This offense could be more dynamic by not relying on the three so much, and not relying on isos so much and particularly Fox or Monk to create. If we were a real offense, a la Carill or Adelman, we would be able to create buckets as a team even when we go cold shooting the three.
This is absolutely not a controversial take but you all are so hyper emotional that you get so ding offended when anyone tells you the truth.
Our offense is at most two dimensional: threes and iso. It's a paper tiger propped up by the the current league fads/rules.
Cavs are probably wondering why they aren’t up 30 with this kind of performance. Will they let their foot off the gas in the 4th? Can we string together 4 or 5 stops in a row? Can Swipa work his steal magic? Got about 6 minutes to get with in striking distance.
Not having enough iso players and not being able to get a bucket outside of the system/whenever our shooters went cold is sorta what doomed those Adelman teams.
Bad take.Not having enough iso players and not being able to get a bucket outside of the system/whenever our shooters went cold is sorta what doomed those Adelman teams.
Adelmans's offense was insanely good because it could score in any number of ways. The current offense goes to sleep if they can't hit threes. It's extremely obvious and many people have noted this all throughout the season.
Is it though - in a relative sense? Be honest.The Kings' O is extremely efficient and effective. Which is the goal, no?
And given that, it seems pretty absurd - and, yes, offensive - to say that that coach largely responsible for organizing it is "low IQ." Very few coaches run offenses anything like Adelman's. Are they all low-IQ too? Maybe there're other reasons for not doing so.
I've grumped at Brown for not calling plays for HB given HB's penchant for sitting above the 3-pt line doing nothing for long stretches. I think it's a strike against his coaching. I don't know why he does/did that. But it never occurred to characterize that as a "low-IQ" move.
The Kings' O is extremely efficient and effective. Which is the goal, no?
And given that, it seems pretty absurd - and, yes, offensive - to say that that coach largely responsible for organizing it is "low IQ." Very few coaches run offenses anything like Adelman's. Are they all low-IQ too? Maybe there're other reasons for not doing so.
I've grumped at Brown for not calling plays for HB given HB's penchant for sitting above the 3-pt line doing nothing for long stretches. I think it's a strike against his coaching. I don't know why he does/did that. But it never occurred to characterize that as a "low-IQ" move.
Well that was your best chance. If that Fox 3 drops we were right back in it. 8 point swing in that little stretch
Bad take.
The Adelmen teams were "doomed" by corrupt officials and you absolutely know that. The 2001 team was a championship team that far outperformed as a team vs. a collection of individuals in the Lakers that contained by many accounts two top 10-15 players of all time. Honestly shame on you or even saying this. I'm disappointed.
Bad take.
The Adelmen teams were "doomed" by corrupt officials and you absolutely know that. The 2001 team was a championship team that far outperformed as a team vs. a collection of individuals in the Lakers that contained by many accounts two top 10-15 players of all time. Honestly shame on you or even saying this. I'm disappointed.
They had a strong chance to win it the next year but there was an unfortunate injury.
Wow. Seriously - just wow. You're now siding with corrupt gamblers in order to win an argument you find offensive. Extremely weak move.Not to relitigate a series from 22 years ago but the refs didn't cause the Adelman offense to crumble in Game 7.
Not for nothing but the Kings and Nuggets are pretty much both running an evolution of that Adelman system in a league that has pretty much shifted to 75% pick and roll hunting.
Wow. Seriously - just wow. You're now siding with corrupt gamblers in order to win an argument you find offensive. Extremely weak move.