Around the NBA 4.0

[catch20two]

Their scrubs don't miss though. That angers me. Chalmers. Birdman. Battier. Motherfuk

Those scrubs know their role. It's easy not to miss when you have a limited and concentrated role of just spot shooting to focus on when the ball is swung to you wide open or in Birdman's case finish in the lane.

[ARHornet]

The rest of the East just sucks compared to Miami. A lot of the West teams, even some of the ones that were eliminated in round one, could compete with the Heat in a 7 game series. But with the Pacers imploding like they have, I don't know that there is anyone in the East that can hold up vs Miami. Kinda inevitable that they make the finals with the circumstances how they are now.

[MasterIchiro]

Their scrubs don't miss though. That angers me. Chalmers. Birdman. Battier. Motherfuk

Those scrubs know their role. It's easy not to miss when you have a limited and concentrated role of just spot shooting to focus on when the ball is swung to you wide open or in Birdman's case finish in the lane.

It bothers me - a testament to how sucky defense is in the NBA these days and how the refs prop up these cream puffs like Lebron.

[mrknowitall215]

Damian Lillard is what I thought he was, and Popovich is exploiting him exactly how I would if I were a coach. If you chase Lillard off his preferred 3-point shot, he's lost, because he's not that good at finishing at the rim, he doesn't have a in between game, and he's not much of a playmaker

[JDR720]

Damian Lillard is what I thought he was, and Popovich is exploiting him exactly how I would if I were a coach. If you chase Lillard off his preferred 3-point shot, he's lost, because he's not that good at finishing at the rim, he doesn't have a in between game, and he's not much of a playmaker

Pop is a genius

[mrknowitall215]

Damian Lillard is what I thought he was, and Popovich is exploiting him exactly how I would if I were a coach. If you chase Lillard off his preferred 3-point shot, he's lost, because he's not that good at finishing at the rim, he doesn't have a in between game, and he's not much of a playmaker

Pop is a genius

Yes he is, and that's because he's one of the few coaches willing to a adjust not only by a game-to-game basis, but in-game. Popovich doesn't allow him system or strategy to be nitpicked by an opponent because he adjust and use his players to their advantage rather than restricting them to any one particular structure. It's the reason why players that you'd least expect become key contributors for the Spurs, because he adjust his system to their strengths rather than a one dimensional scheme

[countryboi]

Damian Lillard is what I thought he was, and Popovich is exploiting him exactly how I would if I were a coach. If you chase Lillard off his preferred 3-point shot, he's lost, because he's not that good at finishing at the rim, he doesn't have a in between game, and he's not much of a playmaker

Pop is a genius

Yes he is, and that's because he's one of the few coaches willing to a adjust not only by a game-to-game basis, but in-game. Popovich doesn't allow him system or strategy to be nitpicked by an opponent because he adjust and use his players to their advantage rather than restricting them to any one particular structure. It's the reason why players that you'd least expect become key contributors for the Spurs, because he adjust his system to their strengths rather than a one dimensional scheme

Why is this trait so rare in coaches?

[HornetJail]

Pop is a genius

Yes he is, and that's because he's one of the few coaches willing to a adjust not only by a game-to-game basis, but in-game. Popovich doesn't allow him system or strategy to be nitpicked by an opponent because he adjust and use his players to their advantage rather than restricting them to any one particular structure. It's the reason why players that you'd least expect become key contributors for the Spurs, because he adjust his system to their strengths rather than a one dimensional scheme

Why is this trait so rare in coaches?

I don't understand that either. My middle school rec league coach could do the same thing.

[mrknowitall215]

Why is this trait so rare in coaches?

Arrogance and/or stubbornness would be my guess. The NBA is the highest level of coaching, and if a coach find some success doing things one way sometimes they tend to stick to that, presuming the notion "if it's not broke, don't fix it". You see these type of examples in coaches like Mike D'Antoni whom had his maximum success in Phoenix playing small ball and exploiting a '7 seconds or less' offensive system, so much so that he'd never revert from that way of thinking even if his roster isn't set up in a manner to successfully play that way

There's other coaches that make a lot of adjustments, but they end up being the wrong tweaks (i.e. Avery Johnson), and they end up making matters worst

[LamarMatic7]

a random thought that I again have flaring up in my mind during this whole Mark Jackson and Warriors drama:

I really think that "age" and the possible "ceiling" that player X could reach in time are a bit too overrated. Too many freshman are drafted high solely because of what they could become and too many seniors are disregarded because of their lack of additional potential. But what happens it that it's very easy to bury the freshman on your bench (shout out to Ball Teacher and Know It All, they often point out the perils of not taking MKG out of his comfort zone and thus not forcing him to improve) and take away his best opportunities to learn. I'll sound like a 70-year-old college coach but it's hard to learn as a young NBA player during the regular season, the practices that you have being way to few and superficial. Thus the ceiling can easily not be ever reached. Not to mention the huge possibility that it was never meant for player X to become the next all-star.

So after stating the obvious for a paragraph, I want to get to my main point. I think that there isn't that much harm in drafting college seniors and that their draft stock takes way too big of a fall. Case in point (and how I got here from Jackson/the Dubs) - the playoffs Draymond Green and Harrison Barnes just had. One is all of the sudden looking very blah and limited (after having his own column thing in Slam magazine as a high schooler and granted, it's not all his fault that Iggy got his spot) and one, honestly, had a great, great playoff series. The gap between their IQ and knack for the game is humongous. And the series ended up in Green almost being Golden State's second most valuable player (yeah, Klay would probably be the more popular choice but, damn, did Draymond do a lot for them). His supposed shortcomings weren't an issue at all any more. He made his threes and his lack of size didn't bother him at the 4 spot.

just saying that if I were a GM, I would almost want to always rather go with the experienced college player who despite a limited potential has learned the game and understood who he is as a player. I know it's easy to say this in hindsight but just look at how comfortable the likes of Lillard, Mason Plumlee and Draymond Green have been after their age was an issue on draft nights. It's no coincidence either that rookies in the 70s and 80s were much more ready to produce within their first year in the league than they are now.

so yeah... I wanted to get this out there. and again - I was very impressed with Draymond these playoffs.

[mrknowitall215]

a random thought that I again have flaring up in my mind during this whole Mark Jackson and Warriors drama:

I really think that "age" and the possible "ceiling" that player X could reach in time are a bit too overrated. Too many freshman are drafted high solely because of what they could become and too many seniors are disregarded because of their lack of additional potential. But what happens it that it's very easy to bury the freshman on your bench (shout out to Ball Teacher and Know It All, they often point out the perils of not taking MKG out of his comfort zone and thus not forcing him to improve) and take away his best opportunities to learn. I'll sound like a 70-year-old college coach but it's hard to learn as a young NBA player during the regular season, the practices that you have being way to few and superficial. Thus the ceiling can easily not be ever reached. Not to mention the huge possibility that it was never meant for player X to become the next all-star.

So after stating the obvious for a paragraph, I want to get to my main point. I think that there isn't that much harm in drafting college seniors and that their draft stock takes way too big of a fall. Case in point (and how I got here from Jackson/the Dubs) - the playoffs Draymond Green and Harrison Barnes just had. One is all of the sudden looking very blah and limited (after having his own column thing in Slam magazine as a high schooler and granted, it's not all his fault that Iggy got his spot) and one, honestly, had a great, great playoff series. The gap between their IQ and knack for the game is humongous. And the series ended up in Green almost being Golden State's second most valuable player (yeah, Klay would probably be the more popular choice but, damn, did Draymond do a lot for them). His supposed shortcomings weren't an issue at all any more. He made his threes and his lack of size didn't bother him at the 4 spot.

just saying that if I were a GM, I would almost want to always rather go with the experienced college player who despite a limited potential has learned the game and understood who he is as a player. I know it's easy to say this in hindsight but just look at how comfortable the likes of Lillard, Mason Plumlee and Draymond Green have been after their age was an issue on draft nights. It's no coincidence either that rookies in the 70s and 80s were much more ready to produce within their first year in the league than they are now.

so yeah... I wanted to get this out there. and again - I was very impressed with Draymond these playoffs.

Great post

[catch20two]

Hibbert's PnR defense is like Big Al's.

[Eoghan]

Why is this trait so rare in coaches?

Because it's a player's league. Very few coaches have the clout to have their player's follow their orders blindly. Most coaches are too busy juggling egos and appeasing bosses to have the freedom of coaching exactly as they see fit. Player x needs to play X amount of minutes or he'll rebel or the owner likes player y so I have to play him, etc etc.

Pop, Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, etc, all GOAT coaches, all have their word being law in common..

[fatlever]

how many games does this team win in the east this year?

coach: thibodeau

pg: patrick beverley
sg: tony allen
sf: michael kidd-gilchrist
pf: serge ibaka
c: joakim noah

bench:
avery bradley
jimmy butler
bismack biyombo
deandre jordan

[JDR720]

how many games does this team win in the east this year?

coach: thibodeau

pg: patrick beverley
sg: tony allen
sf: michael kidd-gilchrist
pf: serge ibaka
c: joakim noah

bench:
avery bradley
jimmy butler
bismack biyombo
deandre jordan

Best defensive team in NBA by far and a horrendous offense, probably 55

[catch20two]

how many games does this team win in the east this year?

coach: thibodeau

pg: patrick beverley
sg: tony allen
sf: michael kidd-gilchrist
pf: serge ibaka
c: joakim noah

bench:
avery bradley
jimmy butler
bismack biyombo
deandre jordan

I want to say between 40-45 and a 1st round exit. If there's ever a such thing as too much defense, that's it.

[catch20two]

Paul George is gonna become the new Rudy Gay. Gay might've been a little better at that age though, we just didn't know it because the Western Conference is more competitive.

[fatlever]

i was just trying to think of a team that would be an absolute nightmare to play against because they would just go so freaking hard at you on defense, but on the other end they'd struggle to score 70 most nights.

conversely who are the good offensive players that are a complete joke defensively? obviously that team would include jefferson, but who else? boozer? jordan hamilton? james harden?

[fatlever]

hibbert with 26. this is insane.

[JDR720]

i was just trying to think of a team that would be an absolute nightmare to play against because they would just go so freaking hard at you on defense, but on the other end they'd struggle to score 70 most nights.

conversely who are the good offensive players that are a complete joke defensively? obviously that team would include jefferson, but who else? boozer? jordan hamilton? james harden?

Offense and No Defense team

PG-Curry
SG-Harden
SF-Melo
PF-Love
C-Al

Bench
Boozer
Nick Young
Lillard
Hamilton