HAWKS -at- LAKERS - 3-15-15 - Thoughts and :-(( Ratings
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Thoughts and Ratings Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lakersneuron
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Nov 2008
Posts: 4450

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 12:37 pm    Post subject:

DancingBarry wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
The Hawks exploited one of the main weaknesses of the Lakers offense by denying the first option. As DB noted in the previous game thread, the Lakers' sets have little in the way of counters. So you see a lot of possessions with the guard with the ball over his head for a long time trying to force the entry pass into the post or the wing when nothing is there, resulting in a lot of late-in-shotclock possessions.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the Hawks flowed into secondary actions almost immediately when something wasn't there. Their movements are pre-scripted depending on the positions of the players and the ball. More importantly, their sets are designed to get to the basket first, and swing to the perimeter second, while ours are often go from perimeter to perimeter.

That the game was as close as it was was a testament to the Lakers effort, particularly on the offensive glass, but it was too little too late.

I didn't like that quote from Byron:
Quote:
“They play the game the way it should be played,” he said of the Hawks. “They played without an agenda. The bottom line should be winning.”

As if if the players shared the ball more, their offense would look like that of the Hawks. It simply isn't designed that way. I didn't see much difference in terms of the Lakers sharing the ball this game versus all the previous games of the season. But apparently he knows his system works so it must be the players fault.


Yep. This was a pretty good example of what I had mentioned:

DancingBarry wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:


It should be noted that BScott's comments on P&R were the exact words that Phil Jackson clearly stated


This is true. The two-man sequences prior to the fourth would usually be weak side pinch post situations out of the triangle or pnr only when things scramble and guys have to quickly create. He'd save the two-man pnr as his bread and butter in crunch time.

There are a lot of problems with what Scott is doing (or wanted to do) in that it's just pieces of systems most of the game. Our depth of knowledge in sets is pretty shallow with very limited ability to go to counters. And it really struggled to get penetration via pass, post or drive. Only thing that got penetration was two-man sequences. So we are reduced to inefficient long twos for long stretches when we don't do that.


Once a team does something that forces us to change gears, we often don't know how. Phil used to reference them as "automatics" which is how it should be when you read the D. The other problem is we've got so many people on last year's I'm not sure what kind of equity we're building up with players running his plays. Clarkson, Kobe...but who knows what next year will look like?

It's hard to tell specifically what Scott was referring to in regards to agendas. His reference to screen setting was probably what he meant and guys on last-year deals looking to get stats. And if there are agendas that run counter to what he's telling them, then they are not buying what he's selling.


I wanted to make a quick comment about the bolded: Scott's grandstanding about effort and winning would piss me off royally if I was a player. I am sure it it obvious to them that is he is driving the tank. I guess the good news is that it only drives more losses this season, but I can't imagine he has control of the locker room in any meaningful way.
_________________
"I don’t give a [expletive] what you say. If I go out there and miss game winners, and people say, 'Kobe choked, or Kobe is seven for whatever in pressure situations.' Well, [expletive] you. Because I don’t play for your [expletive] approval."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 6121

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:42 pm    Post subject:

Lakersneuron wrote:
DancingBarry wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
The Hawks exploited one of the main weaknesses of the Lakers offense by denying the first option. As DB noted in the previous game thread, the Lakers' sets have little in the way of counters. So you see a lot of possessions with the guard with the ball over his head for a long time trying to force the entry pass into the post or the wing when nothing is there, resulting in a lot of late-in-shotclock possessions.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the Hawks flowed into secondary actions almost immediately when something wasn't there. Their movements are pre-scripted depending on the positions of the players and the ball. More importantly, their sets are designed to get to the basket first, and swing to the perimeter second, while ours are often go from perimeter to perimeter.

That the game was as close as it was was a testament to the Lakers effort, particularly on the offensive glass, but it was too little too late.

I didn't like that quote from Byron:
Quote:
“They play the game the way it should be played,” he said of the Hawks. “They played without an agenda. The bottom line should be winning.”
As if if the players shared the ball more, their offense would look like that of the Hawks. It simply isn't designed that way. I didn't see much difference in terms of the Lakers sharing the ball this game versus all the previous games of the season. But apparently he knows his system works so it must be the players fault.
Yep. This was a pretty good example of what I had mentioned:

DancingBarry wrote:
A Mad Chinaman wrote:
It should be noted that BScott's comments on P&R were the exact words that Phil Jackson clearly stated
This is true. The two-man sequences prior to the fourth would usually be weak side pinch post situations out of the triangle or pnr only when things scramble and guys have to quickly create. He'd save the two-man pnr as his bread and butter in crunch time.

There are a lot of problems with what Scott is doing (or wanted to do) in that it's just pieces of systems most of the game. Our depth of knowledge in sets is pretty shallow with very limited ability to go to counters. And it really struggled to get penetration via pass, post or drive. Only thing that got penetration was two-man sequences. So we are reduced to inefficient long twos for long stretches when we don't do that.
Once a team does something that forces us to change gears, we often don't know how. Phil used to reference them as "automatics" which is how it should be when you read the D. The other problem is we've got so many people on last year's I'm not sure what kind of equity we're building up with players running his plays. Clarkson, Kobe...but who knows what next year will look like?

It's hard to tell specifically what Scott was referring to in regards to agendas. His reference to screen setting was probably what he meant and guys on last-year deals looking to get stats. And if there are agendas that run counter to what he's telling them, then they are not buying what he's selling.
I wanted to make a quick comment about the bolded: Scott's grandstanding about effort and winning would piss me off royally if I was a player. I am sure it it obvious to them that is he is driving the tank. I guess the good news is that it only drives more losses this season, but I can't imagine he has control of the locker room in any meaningful way.
All the comments have much truth

BScott is still looking for people who actually want and have the ability to win. As the result, he generally play those who are playing well to close games - though some of his choices are interesting

The roster has players that have improved over the season while their stats were going upward. When greater execution and excellent decision making on a consistent basis when opposing teams ratchet up their pressure/intensity - nobody has stepped up (consistently).

Many of the players on this roster would be great when led by accomplished closers who relish the "moments" and not afraid to "motivate" others to be accountable to their respective responsibilities.

Note: With Swaggy P seemingly our for the season that has corresponded with much better movement, what should one take from this? What is his value when he is in a long shooting slump, does not pass or play D?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Thoughts and Ratings All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB