Inigo Montoya wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Inigo Montoya wrote:It's not a bad idea but personally, I don't think the Cavs lost this series because they had a small back court.
I think it's a major factor in why Mitchell teams fall short, especially when his backcourt mate doesn't have it going. It turns into a cascading effect, the smaller guard isn't scoring well & they're a potential target on defense, whereas if his backcourt mate were bigger you could lean on defense if the offense isn't working.
He should be slotted in at the 1, and that has always been the mistake building around him.
The Cavs missed a lot of open shots and couldn't hold a lead. They had no problem going up 15+ points and then giving those leads away multiple times. I can't say that it's because they had a small back court or because he wasn't slotted at the 1. He's not really a PG and he needs someone who can run an offense next to him. The problem the Cavs are having now is that some fans want to trade Garland (I don't presume to know what the Cavs need, Cavs fans know much better than I do) but if Garland is moved for a 3&D player and you play Mitchell at the 1, the Cavs are going to lose a lot of shot creation and all the offensive load would be on Mitchell and that's not a good recipe for success.
Garland is averaging 17/6 for his playoff career, he's not much of a playmaker either when the game gets more physical. I'm just really against smaller backcourts, because it exposes you on the other end, and that is exasperated when they're struggling to score efficiently. The Mitchell stats without Garland are staggering -

It's not like SGA is a great playmaker for others, Brunson isn't a classic PG either, he's a score first guy. They need to get bigger on the wing so that Donovan is the smallest defender on the court, and increase his ball handling duties. I don't think they win that series even if they were healthy, there's just nowhere to hide two different small guards.



































