Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Cavs looked better all season last year without Shaq unitl we met up with Orlando and had to match up with D. Howard. Do you honestly think he is sitting out because of his sore shoulder? I doubt it. Even when he does come back I don't think that he will have a big a role as initially thought of because he is here for one specific reason, put a body on D. Howard. We will need him in the playoffs. I thought that was obvious when D. Howard was making mince meat out of our centers.
The Cavs looked better all season last year without Shaq unitl we met up with Orlando and had to match up with D. Howard. Do you honestly think he is sitting out because of his sore shoulder? I doubt it. Even when he does come back I don't think that he will have a big a role as initially thought of because he is here for one specific reason, put a body on D. Howard. We will need him in the playoffs. I thought that was obvious when D. Howard was making mince meat out of our centers.
Shaq obviously doesn't fit into the system - shooters spread the floor, clear the middle so Lebron can drive to the basket with minimal interference. That was predicted by many people as the trade was happening, so it wasn't exactly a surprise that Cavs didn't looks so great with him there.
That said, the Cavs acquired him to do one thing only - to stop Dwight Howard. They had their 66 win season, and they totally breezed through the first two rounds without a sweat. But...they had nobody to stop Howard with. And Mike Brown being Mike Brown, he overreacted during that series and double teamed Howard, leaving the Orlando shooters wide open. And we all know how that ended up.
So now the Cavs have an expensive backup center who was brought in to just to guard one player. It wasn't a terrible move if you look at it that way. But are the Cavs better, even without him playing? From the looks of it, not really.
They were a great team last year because they had great team chemistry. Lebron was happy because he had a legitimate chance to win it all, and everybody else was also happy not only because they were potential champions, but also because they were really clicking as a team. This year, they have the Delonte West thing to worry about, new players (that don't fit the system that well thus far), a Big Z that seems to have aged in dog years during the off season. On the plus side, they have the emergence of JJ Hickson, who looks sort of like "Udonis Haslem lite" (can hit the midrange jumper, can finish at the rim, not sure about his defense though). If he keeps this up, he's the power forward the Cavs have been looking for since, well, whenever Lebron showed up.
Even Mike Brown seems smarter (gasp!!). Well, whoever was responsible for the lineup change should be given full credit - if it was Mike Brown, then terrific. The genius who thought it would be a great idea to put 2 non-shooters (Varejao and Shaq) in the starting lineup earlier this season should have been shocked with a cattle prod. Yes, even if it was Mike Brown.
So rather than write off the Cavs completely, I'd say that the team needs time to gel and improve its chemistry through the rest of the season. If their chemistry ultimately becomes anything like last year's team's, then they can be a dangerous contender. And they have the one player they need to stop a certain Center from Orlando.
Yeah, but I am the only one who predicted it here.
I'd thought they would be a better and more cohesive team without Shaq clogging the center, but I didn't think they'd be this good. So if you predicted that, then good job.
That said, they're not contenders by any stretch of the imagination. I watched them twice this season - the back-to-back nationally televised games against the Hornets and the Lakers. The main difference between these opponents is that the Hornets are a pretty lousy team, while the Lakers are the reigning champions.
Some have argued that it was a "back-to-back for an old team" - translation: the Suns don't play well without rest. Well, besides Nash and Hill, all of their players are under 30. Still, 2/5 of your starting lineup is over 35 years old, so that counts for something. But that wasn't their problem at all - no their problem is that they only have a few sets they run, and the Lakers were able to stop nearly all of them.
What do they run?
- 7SOL fast breaks
- pick-and-roll between Nash and Stoudemire
- pick-and-pop with Channing Frye
- post-up isos for Stoudemire, Hill, or Jason Richardson
- Nash dribbling around a bunch of screens, getting into the paint area, and either shooting or passing it to an open inside player or outside shooter
- whatever play results in a double team, the Suns swing the ball around until they find an open shooter
That's about it.
Stoudemire was able to eat Emeka Okafor alive (who was an awesome defender in college, but sadly, back problems have totally tamed his ferociousness. He plays hard, but he's basically slow and undersized in the NBA.) The pick-and-rolls were working beautifully against the defenseless Hornets. They were nullified by the height and length of Andrew Bynum and the discipline of Nash's defenders.
Likewise, the Lakers were able to stymie Channing Frye by, well, throwing a hand in his face whenever he tried to shoot.
For the Suns, post-up isos work against inferior teams with weak defenses. They worked against the Hornets - for the most part, the post-ups for all three Suns players results in a turnaround jumper. The isos did not work against the Lakers.
Nash was able to find open teammates or shoot at ease against the Hornets. He registered only 5 assists against the more disciplined Lakers defense.
Basically, the team will make the playoffs and then fall to an opponent that will stop its offense. See...the common misconception is that the Suns kept losing in the playoffs because their defense sucked. Not so - they played probably the best defense out of any team against the 2007 Spurs, who eventually won the championship. In addition, the 7SOL thrives on fast breaks, which occurs only after getting stops and snagging defensive rebounds for outlet passes. In reality, the Suns weren't as bad a defensive team as their reputation said they were.
So how did the Suns of yesteryear fail in the playoffs? The other team, usually the Spurs, were able to stifle their offense. You can think of the Nash Suns as a latter-day Showtime Lakers with better three-point shooters - they also thrived mostly on those fast breaks. But what happened when they were forced to play half court? They had the ultimate low-post weapon - Kareem and his infallible skyhook. Worthy was also an excellent one-on-one player when they need him. In short, the Lakers had weapons to fall back on when they need it. The Suns didn't have them a few years back, and they don't have them this year either.
So how will the Suns get this weapon? In years past - namely, before the 2005-2006 season - it was Stoudemire. People have short memories: they forget that Stoudemire averaged 37 ppg against the Spurs in the WCF in 2005. He is still an awesome athletic force, but arguably, his athleticism is a shadow of what once was because of his microfracture surgery.
Unfortunately, he hasn't improved his game one iota since that year to compensate for his less-stellar hops. He is basically what he was in 2005 (with less hops, of course) - a quick, explosive, and powerful player with a nice jumpshot and good touch around the rim, with almost no low-post game or defense to speak of. Had he worked on his game even 1/10th as hard as Kobe does during the past few off-seasons, there's a good chance the Suns would have won a championship.
I'd thought they would be a better and more cohesive team without Shaq clogging the center, but I didn't think they'd be this good. So if you predicted that, then good job.
That said, they're not contenders by any stretch of the imagination. I watched them twice this season - the back-to-back nationally televised games against the Hornets and the Lakers. The main difference between these opponents is that the Hornets are a pretty lousy team, while the Lakers are the reigning champions.
Some have argued that it was a "back-to-back for an old team" - translation: the Suns don't play well without rest. Well, besides Nash and Hill, all of their players are under 30. Still, 2/5 of your starting lineup is over 35 years old, so that counts for something. But that wasn't their problem at all - no their problem is that they only have a few sets they run, and the Lakers were able to stop nearly all of them.
What do they run?
- 7SOL fast breaks
- pick-and-roll between Nash and Stoudemire
- pick-and-pop with Channing Frye
- post-up isos for Stoudemire, Hill, or Jason Richardson
- Nash dribbling around a bunch of screens, getting into the paint area, and either shooting or passing it to an open inside player or outside shooter
- whatever play results in a double team, the Suns swing the ball around until they find an open shooter
That's about it.
Stoudemire was able to eat Emeka Okafor alive (who was an awesome defender in college, but sadly, back problems have totally tamed his ferociousness. He plays hard, but he's basically slow and undersized in the NBA.) The pick-and-rolls were working beautifully against the defenseless Hornets. They were nullified by the height and length of Andrew Bynum and the discipline of Nash's defenders.
Likewise, the Lakers were able to stymie Channing Frye by, well, throwing a hand in his face whenever he tried to shoot.
For the Suns, post-up isos work against inferior teams with weak defenses. They worked against the Hornets - for the most part, the post-ups for all three Suns players results in a turnaround jumper. The isos did not work against the Lakers.
Nash was able to find open teammates or shoot at ease against the Hornets. He registered only 5 assists against the more disciplined Lakers defense.
Basically, the team will make the playoffs and then fall to an opponent that will stop its offense. See...the common misconception is that the Suns kept losing in the playoffs because their defense sucked. Not so - they played probably the best defense out of any team against the 2007 Spurs, who eventually won the championship. In addition, the 7SOL thrives on fast breaks, which occurs only after getting stops and snagging defensive rebounds for outlet passes. In reality, the Suns weren't as bad a defensive team as their reputation said they were.
So how did the Suns of yesteryear fail in the playoffs? The other team, usually the Spurs, were able to stifle their offense. You can think of the Nash Suns as a latter-day Showtime Lakers with better three-point shooters - they also thrived mostly on those fast breaks. But what happened when they were forced to play half court? They had the ultimate low-post weapon - Kareem and his infallible skyhook. Worthy was also an excellent one-on-one player when they need him. In short, the Lakers had weapons to fall back on when they need it. The Suns didn't have them a few years back, and they don't have them this year either.
So how will the Suns get this weapon? In years past - namely, before the 2005-2006 season - it was Stoudemire. People have short memories: they forget that Stoudemire averaged 37 ppg against the Spurs in the WCF in 2005. He is still an awesome athletic force, but arguably, his athleticism is a shadow of what once was because of his microfracture surgery.
Unfortunately, he hasn't improved his game one iota since that year to compensate for his less-stellar hops. He is basically what he was in 2005 (with less hops, of course) - a quick, explosive, and powerful player with a nice jumpshot and good touch around the rim, with almost no low-post game or defense to speak of. Had he worked on his game even 1/10th as hard as Kobe does during the past few off-seasons, there's a good chance the Suns would have won a championship.
I think the Suns are as deep as the teams that almost went all the way to the finals - the year they were closest was when they had a big man, Kurt Thomas, to set screens for Nash, rebound, and stand up the opposing big men. This year they have Collins, Fry and Lopez - and we'll see how they do. Fortunately they do have good players that compensate for the loss of Diaw, Bell and Marion.Are they as good as LA or Boston? No. but they can play with the rest of the league, and they proved they can beat Boston on a given day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
