32 replies to this topic

[Admiral General Aladeen]

All D'Antoni. There is no set gameplan and he doesn't even realize the basics of putting out a lineup that can actually function correctly. When the starting lineup isn't on the floor, we basically put out a unit of Blake/Meeks/Clark/Jamison with either Kobe or Howard. There is no way in hell we're successful with that horrible lineup against any half-decent team. We have zero interior defense if Jamison/Clark is our frontline (which the Raptors took advantage of last night), and if Dwight is in, then there's no one to get him the ball or facilitate the offense.

 

It's up to the coach to make adjustments as well once the opposition begins to go on a run. He didn't call a timeout even after we fell back by 12+ last night. In the  4th quarter, the Raptors ran with the same post-up play with whoever was being guarded by Jodie Meeks. You'd figure that he would make SOME adjustment after the 3rd or 4th time we were burned by the same play, but no. We can have the smartest defensive players in the world, but it won't make a damn bit of difference if the head coach is an idiot.

 

It's amazing that we've managed to hire two coaches back to back who are equally as terrible at managing rotations and lineups.

You don't need to be a coach to even realize that. Hell, most of the members on this forum picked up. 

[bfc1125roy]

Mike D'Antoni isn't going to install a defensive system so we can forget about that for the rest of the season. The focus should be on continuing to improve the offense now. 

[K0be10-11]

I think Meeks was just in there to help spread the floor so Kobe and Dwight can play Pick and Roll game. I think we should of went with the line up of, Nash, Kobe, Artest, Jamison, Dwight to end the game. Even though Jamison can't play D, he wouldn't have gotten scored on that many times on the post.

[BasketballIQ]

Kobe did his job. D'Antoni's gamble didn't pay off. DAntoni didn't dig those holes though. That was on the players. And Kobe's turnovers last night contributed to the deficit.

So one man doesn't deserve all the credit or blame. D'Antoni has made adjustments, and were winning games that we were losing.

[Majesty]

How exactly would Earl Clark not have worked out for us? I'm pretty damn sure the Raptors wouldn't have been able to run that same post-up play multiple times with a lengthy defender on the box.

That is an assumption and only assuming that Clark would have been revitalized.

Thing is you'll need to look at more than his 1-3 you need to look at the fact that till that when he was playing, he was turning over the ball, had little to no energy and was getting scored on about as easily.

See that's the thing, Meeks being out there and being scored on didn't give me anmesia that Clark was out there earlier getting scored on without any difference and already playinh tired. Don't know if it is his knee or just mental and physical fatigue but he didn't have it last night. Clark was exhausted early, didn't have the energy, was getting scored on and turned it over when he got the ball.

So I'm not going to act like that was going to change if he came back in.

So D'antoni pretty much played the lesser of two evils. He preferred gambling on the hustle energy and scoring of Meeks given what he'd seen from Clark earlier and even stated after the game that Clark will get minutes in the future he's just bringing them down for the momentm.

Which is understandable givenClarks last 3 performances he's looked worn and flat and the injury nagging. So rather than risk losing him like we lost Hill and gambling that he'd somehow get a resurgance of energy back he ain't had for the last 3 games, I'd go with Meeks as well in that scenario.

Even the one play Meeks made, the steal to fast break layup was something Clark lacked the energy to do after Kobe ran one in the first quarter so I'm not going to assume he'd have had much left in the 4th.

He gambled on Meeks and they ran a post game, and the way Clark was playing as of late and last night, he wouldn't have faired much better as him being long abd lengthy didn't seem to contribute much in any of the minutes he was in.

So you are free to assume that he would have made a difference despite no evidence of such during the course of the game and I'll assume he wouldn't and that D'antoni chose the less of two evils and went with Meeks as well.

"But Metta held Gay to 2-13 in the 2nd half and is in great shape"-Majesty

Funny thing is, in trying to mock me you brought up a great point. If Clark stays out there he probably stays defending Gay who would have continued to torch him.

So in that lineup Gay got no rhythm because of the D played, we sacrificed some post ups with Meeks but at the end of the day it was Gay who took the game winning attempt(over dwight) and the game tying attempt(over Metta) and in being out of rhythm missed both.

So who is to say that in sacrificing some post ups with Meeks that we wouldn't have been sacrificing the same amount of points or more if Clark was in there with no energy and a nagging injury trying to stay with Gay? You can't can you.

That's why its fun to "speculate".

Thanks for trying to mock me though, you actually brought up a good point.

Edited by Majesty, March 09, 2013 - 05:06 PM.

[LakeShow805]

Funny thing is, in trying to mock me you brought up a great point. If Clark stays out there he probably stays defending Gay who would have continued to torch him.

So in that lineup Gay got no rhythm because of the D played, we sacrificed some post ups with Meeks but at the end of the day it was Gay who took the game winning attempt(over dwight) and the game tying attempt(over Metta) and in being out of rhythm missed both.

So who is to say that in sacrificing some post ups with Meeks that we wouldn't have been sacrificing the same amount of points or more if Clark was in there with no energy and a nagging injury trying to stay with Gay? You can't can you.

That's why its fun to "speculate".

Thanks for trying to mock me though, you actually brought up a good point.

Except Gay would have still most likely missed.......Metta's defense didn't do much, Gay was just missing his shots. 

 

Pretty much my point is .....MD and Metta have something in common. They are both pretty garbage when it comes to defense and need to get shipped out

[L.A.K.E.R]

That is an assumption and only assuming that Clark would have been revitalized.

Thing is you'll need to look at more than his 1-3 you need to look at the fact that till that when he was playing, he was turning over the ball, had little to no energy and was getting scored on about as easily.

See that's the thing, Meeks being out there and being scored on didn't give me anmesia that Clark was out there earlier getting scored on without any difference and already playinh tired. Don't know if it is his knee or just mental and physical fatigue but he didn't have it last night. Clark was exhausted early, didn't have the energy, was getting scored on and turned it over when he got the ball.

So I'm not going to act like that was going to change if he came back in.

So D'antoni pretty much played the lesser of two evils. He preferred gambling on the hustle energy and scoring of Meeks given what he'd seen from Clark earlier and even stated after the game that Clark will get minutes in the future he's just bringing them down for the momentm.

Which is understandable givenClarks last 3 performances he's looked worn and flat and the injury nagging. So rather than risk losing him like we lost Hill and gambling that he'd somehow get a resurgance of energy back he ain't had for the last 3 games, I'd go with Meeks as well in that scenario.

Even the one play Meeks made, the steal to fast break layup was something Clark lacked the energy to do after Kobe ran one in the first quarter so I'm not going to assume he'd have had much left in the 4th.

He gambled on Meeks and they ran a post game, and the way Clark was playing as of late and last night, he wouldn't have faired much better as him being long abd lengthy didn't seem to contribute much in any of the minutes he was in.

So you are free to assume that he would have made a difference despite no evidence of such during the course of the game and I'll assume he wouldn't and that D'antoni chose the less of two evils and went with Meeks as well.

 

What assumption? I'm going off the fact that Earl Clark is 6'10 and that Meeks is 6'4. Neither Anderson nor DeRozan have the height nor strength to post and finish on Earl Clark as easily as they were doing so on Meeks. I don't need evidence in the place of common sense here. Taller guy on post-up player = harder time scoring on the block. This formula has been tried and true since the beginning of basketball.

 

Clark wasn't an absolute sieve getting scored on at will to start the game. Trying to equate that to Meeks getting torn apart late in the game makes no sense at all. There's a HUGE difference between getting scored on off isolation time and time again (Meeks) versus getting burned with off-ball movement at the start of the game (Clark). All buckets aren't the same either, the inability to string stops at the end nearly lost us the game. Thinking that it's all fine just because we got the win is foolish to even consider.

 

Clark wouldn't have much left in the 4th? He played only 18 minutes the entire night. The Raptors weren't pushing the pace late in the game like they were at the start either; the pace had slowed down considerably by that point on both ends of the floor. Giving the advantage to Jodie Meeks here is foolish considering that for all his "hustle" and "effort" he was getting completely mandhandled each time down the floor. The Raptors took advantage of him every possession. What he did against a challenged Hornets team doesn't matter against the Raptors. They ran a post-game through Meeks' man the entire OT session and half the 4th quarter. Adjusting to that by playing Clark's length against them would have curbed their options considerably.

 

D'Antoni's stupidity was what kept us down by 7+ all game long until Kobe decided to go crazy at the end. He chose to turn off his brain and make zero adjustments, like he has for much of the season. I guess he's just going to continue to rely upon Kobe to bail us out with miraculous shots down the stretch rather than make the proper adjustments. Can't wait to see what happens against legitimate competition instead of these gutter teams.

[BleedPurple&Gold]

^^ Exactly 

[Majesty]

Except Gay would have still most likely missed.......Metta's defense didn't do much, Gay was just missing his shots.

Pretty much my point is .....MD and Metta have something in common. They are both pretty garbage when it comes to defense and need to get shipped out

Like I said, all assumptions. Truth is you have no idea if Gay would have kept scortching Clark but instead of admitting it was a better idea to have Metta in there on Gay you'd rather say "Gay would have missed anyway" like I said it was an assumption.

And L.A.K.E.R was right, Clark only played 18 minutes yet was still winded and getting beat off the dribble and if Clkark stays in he stays on Gay so what soptops Gay from continuing to score on Clark at will? And would the post ups Meeks suffered just be switched out with Gay ripping Clark more down the stretch and finding a rhythm if Clark was playing instead? And did Metta being on him and ultimately keeping him out of rhythm the second half help in terms of his misses in the final seconds of the 4th and overtime and thus help us win?

Its questions like that you need to think about. And unfortunately "Gay would have missed anyway" just doesn't cut it

[BasketballIQ]

LAKER, are u even 30? You do know that DAntoni was taking a CALCULATED risk don't you? Not saying it was the best risk, but he knew that Meeks was getting burned, but I do think Clark is banged up and lacking confidence and Jamison was off and plays less D.

Far be it from be to defend D'Antoni , but despite what any one here says, this dude has forgotten more NBA than we have learned, and his staff has tons of knowledge.

[L.A.K.E.R]

LAKER, are u even 30? You do know that DAntoni was taking a CALCULATED risk don't you? Not saying it was the best risk, but he knew that Meeks was getting burned, but I do think Clark is banged up and lacking confidence and Jamison was off and plays less D.

Far be it from be to defend D'Antoni , but despite what any one here says, this dude has forgotten more NBA than we have learned, and his staff has tons of knowledge.

 

I don't need age to validate my stance. There is no substitute for common sense.

 

D'Antoni's "calculated risk" just about cost us the game barring that three point barrage from Kobe Bryant at the end. A three at the end of the shot clock off a double pump-fake, one off the inbounds fading backwards, and another 25+ feet out with two men draped all over him. If Kobe misses even one of these incredibly difficult shots, we lose the game. That's with D'Antoni twiddling his thumbs on the sideline watching Meeks get manhandled each and every time down the floor and the Lakers getting burnt by the SAME EXACT PLAY for 14 of the Raptors last 22 points.

 

Oh great, so because D'Antoni is our head coach, he shouldn't be criticized for making terrible coaching decisions down the stretch on Friday. Do you guys really not see the problem here? Just because we won doesn't mean that everything is fine. Minus Kobe Bryant, we go 0-4 the last few games.

[Ham]

Great Defense today lml

[Majesty]

The people that was saying "let's see them do that against a winning team" gonna shut up now?