Suns vs Lakers 1/30/13

[Bufalay]

I was hit and miss with the game last night but I just finished watching it again and I'd have to say that was the most one-sided telecast I've ever watched. If you didn't know better you'd think the game involved someone named Kobe and a bunch of other guys that played for a team called the Lakers and NOBODY ELSE. Were we freaking invisible or what? When LA had the ball, they'd talk about the Lakers action and then when the Suns got the ball they'd talk about the Lakers in general. What an embarrassment of a performance from this ESPN crew. As a fan of Arizona sports I'm used to getting the short shrift but this topped them all.

Steve

I watched the game on mute.

 

[Neo]

I finally watched the replay last night, and I could not believe how slow the Lakers are. This will not be the Lakers version of 7 Seconds or Less. Pringles maybe lucky to get 7 decades or less out of those guys. Any team that likes to run is going to get a lot of easy baskets against L.A.. I am now much closer to believing that the Lakers might actually miss the playoffs.

 

[Ronin]

Watch it again.

Shawn Marion was in that video more than Amare Stoudemire, so unfair.

 

[cly2tw]

Watch it again.

OK, a casual observer would never have recognized Amare. A devoted Suns fan however could guess from the thunderous dunk who that indiscernible freakishly athletic guy is.

Shawn Marion was in that video more than Amare Stoudemire, so unfair.

Nothing to do with fairness, but just reflecting the mental denial attitude of the management. They might have won the title with Nash and Amare, had they kept the latter 3 years ago.

 

[Phrazbit]

Its a video of STEVE NASH highlight plays and passes, as good as Amare was on offense the lobs that Nash threw to Marion are most aesthetically pleasing than him getting it to Amare right under the basket, or watching a pick and roll.

Joe Johnson, Barbosa, Bell... they were also hardly seen, management must hate them too.

 

[SirStefan32]

Nothing to do with fairness, but just reflecting the mental denial attitude of the management. They might have won the title with Nash and Amare, had they kept the latter 3 years ago.

Really? They were trying to win for years with Nash and Amare- it was not happening when they were much younger and when Amare's knees were not completely destroyed. They made a great move by letting Amare walk. They should have let Nash go two years sooner as well.

I am, by nature, very sentimental and nostalgic, but you have to look at things realistically- Nash and Amare were never going to get the Suns a championship.

 

[BC867]

I am, by nature, very sentimental and nostalgic, but you have to look at things realistically- Nash and Amare were never going to get the Suns a championship.

Thank you for putting that into words. You might even add D'Antoni's name alongside Nash and Amar'e.

 

[Superbone]

I don't agree with you guys. A couple different bounce here, a better handled hip check there, we could have won at least one.

 

[SirStefan32]

I don't agree with you guys. A couple different bounce here, a better handled hip check there, we could have won at least one.

... and that right there is why we never won anything. Suns relied on luck- different bounces, better handled hip-checks, etc, while the Spurs relied on focus, defense, toughness, depth, rebounding, etc

Thank you for making my point for me better than I was able to.

 

[BC867]

... and that right there is why we never won anything. Suns relied on luck- different bounces, better handled hip-checks, etc, while the Spurs relied on focus, defense, toughness, depth, rebounding, etc.

As Blake Griffin says in his Kia commercial, when the "younger" Griffin says, "But all you do is dunk in that game.", "Bingo."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwDTE4kEE4

 

[Mainstreet]

... and that right there is why we never won anything. Suns relied on luck- different bounces, better handled hip-checks, etc, while the Spurs relied on focus, defense, toughness, depth, rebounding, etc

Thank you for making my point for me better than I was able to.

A dirty hit by Horry sending Nash into the scorer's table and the ultimate suspension of Amare and Nash for game 5 with the Spurs is not what I call defense or toughness. Please don't sugar coat it.

 

[BC867]

A dirty hit by Horry sending Nash into the scorer's table and the ultimate suspension of Amare and Nash for game 5 with the Spurs is not what I call defense or toughness. Please don't sugar coat it.

With all due respect, that's one episode in 44 years of 50-and-fade (or worse).

 

[Mainstreet]

With all due respect, that's one episode in 44 years of 50-and-fade (or worse).

I still remember a couple of Suns teams that made it to the Finals. IMO, the Suns team that we are discussing should have been another.

 

[SirStefan32]

I still remember a couple of Suns teams that made it to the Finals. IMO, the Suns team that we are discussing should have been another.

You can look at it any way you like, but at the end of the day soft, finesse teams don't win it all. Tough, defense-oriented, rebounding teams win.
Nash and Amare were both extremely soft and terrible on the defensive end. The team (or teams) were focused on outrunning and outscoring other teams with a seven-man rotation. Surrounding a PG/PF pick and roll with a bunch of running and shooting guards and small forwards makes for some fun basketball during the regular season, but when the games tighten up in playoffs, that team will not be able to get passed a defensive, methodical team.

I understand the appeal of SSOL small ball, and I am as sentimental and nostalgic as the next guy, but at the end of the day, you have to look at facts, and the fact is that what the Suns were trying to do just doesn't work.

 

[AzStevenCal]

You can look at it any way you like, but at the end of the day soft, finesse teams don't win it all. Tough, defense-oriented, rebounding teams win.
Nash and Amare were both extremely soft and terrible on the defensive end. The team (or teams) were focused on outrunning and outscoring other teams with a seven-man rotation. Surrounding a PG/PF pick and roll with a bunch of running and shooting guards and small forwards makes for some fun basketball during the regular season, but when the games tighten up in playoffs, that team will not be able to get passed a defensive, methodical team.

I understand the appeal of SSOL small ball, and I am as sentimental and nostalgic as the next guy, but at the end of the day, you have to look at facts, and the fact is that what the Suns were trying to do just doesn't work.

I just don't think it's that simple. SSOL was a gimmick but it was the only style of basketball that would have turned our team into a championship contender, IMO. I'd much rather build around a Tim Duncan than an Amare but we didn't have that option. Sometimes, "Tough, defense-oriented, rebounding teams win" but more often than not, they fail to win it all. That's because most teams fail to win it all.

You need to be able to score under pressure and you need to be able to get a key stop when you really need one but you really don't have to be the best defensive team or the toughest group of guys etc. I think the best formula for winning championships is to be very good at one end and better than average at the other. The closer you come to that forumula, the less luck you need but every championship team has needed luck to win it all.

The Spurs were lucky, they kept Duncan healthy and never lost both Parker and Manu at the same time during their championship runs. We needed a lot more luck than that, we needed to keep our first 7 guys healthy in order to win and we couldn't do that. That makes the Dantoni way a flawed approach but sometimes, a flawed approach is the best one available to you.

Steve

 

[SirStefan32]

I just don't think it's that simple. SSOL was a gimmick but it was the only style of basketball that would have turned our team into a championship contender, IMO. I'd much rather build around a Tim Duncan than an Amare but we didn't have that option. Sometimes, "Tough, defense-oriented, rebounding teams win" but more often than not, they fail to win it all. That's because most teams fail to win it all.

You need to be able to score under pressure and you need to be able to get a key stop when you really need one but you really don't have to be the best defensive team or the toughest group of guys etc. I think the best formula for winning championships is to be very good at one end and better than average at the other. The closer you come to that forumula, the less luck you need but every championship team has needed luck to win it all.

The Spurs were lucky, they kept Duncan healthy and never lost both Parker and Manu at the same time during their championship runs. We needed a lot more luck than that, we needed to keep our first 7 guys healthy in order to win and we couldn't do that. That makes the Dantoni way a flawed approach but sometimes, a flawed approach is the best one available to you.

Steve

That's where I disagree- D'Antoni had KT but refused to play him. He flat-out said he wasn't interested in rookies. He was just stubborn. His approach was flawed, and definitely not the best one available.

The Spurs' multiple championships had nothing to do with luck. They had everything to do with brilliant strategy, great tactics, and surgical precision in executing the two.

 

[Phrazbit]

Agreed. Even with our injuries we still had opportunities to win virtually every playoff series we played while D'Antoni was here. But one of our trademarks throughout the Mike D run was an inability to adjust (mostly out of stubbornness) and 4th quarter collapses largely because of a lack of execution and terrible game management.

I dont see how we could blow so many playoff leads and not question the coaching.

D'Antoni is not a horrible coach, he obviously created an offense perfectly suited for Nash, and he is very good at drawing up a set play in a timeout (something we sorely missed since he left, watching Nash dribbling desperately in an effort to create something as the clock ticks away). But his inability to make adjustments is his ruin. He is a one trick pony, and if you cant adapt during the playoffs you lose. And he lost.

And if anyone still believes that Mike is a coach who is not stubborn and can adjust to his talent... please observe Pau Gasol, one of the elite interior players in the league, forced to stand 20 feet away from the hoop, and then tell me how his talent supposedly has handcuffed him... and not the other way around.

 

[BC867]

I dont see how we could blow so many playoff leads and not question the coaching.

We watched as his seven man rotation wore down as each season progressed.

You can't win a marathon when you treat it as a sprint. It was the coach's call and it didn't work. It couldn't work! Unless his goal was to ride the high of the SSOL as long as he could get away with it.

What is ironic is that the GM's of the two largest markets in the country bought into it after he left Phoenix. I wonder who will be the Sucker City after his next arrivederci.

 

[mojorizen7]

You can look at it any way you like, but at the end of the day soft, finesse teams don't win it all. Tough, defense-oriented, rebounding teams win.
Nash and Amare were both extremely soft and terrible on the defensive end. The team (or teams) were focused on outrunning and outscoring other teams with a seven-man rotation. Surrounding a PG/PF pick and roll with a bunch of running and shooting guards and small forwards makes for some fun basketball during the regular season, but when the games tighten up in playoffs, that team will not be able to get passed a defensive, methodical team.

I understand the appeal of SSOL small ball, and I am as sentimental and nostalgic as the next guy, but at the end of the day, you have to look at facts, and the fact is that what the Suns were trying to do just doesn't work.

The offensive culture that's been embedded among the majority of Suns fans over the past decades won't allow them to understand these things, SirStefan. I've tried.

I'm still waiting for a 3 point shooting team that cant rebound or play defense to win anything important. Tick tock...

 

[Chaplin]

With all due respect, that's one episode in 44 years of 50-and-fade (or worse).

But we all know if we had just ONE title in that 44 years, you'd play a different tune. It only takes one with this franchise.

 

[BC867]

But we all know if we had just ONE title in that 44 years, you'd play a different tune. It only takes one with this franchise.

I don't think you are speaking for everyone. Certainly not for me. Especially with your faulty premise.

If the Suns over the decades had developed the mentality of building teams to win the post-season rather than just get into them . . . well, if they could have won one, they could have won many.

They were branded as a finesse team ever since they had one early Cinderella (Finals) season with the gimmick of a 212 lb. Center who drew opposing Centers away from the basket.

Since then, one Finals appearance in four decades. You can't win if you don't play.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Agreed. Even with our injuries we still had opportunities to win virtually every playoff series we played while D'Antoni was here. But one of our trademarks throughout the Mike D run was an inability to adjust (mostly out of stubbornness) and 4th quarter collapses largely because of a lack of execution and terrible game management.

I dont see how we could blow so many playoff leads and not question the coaching.

D'Antoni is not a horrible coach, he obviously created an offense perfectly suited for Nash, and he is very good at drawing up a set play in a timeout (something we sorely missed since he left, watching Nash dribbling desperately in an effort to create something as the clock ticks away). But his inability to make adjustments is his ruin. He is a one trick pony, and if you cant adapt during the playoffs you lose. And he lost.

And if anyone still believes that Mike is a coach who is not stubborn and can adjust to his talent... please observe Pau Gasol, one of the elite interior players in the league, forced to stand 20 feet away from the hoop, and then tell me how his talent supposedly has handcuffed him... and not the other way around.

I hesitated to respond to this post because I agree that Dantoni can be stubborn and I absolutely think he's using Gasol the wrong way, in fact he's using the entire team the wrong way. His style of ball is a horrible fit for the players he has. But, do you really still consider Gasol "one of the elite interior players in the league"? IMO, he hasn't fit that description in a couple of years. He has his moments but he's a far cry from the player five years ago that was arguably the best big in the game.

Steve

 

[Phrazbit]

I hesitated to respond to this post because I agree that Dantoni can be stubborn and I absolutely think he's using Gasol the wrong way, in fact he's using the entire team the wrong way. His style of ball is a horrible fit for the players he has. But, do you really still consider Gasol "one of the elite interior players in the league"? IMO, he hasn't fit that description in a couple of years. He has his moments but he's a far cry from the player five years ago that was arguably the best big in the game.

Steve

Yes, I think there are few post players who posses the skill he has. Even still. There are not very many guys right now in the league who have a wide variety of post moves, both with their back to the hoop and face up on the interior, he is one of the best. He had his way on the interior vs team USA in the Olympics only 7 months ago. Just in their last 2 games when Dwight was out and D'Antoni allowed Gasol to actually play in the post he averaged 22-11. Just last year he averaged 17-12 while feuding with Kobe and being poorly utilized by Mike Brown.

Pau is absolutely still one of the elite interior players in the league. And Mike has him playing 15-20 feet from the hoop on most occasions. He is currently having his worst shooting year of his career, his worst rebounding season in 8 years, his worst ppg of his career. And that is entirely because of the way he is being used. When allowed to play in the paint he is still a highly productive player, but Mike is so unable to adapt to talent that he would rather turn him into Channing Frye than have 2 future hall of fame big men playing in the post at the same time.

 

[Chaplin]

I don't think you are speaking for everyone. Certainly not for me. Especially with your faulty premise.

If the Suns over the decades had developed the mentality of building teams to win the post-season rather than just get into them . . . well, if they could have won one, they could have won many.

They were branded as a finesse team ever since they had one early Cinderella (Finals) season with the gimmick of a 212 lb. Center who drew opposing Centers away from the basket.

Since then, one Finals appearance in four decades. You can't win if you don't play.

So if the Suns just had one championship in their history--just one--you would still post the same stuff?

Seems to me that you will never be happy, regardless of if we win a championship in your lifetime, because just one will never be enough. I would LOVE us to have a dynasty and go on to win multiple championships, but that won't happen in any of our lifetimes.

Personally, I'm just hoping for one championship--I don't really care HOW it's done, I just want one.

 

[Griffin]

If the Suns over the decades had developed the mentality of building teams to win the post-season rather than just get into them . . . well, if they could have won one, they could have won many.

Couldn't fans of most teams in the league claim the same? The majority of franchises have not won more than 1 or 2 titles in their 40-50 year histories. The Suns' lack of tiles isn't the exception, it is the rule in the NBA. Very few teams have won many.