↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Quick hooks, technical fouls and Miami Heat overshadow another Andre Drummond gem

Detroit Pistons 96 Final
Recap | Box Score
102 Miami Heat
Greg Monroe, PF 35 MIN | 6-13 FG | 5-7 FT | 11 REB | 1 AST | 0 STL | 0 BLK | 2 TO | 17 PTS | -8

Monroe was a strong interior scoring and rebounding force against the smaller Heat. This wasn’t Monroe’s best game, but he definitely took advantage of the matchup as you’d hope he would. The Heat moved the ball well, which both fairly unfairl, made Monroe look bad defensively. Fairly: Monroe is not the most nimble on his feet as the ball swings around the court. Unfairly: Monroe played a lot of center, and when he rotated properly as the primary paint protector, his teammates did a poor job of helping the helper, leaving Monroe’s man easy baskets.

Josh Smith, SF 38 MIN | 5-20 FG | 1-1 FT | 6 REB | 6 AST | 3 STL | 0 BLK | 6 TO | 12 PTS | -6

Smith actually worked to get some close, though off-balance, shots. It’s almost as if he weren’t totally used to shooting from the interior. Soon enough, Smith drifted back into his comfort zone — the perimeter. As has been a repeated problem, Smith too often makes risky passes that, although they have a high reward, too often lead to turnovers to justify the tradeoff. But he defended LeBron well and really kicked up his defense a notch when the Pistons went on an 11-2 run late in the third quarter, also running the floor well in that stretch.

Andre Drummond, C 24 MIN | 5-6 FG | 2-4 FT | 12 REB | 1 AST | 2 STL | 2 BLK | 2 TO | 12 PTS | -6

Drummond sat just two minutes into the game with two fouls, and he didn’t return the rest of the first quarter. He lasted 2:23 into the third quarter before picking up his third foul and sitting the rest of the half. Drummond finished with three fouls. He must do a better job of not fouling, but Maurice Cheeks was the biggest culprit. Why sit the team’s best player for such minor foul trouble? If he fouls out, he fouls out. The consequence would be the exact same one Cheeks imposed, anyway. When Cheeks let him play, Drummond was excellent. He padded his stats a little when the Heat let up late, but the game was not actually decided at that point.

Brandon Jennings, PG 41 MIN | 7-15 FG | 10-12 FT | 4 REB | 7 AST | 3 STL | 2 BLK | 3 TO | 26 PTS | -6

It’s games like this, when Jennings both made shots look easy and still had a cold stretch bring down his efficiency, that I wonder how he can be shooting 38 percent for the season. He’s really not that bad a shooter. Jennings was opportunistic defensively, really going hard after steals. I really liked his effort on that end, and he even got a couple blocks for his trouble.

Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, SG 8 MIN | 0-1 FG | 0-0 FT | 1 REB | 0 AST | 0 STL | 0 BLK | 0 TO | 0 PTS | -3

Dwyane Wade absolutely worked Caldwell-Pope, who got a quick hook in both halves. He left just two minutes into the first half and five-and-a-half minutes into the second half, playing only for the final 27 seconds of the first half otherwise. Caldwell-Pope is a good perimeter defender for his age and a great perimeter defender for this Pistons team. But let’s quiet the talk of him being a lockdown defender. Still, what was the point of starting him if he was going to get pulled so easily? It’s not as if his backups shut down Wade, either. Caldwell-Pope did terribly in his limited minutes, and he’s graded only on those, but he probably should have gotten more of a chance.

Jonas Jerebko, PF 11 MIN | 1-4 FG | 0-0 FT | 5 REB | 0 AST | 0 STL | 0 BLK | 1 TO | 2 PTS | +3

Jerebko’s defense was lacking, and his shot was off. But he offensively reboundeda Detroit free throw and then hit a stepback turnaround jumper late in the first half, so give him points for degree of difficulty on his one positive play.

Kyle Singler, SF 33 MIN | 1-5 FG | 0-0 FT | 3 REB | 1 AST | 2 STL | 0 BLK | 1 TO | 2 PTS | -2

Someone was likely going to have to take the grade hit and guard LeBron James. Tonight, that was Singler who got lit up by the reigning MVP. Singler didn’t do nearly enough to compensate, even slightly on the other end – though he mixed it up on the offensive glass.

Will Bynum, PG 15 MIN | 1-2 FG | 2-2 FT | 2 REB | 2 AST | 0 STL | 0 BLK | 2 TO | 5 PTS | -9

Bynum was too out of control, even by his usual standard.

Rodney Stuckey, SG 36 MIN | 8-17 FG | 2-3 FT | 7 REB | 1 AST | 1 STL | 0 BLK | 4 TO | 20 PTS | +7

Stuckey didn’t draw a foul on a drive late in the first quarter. In protest, he didn’t run back on defense, allowing the Heat to both get an open 3-point attempt and the offensive rebound when they missed. In the second quarter, he missed a layup and stopped to inspect his shoes rather than get back on defense. When Stuckey bothered to play defense, he was actually pretty good for a while before easing up on that end. However, he never slacked when the ball was in his hands, which was often.

Maurice Cheeks

Cheeks got a technical in the second quarter, and then Smith and Monroe got technicals later in the period. Jennings and Norris Cole got double-technicals in the fourth quarter. If there’s a motivational benefit to technical fouls, it didn’t show tonight. The Pistons didn’t play harder after their technicals, only whinier. In the fourth quarter, they had more turnovers (seven) than field goals (six). This was not a team in control of its emotions, and that started with Cheeks. Also, down six with 10 seconds left, the Pistons didn’t foul. In just a two-possession game, I would have fouled, but I’m not going to make a big deal out of that. It would have been very difficult to beat the Heat, who are ramping up their intensity, regardless of any coaching decisions, but Cheeks didn’t make it any easier on his team.

43 Comments

  • Feb 4, 201412:40 am
    by Jodi aka "The Guru"

    Reply

    Why on earth didn’t Cheeks go back to our big 3 at the end of the game?..Smith/Monroe/Drummond all played well together and Cheeks didn’t realize it…

  • Feb 4, 201412:50 am
    by NBALive14

    Reply

    Brandon knight is looking good as of late

    • Feb 4, 20148:54 am
      by Derek AKA Redeemed

      Reply

      Glad to see the kid doing well.  I wish him nothing but success going forward.

    • Feb 4, 201410:38 am
      by Huddy

      Reply

      His stats look ok when he gets 40+ minutes.  He’s still not passing well, poor ast/to ratio, poor shooting percentages.  He is featured more, but his ability isn’t really any more impressive than when he was a Piston.

    • Feb 4, 201411:35 am
      by oats

      Reply

      The best thing that I can say for Knight is that his efficiency is up a bit while taking on a bigger workload. That actually is a sign of progress. Admittedly I haven’t subjected myself to all that many Bucks games, but it looks to me like his increased focus on offense has cost him on the other side of the ball.
       
      I’d say Knight’s made some improvement, but still a pretty small one. This is year 3 and he is still largely the same guy he was when he was a rookie. It’s pretty common for a guy to plateau for a bit before taking a leap, but it’s extremely rare for a guy to hit that plateau in his rookie season. He’s still young enough that he could develop into a starting caliber player, although almost certainly not at PG, but I’d say that the odds still very strongly favor him being a 6th man type of guy.

  • Feb 4, 20147:06 am
    by I HATE LOSING (Predicting A Strong Finish)

    Reply

    That line up at the start of that 4th qrt was ridiculous….thats when we had all the turnovers and the Heat jumped out…
    Cheeks tend to over think things….he wants to rest players….but in reality he’d be better off just playing them….The Bills do it

  • Feb 4, 20147:32 am
    by Edgar

    Reply

    Pulling Drummond because of foul trouble is so stupid. Dan is 100% right. If he fouls out, your best player is off the floor. If you pull him for foul trouble, your best player is off the floor. So, why would you willingly pull your best player off the floor? To teach him not to foul? What’s more important, winning the game or teaching your best player not to foul? How about teaching him how to play with foul trouble? Actually, the answer to all these questions is that Cheeks doesn’t know Drummond is his best player. 

  • Feb 4, 20147:53 am
    by sebastian

    Reply

    Repeat after me: This is one of the worst seasons ever!

  • Feb 4, 20148:06 am
    by Raphael

    Reply

    I don’t have much of an issue with Cheeks pulling Drummond early in the game because of foul trouble, but to not play him until around 6 minutes to go in the 4th quarter is inexcusable.  
    Also, that lineup with Will bynum and Jerebko in it was horrible.  I tried my best to understand the approach Cheeks was trying to go with.
    Why sit Pope if D Wade is going for 30? Let him get the experience.

    • Feb 4, 201411:57 am
      by jamesjones_det

      Reply

      No one asked Cheeks about it but I bet it was because KCP fell for a Wade pump fake in the first quarter.  It wasn’t but one second after that happened Cheeks pulled him.
       
      I’m all for doing what you need to do to teach players the right way to play the game but when you drop the boom on Drummand and KCP for minor mistakes while allowing JS and Jennings to play like complete morons I have a huge issue with this style of coaching.

  • Feb 4, 20148:20 am
    by Ryank

    Reply

    Every coach pulls guys who are in foul trouble.  Pop, Phil Jackson, Daly, Brown…they all do it.  But apparently the bloggers on this board could teach the hall of fame coaches something they don’t understand about NBA basketball…  Fact is the NBA is a game of flow and having a player available at the end of games is often the difference between winning and losing.  It’s also a fact the a player has to let up and play less aggressive when he’s in foul trouble.  
     
    The Pope is the best defender perimeter defender the pistons have.  There is no one in the league who can lock down Wade when he gets it going.  There is no defender in NBA history who can lock down an elite NBA scorer one on one…Rodman in a more physical tolerant league (officiated) was probably the best defender of all time and he wouldn’t lock down Wade.  The term lock down is used to describe players who are elite defenders, not players who can stop the very best from doing what they do best.  The Pope is an elite defender; by far the best at defending the perimeter on this team.  

    • Feb 4, 20149:08 am
      by Rich

      Reply

      That everyone does it doesn’t make it right.  As Dan said, sitting the guy creates the same consequence.
       
      Hell, John Beilein (who is a great, great coach) seriously hurt his team in the national title game last year sitting Trey Burke as long as he did.
       
      Coaches would rather feel in control of playing time than play their best players maximum minutes.  It’s irrational and it often does damage.  You’re better served playing your star guy, say, 8 more minutes in the second quarter and having him foul out with 2 minutes to go than bench him those 8 minutes.  You’re getting 6 more minutes out of the guy.

      • Feb 4, 201410:15 am
        by Ryank

        Reply

        You’re ignoring the reasons coaches do it and instead focusing on why you think they should not, from a Monday Morning Quarterback’s prospective.  You don’t understand the game if you think a player can keep going full force while not fouling anymore.   Drummond will play soft to avoid further fouls or he will disqualify himself for the end of the game when the outcome is decided.  
         
        Cheeks went to a better match up with Singler in the game against a small line up the Heat plays with.  Drummond is a mismatch for them, but only if he can play to his strength…not if he’s pussy footing around trying to avoid another foul.  The team played well matching up with the Heat until the end of the 2nd quarter when they stopped ball movement, got a series of frustration T-fouls, and gave up easy baskets.  This had nothing to do with Drummond verses Singler…
         
        This loss was not a result of Drummond sitting while in foul trouble.  It was mental lapses during stretches, turnovers, blaming the refs, and selfish offensive play.  They played a good game and would have won if they did it for 48 minutes instead of 40.

        • Feb 4, 201410:38 am
          by oats

          Reply

          I don’t think any of the reasons that coaches do it actually apply to Drummond though. The main reason to do it is to preserve a guy for the end of games. The team usually is better with only 2 of the bigs on the court at a time, so the worst that it does is limit the team’s options of which player is on the bench. Drummond might be the logical to pull anyways since he’s a 41% free throw shooter. I personally think he is the guy that should be on the bench in crunch time, so there really isn’t much sense in saving him for it. As for him playing soft in foul trouble, he really doesn’t do that all that often. I strongly suspect that if he was told that fouling out isn’t a big deal that he wouldn’t really change his game and he would just foul out. Since I’ve already explained why I don’t care about that, the only thing pulling Drummond really accomplishes is limiting his time on the court. Sorry, but it makes more tactical sense for this team to just let Drummond do his thing for as long as possible even if it means he fouls out of the game.

          • Feb 4, 20146:03 pm
            by gmehl

            I agree with Rich and Oats a 100 times over on this subject. If Drummond was allowed to keep playing while in foul trouble you’ll find that he’ll eventually get better at preserving his last couple of fouls. Drummond in foul trouble is the exception to the rule in this argument IMHO.

      • Feb 4, 201412:02 pm
        by jamesjones_det

        Reply

        Dude this argument is so crazy I don’t know where to begin.  In the first half you for sure pull a guy when he’s playing out of control picking up fouls unless that guy is someone you can trust not to pick up another foul (Drummond isn’t that guy).
         
        Where I agree with “let them foul out” is in the 4th past the 8 to 10 minute mark.  At that point having him on the floor for as much time as possible is critical.  The rest of the argument is hogwash for armchair quarterbacks.

        • Feb 4, 201412:28 pm
          by Tim Thielke

          Reply

          There are three possible reasons to pull a guy when he gets in foul trouble:

          1) You think he’s just in a fouling mood or whatever so he’s more likely to pick up another foul right now than he would be later.

          2) You’re concerned that he will play timidly to avoid picking up more fouls.

          3) By pulling him now and putting him back in later, you think you can get “fresher” play out of him or someone else.

          If you have another reason let me know, all three of these are rather lacking.

          • Number 1 is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. If anything, after a guy gets a questionable whistle, the refs are more likely not to call the next 50/50.
          • If number 2 is really a problem, you should be yanking him as soon as he starts playing timidly. Teach the players that it’s ok to pick up fouls, that’s part of the game. But playing weak to avoid them is unacceptable.
          • Number 3 is certainly a valid concern if you have a really short rotation due to injuries or a crappy bench. But if you’re able to normally dole out minutes about where you’d like them, this should be a very small factor.
          • Feb 4, 20141:04 pm
            by jamesjones_det

            I do feel there is a #4 -  Games are won and lost in the 4th quarter and having your best team on the floor in the 4th is critical.  If a guy continues to play out of control and fouls out in the first half you are no longer able to put your best players on the floor during the most critical time of the game.  You pull a guy with fouls outside of the 4th hoping you can ride your bench and maintain until you can put your best team on the floor when it matters.
             
            In my opinion it requires a fair leap of faith to go against what 30+ years and hundreds of thousands of coaches have practiced when it comes to player/game foul management.  I honestly don’t know of many coaches that let players ride especially young ones early but I would be curious to know the stats around such a coach if you know of any.
             
             

          • Feb 4, 20141:16 pm
            by jamesjones_det

            Just to add to this I’m not saying if you pull this player out and your down two and suddenly your down 12 with him out you should leave him out, but you should trust your bench and use it what it’s meant for (holding ground or providing a spark) and hope to keep your better players until the more cirical points of the game.

          • Feb 4, 20141:17 pm
            by jamesjones_det

            *critical points of the game

          • Feb 4, 20141:23 pm
            by Tim Thielke

            The fourth quarter is no more critical than the rest of the game. You’ll do just as well if you lose six points from the fourth quarter and tack them on in the second. I have every game ever worth of stats to support that in case you were wondering.

            But even if it was more important, we’re talking about Drummond, the guy who regularly gets pulled in the fourth anyway. And we’re talking about the Pistons, a team that plays best with one of their top guys on the bench. They have no reason to preserve their ability to put all three of their bigs on the floor in “crunch time”.

          • Feb 4, 20141:30 pm
            by Huddy

            I don’t agree with the fourth quarter thing.  Obviously thats when the game is lost or won because thats when it ends, but team’s success is often very different coming into the fourth being up or down.  Would you rather play the bench and come into the fourth with as close as possible, but probably losing or try to put your best foot forward and at least start the fourth with a lead that your bench can then try and maintain?  If the bench could hold a lead in the 2nd and 3rd why couldn’t they in the fourth?  It seems like a better plan to get out in front and then use the guys who are supposed to be able to maintain to…maintain. 
             
            I’m not saying there is no difference in intensity at the end of a game, but it is definitely true that there is a difference to trying to come back from being down or starting with a lead as well.  The team that is ahead can play more conservative and utilize the clock as an asset.  The importance of the 4th quarter is lost if the team has wasted the first three digging themselves a hole. 

          • Feb 4, 20141:54 pm
            by jamesjones_det

            I don’t disagree with you about the Pistons aspect of it, at this point I’m all for doing things different if it helps our youngs get better.
             
            In general though I believe players try harder in the fourth than they do in the first 3 quarters and better players are able to rise up more than weaker ones and therefore make the 4th more critical to the game.  I’m sure we could find 100s of games where teams made big runs in the 4th after getting key players back from foul trouble and 100s of games where it didn’t matter (or even ones that support neither of our augments like the Huston/Grizzles game), with the way the basketball games swing I doubt we could prove this one with stats alone unless there was enough to show one trend over the other.  If there is any room for speculation then it would leave the question open.

          • Feb 4, 20142:11 pm
            by jamesjones_det

            @Huddy – I could take the other side of that and say if you play great in the first 3 qtrs and melt in the 4th you probably are going to lose the game as well.  In the end I think we can all agree that a team needs balance in every quarter to truly be successful.
             
            My argument was meant to be more around the fact that there is more pressure in the 4th qtr than there is at other points in the game (especially near the end).  I personally would rather have a player on the floor that played well in pressure situations than on that didn’t, pressure does make a difference in how players react (people in general).  I didn’t articulate that very well in my initial argument.

    • Feb 4, 201410:29 am
      by oats

      Reply

      @ Ryank. In regards to Pope, I agree that lock down defender doesn’t mean they shut their man down every game. I also agree that Pope is this team’s best perimeter defender. The problem is that while both those things are true, Pope is not a lock down defender. He’s just not there yet. He stinks at fighting through screens, he gets pushed around by stronger players who are smart enough to do that, and he is bad at recognizing when he needs to rotate or close out on a shooter. Admittedly he’s quick enough to help reduce the impact of most of those mistakes, but he’s still a guy who has those common rookie problems. He also hasn’t learned any of those subtle veteran tricks that the real lock down defenders use. He’s well above average defensively and on a team where the next best perimeter defender is probably below average overall, and that makes him look really good in comparison. That does make him great for his age and means he absolutely has the potential to be a lock down defender, but he’s just not in that elite tier yet.

  • Feb 4, 20148:29 am
    by Mike

    Reply

    I agree with your assessment and grades. It should be mentioned that Smith took 20 shots. He should never. A recipe for their success with this roster seems to be using smith as a point forward, as opposed to scorer. Limit his and Jennings shots to 12 or less a game. Give Monroe and stuckey a few more. 

  • Feb 4, 20149:53 am
    by Parsons

    Reply

    Question; we have this ludacrisly large lineup to play Miami and few others correct? Why then didn’t we play our ludacrisly large lineup while playing Miami when by the grace of God it was actually working for once? Isn’t beating Miami the point of this ridiculous lineup? We actually we’re doing well but he puts out these even more ridiculous lineups and we get more turnovers than points. We really need a new coach and team, throw in an owner too ours wouldn’t know a basketball from a tennis ball.

  • Feb 4, 201410:50 am
    by Huddy

    Reply

    Stuckey, Bynum, and Jennings being on the court at the same time is insanity.  Wade probably hasn’t faced an easier assignment the entire year than Brandon Jennings defending him.  What is the point?  We need 3 ball handlers?
     
    I honestly don’t understand the shot selection on this team.  They stick with things that work for maybe 5 minutes at a time and then someone just has to take ill advised shots for 3-4 possessions in a row.  When they drive inside and don’t get a foul they use 90 percent of their energy to complain about not getting the call and don’t get back or attempt to get a rebound.  The Heat got BS fouls when barely grazed all night…too bad. 

  • Feb 4, 201410:52 am
    by Mr Woods

    Reply

    Trade Smith to Charlotte for whatever you can get. Then go get Perry Jones III,  Jeremy Lamb for Stuckey & Singler. Lose the rest of the games this season and keep our pick. Bring in Lionel Hollins.  This season is a wrap!

    • Feb 4, 201411:15 am
      by Greg

      Reply

      You´re probably right we should trade Smith but only if we are sure to keep our pick. Phoenix is the other option I could imagine trading for Smith…OKC will unfortunately never bite on this one…we should´ve traded for Perry Jones last season when he hadn´t shown much potential. He defended LeBron pretty good and even shoots threes…

      • Feb 4, 201411:46 am
        by oats

        Reply

        Perry Jones still hasn’t shown that much potential to be honest. He hasn’t really done a whole lot, and 12 of 33 on 3pt attempts is way too small of a sample size to be meaningful. He’s basically the same as he was last year, a young guy with potential due to his athleticism, but he hasn’t really done anything with it. He’s basically the same prospect as Tony Mitchell except on a more expensive deal that will expire a year sooner.

  • Feb 4, 201411:57 am
    by MIKEYDE248

    Reply

    I usually never complain about the grades, but two I see that stand out are JJ & Stuckey.
    At one point in when the Pistons were making their run JJ was pulling in a bunch of rebounds (even Blaha said something about him pulling in all of them).  To get an F means that he didn’t do anything to contribute.  5 rebounds in a short time on the floor and one of the only players with a + rating doesn’t deserve an F.
    Stuckey may have had a good first half and probably deserved a B-, but with as bad as he was in the second half, I think he was one of the main players that cost them the game.  It seemed like everytime he touched the ball, he was turning it over or taking a bad shot and was also commiting foul and foul.  Smith (as usual) was a big contributor of bad shots at the end of the game.

    • Feb 4, 20141:13 pm
      by pablum

      Reply

      Add Josh Smith here too. Can’t give ‘em a “D-” when he’s clearly trying to to play team ball, back off his usual drunk love affair with 3′s, and taking  respectable shots at the end of the game to win it (because no one else was). Also, as I posted earlier, his fg% misleading as several shots were rim rattlers or shot-clock forces. Give the man at least a “C” for leaving his mirror in the lockerroom… 

  • Feb 4, 201412:47 pm
    by Gavsdad

    Reply

    Singler gets an “F” for not doing a good enough job guarding LeBron? LeBron scored less than his season average & given the flak Singler is given for his defensive game, you’d think LeBron would have had his way with him. LeBron’s FG% this season is .578. Last night he shot .474 & missed all of his 3s. Given the dude is the best athlete on the planet, I’d say Singler didn’t do too bad of a job. But like always, Singler is never given the credit or grade he deserves. 

    • Feb 4, 20141:04 pm
      by oats

      Reply

      LeBron also had 11 assists and only 1 turnover which is much better than his season average. This is just typical variation for a very good player having a very good game and not the product of a defender in any way hindering him. Singler also managed to put up only 2 points on 1-5 shooting in 33 minutes, and that’s really bad.

  • Feb 4, 20141:04 pm
    by BFC

    Reply

    I don’t agree that KCP should have gotten a F or that Josh Smith should have gotten a D-. How can KCP get a F when he played 8 minutes? He forced a turnover in the 4th, Stuckey got worked way more than KCP, not saying KCP would have stopped him from getting 20-25, but why not try. I would have given KCP a D. Josh Smith should have had a F-. He was 0-4 fg 0-2 3pt 2 TOs and 1 reb in 7 minutes in the 4th. What did he possibly do that would give  him above a F? At this point a trade from Andre Bargnani might have won us the game!

  • Feb 4, 20141:13 pm
    by jamesjones_det

    Reply

    Personally I would give Smith a F for trying to be a hero with 6 minutes to go and dribbling himself out of bounds, it was at that point the game seemed to turn for the worse.  Follow that blunder up with a bad pass with about 4 to go and he basically killed any chance we had at winning the game.

  • Feb 4, 20143:09 pm
    by I HATE LOSING (Predicting a Strong Finish)

    Reply

    If Smith Woke up tomorrow and said im just going to play great defense, hustle, rebound and fill in the gaps…he would be damn great for this team…
    Even if we decided to keep monroe but it seems like Smith just does not have a role on this team….and if the decision is to keep Monroe, Smith  has no home in Detroit…
    Not any fault of his own, and I dont fault dumars for go for the best talent avaialble it just didnt work… but a decision has to be made

    • Feb 4, 20145:16 pm
      by BFC

      Reply

      Josh Smith would be great if… has been going on since we signed him, I do blame Dumars on not seeing Josh playing well at SF as he is an awful shooter. Championships are never built on a team getting 2 highly paid fringe allstars, they must start and build around an efficient player and with pieces around that work together cohesively.

    • Feb 4, 201410:15 pm
      by oats

      Reply

      Smith actually still wouldn’t be great for this roster in that scenario because he can’t defend the 3. He’d be a lot better, and he’d really shine when playing the 4, but not be able to defend the 3 means the team would still have the problem of the 3 bigs not working together.

  • Feb 4, 20147:11 pm
    by Hook Shot

    Reply

    Granted this team is flawed, bit I bet Hollins or Karl would have them at .500. Even given the small sample size of this season,  Cheeks needs to seek employment elsewhere. No recognizable defensive schemes poor rotation. This team is hard to watch. 

  • Feb 5, 20141:32 am
    by ARIZA=MISSINGLINK

    Reply

    I consider this a win, due to the horrible officiating leading to 4 or 5 point swings, 2 TF pts against, and a frustrated team. We should have won by about 10, even with Drummond sitting so much and WB still in the rotation.

  • Feb 5, 20141:53 am
    by ARIZA=MISSINGLINK

    Reply

    Oh, has anyone else noticed Siva is shooting 12-21 from 3 during his D-leage stay so far? If he really is developing a sweet shooting stroke, I really like his prospects of playing back-up PG in the future. And, along KCP, their speed, defense and shooting along with their other intangibles, man. The future looks very bright, and whatever they do at the trade deadline, even if nothing at all, the present team is very intriguing, although I don’t agree with Cheek’s usage of our players sometimes. I like the starting line-up, but Josh needs more PT at the four, same w Moose at 5, and Stuckey and Bynum should almost never be in the backcourt at the same time. Spolstra instantly went to zone, because neither shoot 3′s often or efficiently! Can’t wait for Chauncey to come back.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here