Dragic: My only problem was with GM Ryan McDonough

[Cheesebeef]

Talent is fundamentally different than athleticism...we have plenty of astounding athletes, less basketball talent.

bingo.

 

[Errntknght]

The biggest problem this team has is a head coach with very flawed ideas of how to put together a basketball team. I'm not claiming he has a deep talent pool to work with but our two most talented players (Bledsoe and Knight, in case you were wondering) are too much alike and lack the playmaking skills that every team requires. Another approach to the offense might make better use of the skills they do have but Jeff appears thoroughly wedded to an approach that didn't well with a similar duo.

Hornacek has other deficiencies as well - no leadership, poor player development and inability to get players to buy into his ideas. He appears to not know what his players are thinking either. Tinker with the personnel all you want, but nothing is make much difference as long as he's running the show.

 

[Phrazbit]

Talent is fundamentally different than athleticism...we have plenty of astounding athletes, less basketball talent.

Exactly. A guy can run like the wind and jump out of the gym but it doesn't make him a good basketball talent.

 

[Phrazbit]

The biggest problem this team has is a head coach with very flawed ideas of how to put together a basketball team. I'm not claiming he has a deep talent pool to work with but our two most talented players (Bledsoe and Knight, in case you were wondering) are too much alike and lack the playmaking skills that every team requires. Another approach to the offense might make better use of the skills they do have but Jeff appears thoroughly wedded to an approach that didn't well with a similar duo.

Hornacek has other deficiencies as well - no leadership, poor player development and inability to get players to buy into his ideas. He appears to not know what his players are thinking either. Tinker with the personnel all you want, but nothing is make much difference as long as he's running the show.

When you contrast the team's record the last 2 years with the obvious deficiencies of the roster I don't see how this argument holds any water.

I'm not as high on Jeff as I was 12 months ago but to say its impossible to win with him takes a measure of denial. Along with the continued insistence that Dragic and Bledsoe didn't do well together. Those guys together won 48 games surrounded by guys who belonged on the bench.

 

[Mainstreet]

Slow day so I will throw in my 2 cents.

Athleticism (of the basketball type) generally translates into the potential to play the game.

Talent is a more proven commodity to play basketball well at a high level prior to entering into the NBA.

Generally speaking, the beams of athleticism and talent need to cross to have a good player. The Suns have missed on some players by failing to consider both.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Interesting the various perceptions of the word.

Explains the different assessments of the team. Just a summary of my understanding

Talent=athleticism+other innate abilities (such as vision, body control, intelligence, instinct)

Playing ability or effectiveness=Talent+skill (abilities developed through training)

I am not saying any of you are wrong.

 

[Phrazbit]

I think we're on roughly the same page when looking at the quality of our players. But its just the semantics of the word.

To me, talent and skill are synonyms, not separate qualities. I'd say using both words to describe a player is redundant.

While I think we'd all agree that a person could have all of those physical attributes you look for in a basketball player, but it does not necessarily mean he'd be good, in fact he may be terrible at the sport. That is the separation between guys who may be great athletes and guys who are great players. Talent.

 

[mojorizen7]

Talent means skills essentially...and on that note, when players are equally skilled, I'll take the players with better size and you can have your starting lineup of skilled smallballers.

I win.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Talent means skills essentially...and on that note, when players are equally skilled, I'll take the players with better size and you can have your starting lineup of skilled smallballers.

I win.

Love those guys who declare themselves the winners and walk away.

 

[Mainstreet]

Talent means skills essentially...and on that note, when players are equally skilled, I'll take the players with better size and you can have your starting lineup of skilled smallballers.

I win.

I will start with Stephen Curry for my small ball team. I guess Lebron at 6'8" could be classified as small ball if he plays center.

 

[mojorizen7]

Love those guys who declare themselves the winners and walk away.

Bring it baby!

In all seriousness, i do believe in smallball as an effective adjustment and coaching tactic. As a philosophy and a basketball identity it sucks.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Talent means skills essentially...and on that note, when players are equally skilled, I'll take the players with better size and you can have your starting lineup of skilled smallballers.

I win.

not this year you don't... or three of the last four years. Talent has started to trumped size.

 

[slinslin]

not this year you don't... or three of the last four years. Talent has started to trumped size.

Maybe you should try to read what he said.

You can't convince anyone that you would rather have a 6'2 Stephen Curry than a 6'7 Stephen Curry if you could.

 

[mojorizen7]

not this year you don't... or three of the last four years. Talent has started to trumped size.

Try not to skim over my posts. Read it again, Cheese.

 

[Covert Rain]

Maybe you should try to read what he said.

You can't convince anyone that you would rather have a 6'2 Stephen Curry than a 6'7 Stephen Curry if you could.

I have to agree with slinslin. Look...would you rather have a 6'2" stud or a 6'7" stiff? Yes. However, that doesn't mean that talent trumps size. That means the shorter guys are simply more talented in a given match up. I don't think anybody is arguing that simply putting a bunch of tall stiffs equals NBA title. You still have to have studs at a couple positions.

My argument is..give me Tim Duncan and Shaq or Shaq and LeBron and put them against a team that has an all star PG and SG. Fill both team rosters with competent players. Give the me the team with the all-star big men 100% of the time.

 

[Phrazbit]

I have to agree with slinslin. Look...would you rather have a 6'2" stud or a 6'7" stiff? Yes. However, that doesn't mean that talent trumps size. That means the shorter guys are simply more talented in a given match up. I don't think anybody is arguing that simply putting a bunch of tall stiffs equals NBA title. You still have to have studs at a couple positions.

My argument is..give me Tim Duncan and Shaq or Shaq and LeBron and put them against a team that has an all star PG and SG. Fill both team rosters with competent players. Give the me the team with the all-star big men 100% of the time.

Your argument has you taking two of the greatest players of all-time and chucking them against a couple of "all-stars". Talent would win there, but the talent is obviously favoring the Duncan/Shaq combo.

But if we took say... a team with a couple all-star bigs and threw it against a smaller team with more overall talent.

Fine.

You can have the 2015 Memphis Grizzlies and I will take the Warriors

 

[Covert Rain]

Your argument has you taking two of the greatest players of all-time and chucking them against a couple of "all-stars". Talent would win there, but the talent is obviously favoring the Duncan/Shaq combo.

But if we took say... a team with a couple all-star bigs and threw it against a smaller team with more overall talent.

Fine.

You can have the 2015 Memphis Grizzlies and I will take the Warriors

I am pretty sure I could come up with a dozen big men all-star combos and put them up against almost any dual guard combo and still say it favors the big men.

 

[Phrazbit]

I am pretty sure I could come up with a dozen big men all-star combos and put them up against almost any dual guard combo and still say it favors the big men.

But you're misconstruing the argument. No one is saying "small wins", they're saying TALENT wins.

I'll take a talented team that maybe is starting smaller guards or a 6'7" guy at PF, when they're all talented over a team starting a prototypical 1-2-3-4-5 lineup but doing so with some guys who are there because of their size and not their skill.

THAT is the debate that has been taking place. This idea that if you really want to compete then starting a near 7 footer and a guy 6'10" or taller together is required. There are some people that honestly buy into that and its nonsense. That kind of terrible logic is what has screwed teams over repeatedly as they desperately reach for guys are big but sadly terrible.

 

[mojorizen7]

But you're misconstruing the argument. No one is saying "small wins", they're saying TALENT wins.

Right....sort of.
The argument is a talented starting five with size beats out equally talented starting five of smallballers.

Hypothetically lets quickly create a dream team of skilled players at each position who also bring good size, strength.
6'9" Magic Johnson PG
6'6" M.Jordan
6'8" Scottie Pippen
6'11" Tim Duncan
7'0" Hakeem Olajuwon

Ok...now take those same five guys and take 6 inches of their height. There's your team of ultimate smallballers w/skill. They wouldn't stand a chance vs their bigger counterparts.

All things being equal(in terms of basketball skills) smallball is nothing more than an effective coaching tactic.

I understand this boards infatuation and preference for up tempo smallball...but ideally you want skilled basketball players with size, strength and speed. Since the beginning of time in the playgrounds, schoolyards, high school gyms, NCAA and the pro's...taller, and yes, skilled athletes have been desired. Why is that? Because the rim is 10 feet high.

There are definitely times when it can work to your advantage, but as a philosophy and a full time approach it's just plain dumb. You're putting your team at a disadvantage in a few ways. Why do that?

Golden St won with offensively and defensively skilled, smaller players who bought into the team concept and were fundamentally sound. They also had good depth.

SSOL hasn't won anything yet.

 

[SirStefan32]

Also, let's not forget that Golden State can go small or big. Sure, it made sense to go small against the Cavs, but they were able to get through Memphis, for example, with a big lineup. Hell, they got passed everyone in the West with size.

Comparing SSOL and the Warriors is just silly. Warriors are deep, can go big or small, they defend, they rebound. Kerr did an excellent job adjusting- from game to game, from quarter to quarter, and from possession to possession. Those are all things that D'Antoni teams did not have or could not do.

 

[Phrazbit]

Also, let's not forget that Golden State can go small or big. Sure, it made sense to go small against the Cavs, but they were able to get through Memphis, for example, with a big lineup. Hell, they got passed everyone in the West with size.

Not really, their starting PF throughout the entire playoffs was 6'7", the only guy over that height who got consistent minutes was Bogut but he still averaged less than half a game per night.

They consistently were small.

 

[Phrazbit]

Right....sort of.
The argument is a talented starting five with size beats out equally talented starting five of smallballers.

Hypothetically lets quickly create a dream team of skilled players at each position who also bring good size, strength.
6'9" Magic Johnson PG
6'6" M.Jordan
6'8" Scottie Pippen
6'11" Tim Duncan
7'0" Hakeem Olajuwon

Ok...now take those same five guys and take 6 inches of their height. There's your team of ultimate smallballers w/skill. They wouldn't stand a chance vs their bigger counterparts.

Again, that is NOT what anyone is arguing. The prevailing thought is that SIZE wins over TALENT.

We're not talking about getting completely equal talent and then taking the shorter team.

You can overcome size with superior talent, the Warriors did it throughout the playoffs.

 

[mojorizen7]

Again, that is NOT what anyone is arguing. The prevailing thought is that SIZE wins over TALENT.

We're not talking about getting completely equal talent and then taking the shorter team.

You can overcome size with superior talent, the Warriors did it throughout the playoffs.

Where is this prevailing thought coming from? Of course talent/skill wins over a bunch of mediocre ball players with good size.

 

[Phrazbit]

Where is this prevailing thought coming from? Of course talent/skill wins over a bunch of mediocre ball players with good size.

Its why you saw the Suns trade for Hot Rod Williams, sign Luc Longley, sign that goofy white guy with the goggles, draft Jake Tsikisause.

There has been a long time obsession with height in the NBA.

And there are certain posters on his board who have made it abundantly clear that they do think a guy's measurable are his most important stat.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Steve Kerr and Alvin gentry compared what they were doing with SSOL. I think they are knowledgeable enough to know. Calling their opinion silly is silly. Arguing against them just after they have won a championship is arguing physics with EINSTEIN. I will side with those guys.

An improved version of SSOL just won a championship. That is a fact.