2-5
by Mike Prada on Nov 8, 2009 3:20 PM EST
in Recaps
50 comments
Boy, that Dallas game seems so long ago...
0 recs |
50 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Arenas needs his swagger back. He’s getting shut down by Nash. Steve Nash. Pathetic.
by Fundefined on Nov 8, 2009 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Identity crisis
I dont think we need Arenas to take over. I think we need a balanced team like we saw against the Mavs
Depressed and disappointed I think the key to this losing streak is in Mike Miller and Jamison.
by Unxpekted on Nov 8, 2009 3:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure
We have much of a chance of beating a team like the suns without a dominant performance from Gil. It’s great that gil wants to distribute more but at the end of games he used to strike fear in other teams’ hearts man…having a balanced team doesn’t mean that has to go away…
by DynaMix on Nov 8, 2009 3:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Jumper after jumper by Arenas isn’t helping either. There is no team offense when he’s pushing the way he’s been.
by MR on Nov 8, 2009 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah of course
its not helping cuz he’s not hitting his shots…Arenas’ strength was always that he could shoot those daggers as well as drive to the basket…Even though his lift isn’t the same, his driving game is still pretty good…its the fact that he’s not shooting well that is making him, and thus the wizards, look even more stagnant than they already are…
by DynaMix on Nov 9, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's more than that
it’s not just the making, but also the taking. Too many jumpers with no pass early in the shot clock kills the offensive flow. Even if Arenas sinks the shot. How many times have you seen a superstar go for big points yet the team loses? The rest of the team has to be involved in the offense too. Honestly, I barely recognize an organized offense out there lately when Arenas has been in the game. When he’s been out I’m seeing the screens and passing that I expect to see. He’s got to play within the offense more.
by MR on Nov 9, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Definitely agree. Was at the game yesterday and plan to go to every home game this year…you totally notice team movement way more in person than watching on a screen…they DO look more fluid when Gil is on the bench…
I also however believe that the best teams have a guy who can take over in the 4th. We all know Gil is capable of that. It’d be great to see him get everybody involved 90% of the game and then take over the last 10%, like so many superstars do…
Let’s not forget the year he killed the Suns – dropped 54. the year he worked LA – dropped 60. Even with all the ball movement in the world, talent wise we aren’t on the same level as alot of teams in the West. To give yourself a shot, the players who ARE on the same level (like Gil) HAVE TO BE more aggressive…Balance will not beat teams like that. Just my .02
by DynaMix on Nov 9, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not in the “we’re better without Arenas” camp. I’m just saying he has to integrate better.
by MR on Nov 9, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ground Hog's Day
Flip keeps playing the offensively challenged dudes, which means the opposition puts lots of pressure on Arenas and Butler. As a result, they get worn down and then miss shots.
I’d rather see a shooting guard score over Foye then offensive ineptitude from DS, FO, etc. during this bad streak with our scorers out.
More losses coming if we stick to this formula.
The alternative is another 25-30 minutes for GA, RF, CB, AB and BH (or 36-38 minutes a game). If this approach is unacceptable, the Wiz ought to sign somebody who can hit an open 3 to a 10-day contract under AJ and MM return.
The status quo is hideous.
by Izman on Nov 8, 2009 4:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
D-Steve
He really is such an offensive liability. I can remember him hitting one shot (which was a bit ugly) and just missing everything else. I’m getting sick of it. I’d rather have Dom in there – he provides better D and at least has better shooting form than D-Steve.
My swag was phenomenal.
by se7en on Nov 8, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
D-Steve
was 2-5 fg, 7 rebs, and 2 steals in 25 minutes. That’s really not that terrible. I stick by the idea that starting Blatche over Fab is more important than what we do at the 2 spot.
by forthepeople on Nov 8, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to admit
Stevenson played pretty good on one end of the court. But we have too many “one way” players. Obviously Young isn’t in the teams plans, so maybe it’s time to capitalize on his potential by shipping him out for a 2 way player, no matter WHAT position.
by CJHutch on Nov 8, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How about Stephen Jackson
Mike James and Nick Young for Stephen Jackson. We are taking on 3 more years of salary which is a concern. Jackson has won a championship and he’s a veteran who brings a lot of different skills to the table.
by forthepeople on Nov 8, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its Jonathan Swift Time
Here is my modest proposal
Instead of committing all that money and giving up all that much for Jax, what about swapping Randy Foye to Memphis for AI when the free agent deadline hits… The salaries I think match almost exactly.
The Grizz need a third guard and we need a starting two who can score and help Gil create openings for Caron and Tawn.
Oh I know there will be naysayers… but if the future is now, then this could work.
by khrabb on Nov 9, 2009 7:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
AI's done
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Nov 9, 2009 8:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SJax
is more versatile and knows how to be a role player. AI is just a cancer at this point and a defensive liability.
by forthepeople on Nov 9, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SJax hasn't been a role player since 2003
And even then, he used a ton of possessions. No to both.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Nov 9, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Despite the loss
I thought we played relatively well. I know that isn’t saying much, because compared to our last two games (which were so ugly) we were making better decisions, moving the ball more, and playing much better defense and forced quite a bit of turnovers on a good offensive team. I didn’t expect to run with these guys, but we did. Butler/Arenas didn’t shoot well, so that hurt a lot, plus I swear we missed a lot of easy layups/putbacks that were a small spin from going in.
This was a more promising game.
My swag was phenomenal.
by se7en on Nov 8, 2009 4:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
you are right
in a lot of ways, but the bottom line is there is nothing “promising” about a loss at home to cap a 4 game losing streak. This team is underperforming right now.
by CJHutch on Nov 8, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arg!
I have been saddled with visiting family since Thursday so have missed the last 2 games – but what the hell? How did things get so sideways so fast with these guys? Doesn’t sound like Gilbert is quite right, mentally. That is no good. I worry about brewing tension between him and Butler. This went from best case rosy optimism after the Dallas game, to really worrying that things are about to fall apart.
"a crab dribble is when you travel" - caron butler
by little stevie colter on Nov 8, 2009 6:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly where I thought we'd be
Record-wise at this point. Not exactly the way I thought, but I guess I’m back to expecting 44 wins.
by steadyhand on Nov 8, 2009 6:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
2-5 is better than some of the years we’ve seen in the recent past.
My swag was phenomenal.
by se7en on Nov 9, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
when i said...
we’re a MEDIOCRE team, and that we were 8th at best, ya’ll were coming for my head.
i’ve kinda lost hope, 39 wins maybe?
by stanis on Nov 8, 2009 6:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I still think
we can be a good team, but we’re FAR from competing with the best teams in the East.
by CJHutch on Nov 8, 2009 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad but bad 8th in East, 40 wins at this point in EG's tenure
Not what EG promised the past several years had been aiming at. If the Wizards don’t go further than the first round, EG goes as should a lot of the players, the 6 (or 5?) year experiment to find a Big 3 w/ Gil and AJ as 2 of the 3 should end. And yes this is premature and yes this is a freakout, we could mesh and rise up the East ranks, but its not looking too likely. First round doesn’t mean anything, it means that we aren’t in the bottom third of the teams in the league ( I say third not half because usually several of the non-playoff West conf teams are better than the 5-8 East conf seeds.)
by morethesamewiz on Nov 8, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is premature but I will ask
Isn’t blowing this up impossible this summer?
"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck
by George Templeton on Nov 8, 2009 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Premature
but I believe the answer is no. It would be easy to blow up, or rather retool.
Several expiring contracts (Miller, Foye, James, Haywood, Oberto), some valuable pieces. Arenas, AJ, Butler would all garner attention on the trade blocks. Blatche, NY might too. And McG if we were interested.
by MR on Nov 8, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The top three guys are on long-term deals
So blowing up isn’t going to happen. Frankly, nobody ever blows up their team like that in the NBA. It takes time to unbuild a team.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Nov 8, 2009 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
Only Jamison, Arenas and Blatche would be here and not on expiring contracts next year if desired. Expiring contracts can be moved. The team could definitely rebuild, as long as it’s around those three. On top of that, any team in the league would love to have Blatche’s contract at this point, and we could probably deal Arenas to one of the losers in the max-free-agent-sweepstakes if we wanted to. The only player we might not be able to move next year is Jamison. The only question is what we’d have when we were done. I wouldn’t though, as one good move (or lucky draft pick) could make this squad a contender. I also think this team could still be really good.
Nice to have Mike James coming off the books this summer, as well as Miller’s oversized contract.
by steadyhand on Nov 9, 2009 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear ya
But as long as Arenas and Jamison are there with their deals, the tear-down process will take a year or two. We have some guys coming off the books, but you have to replace them with people. You’d have to draft Haywood’s replacement, for example, play him, stink, get a lotto pick, trade Arenas/Jamison for pennies on the dollar and then maybe be good in two or three years.
The only time I can remember a team getting rid of literally all their top offensive guys in one year was the Sonics a few years ago. Even then, Rashard Lewis was a free agent that year. We’d have to wait until Butler’s contract expires in 2010/11 to get to that point.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Nov 9, 2009 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not advocating this approach but responding to a question.
However if we were to go that way I wouldn’t expect any team to have a fire sale and NOT take at LEAST two or three years. Probably more like 4-5, since you would be trading for draft picks and expiring contracts and then waiting for those picks to turn into rookies and those rookies to turn into real players.
I think someone would trade for Arenas’ contract and I think someone would trade for AJ’s too.
I do think this team has been built with an “out clause” at the end (or middle) of this year.
by MR on Nov 9, 2009 7:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it, to be honest
Not in this economy. Maybe if it was two years ago, but now, I don’t think there’s going to be much value coming back.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Nov 9, 2009 8:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We’re loaded with expirings.
We could either trade those for talent or trade our talent for expirings and picks. We could go either way. Or let contracts expire.
by MR on Nov 9, 2009 8:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ahhhhhhh
I can’t believe we are here again. Actually, I guess I can. Another year of misery!
by Unseld'ed on Nov 8, 2009 8:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
• The offense looks better with Arenas on the bench
• The team played hard but still had too little grit
• We continue to ignore the 3pt line on D
• The offense seems geared toward getting a semi-open 18 foot jumper
by MR on Nov 8, 2009 9:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed mostly
The O is more fluid without Arenas on the floor.
The offense actually works best when it gets a man open and then causes the defense to over shift and then we make the extra pass for an open layup or short shot. You are right that the goal appears to be too geared toward shooting longer range jumpers instead of actual mid rangers.
by Manimal Smith on Nov 8, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
• The offense seems geared toward getting a semi-open 18 foot jumper
What I’ve been saying. Do you remember when Caron had the breakaway, and Nash was the only guy back? One on one, against the MUCH smaller Steve Nash, and Butler pulls up for the jumper. Pathetic.
by CJHutch on Nov 9, 2009 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They definitely shot too many jumpers today
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Nov 9, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not really ’the offense", more like a bad individual play.
by MR on Nov 9, 2009 7:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't
think the plan is to pull up for jumpers all the time, but I DO think that it’s been happening too much. Again, and I know I keep saying this, I don’t have a problem with shooting jumpers if you’re making them. Obviously that’s the identity of our team. My problem is, when you’re not making them, and/or when you’re down double digits, you need to go to the hole and make something happen. Get the OTHER team in foul trouble, dunk on the OTHER teams players, make the OTHER team get out of your way if they don’t want to pick up the foul.
Now, I do think that we’ve been getting hosed on a lot of these charging calls. I also think that refs call charging WAY too easily. And I’m not saying they call it for the wrong side, I’m saying sometimes there just shouldn’t be a call made. Unfortunately, these players are taught to flop when a guy bumps them, and it just skews up the whole thing. Sorry, I got on a tangent. Anyway, as far as the calls we haven’t been getting, I think it goes back to the fact that we are looked at as a jump shooting team. I don’t think the refs look at our players, other than Gilbert, as being aggressive to the hole. Refs definitely keep a guys (or teams) reputation in mind when making these calls, an the guys that are traditionally more aggressive attacking the rim are the ones who get the “benefit of the doubt.”
by CJHutch on Nov 9, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hard schedule
One thing to consider is that of our 5 losses 4 of them are to good teams.
We have 1 really bad loss, 1 really good win and 1 “eh” win. I think we should have beaten the Heat too, but at least D wade had to be huge for them to eek it out.
We could easily be 2-5 even if we beat just those teams that we really should have and lost to 5 good teams (cavs, mavs, suns, hawks, heats)
by Manimal Smith on Nov 8, 2009 10:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but
the idea that we should lose to the Hawks and Heat is disappointing. I think we were all hoping for more than that.
by Palace of Good Play's Golden Toilet on Nov 9, 2009 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Losing in Atlanta isn't a big deal
Losing to Miami hurts, but I also didn’t expect to win in Dallas, so they kind of cancel each other out. I did think we should have won the past two games (though Phoenix is playing well this year, it’s a home game).
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on Nov 9, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree but
it’s more concerning that they’ve looked pretty bad the last few games and only seemed in the games at various points. And they didn’t just lose to the Pacers, but they were blown out.
by Matt K. on Nov 9, 2009 2:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What was the result ...
of this posterization of Amare on Blatche. (I didn’t see the game) Was Amare called for a foul on this specific play?
by rzawrecktah on Nov 9, 2009 11:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
