into their system (Green, Diaw, Mills, Belinelli, Bonner, Splitter, Neal).

Yosemiteben, I admire your positivity. I loathe the way you twist what I post.

The whole thing about the Spurs was about developing talent. That’s why I posted links (which you omitted). Sure some of the guys were from Europe, but not all of them, and that part really doesn’t matter anyway when it comes to how they developed some of the guys they did.

With Cody, I posted “I believe” and “I think” very deliberately, to denote speculation on my part. Cody did play more late in the year last year … after he started playing better due to having been given minutes to develop early in the season when he wasn’t playing well. You make an argument that doesn’t really change my mind.

[Braggins]

Best defensive rebounding % ever, eh. Thats neat. Clifford can promote himself as a defensive rebounding specialist when he interviews for his next job. I heard rebounding coaches are the next big trend.

[Braggins]

So the narrative is still that Cliff hasnt been able to expand upon his system because we havent got the basics down, but we are on track to be the best team in NBA history at the basic principles of his system. What exactly is he waiting on again?

[catch20two]

Clifford don't know what players on the roster to use or when to use them. He's been hurting us in that regard since last year when we made the playoffs. Almost let Neal and Ridnour sabotage everything tryna prove a point.

[yosemiteben]

The whole thing about the Spurs was about developing talent. That’s why I posted links (which you omitted). Sure some of the guys were from Europe, but not all of them, and that part really doesn’t matter anyway when it comes to how they developed some of the guys they did.

I was not at all intending to twist what you posted. You said "they consistently find guys at all positions in the draft and develop them." You were comparing that to how Cliff hasn't given as much PT to our young guys. I countered by pointing out that the Spurs have not built through the draft for a long time, they haven't generally developed their draft picks or worked them into their rotation, they have never given someone as raw as Vonleh minutes, and many of the examples of guys developing were much farther along in their careers before they arrived. They are not a valid counter example to your point that not playing Noah demonstrates a lack of commitment by our franchise to developing youth. They are better examples of poaching mature players and retooling them in Pop's system.

Cody did play more late in the year last year … after he started playing better due to having been given minutes to develop early in the season when he wasn’t playing well. You make an argument that doesn’t really change my mind.

So your argument is Cliff didn't want to play Cody but did anyway because he was told to, then played him more than before because he recognized that Cody benefited from the minutes Cliff gave him, but Cliff still nonetheless opposes giving time to develop players? That seems like such a forced interpretation. Why is not more natural to say maybe he played him roughly similar minutes throughout the season because he viewed him roughly the same way throughout the season?

[yosemiteben]

So the narrative is still that Cliff hasnt been able to expand upon his system because we havent got the basics down, but we are on track to be the best team in NBA history at the basic principles of his system. What exactly is he waiting on again?

I think that's a very fair point, and pretty much what I said. It's time to show that there's more there or we are going to need to move on. But one disappointing season isn't enough to show him the door before giving him an opportunity to improve, especially given the injuries and poor fitting pieces he was asked to work with.

[Braggins]

So the narrative is still that Cliff hasnt been able to expand upon his system because we havent got the basics down, but we are on track to be the best team in NBA history at the basic principles of his system. What exactly is he waiting on again?

I think that's a very fair point, and pretty much what I said. It's time to show that there's more there or we are going to need to move on. But one disappointing season isn't enough to show him the door before giving him an opportunity to improve, especially given the injuries and poor fitting pieces he was asked to work with.

We were pretty excellent at the basics last year, and have been for most of this year. I just don't see what is preventing him from expanding his system or implementing new things. Injuries don't affect that the way they do setting rotations and playing groups. I think it is looking more and more like wishful thinking to believe that Clifford has something else up his sleeve besides not turning the ball over, getting back on defense instead of hitting the o boards, and not turning the ball over. I'm not even that impressed with the turnover thing. It seems like it has just as much to do with him being a control freak and unnecessarily leashing our players than it does him having some kind of system in place that prevents turnovers.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

I was not at all intending to twist what you posted. You said "they consistently find guys at all positions in the draft and develop them." You were comparing that to how Cliff hasn't given as much PT to our young guys. I countered by pointing out that the Spurs have not built through the draft for a long time, they haven't generally developed their draft picks or worked them into their rotation, they have never given someone as raw as Vonleh minutes, and many of the examples of guys developing were much farther along in their careers before they arrived. They are not a valid counter example to your point that not playing Noah demonstrates a lack of commitment by our franchise to developing youth. They are better examples of poaching mature players and retooling them in Pop's system.

I thought about this some more. Twisting wasn't quite the right thing. It's that you selectively ignore parts of what I post in order to make your own arguments. I might say A, B, C then X with X being the main point I had in mind. You then might quote the part about B and make your own point ... which may or may not really have anything to do with what I was trying to say.

Some examples.
I never said that the Spurs drafted the guys they developed. You brought the draft into the mix.
I never mentioned Vonleh or specific guys on the Hornets in the set of posts you quoted. You brought Vonleh into the mix.
I never talked about where the guys that play for the Spurs came. You did.

I'm honestly not sure if you are a) misreading my posts, b) so focused on what you want to say that you just use partial quotes as a springboard, or c) you mix what I'm saying with what other folks have said. In any event it's become clear to me that you aren't really arguing with me, but are more interested in making your pro-Cliff case. That's fine, but I'm out of this "discussion" with you.

[BeesWax]

Why does it look like he just shows rorschach tests to the team during timeouts? They come out and half the team is running the butterfly set while the rest are going sad clown.

[yosemiteben]

I never said that the Spurs drafted the guys they developed. You brought the draft into the mix.

You said this:

I watch teams like the Spurs try to develop young guys. They don't have success with all of them, but they consistently find guys at all positions in the draft and develop them. Letting them play some is a part of that

I don't love that you act like I'm being disingenuous and that you did not make arguments that you clearly made. I'm not misinterpreting you, you actually said this.

I never mentioned Vonleh or specific guys on the Hornets in the set of posts you quoted. You brought Vonleh into the mix.

I excluded the direct part of your quote in my response because that wasn't the portion I was interested in responding to, but your post was all about his use of Vonleh. You said this next quote, then compared it to the Spurs:

Cliff is doing both Vonleh and the team a long term disservice by not playing the young guys like he should.

Acting like you didn't heavily refer to Cliff's use of Vonleh in comparison to the Spurs is disingenuous.

[MasterIchiro]

I'm honestly not sure if you are a) misreading my posts, b) so focused on what you want to say that you just use partial quotes as a springboard, or c) you mix what I'm saying with what other folks have said.

In my experience with this poster, the mischaracterization stems from choice b. He is rarely focused on the central message of a post. He picks at an accessory item that may or may not be part of your main point. It throws him off and he is all to willing to push and shape the conversation in the way he sees it, not listening to your input, constantly telling you what you are saying instead of allowing you to clarify what you are saying. You constantly have to clarify your points with him while he insists x, y or z is what you are really saying and explaining why his interpretation is justified. I got exhausted with him and remain so. You are always having to go back and say "No, this is what I said and mean". By that point, he shifts to another item and you start all over again with the clarifications.

[yosemiteben]

Yeah I really put words in his mouth when I quoted his exact statement.

[DY_nasty]

Did you guys hear Cliff on the radio this morning????

on why noah isn't playing:

"outside of guys like lebron, wade or melo, there hasn't been a rookie who has played well in this league in the last 15 years"

dahell