carlgo wrote:People are confusing "small ball" with "fast ball". The key to winning is the "fast" part. Nelson, a flawed and destructive personality, simply tries to go too small and the team grinds to a halt because they get no rebounds and give up a ton of easy baskets on defense.
The Spurs are successful because of what?:
A. Their coach is a control freak, slow-down sort of guy, and that is the "correct way to play" (Dunleavy quote).
B. Their players are better and would win under any system.
The answer has been B.
Fast ball gives the team the best chance to win in the real world of not getting HOF big guys. The reason it has not been more successful here is that Nelson confuses "small" with "fast" and thinks magical thoughts about how the team can be fast without actually getting possession of the ball except on in-bounds after the other team scores after three successive offensive rebounds....
As I say all the time, Nelson is a great coach who coaches poorly, many people thinking that he actually sabotages the team for whatever dark Nellie reasons. No, "small ball" is a failure, but "fast ball" is both entertaining and successful.
I believe this roster could play fast and effectively with the simple addition of another mobile rebounder/defender and a rational coach who concentrates on good lineups, player development, decent defense and an actual offensive structure for those inevitable half-court episodes.
Fast ball is the answer and there wouldn't be the kind of complaints about the team if it actually played that style.
Personally, I hate sumo-ball and won't watch it. I will watch male porn before I tune into big guys grinding it out (don't get excited) while the coach runs up and down the court screaming out every offensive and defensive set.
Watch college ball now, if you can. Horrid. It is simply which team gets the more favorable charging calls and shoots the best from the outside.
I'm in partial agreement with you here carlgo. I think your distinction between "small ball" and "fast ball" is totally accurate, but I don't think Nelson WANTS to play "small ball." He WANTS to play "fast ball" but he can't get the talent for it.
Think back to the days when Webber came to the Warriors. EVERYONE thought we had a championship team. Everyone ie. the fans, Nellie, Webber, the rest of the Warriors, everyone. It was the last piece of Nellie's scheme. A truely talented big man who could run the floor.
I still hear people siding with C-Web over Nellie on this and it makes me sick. Nellie wanted C-Web to play center and C-Web didn't want to. He was a baby about it, and imho he destroyed what would have been the best shot for the Warriors to become champs since the 70s.
I'm of the opinion that I'd take a slow, unspectacular, defensive, grinder of a team if they would win. However I'd much rather watch "fast ball." I think Nellie would as well. Give him a talented big who can run the court and I think we'll all get the best of both worlds.
Don't be too sure Nelson would use his new big fast guy correctly. His history of taking them out when they are doing well is so well known that the word "sabotage" has come up more than once from national writers (I like to think I used it first). That is one serious charge! But, Nelson has a history that is quite bizarre, as Bada noted from his personal involvement.
When Weber left, I was one of those who blamed him. I bought the whole Nelson golly-gee I don't know why Weber won't respond to my kind and fatherly coaching style act. And an act it was. The befuddled expression, the sad eyes, the mournful tones, the sighs...
But, then one day KNBR had a reporter on who described incredibly strange things that were going on at Warrior practices. Nelson taking his shirt off to fight players, terrible verbal abuse and plain craziness. There was other stuff he, like Bada, couldn't talk about. Now I realize there were probably legal ramifications as well as vows of secrecy.
The KNBR hosts just lashed out at this poor reporter and accused him of having a hidden agenda and all. He said to not kill the messenger, but they just about did. When he was off the air, they went into a long discussion about how this was a character assassination of innocent Nellie. Nellie this, Nellie that, in the cuddly diminutive.
The reporter's story shocked me. I loved Nellie. Surely this couldn't be true! But, the reporter was awfully convincing. He wasn't making it up. Clearly this was a real problem and in time, as other evidence trickled in to support it, I really came around to Weber's side.
It is really quite clear now that poor Weber was just a kid really and had no idea how to deal with a huge, drunken crazy man who was also his coach. What would you do? Think about it. Not too many options that would work out for you, are there?
Some people want the split the blame equally. I don't think so.
You have to wonder whether putting Weber at center was a legitimate attempt to win games or if it was simply a way to get at Weber.
Nelson's masterful act worked. The crowds were 90% for him. Everyone thought it was the young punk against the wise and patient coach. Remember that people actually cheered when Weber dislocated his shoulder?
Nelson's eyes probably glow red when he recalls how he suckered everyone with his awe-shucks act. Still does the act, some fans still buy into it. Fewer all the time.