Please stop with the "its all the players fault"
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:13 am
I am not going to try and judge our game plans. Much of the time, our game plans were good in the regular season. They've worked to perfection at times in the playoffs. Even back when we lost to the Pacers in 7 games, while I didn't agree with the way Doc managed subs and what not in that series, we came out with excellent game plans a few times. Even when I haven't agreed with certain things, I admit there has probably been solid logic behind certain game plans that might be above my head.
Is it possible that during some of our rough stretches in the playoffs are game plans made perfect sense, and the players on the floor should have been able to execute well enough, and maybe were even best fit to execute. Maybe things didn't work of no fault to the game plan, but because player's didn't play their roles well. Fine.
But to cite that this means it is all the players' fault because of this is severely misguided. What should or can work on a given night is different than what will. If players never made mistakes, a good coach not be nearly so valuable as he can be in today's NBA. Its the coaches responsibility to make logical adjustments based on who is making what mistakes, who will likely continue making certain mistakes, and what other options exist in terms of both personnel and strategy. Its the coach's job to have plans in place should a scheme fail or be adjusted to. If Doc is not sufficiently taking care of this responsibility, he is at fault just as much as the player who misses his assignment or rotation every so often. And as much as overreaction isn't needed, it is not always overreaction persay, because when Doc screws up, it is worse than when a random player screws up because Doc's the one with the most authority. The trickle down theory comes into play.
Plan A might be amazing. Perhaps it should work as long as all the players do their jobs. Perhaps it should be given a shot if it doesn't work initially, if it is logical to believe it will start working. But if its not working as well as Plan B might work - maybe because the players aren't focused enough, maybe because its a playoff series and your opponent has noticed certain players have certain weaknesses while studying film - then its not working.
To stick with Plan A - which would work perfectly if players played like they should be expected to play - and to have it not work - does not make Doc a victim of his players. If anything it would make him a loser with a victim's mentality. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that he is a loser with a victim's mentality. I am just saying that people shouldn't victimize him for the same reason Doc shouldn't (and in fairness doesn't IMO) victimize himself.
Against the Pacers years back, you could have argued - and I would have disagreed with you but you could have argued - that Doc was doing the best to come up with game plans that gave our team the only chance it had to beat the Pacers. You could have argued our players just weren't that great, and there was no pliable plan B that would have worked. There is no such argument here. We know what our players are capable of based on what we have seen them do all season long, and based on what they have done previously in their careers.
Do I agree completely with our defensive gameplan versus the Cavs? Fundamentally, no. I don't think you can stop Lebron - and I think that even when you think you have stopped him you haven't because he's the type of player - like KG perhaps - that can have a seemingly horrible game yet still do so many things to contribute to his team that just simply go unnoticed. But, because you know one player can't beat you, you can focus on shutting down his teamates and not worry so much.
The current game plan seems to be designed to stop Lebron as much as it is to stop the Cavs. Don't agree with it. I also don't like that, as opposed to letting KG match up with Lebron, or as opposed to playing Posey or TA more, PP has to shoulder much of that responsibility at times. He's showed himself capable enough, but thats not the point. He's arguably not as capable, and moreover, against a team with solid wing defense that has been shutting down our wings, we need more of PP's energy reserved for the other end of the court.
Can I argue with the current defensive game plan? Not really. It worked to perfection the first two games. Or at least in game 2. On the surface it worked in game 1 but we still wouldn't have won the game if KG didn't play superman on some level.
But, in the first half of today's game (unfortunately I was unable to watch the 2nd half, so i can't comment there), I don't know if the Cavs made adjustments (which would be anticipatable), and/or our players just weren't focused on the road, but regardless of reason it wasn't working. There was no need to stick with it so closely IMO.
In general, especially considering that plan A and probably plan B at times hasn't always worked for us thus far in the playoffs, it is absolute bull that Tony Allen is hardly playing at all. He simply brings too much to the table to sit on the bench so much.
Now, Sam Cassell and PJ Brown. By all indications from the past two years, they are not better than Glen Davis or Eddie House. Sure, there are times when we could certainly use one or the other on the floor. Sure, Cassell is more of a PG, than House, and that justifies minutes for him on occasion. Sure, both players have experience and guidance that they can help us in the locker room. But, besides those points, think of this:
A large reason for our dominance thru much of the season had been attributed to team chemistry. A large reason for our team's chemistry had been cited as the bonding which occured during training camp in Europe. The two players currently on our team who were not a part of that: Cassell & Brown.
Their additions can only have the potential to help us on some level, and really they do. But when Doc starts making either one a more important part of our rotations without solid enough logic behing his decision to do so (and please note that our team kinda sucked without Rondo throughout the season, so we kinda have to live and die with him to some extent)....thats when chemistry, and ubuntu, is affected.
Finally, two closing points, and I promise I am done. First, if the Cavs are going to leave Rondo open for shots, there is no rule that says he can't pass up the open shot in favor of driving towards the hoop and moving a defender or two out of position in the process. Second, I might or might not be overreacting, but regardless there is not too much reason to overreact just yet. I mean what we have seen so far in this series is not worse than what we saw versus the Hawks. And, as much as I don't view the Cavs as a top 4 or top 5 team, I feel they just might match up with us better than any other team in the league.
Is it possible that during some of our rough stretches in the playoffs are game plans made perfect sense, and the players on the floor should have been able to execute well enough, and maybe were even best fit to execute. Maybe things didn't work of no fault to the game plan, but because player's didn't play their roles well. Fine.
But to cite that this means it is all the players' fault because of this is severely misguided. What should or can work on a given night is different than what will. If players never made mistakes, a good coach not be nearly so valuable as he can be in today's NBA. Its the coaches responsibility to make logical adjustments based on who is making what mistakes, who will likely continue making certain mistakes, and what other options exist in terms of both personnel and strategy. Its the coach's job to have plans in place should a scheme fail or be adjusted to. If Doc is not sufficiently taking care of this responsibility, he is at fault just as much as the player who misses his assignment or rotation every so often. And as much as overreaction isn't needed, it is not always overreaction persay, because when Doc screws up, it is worse than when a random player screws up because Doc's the one with the most authority. The trickle down theory comes into play.
Plan A might be amazing. Perhaps it should work as long as all the players do their jobs. Perhaps it should be given a shot if it doesn't work initially, if it is logical to believe it will start working. But if its not working as well as Plan B might work - maybe because the players aren't focused enough, maybe because its a playoff series and your opponent has noticed certain players have certain weaknesses while studying film - then its not working.
To stick with Plan A - which would work perfectly if players played like they should be expected to play - and to have it not work - does not make Doc a victim of his players. If anything it would make him a loser with a victim's mentality. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that he is a loser with a victim's mentality. I am just saying that people shouldn't victimize him for the same reason Doc shouldn't (and in fairness doesn't IMO) victimize himself.
Against the Pacers years back, you could have argued - and I would have disagreed with you but you could have argued - that Doc was doing the best to come up with game plans that gave our team the only chance it had to beat the Pacers. You could have argued our players just weren't that great, and there was no pliable plan B that would have worked. There is no such argument here. We know what our players are capable of based on what we have seen them do all season long, and based on what they have done previously in their careers.
Do I agree completely with our defensive gameplan versus the Cavs? Fundamentally, no. I don't think you can stop Lebron - and I think that even when you think you have stopped him you haven't because he's the type of player - like KG perhaps - that can have a seemingly horrible game yet still do so many things to contribute to his team that just simply go unnoticed. But, because you know one player can't beat you, you can focus on shutting down his teamates and not worry so much.
The current game plan seems to be designed to stop Lebron as much as it is to stop the Cavs. Don't agree with it. I also don't like that, as opposed to letting KG match up with Lebron, or as opposed to playing Posey or TA more, PP has to shoulder much of that responsibility at times. He's showed himself capable enough, but thats not the point. He's arguably not as capable, and moreover, against a team with solid wing defense that has been shutting down our wings, we need more of PP's energy reserved for the other end of the court.
Can I argue with the current defensive game plan? Not really. It worked to perfection the first two games. Or at least in game 2. On the surface it worked in game 1 but we still wouldn't have won the game if KG didn't play superman on some level.
But, in the first half of today's game (unfortunately I was unable to watch the 2nd half, so i can't comment there), I don't know if the Cavs made adjustments (which would be anticipatable), and/or our players just weren't focused on the road, but regardless of reason it wasn't working. There was no need to stick with it so closely IMO.
In general, especially considering that plan A and probably plan B at times hasn't always worked for us thus far in the playoffs, it is absolute bull that Tony Allen is hardly playing at all. He simply brings too much to the table to sit on the bench so much.
Now, Sam Cassell and PJ Brown. By all indications from the past two years, they are not better than Glen Davis or Eddie House. Sure, there are times when we could certainly use one or the other on the floor. Sure, Cassell is more of a PG, than House, and that justifies minutes for him on occasion. Sure, both players have experience and guidance that they can help us in the locker room. But, besides those points, think of this:
A large reason for our dominance thru much of the season had been attributed to team chemistry. A large reason for our team's chemistry had been cited as the bonding which occured during training camp in Europe. The two players currently on our team who were not a part of that: Cassell & Brown.
Their additions can only have the potential to help us on some level, and really they do. But when Doc starts making either one a more important part of our rotations without solid enough logic behing his decision to do so (and please note that our team kinda sucked without Rondo throughout the season, so we kinda have to live and die with him to some extent)....thats when chemistry, and ubuntu, is affected.
Finally, two closing points, and I promise I am done. First, if the Cavs are going to leave Rondo open for shots, there is no rule that says he can't pass up the open shot in favor of driving towards the hoop and moving a defender or two out of position in the process. Second, I might or might not be overreacting, but regardless there is not too much reason to overreact just yet. I mean what we have seen so far in this series is not worse than what we saw versus the Hawks. And, as much as I don't view the Cavs as a top 4 or top 5 team, I feel they just might match up with us better than any other team in the league.