To the rest of the world that loves basketball, the Oklahoma City Thunder loss, came as a shock to many, considering they were up in the series with three chances to close it out. Along with that, getting to this point, they beat the second best team in the league, the San Antonio Spurs, who, according to many experts, were the favorite to win the whole thing.
The three fools (the TNT panel, of course), in all their wisdom, correctly noted how OKC got off to a 3-1 lead, acknowledging how they used a big line up versus going small ball. To their points, every other team, all season, went small against the Warriors, falling for their trap, so to speak. When OKC went big, they began to get all the rebounds, lifting them to a 3-1 advantage. The three wisemen also noted how Enes Kanter and Steven Adams were big guys that can play, versus big guys that are just out there bumbling around. They were getting all the loose boards, changing the series for OKC, giving Durant and Westbrook room to breath. The other factor was Waiters, getting rebounds, causing havoc on defense and providing a spark offensively. Then, as the Warriors came back it became clear that Ibaka was playing more, Roberson was playing more...Of course, the Warriors are going to hit their shots. The strategy up to game five was working well. Then, in Game 7, the bickering began on offense. It's okay to bicker on defense but never on offense. Once you have the ball you have to turn the switch and let everyones' idea be a "good idea." If it's not, then the coach will bicker with the player(s), correcting the hero ball, or what have you. So the bickering begins on the offensive side of the ball and this comes out of frustration from the spectacular shooting of the Warriors, and, to my estimation, a feeling among the players in regards to the stories of Durant leaving OKC, win or lose. It seems that Waiters, as good as he was playing, was looking for a promotion and saw an opportunity to take more of a leadership role within the team or with another franchise and he began to assert himself behind the scenes, causing friction. His agent must have told him, "Look, you're playing well, it's prime time coverage, against the defending champs, and you have an opportunity here to play a bigger role on this team, or another." I could be wrong, but he, Durant and Westbrook were going at it in the worst way possible during a Game 7, of all times. This caused the team's confidence to go down.
All in all, the problem with OKC's loss came down to coaching decisions. For one, the coach needs to prohibit infighting and lay down the law: You can yell at each other on defense but on offense everyone's an artist. Then, line up issues kept them down. More bigs should've remained a strong part of the line up and Waiters should've been directed to full court press Curry at every given moment that Curry had the ball...particularly in all full court one v one situations. The idea is to get Curry tired. Sure, he's going to beat you on the dribble here and there, but once you wear out his legs, he'll become fatigued sooner and his shot will eventually suffer. (Watch any game pre-1999; there's a lot of one v one full court pressure.) It's better than allowing him three to five feet of a defensive gap every time he's on the ball. How does that help your cause? It doesn't, at all. This plays into the recent complaints of veteran players such as Isiah Thomas, proclaiming that "in his day Curry wouldn't have gotten away with all that," which is very true. The defense today is toned down so much compared to Thomas' era. There's too much room given to the star playmakers. Man them up, wear them out with an expendable player and work the boards. Never did the coach direct Waiters or Westbrook to full court press Curry one v one, on the dribble. The Cavs should learn really quickly to throw what's his name from Australia on Curry with a one v one full court press, and hope for the best.
The three fools (the TNT panel, of course), in all their wisdom, correctly noted how OKC got off to a 3-1 lead, acknowledging how they used a big line up versus going small ball. To their points, every other team, all season, went small against the Warriors, falling for their trap, so to speak. When OKC went big, they began to get all the rebounds, lifting them to a 3-1 advantage. The three wisemen also noted how Enes Kanter and Steven Adams were big guys that can play, versus big guys that are just out there bumbling around. They were getting all the loose boards, changing the series for OKC, giving Durant and Westbrook room to breath. The other factor was Waiters, getting rebounds, causing havoc on defense and providing a spark offensively. Then, as the Warriors came back it became clear that Ibaka was playing more, Roberson was playing more...Of course, the Warriors are going to hit their shots. The strategy up to game five was working well. Then, in Game 7, the bickering began on offense. It's okay to bicker on defense but never on offense. Once you have the ball you have to turn the switch and let everyones' idea be a "good idea." If it's not, then the coach will bicker with the player(s), correcting the hero ball, or what have you. So the bickering begins on the offensive side of the ball and this comes out of frustration from the spectacular shooting of the Warriors, and, to my estimation, a feeling among the players in regards to the stories of Durant leaving OKC, win or lose. It seems that Waiters, as good as he was playing, was looking for a promotion and saw an opportunity to take more of a leadership role within the team or with another franchise and he began to assert himself behind the scenes, causing friction. His agent must have told him, "Look, you're playing well, it's prime time coverage, against the defending champs, and you have an opportunity here to play a bigger role on this team, or another." I could be wrong, but he, Durant and Westbrook were going at it in the worst way possible during a Game 7, of all times. This caused the team's confidence to go down.
All in all, the problem with OKC's loss came down to coaching decisions. For one, the coach needs to prohibit infighting and lay down the law: You can yell at each other on defense but on offense everyone's an artist. Then, line up issues kept them down. More bigs should've remained a strong part of the line up and Waiters should've been directed to full court press Curry at every given moment that Curry had the ball...particularly in all full court one v one situations. The idea is to get Curry tired. Sure, he's going to beat you on the dribble here and there, but once you wear out his legs, he'll become fatigued sooner and his shot will eventually suffer. (Watch any game pre-1999; there's a lot of one v one full court pressure.) It's better than allowing him three to five feet of a defensive gap every time he's on the ball. How does that help your cause? It doesn't, at all. This plays into the recent complaints of veteran players such as Isiah Thomas, proclaiming that "in his day Curry wouldn't have gotten away with all that," which is very true. The defense today is toned down so much compared to Thomas' era. There's too much room given to the star playmakers. Man them up, wear them out with an expendable player and work the boards. Never did the coach direct Waiters or Westbrook to full court press Curry one v one, on the dribble. The Cavs should learn really quickly to throw what's his name from Australia on Curry with a one v one full court press, and hope for the best.
RSS Feed
