I probably would have started by trying to play some kind of zone. If that didn't work I would have told our guys to sag a bit and try harder to not get blown by rather than running them off the three point line. If that didn't work I would probably tell Rudy not to help at all and simply stick to his man. If that didn't work I would have tried taking Rudy out and going with ersan at the 5. Btw I would have been trying some of these things 4 games ago and figuring out what seems to work best of those options
I would have tried SOMETHING
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using
JazzFanz mobile app
Good post.
That’s… what is most crazy to me about the last two years. We had 7 games against Denver to try new things. We kept hitting our head against a brick wall. In a way, I kinda get it. We were without Bogey and we did have a 3-1 lead. I know most of us felt that at some point denver would eventually run out of gas and we’d finish them off. But that failed. You would’ve thought that Snyder would’ve had a “come to Jesus moment” after that series.
Then we had this entire season to try out new things. Why didn’t Hughes get any burn? Like at all? Every minute thomas was on the floor was a missed opportunity for Hughes. Why didn’t ersan get any burn? Why didn’t we play with the lineups a bit, especially when we had big leads? How often were we up by 20+ In the 4th and we still had the starters in? Why not experiment?
Finally, this playoff series. We knew at the end of game 2 that we:
1. Had to find a counter to the zone Lue deployed at halftime.
2. Had to find a counter to the Mitchell trap. Royce was too tentative to be Mitchell’s escape valve.
3. Had to find a counter to their small ball which drew Gobert away from the paint.
4. Had to give Mitchell a break. Mitchell was wearing down and we needed another ball handler to take the pressure of him. Especially once Lue unleashed Beverly onto Mitchell
We failed at all 4.
Why didn’t we try a zone? That was my first thought when we began to struggle in games 2 and 3. At the very least it would slow their offense down, force them to think, and force Lue to waste a timeout to draw counters. At best, it would’ve hidden our bad/injured defenders which would’ve countered their small ball.
Why didn’t we try going going small? By halftime in game 3 we knew that this wasn’t going to be a series where favors and Niang would be effective in. Why didn’t we try Ersan? Could Brantley have been effective? Why not try a lineup with Mitchell, Royce, Bogey, Jingles, and Ersan or Mitchell, Clarkson, Bogey, Jingles, and Royce? Sure, we couldn't defend or rebound, but we could’ve tried outscoring the Clippers. Right? If you don’t have any defensive counters, try outscoring them. Don Nelson used to use this strategy all the time in the 90s and early 2000s.
Why didn’t we try Forrest? I get he's limited offensively. But he would’ve been another ball handler. And who knows? Maybe with Beverley focused so much on Mitchell, he could’ve created a bit? At the very least, he could’ve brought the ball up the court and allowed Mitchell/Clarkson to catch their breath.
Why didn’t we try Hughes? I get that his defense left a bit to be desired. But was he any worse than the players who were in the starting lineup? Oni’s offense and fouling makes him unplayable. Like utterly unplayable. At the very least, he would’ve forced the Clippers to be concerned about his shooting.
I feel like the Clippers emptied their clip to win this series while we didn’t. We stubbornly stayed with our same lineups and same strategies. And now we’re on summer vacation with plenty of rounds left in the clip. We were just too stubborn to pull the trigger and try something different.
