<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>2007 was not a year to remember for the Dallas Mavericks. 2008? So far, so good. Wednesday night, the Warriors looked almost nothing like the team that shocked the world against the Mavs last spring. That series was characterized by lock-down defense and clutch performances from our veteran leaders. This time around, both factors were sorely lacking. Avery Johnson is nobody’s fool. After being soundly out-coached by Nelson last year, the Little General snuck a little revenge by following a game plan that other teams have used to silence the Warriors’ raucous flow. As more teams follow suit, the pressure shifts to Nelson to find an answer. Briefly, here’s what the Mavs did to reduce Baron Davis to a lowly, Devin-Harris-like 10 points and give the rest of the Ws’ offense fits: Immediately initiate defensive pressure - There are two steps to this tactic. First, teams need to get back on transition defense so they’re in position to stop long passes. The Mavs did an excellent job at this Wednesday night. The few fast breaks the Warriors’ managed weren’t their classic long-pass-for-easy-lay-up variety, but in-traffic, hard-earned points. The percentages on those shots are much lower. The second step, once back, is to pick up the ball quickly. By exerting immediate pressure, the Mavs kept the Warriors from probing the defense before it had an opportunity to set up. With fewer seams to exploit, Davis had a hard time getting to the rim, forcing him to rely his tired legs for his jump shot. Pack the middle - When Davis and others did make it to the rim, they usually met resistance. Dampier actually showed a pulse on defense and other Mavs contributed to ensuring that the Warriors didn’t get high percentage looks around the key. Again, getting back in transition and delaying the Warriors’ offensive attack is key to this strategy. If your big men can’t set up before the play starts, they can’t seal off the basket. The few bursts enjoyed by the Warriors in the second and third quarters largely sprung from stretches when Davis or Ellis quickly challenged the Mavs, furthering the disruption and disorganization on which our offense thrives. For the fourth quarter and much of the rest of the game, however, we were left on the outside looking in. Risk the three - The Mavs allowed the Warriors plenty of open three pointers. The Ws sunk nearly 44% of them — and still lost the game. Why? Because with Mavs defenders denying mid and close range shots, the Ws managed only 23 of 56 shooting from inside the arc. Unlike earlier games, the Warriors didn’t completely blow this one due to a lack of discipline. They only attempted 23 threes and worked hard to get close to the rim. They were denied by the Mavs’ solid defense and physical play. By the fourth quarter, the wear and tear finally seemed to break our road-weary spirits and the wheels came off. It’s an important lesson for other teams facing the Warriors: if you can slow the game down, you can still beat the Warriors while giving up lots of open outside looks. At the other end, the Warriors did little defensively to trigger the final big run they needed to get over the hump. Nelson pulled Andris for key stretches — including the start of the fourth quarter — during which the Warriors gave up countless inside buckets. Harrington and Pietrus often looked incapable or simply unwilling to stick with their men. “Help defense” is horribly misnamed when you play it like the Warriors did for much of Wednesday’s game. Dirk adjusted his shot to get it off before other Warriors arrived, but the team also did little to force the MVP and others into uncomfortable spots. Far too often, the Mavs simply moved the ball around the perimeter until they found an open man ready to take a high percentage shot within 15 feet of the basket. It’s hard to win games, particularly against offensive powerhouses, playing the type of slow-footed, lackluster defense the Warriors mounted against the muse of their former glory. Still, despite all the ugliness, there are a few reasons to take comfort. Few teams have the quick guards of the Mavs capable of picking up — and staying with — Monta and Baron. If either blows past his defender with regularity, the defense is forced to compensate and the Warriors exploit the ensuing wrinkles. The Mavs were able to hold the inside in large part due to the quality of their perimeter defense. Similarly, few teams are blessed with a front line with the quickness of Dirk and Josh Howard. With both slashing and cutting through the lane, the Mavs are able to get lots of easy looks that slower players wouldn’t be able to muster. Our mismatches, at least in terms of speed, are minimized against Avery’s finest. In ugly losses like this one I’ll take any upside I can find. My silver lining of the night: the showcasing of MP. Making a surprise start in the first game since he became a tradeable commodity, Pietrus did little to impress. Still, if there’s a hidden beauty to his game that the Warriors are simply overlooking, maybe some extra time on the court with the first team will make it all the more apparent to potential suitors. Me? I still don’t see it.</div> Source: Fast Break Blog Beware of the Brandon Bass' of the league.
Warriors are looking like a one trick pony under Don Nelson (1 on 5 b.s., settling for threes without kicking the ball around). Unless, it's the players who've taken it upon themselves to act like the opposite of Portland's team ball concept. Maybe it is harder if the team doesn't have an answer inside the paint, but that is exactly why they should be figuring out how to get Brandan Wright or POB involved a lot more. Barnes or Pietrus at center isn't going to create more opportunities at the bucket unless they drive or shoot, but face chance they actually match up well inside against bigger players. Maybe the Warriors could try feeding Biedrins a little more and clear out of the way and trying moving off the ball rather than standing around watching isolations?
Nellie ball relies on the ability to win from behind the arc and force teams into playing a chaotic brand of basketball. It's both exciting to watch when the team is winning, but frustrating when the team loses. There isn't much consistency and you just hope you have more hot streaks than cold ones. This was the same problem in Dallas and when Nellie originally coached the Warriors. Who becomes this team's Avery Johnson when Nellie is eventually forced out or retires from coaching?
Maybe Keith Smart is heir apparent? He's been the only thing consistent about the Warriors coaching staff carousel. I still wish we had Mario Elie and gave him a shot. Players respect him. He probably could have adjusted his coaching style to players not familiar with playing organized team ball and maybe have given the rookies a shot. In summer league, he used Taft, Ike Diogu, and Monta Ellis pretty well. It's just summer league so he has to play the rookies, but I felt maybe Elie would have chosen better regular season lineups and had a better game plan that suited the best players' strengths. I don't want to crap on Montgomery because I respect his game and it definitely works if players buy into it and they know how to run it properly. Coaches from college don't go into the hall of fame because they can't coach basketball. It's just that in the nba, some players get spoiled, they don't want to do certain things, they tend to ignore play sets and go at it one-on-one or they get impatient/undisciplined in the 24 second shot clock. Don Nelson knows how to reign them in and I think Elie, as a former nba player, could do which Montgomery could not and take control of the team. Sloan's Jazz and Brown's Pistons will show a lot of unorganized teams how it is done if the players listen, do what they are instructed, and they also click together. Not only did Warriors players not listen very well, they were totally unsuited for one another as a team even though they got along well in the locker room. The sum of the parts didn't amount to anything above mediocre because of how whacked the player core was. Once the defense improved and the roster had a common theme (build it up for quickness, transition scoring), then the team could actually compete at a higher win % despite the fact the team was not a good shooting team and not particularly a good rebounding team. Now I love Nelson and I think he's important for winning now until we can transition into a bigger lineup at some point and get his replacement trained. I almost guarantee that Nelson would lose during Montgomery's reign because of that jacked up roster with Foyle and Fisher as the top free agent signings to go along with Dun/Murph. (and later a constantly injured, low %, high volume shooting Baron who we needed pretty much 48 minutes a game.) So I hope Nelson has somebody on his staff that can be counted on to develop rookies and play bigger lineups with more organization. Run n' gun has no structure if Nelson doesn't get his players to run something good. It's just one-on-five ball and settling for threes at times... It's just not the right way to play. Teams that swing the ball and get defenses moving way too late to react, end up with good looks at the basket.
