Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just got back from the game, some thoughts...



1. Using Chandler on Odom and Sweetney on Mihm to start the game was an excellent decision. Tyson played tremendous defense on Odom and totally took him out of his game. I'm convinced at this point that Chandler is a 4 who can play the 5, not the other way around.

2. The size issue is going to be a problem. The Lakers aren't a particularly big team and Mihm isn't a viable offensive threat most of the time, but it wasn't a coincidence he was the only guy in purple and gold not named Bryant to score in double figures tonight. IMO we need Sweets to play the 5 for Chandler to be the defensive game changer he's capable of being, but that's a move that doesn't come consequence free. Sweets had some nice defensive plays tonight but he's never going to be very good at guarding centers. Playing a team w/ Chris Mihm this will hurt a little, playing teams with guys like Ilgauskus and Magloire it's going to hurt a lot. If we want to be a playoff team this year we must make some kind of move to address this, there's no way around it.

3. The offensive sets looked pretty crisp for the most part. Good ball movement and screening.

4. Pushing the tempo served us well, especially with Deng in the game. I was very encouraged with Deng's overall game tonight. He did a pretty good job on Kobe (the 43 points were mostly on contested shots and it did take him 34 shots to get them) and finished nicely around the rim.

5. Michael Sweetney is a good basketball player. I wish he was a little more athletic but he's tremendously productive out there. Great nose for the ball, very soft touch around the hoop, and seems to make little plays all the time. He's always a factor when he's in the game. I think the conditioning concerns are legit, he wasn't as effective in the second half as he was the first, and that may be because he's not used to 30 plus minutes.

6. Kobe Bryant was just totally unstoppable for the first three quarters. We weren't playing bad defense on him but he just hit everything. Really impressive. Outside of Bryant, the Lakers are a complete trainwreck. They're no better than average defensively. On offense they're abysmal. I would have more concrete criticisms if I had any idea of what they're even trying to achieve in their half court sets. When you get past Bryant and Odom it's startling how bad a collection of talent they've accumulated. Bryant obviously doesn't trust any of them to do the right thing with the ball and I'm not sure I blame him.

7. The Lakers pregame intros are preceeded by a fairly lengthy montage of various plays from Lakers teams over the past 50 years or so. It covers most of the bases from the Mikan Lakers to the present day team. One interesting omission - Shaq:)



Outside of the first half of the fourth quarter I thought we played very well. Tyson had the kind of game we know he's capable of. If Gordon can just get untracked and we can add some kind of interior presence we might be alright...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeDC

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Awesome, I always like hearing from guys who actually go to the games because you see so much more than you do on TV.

How do you feel about the conflict betwee 2 and 5? It seems like offensively we need Sweetney out there, but defensively he's a problem that needs to be addressed. If we address it though, it likely means getting a big guy who's got no offensive game, and we can't afford to lose that either.

I'm getting concerned we don't have a very workable situation. We think in terms of position, but position is basically sketchy. Tyson needs to play with an offensive-minded guy who can guard the opponent's biggest player effectively.

Sweets is the offensive guy, but he doesn't appear capable of being the defensive guy to play next to Tyson. I wonder if he really got in shape whether he could be. He'd still be short and not that athletic and still have guys shooting over him. Maybe he'd get enough lift to make guys pay enough.

Another question I have is whether, if Tyson actually was a 5, whether there are any 4s in the league we'd feel comfortable sicking Sweetney on. Pretty much all of the better ones would blow right by him. And if we're worried about a guy like Mihm shooting over him, putting him on a guy like Nowitski is laughable.

So what I'm getting at is short of acquiring a guy like Illgauskas or Curry or whomever, I think we're about as good as we're going to get up front. Having a backup C would be nice, but unless he also brings offense he's not going to help us on net. The only thing that will make the situation workable is (maybe) Sweetney getting himself in tip top shape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Mikedc said:
Awesome, I always like hearing from guys who actually go to the games because you see so much more than you do on TV.

How do you feel about the conflict betwee 2 and 5? It seems like offensively we need Sweetney out there, but defensively he's a problem that needs to be addressed. If we address it though, it likely means getting a big guy who's got no offensive game, and we can't afford to lose that either.

I'm getting concerned we don't have a very workable situation. We think in terms of position, but position is basically sketchy. Tyson needs to play with an offensive-minded guy who can guard the opponent's biggest player effectively.

Sweets is the offensive guy, but he doesn't appear capable of being the defensive guy to play next to Tyson. I wonder if he really got in shape whether he could be. He'd still be short and not that athletic and still have guys shooting over him. Maybe he'd get enough lift to make guys pay enough.

Another question I have is whether, if Tyson actually was a 5, whether there are any 4s in the league we'd feel comfortable sicking Sweetney on. Pretty much all of the better ones would blow right by him. And if we're worried about a guy like Mihm shooting over him, putting him on a guy like Nowitski is laughable.

So what I'm getting at is short of acquiring a guy like Illgauskas or Curry or whomever, I think we're about as good as we're going to get up front. Having a backup C would be nice, but unless he also brings offense he's not going to help us on net. The only thing that will make the situation workable is (maybe) Sweetney getting himself in tip top shape.
Interesting question. I would say a couple things:

a) The ideal scenario would be to get a decent 5. If we'd managed to get Magloire we could've rotated Sweetney, Chandler and Magloire in and out and gotten them all around 30 MPG. There were enough minutes to go around, and guys would get more or less per game based on matchups. In fact, you could even stick Chandler on some 3's. He just killed Odom yesterday, and could probably be a real thorn in the side of a guy like Darius Miles.

b) Barring this, I still think a guy like Etan Thomas would be helpful. We wouldn't be going to the post a ton in the halfcourt but Chandler and Thomas together would snag a ton of boards, force some TO's and we could get some transition baskets to counter the lack of a halfcourt post presence. A lineup of Gordon, Hinrich, Deng and those two could work for stretches against certain teams. I wouldn't be in favor of playing this kind of lineup a bunch every game but last year AD and Tyson played pretty well together and AD isn't lighting the world on fire offensively anymore.

c) The x-factor is Sweetney's conditioning. A lot gets said about his lack of lateral quickness, but his lack of lift is just as damning. I remember noting last year how much higher Eddy Curry was jumping then in previous seasons. Sweets is not a comparable athlete but wiith similar weight loss perhaps Sweetney could get a few inches on his vert. But who really knows? Counting on Michael Sweetney to get in shape seems a little silly. I'll just go ahead and note that before ScottMay does it for me:)

In Sweetney and Chandler we have a couple of bigs with unique skill sets - there are some things they do very very well, and some things they really don't. If we want to make these players centerpieces of our team (and I think it can be done) we need to have another piece in there to enable us to shuffle them around - taking advantage of their strenghts, and covering up their weaknesses.

A couple more notes from the game I left out...

- Ben Gordon is a much better defender this season than last. Not his best game but he denied the post well and didn't let his man exploit the size edge too much. There seems to be a constant movement around here to trade whichever of our 3 backcourt dwarves is playing the worst at a given time. I don't understand it and would really urge people to be patient re: Gordon.

- I think the shorter rotation worked to the Bulls' advantage. Skiles playing everyone but the trainer for stretches was getting a little old in the games preceeding this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
Skiles playing everyone but the trainer for stretches was getting a little old in the games preceeding this one.
That made me laugh, rep++.

Gordon is a good player, but seeing how tight the leash Skiles has on him, i just don't see him getting out of his slump anytime soon. Hopefully he proves me wrong soon enough.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top