- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Posts
- 11,660
- Reaction score
- 844
ROFL whoever said Nash wasn't a bad defender, please re-watch today's game tape!!!!
Suns get Aaron Brooks
- Thread starter azsportsfan01
- Start date
BC867
Long time Phoenician!
As long as Hill has to guard Nash's man and, therefore, Nash has to guard Hill's (such as Morrow on the Nets), we have a deficiency.
I hate to say it but once we have a lead late in the 4th quarter or in O/T, the Suns should consider swallowing their pride and play offense-defense substitutions with Steve and either Dudley or Petrius, or even Carter.
That goes for Gortat starting the O/T at Center instead of Lopez as well.
And Dudley or Petrius instead of Carter as well, unless he is in to play defense at the Point.
Gentry should consider the 5-minute overtime to be an extension of the 4th quarter, instead of the beginning of another game.
I hate to say it but once we have a lead late in the 4th quarter or in O/T, the Suns should consider swallowing their pride and play offense-defense substitutions with Steve and either Dudley or Petrius, or even Carter.
That goes for Gortat starting the O/T at Center instead of Lopez as well.
And Dudley or Petrius instead of Carter as well, unless he is in to play defense at the Point.
Gentry should consider the 5-minute overtime to be an extension of the 4th quarter, instead of the beginning of another game.
If the Suns believed Nash was a born again decent defender he wouldn't have spent the entire game off of Williams and most good PG's on opposing teams. Nuff said.
Errntknght
Registered User
Lets see... Price played 25 minutes and Brooks guarded him for 10 minutes so he faced Nash for 15 minutes, less than a third of the game. So 'all night long' is a gross exaggeration to start with. Now factor in that Price, against Nash and Brooks combined, made a grand total of TWO 2pt shots - so what did he do after he 'repeatedly' broke Nash's ankles, take a little snooze? Because he sure didn't score repeatedly.
I suppose if you're sure your perceptions of the game are correct you could report to the league that the official scorers screwed up the box-score stats something awful.
Huh? I said that he guarded Collison better. I didn't say he guarded him perfect. Your contention was that he kept him in front of him all night long and I dispute that. Even the limited time Nash was against price looked god awful. I am not sure how you figured out the exact time Brooks covered who but I will take your word for it. Maybe it was the time sprinkled throughout the game that made it seem longer. I will give you the benefit of the doubt you actually know the exact time.
Having said that....I guess seeing Nash playing off PG all night tonight instead of covering Williams for most of the game was a testament to the Suns new found confidence in Steve's defense. All season long Steve just like in previous years gets put on the opposing teams SG to hide him. You act like we don't do it all the time. If Nash's bad defense is such a gross exaggeration then maybe someone should inform the Suns that Nash can now guard his own position this year.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 114,668
- Reaction score
- 54,544
I agree the Suns should make offensive-defensive substitutions where permissible late in games. Even bring in Childress in special situations. I also feel much the same about the rotations in the 5 minute OT. Gentry should also factor in who is fresh and who is not. Likewise, who is hot and who is not.
Chaplin
Better off silent
Maybe people are just forgetting that Steve Nash is the best free throw shooter IN HISTORY. You don't take him out when you have less than a 10-point lead at the end of the 4th. Think, people.
jbeecham
ASFN Addict
True, but you also shouldn't have him guard their hot 3pt shooter in the closing seconds... besides, we could've always called a timeout if we got the ball back to sub him back in.
Chaplin
Better off silent
Steve himself said that he was trying to foul before the shot was taken but he whiffed on it and ended up fouling on the shot. It's not like he has a monopoly on those types of mistakes.
elindholm
edited for content
True, and that's one of the reasons that I disagree with the strategy of fouling in that situation. Mistake or not, you can't trust the referees to call the foul when you want them to call it. Morrow nearly made that shot as it was, and a free throw would have given the Nets the win in regulation. Contest the three-point shot as well as you can, and if they make a miracle, focus on overtime.
Divide Et Impera
Registered User
I don't know if this has been discussed, but what I saw from Brooks yesterday is nothing short of pathetic. I saw him dribble the ball out of the backcourt and pass off to someone just before reaching the 3pt line and just standing out there in space on several occasions. On one such possession, he literally just stood out on the perimeter of the 3pt line while there was a near-scrum for the ball on the baseline which was recovered by the Nets and it led to a fast break for a bucket and a foul.
What is Brooks' point of existence? He's a PG who gives up the ball because he seemingly refuses to step inside the 3pt line. He doesn't move without the ball. What's the damned deal?
What is Brooks' point of existence? He's a PG who gives up the ball because he seemingly refuses to step inside the 3pt line. He doesn't move without the ball. What's the damned deal?
I did notice an instance of what you are referring, i believe he passed it to Pietrius and stood endlessly watching from top of the arc. not sure if he did that more than once though.
i still think he is trying to fit in, and it appears he is trying too hard not to look like the ball hog he has been labeled.
elindholm
edited for content
Are you sure that wasn't Dragic? It sure sounds like him.
Divide Et Impera
Registered User
Yep. That's the possession I'm talking about. I noticed the same thing at least 3 times. It's as if he thinks his only role is to bring the ball up out of the backcourt and then let the team play 4-on-5 on offense....
Folster
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Posts
- 16,629
- Reaction score
- 6,942
Hmm. I saw Brooks score 8 points and hand out 4 assists. He looked out-of-sorts in the 2nd quarter, but great in the 4th.
jagu
#13 - Legendary
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Posts
- 4,772
- Reaction score
- 207
He needs time, he definitely isn't some kind of wizard PG to pick up the Suns offensive plays by watching a DVD. I was very impressed with the way he handled himself on the court. People say he is a black hole PG that doesn't pass but I saw many instances where he found the open man, and it looked a lot better than Tragic '10-'11.
Brooks improved his game with the Suns bigtime against the Nets. A couple 3s, nice passes, and took it to the hole. Later in the game when every one was just running around with the shot clock winding down, Brooks got the ball and took it to the middle, created space for the 3 and we hit it. I must be watching a different game or maybe I just expect a realistic start with a new team.
joshstmarie
Hall of Famer
BC867
Long time Phoenician!
Free throw shooting occurs periodically. Defense occurs at every position half of the time.
Offense-defense switches in the latter stages of a game are nothing new, for a reason.
Nash excelling at running the offense when you need to outscore your opponent.
Nash on the bench when you have the lead and just need to play even, at worst.
Nash on the bench when our Small Forward has to guard their Point Guard, while Steve is at an even worse disadvantage against their "2" or "3".
Shooting free throws didn't beat the Nets. Nash guarding Morrow lost our lead, in a matter of a few minutes. That is what it's all about.
Chaplin
Better off silent
And that is why we've lost all our games this year, right? You can't point to one single instance and turn around and base an entire season on it. Sure, Nash screwed up, but it's not like that happens all the time. In fact, Nash is RARELY the reason why we lose. I'd even go so far as saying that more often than not if you want to blame Nash for something, it's his offense that hurts us more in our losses than his defense. (turnovers, ill-advised shots)
BC867
Long time Phoenician!
Huh? My post was about playing offense-defense and keeping Nash on the bench when we are protecting a lead near the end of the game.
Our Small Forward having to guard their Point Guard, putting Nash on his man defensively, is not playing from a position of power.
It's not fair to Steve, it's not fair to the team and it's not fair to our fans.
jagu
#13 - Legendary
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Posts
- 4,772
- Reaction score
- 207
Dragic last night:
8:18
+/- -4
2 rebounds
1 assist
4 fouls
2 turnovers
2 points
Hasn't missed a beat.
8:18
+/- -4
2 rebounds
1 assist
4 fouls
2 turnovers
2 points
Hasn't missed a beat.
We will see if Brooks can get Steve some rest. IMHO Steve does a better job on defense than he's given credit for, but not when he is playing 35 plus minutes.
As for Morrow, I'm still wondering why the Suns did not go after him during free agency. He signed for $4 million year and shoots 44.1% for three and 46% overall. Compared to Childress (who costed more) and Warrick, Morrow would have been a nice addition.
As for Morrow, I'm still wondering why the Suns did not go after him during free agency. He signed for $4 million year and shoots 44.1% for three and 46% overall. Compared to Childress (who costed more) and Warrick, Morrow would have been a nice addition.
Errntknght
Registered User
DarenG,
Don't read more into what I wrote than is there. I just disagreed with what you said about his D in a specific game (and I still do). That doesn't translate to considering him to be a good defender. He might be slightly better this year than in the past but it probably comes from have better D from the bigs behind him more than anything else.
On the other hand, Steve is not as bad a defender as some people on here proclaim - often and stridently. He's alert to whats going on and is a fair team defender though he's not tall enough or enough of a leaper to help on bigger players that get loose. What he does that helps: he's good at stepping in to take a charge, he gets back on defense, he shows in a timely manner on a scissors in the lane or a wing threatening to drive across, he impedes opponent movement w.o. fouling, and he knows when to give an intentional foul. Small stuff and not very noticeable but it does help.
Why do we 'hide' Nash on players other than his opposite number? You'd think this would be obvious but the way people bring it up its like they think its unmanly or something. Two reasons - 1) his opposite number is charge of the opponents offense and disrupting that is critical, so we put one of our best perimeter defenders on him, and Steve is not in that category. 2) to conserve Steve's energy for the offensive end. You may have noticed that our offense requires Steve to be involved like 80% of the 24 second clock - that consumes energy. On top of that, so far this year the team loses ground rather steadily when he's not playing. So Gentry has him guard someone who doesn't move around a whole lot, letting Steve play more minutes and/or at a higher energy level. Heck, last summer I was ticked when the Suns didn't do squat to keep the second unit intact - my reasoning being that was our only hope of keeping Nash's minutes at a nice low number. Gentry, at least, should have known how important that is. Well, finally, at 2/3rds of the way through the season we might have a second unit that can stay even.
Now if we can just settle on a closing group that can execute...
Don't read more into what I wrote than is there. I just disagreed with what you said about his D in a specific game (and I still do). That doesn't translate to considering him to be a good defender. He might be slightly better this year than in the past but it probably comes from have better D from the bigs behind him more than anything else.
On the other hand, Steve is not as bad a defender as some people on here proclaim - often and stridently. He's alert to whats going on and is a fair team defender though he's not tall enough or enough of a leaper to help on bigger players that get loose. What he does that helps: he's good at stepping in to take a charge, he gets back on defense, he shows in a timely manner on a scissors in the lane or a wing threatening to drive across, he impedes opponent movement w.o. fouling, and he knows when to give an intentional foul. Small stuff and not very noticeable but it does help.
Why do we 'hide' Nash on players other than his opposite number? You'd think this would be obvious but the way people bring it up its like they think its unmanly or something. Two reasons - 1) his opposite number is charge of the opponents offense and disrupting that is critical, so we put one of our best perimeter defenders on him, and Steve is not in that category. 2) to conserve Steve's energy for the offensive end. You may have noticed that our offense requires Steve to be involved like 80% of the 24 second clock - that consumes energy. On top of that, so far this year the team loses ground rather steadily when he's not playing. So Gentry has him guard someone who doesn't move around a whole lot, letting Steve play more minutes and/or at a higher energy level. Heck, last summer I was ticked when the Suns didn't do squat to keep the second unit intact - my reasoning being that was our only hope of keeping Nash's minutes at a nice low number. Gentry, at least, should have known how important that is. Well, finally, at 2/3rds of the way through the season we might have a second unit that can stay even.
Now if we can just settle on a closing group that can execute...
