Porter has more plays to implement
- Thread starter Irish
- Start date
JCSunsfan
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Posts
- 22,115
- Reaction score
- 6,551
Steve Nash is his pg and he wants to call plays himself from the sidelines. We are now going to call plays after made baskets instead of run on made baskets.
Ugh. This is bad, bad, news.
Ugh. This is bad, bad, news.
The solution is to not give up any baskets. 
The "running on made baskets" will probably not go away, but it was something of a gimmick to use against bad teams. What is more signiciant is going to be to have more offensive sets than under D'Antoni (at least ones they actually use) and less emphasis on quick three point shots.
It will take some getting used to, but it is not like they CAN'T do run and gun when the need comes up. But to beat the Spurs, Lakers and Hornets, the Suns need to be much better in the half court.
The "running on made baskets" will probably not go away, but it was something of a gimmick to use against bad teams. What is more signiciant is going to be to have more offensive sets than under D'Antoni (at least ones they actually use) and less emphasis on quick three point shots.
It will take some getting used to, but it is not like they CAN'T do run and gun when the need comes up. But to beat the Spurs, Lakers and Hornets, the Suns need to be much better in the half court.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 119,244
- Reaction score
- 59,847
If so, I just hope Porter gives Nash the green light to call audibles like experienced QB's do in football. I think stifling Nash's play calling ability could be disastrous and could make the Suns tentative. I don't mind the coach calling plays after timeouts or even telling Nash what types of plays he wants run, however, limiting Nash's play making skills is taking away something he does best.
nashman
ASFN Icon
Agree JC I am not liking the sound of this at all. Sounds like he is taking one of the funnest teams to watch in the NBA and changing them into the Pistons of the west this sounds terrible.
nowagimp
Registered User
Terry Porter on his best day couldnt run an offense like nash with a bum ankle. I am concerned that Kerr/Porter are drawing from their past experiences with teams that had greatly differing talent. Porter was on a team of guys who could iso you to death(Drexler, walter davis, petrovic, kersey, young cliff Robinson), and Kerr was with MJ, scotty, and TD. Porter was very good PG, but only averaged 5.6 asst a game for his career, a far cry from steve nash. Steve Nash is a better passer than anyone those guys EVER played with. I hope that they are not trying to fit this team into a shoe that doesnt fit.
It now is very telling, that Kerr didnt just want DA to concentrate on defense, he wanted to change the offense, perhaps to the extreme. If this is so, I feel bad for Nash, as the plodding pistons type game will not make the best use of his skills. And I wonder if amare is well suited to the grind it out style, he's lightning in a bottle, he needs to be let out.
Somehow the Blazers scored a lot of points in Porter's era. He was not an MVP, but his team cretainly could score.
If anything it sounds like Porter may be overconfident in the Suns offense from the comments he's made. I don't think he'll completely abandon their free wheeling ways, but in the past few years the Suns were either hot from the outside or else they lost.
If anything it sounds like Porter may be overconfident in the Suns offense from the comments he's made. I don't think he'll completely abandon their free wheeling ways, but in the past few years the Suns were either hot from the outside or else they lost.
nowagimp
Registered User
The blazers has petrovic, walter davis, clyde drexler, cliff robinson and jerome kersey, yeah they could score plenty even without porter on the floor.
Come on, PG is the one who organizes the offense. We have Barbosa, Amare, Marion, all high scoring, even Bell is close to 15ppg. And u dont dare to say we can do that without Nash.
nowagimp
Registered User
Is a lesson necessary here? I would assume you know that marion and bell could never get their own shots, their opportunities had to be created by nash. Now Drexler, Petrovic, walter Davis, Cliff Robinson, and Kersey could all get their own shots, thus the blazers didnt need the PG to create for them. Same was true with the mavs, their offense was/is based on isos, because they had a ton of players who can get their own shots. When you have guys who can create their own shots, they can score when the PG is on the bench. Did the celtics score when rondo went to the bench? Do the spurs score when parker sits? Do the lakers score when Fish sits? The PG is not required for scoring in offenses that use go to guys to create their own shots. Enough said, if you get it good, if not, fine.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,047
- Reaction score
- 70,110
walter davis?
nashman
ASFN Icon
Last I checked AceP we don't have Marion, wake up man Nash makes this a good team without him the guys seem lost. I don't think all of a sudden these guys are just gonna be good without Nash on the floor.
nowagimp
Registered User
Yup, walter davis, one sweet shooting stroke. Drazen Petrovic also had an incredible stroke on that team, as did Kersey.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/1991.html
Davis played only 13.7 minutes a game that season in 32 games, so it is not unreasonable he's not usually thought of a Blazer. Petrovic averaged only 7.4 minutes that season.
Theire REAL roster was Drexler, Porter, Duckworth, Kersey, Buck Williams, Cliff Robinson, Ainge and Mark Bryant. The top seven averaged in double figures on a team that averaged 114.7 ppg. Porter averaged 8.0 assists per game on a team where Drexler averaged 6.0 assists; so there was a lot more than just one on one guys.
msdundee
Registered
My all-time favorite Sun. He only averaged 6+ ppg with the Blazers, but in all fairness that less-than-half-a-season he spent in Portland in '91 was his 15th year in the NBA, and the next year he retired.
nowagimp
Registered User
Yeah, and Drexler was an all-time great, the dominant force on that team, and a terriffic defender. He was one of the best one on one guys of his generation, scoring up to 27ppg while shooting 50% Fgs. And his 6 asst a game pretty much proves they could score plenty without porter on the floor. Still, Cliff Robinson, Drexler, Porter,and duckworth could take their man one on one. And if they were doubled there was always ainge, petrovic, Porter to stretch the floor. Offensively, they were a much more balanced team than the current suns. Its worth remembering that guys like Bell, Diaw, Barbs, had career years with Nash, even JJ shot his best with Nash. Steve Nash made everyone better, but that doesnt mean they are statistically that good on another team. Bell was a journeyman, Diaw a bench warmer, before they played with Nash. Funny how some posters say, the suns depend too much on nash. Yeah correct, but that is because much of the supporting cast isnt nearly as good without him. All around the league, other teams look at the suns players and say " how good is he really"? What would he be like on another team? Amare would be outstanding in any situation, but it seems to me that many suns fans over rate the talent on this team based on inflated statistics that are due to steve nashs contributions.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,047
- Reaction score
- 70,110
yeah, but Davis really had zero role on that team. I just thought it was odd you'd include him on that list.
I would be helpful if you could summarize what your point is. I'm totally lost since it seems to keep moving around.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,047
- Reaction score
- 70,110
i think it's pretty simple. we don't have NEAR the type of players that Porter's Blazers teams did as far as ISOs so it's tough to compare what he did and what kind of offense he ran as far as how our offense will run.
nowagimp
Registered User
Yup, cheese gets it, his basketball knowledge is apparently on another level. those portland teams were stacked with talent. The suns go out and fill their bench with guys like pike and marks, while the blazers had bench players like petrovic and Davis. they had great shooter and guys who could create their own shots. Those blazers were deep and talented, and Drexler was a major playmaker, perhaps better than porter.
nowagimp
Registered User
Davis played 14 mins a game that year, a nice bench contribution. even though he only scored 6ppg. A shooter of his caliber on the floor probably helped spacing alot more than the 6ppg might indicate when porter was resting. I doubt anyone would leave walter davis alone on the perimeter.
Suns_fan69
Official ASFN Lurker
The whole situation somewhat reminds me of when Avery Johnson took over for Nelson in Dallas.
nowagimp
Registered User
Hopefully not, as avery didnt like steve nash as a PG. Steve then went out, won 2 MVP's and showed what a moron avery johnson was. Avery was only a middling PG, not near as good a PG as porter. Good thing he had david robinson and Tim Duncan to make up for his mediocrity so he wasnt abused so much on defense. the "lil general" was every PG's post up dream.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Posts
- 92,047
- Reaction score
- 70,110
man, I didn't remember that at all (that's not a statement saying you're wrong, I just don't remember it). It's probably because the only incarnations of the Blazers I really remember were the 89-90 squad we should have beaten (blowing a freaking 18 point lead in Game 2 and KJ's bad hammy in Game 6) and the 1991-92 team which looked like it might have a good shot to beat the Bulls, teams he didn't play on.
regardless of remembering him there or not though doesn't matter. even without him, those teams had much more talent, youth, shooting and at this point coaching than this squad does.
The Blazers did have a great team, but the question was whether Porter knew anything about offense. Saing they had a great team with lots of guys scoring, doesn't actually prove Porter was irrelevant to their play. If I'm not mistaken, Nash is expected to pass Porter as tenth on the all time assist list, which suggests Porter was pretty good as a floor leader.
That doesn't mean that's how he will coach. Kerr was hardly a great defender and he seems far more interested in defense than D'Antoni.
Avery Johnson was nevery really at Porter's level as an offensive play make and showed no particular skil at coaching it. But AJ had the other problem of dealing with Mark Cuban.
Why do I seem to feel I'm chasing a moving target? Mostly because Gimp and others keep insisting that the Suns are going to become this slow down, grind it out team based on the fact that the team is working on improving their half court offense. The sequence sounds like this:
1. Charge - The Suns are calling plays, so they most be going to an Eastern style team because he doesn't know anything about up tempo offesne.
2. Repones - Porter's 2003-04 team led the East in offense.
3. Counter Charge - That team on went 500 and only scored 98 ppg.
4. Response - This was on a team that was generally picked to finish last
5. Counter - This doesn't prove he knows Western Conference offense
6. Response - He was point guard with the high scoring Blazers of th late 80's and early 90's.
7. Counter - Those Blazer teams had a lot of great players.
8. Respone - The points were evenly divided over a lot by one of the all time great assist guys.
9 Counter - Nash is better than Porter was
10 Respone - How does that show Porter doesn't know what he's doing?
At some point, none of this matters. What will matter is what happens on court whent the team has digeted the new schemes and everyone is healthy and available. Right now, it is hard to know what to make of all the changes, but I can't see the Nash offense going away .
That doesn't mean that's how he will coach. Kerr was hardly a great defender and he seems far more interested in defense than D'Antoni.
Avery Johnson was nevery really at Porter's level as an offensive play make and showed no particular skil at coaching it. But AJ had the other problem of dealing with Mark Cuban.
Why do I seem to feel I'm chasing a moving target? Mostly because Gimp and others keep insisting that the Suns are going to become this slow down, grind it out team based on the fact that the team is working on improving their half court offense. The sequence sounds like this:
1. Charge - The Suns are calling plays, so they most be going to an Eastern style team because he doesn't know anything about up tempo offesne.
2. Repones - Porter's 2003-04 team led the East in offense.
3. Counter Charge - That team on went 500 and only scored 98 ppg.
4. Response - This was on a team that was generally picked to finish last
5. Counter - This doesn't prove he knows Western Conference offense
6. Response - He was point guard with the high scoring Blazers of th late 80's and early 90's.
7. Counter - Those Blazer teams had a lot of great players.
8. Respone - The points were evenly divided over a lot by one of the all time great assist guys.
9 Counter - Nash is better than Porter was
10 Respone - How does that show Porter doesn't know what he's doing?
At some point, none of this matters. What will matter is what happens on court whent the team has digeted the new schemes and everyone is healthy and available. Right now, it is hard to know what to make of all the changes, but I can't see the Nash offense going away .
