Suns @ Kings Game Thread 1-23-13

[Neo]

Maybe Beas sees the coaching change as a clean slate opportunity for him.

How many clean slates does a guy get?

Beasley had a remarkable Freshman season at K-State, but since then has been underwhelming. I would love it if he turned into a good player for the Suns, but I just don't see it happening. If Hunter can get Beasley to be 75% of what he was supposed to be when he joined the NBA, then Hunter has my vote as Coach of the Year. Even if we can just get him to the point where he is a trade asset rather than liability, I would consider that a victory.

However, it will take a lot more than one game to change the view of his ability that was created in the last 300 games.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I know I'm the only one that believes this but IMO, our early season problems weren't Beasley. They were the combination of Dudley playing a position where he was woefully inept, Luis Scola playing a level of ninja defense that would make Hakim Warrick proud AND Michael Beasley trying to play defense but exhibiting no awareness of man or ball. For some reason, once it all shook out, the blame all seemed to settle on Beasley's shoulders.

Gentry responded to the poor start by giving him inconsistent minutes and Beasley stopped having any positive effect at all on the offensive end while still killing us on the defensive end. I don't buy the "lazy" label, I don't think that was ever his problem. Clueless, yes - lazy no.

Anyway, Michael is a young man with confidence issues doing the one thing on the court that absolutely requires confidence. He's being yanked in and out of the lineup often as soon as he misses his first two shots. Yes, some of this falls on Gentry. I think it was a stupid move to bring Beasley here in the first place but once that happened, Gentry should have given him every chance to succeed rather than continually setting him up to fail.

In case there's any confusion here, I do believe Beasley will fail. The odds are well stacked against him. But, he wasn't a 5 game experiment. It should have been obvious that the guy needed a guiding hand. He should have been held out of the lineup from the beginning while he worked on his weaknesses or he should have been left out there for major minutes while his game came up to speed. He shouldn't have been billed as our star in the making and then had the rug yanked from under him every time he played to the low end of his historical level.

Steve

 

[Mainstreet]

I know I'm the only one that believes this but IMO, our early season problems weren't Beasley. They were the combination of Dudley playing a position where he was woefully inept, Luis Scola playing a level of ninja defense that would make Hakim Warrick proud AND Michael Beasley trying to play defense but exhibiting no awareness of man or ball. For some reason, once it all shook out, the blame all seemed to settle on Beasley's shoulders.

We should find out about new player combinations and playing time down the stretch. I'm open minded if players have not been used to their advantage including Beasley and Dudley.

However, I'm still at a loss why you continue to knock Scola. He is a dirt worker as Cotton used to say, doing the dirty work underneath the basket, a true banger (the only one on the Suns roster) and possesses a nice mid-range shot. He may not be an athletic defender but he plays position defense and is cunningly smart. Cousins was on his way to a monster game last night when Scola gave him a lesson on knocking players around.

 

[AzStevenCal]

We should find out about new player combinations and playing time down the stretch. I'm open minded if players have not been used to their advantage including Beasley and Dudley.

However, I'm still at a loss why you continue to knock Scola. He is a dirt worker as Cotton used to say, doing the dirty work underneath the basket, a true banger (the only one on the Suns roster) and possesses a nice mid-range shot. He may not be an athletic defender but he plays position defense and is cunningly smart. Cousins was on his way to a monster game last night when Scola gave him a lesson on knocking players around.

I don't continue to knock Scola. Scola, for the first month or so, was a huge liability on defense and inconsistent on offense. Since then though, he's consistently been our best player. He is no longer doing (or no longer doing, often) the things that I hated about him. He's not settling for shots outside of his shooting range for the most part and again, for the most part, he's picking up a player and staying with him instead of wandering aimlessly around the court. I shudder to think where we'd be without him this past month or so.

Steve

 

[Mainstreet]

I know I'm the only one that believes this but IMO, our early season problems weren't Beasley. They were the combination of Dudley playing a position where he was woefully inept, Luis Scola playing a level of ninja defense that would make Hakim Warrick proud AND Michael Beasley trying to play defense but exhibiting no awareness of man or ball. For some reason, once it all shook out, the blame all seemed to settle on Beasley's shoulders.

I guess the quote above gave me the impression you were still down on him like earlier in the season.

I've always liked Scola, probably because I always look at what he can do instead of what he can't.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I guess the quote above gave me the impression you were still down on him like earlier in the season.

I've always liked Scola, probably because I always look at what he can do instead of what he can't.

That's typically how I look at players but as we struggled early in the season I began re-watching the games to try and understand what was happening. I've made my point many times on his defensive problems back then so I'll go to the other side of the ball.

Early on, Eddie would rave about Scola's shooting and I'd keep hearing him say that Luis "owned" that shot and the other team was foolish to leave him open. But, as I watched him it became clear that he didn't "own" that shot at all. Good defenses would force him out a foot or so beyond his range but he'd still throw it up and our announcers would continually be surprised when he missed it.

It's only been in the last week that our announcers finally woke up to the fact that he can't shoot from the top of the key. Eddie, two games ago, for the first time this season, finally acknowledged the dropoff for Luis when he's moved outside his range. I felt like clapping because it's been so obvious to me not to mention it's been quite obvious to the better coached defenses too. I'd bet that Eddie didn't discover this problem on his own, he probably heard it circulating throughout the team. Luis is one of the best shooting big men in the league and yet his stats didn't support that because of his shot selection. He's firmed up that shot selection.

I really don't know why Luis was such a liability at the start of the season. He does enough things out there that suggest he's a smart player and yet he was doing some pretty dumb things too. I really do wonder if his defensive problems weren't more of a reflection on coaching than anything else.

As for his shot selection, I'm not saying he was out there throwing up ridiculous prayers. If they're willing to put the ball in his hands and there isn't an open guy, he's willing to put the ball in the air. Again, coaching might be involved here. Maybe they gave him the green light and he did what all of us non-guards want to do when we get the ball, score. Regardless, he looks like a completely different player out there today. Not perfect but a better all around package than I expected and the kind of player that should interest a contending team once we're able to move him.

Steve

 

[hcsilla]

I know I'm the only one that believes this but IMO, our early season problems weren't Beasley. They were the combination of Dudley playing a position where he was woefully inept, Luis Scola playing a level of ninja defense that would make Hakim Warrick proud AND Michael Beasley trying to play defense but exhibiting no awareness of man or ball. For some reason, once it all shook out, the blame all seemed to settle on Beasley's shoulders.

Gentry responded to the poor start by giving him inconsistent minutes and Beasley stopped having any positive effect at all on the offensive end while still killing us on the defensive end. I don't buy the "lazy" label, I don't think that was ever his problem. Clueless, yes - lazy no.

Anyway, Michael is a young man with confidence issues doing the one thing on the court that absolutely requires confidence. He's being yanked in and out of the lineup often as soon as he misses his first two shots. Yes, some of this falls on Gentry. I think it was a stupid move to bring Beasley here in the first place but once that happened, Gentry should have given him every chance to succeed rather than continually setting him up to fail.

In case there's any confusion here, I do believe Beasley will fail. The odds are well stacked against him. But, he wasn't a 5 game experiment. It should have been obvious that the guy needed a guiding hand. He should have been held out of the lineup from the beginning while he worked on his weaknesses or he should have been left out there for major minutes while his game came up to speed. He shouldn't have been billed as our star in the making and then had the rug yanked from under him every time he played to the low end of his historical level.

Steve

I agree except that I am still somehow confident that Beasley won't fail.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I agree except that I am still somehow confident that Beasley won't fail.

I'm hopeful but I'm always hopeful. Beasley has the physical tools to be a top 20 player and it's pretty obvious we need a player of that caliber. If he gets there I'll be thrilled but a turnaround of this magnitude rarely happens this far into a players career. But, again, I'm still hopeful.

Steve

 

[Phrazbit]

I agree except that I am still somehow confident that Beasley won't fail.

Dont worry, I actually agree. In a couple years Beasley will be great...

















In China.

 

[hcsilla]

, your opinion does not count in Beasley-related topics, you just hate him too much.

 

[Phrazbit]

, your opinion does not count in Beasley-related topics, you just hate him too much.

As the only person here who had him properly pegged from day one I think my opinion should count extra!

 

[Errntknght]

As the only person here who had him properly pegged from day one I think my opinion should count extra!

You were certainly the most vocal but there have not been many who have given him any but the more guarded props - me included. Know what will smart the most should Beasley yet turn into something - conceding that Blanks & Babby were the ones that had him pegged right! How humiliating!

 

[Errntknght]

I know I'm the only one that believes this but IMO, our early season problems weren't Beasley. They were the combination of Dudley playing a position where he was woefully inept, Luis Scola playing a level of ninja defense that would make Hakim Warrick proud AND Michael Beasley trying to play defense but exhibiting no awareness of man or ball. For some reason, once it all shook out, the blame all seemed to settle on Beasley's shoulders.

Gentry responded to the poor start by giving him inconsistent minutes and Beasley stopped having any positive effect at all on the offensive end while still killing us on the defensive end. I don't buy the "lazy" label, I don't think that was ever his problem. Clueless, yes - lazy no.

Anyway, Michael is a young man with confidence issues doing the one thing on the court that absolutely requires confidence. He's being yanked in and out of the lineup often as soon as he misses his first two shots. Yes, some of this falls on Gentry. I think it was a stupid move to bring Beasley here in the first place but once that happened, Gentry should have given him every chance to succeed rather than continually setting him up to fail.

In case there's any confusion here, I do believe Beasley will fail. The odds are well stacked against him. But, he wasn't a 5 game experiment. It should have been obvious that the guy needed a guiding hand. He should have been held out of the lineup from the beginning while he worked on his weaknesses or he should have been left out there for major minutes while his game came up to speed. He shouldn't have been billed as our star in the making and then had the rug yanked from under him every time he played to the low end of his historical level.

Steve

Really, Steve. I thought Gentry gave Beasley a fair shake - especially considering that Alvin needed the team to win games to retain his job and Beas was not helping. At some level, unseen by us, Gentry may have been setting him up for failure... well unseen by me, anyway. If MB makes a sudden turn around under Hunter I guess I'll have admit that Gentry didn't handle him right.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Really, Steve. I thought Gentry gave Beasley a fair shake - especially considering that Alvin needed the team to win games to retain his job and Beas was not helping. At some level, unseen by us, Gentry may have been setting him up for failure... well unseen by me, anyway. If MB makes a sudden turn around under Hunter I guess I'll have admit that Gentry didn't handle him right.

I think Gentry tried to win games and he tried to appease the front office and consequently he failed in both areas. I don't know that I've ever seen a player with as negative of an impact on the game as Michael Beasley. Playing him, even for 10 minutes, was too much for this roster to overcome but it was too little for him to develop. And the sporadic playing time seemed to be a confidence drain for a player that just isn't mentally strong enough to overcome that, IMO.

When I say that some of this falls on Gentry, I'm not ignoring the fact that he was in a nearly impossible situation. I'm not even blaming him, really. I'm just suggesting that he might have negatively impacted Beasley's growth, or possible growth.

It's easy for me to say as I have nothing on the line but it seems to me Gentry should have gone to management and made his case. He should have said something along the lines of "I can try and develop Beasley and the young guys or I can try and win games. We simply do not have the talent to do both."

Steve

 

[BC867]

It's easy for me to say as I have nothing on the line but it seems to me Gentry should have gone to management and made his case. He should have said something along the lines of "I can try and develop Beasley and the young guys or I can try and win games. We simply do not have the talent to do both."

Perhaps he did.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Perhaps he did.

You're right, he may well have.

Steve

 

[Superbone]

I guess I am ok with a win tonight but no more for the rest of the year lol.

Whoops.