# Draft Express: Evaluation of US National Team (complimentary to Hinrich)



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Looking Beyond the World Championships—Team USA
> 
> Jonathan Givony
> 
> ...


I hadn't seen this article posted yet, so I thought I'd post it.

We've heard a lot of this analysis before. More role players, not enough defensive integrity, yadda yadda yadda. Still, I appreciate the Hinrich love. Givony thinks he should start at point guard on the Olympic team, as shown above. 

The roster he suggested is interesting in that it has no Anthony, Wade, or James on it. In fact, it only has two real scorers in Redd and Brand. I'm sure that team could put up points, but it's a bit of a funny looking roster to me.

One thing Givony said here totally blew my mind. Dwyane Wade doesn't play defense? Since when? Wade is a very good defender, both in terms of man defense and steals.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I always enjoy reading pro-Hinrich stuff. Ha...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Nah, Wade is a pretty poor defender...He's great in the passing lanes though

I can't count how many times I've just seen opposing guards blow past him and he doesn't even try to get back....

One time this happen, Shaq yelled at him something terrible...I think it was during this year's playoffs....


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I think Wade spaces out on defense...sort of like McGrady, but not anywhere near as bad. McGrady can lock anyone down if he feels like it, but chooses not to 90% of the time. Wade is a very good defender when he's paying attention and ordinary when he's not.

interesting roster he put together, but I think the team Colangelo built would wipe the floor with them. I think we should stick with a fairly similar group through the Olympics and see if they can build some continuity.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

This guy is pretty damned foolish.That roster would be an enormous step backwards.Eddie Jones absolutely sucked last year and he's been getting exponentially worse for the last few years.In 2008 he probably will be retired.PJ Brown is one of my favorite players ever(almost everyone who's ever been a fan of a team he played for loves the guy),but he's not going to exactly be in his prime two seasons from now.None of the changes he suggests would really benefit our team.It's one thing to say we need roleplayers,but another to think that we should expect a team of roleplayers would be some sort of magic bullet.We have the best players in the world and everyone else has to match up with those guys.It would be idiotic to save them the trouble.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

hindsight experts are so cool.

the us team beat argentina, the best team in the tournament, and lost only once.

even the 96' bulls lost 13 games, twice to toronto.

this summer was a success for team usa. the one-and-done format in sports tournaments
rarely has the best team finishing out on top.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Is this a sort of logical antonym of the reductio ad adsurdum argument whereby the user thinks by taking a questionable premise to its most assinine conclusion all on his own, he'll somehow strengthen his argument?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Offense isn't the problem, and it won't be. Team USA can put the ball in the hoop. Even if their offense is ugly isolation basketball, they're still an offensive powerhouse. 

Their offensive discipline doesn't hurt them, but their defensive discipline does. Hinrich and Battier were the least athletic players on the team, but were the best defenders. It's just discipline and understanding. Keep a star on the team, but more understanding and defensive discipline will go a long way. It will make the LeBrons and Carmelos that much more dangerous with a perfect compliment by their side.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Offense isn't the problem, and it won't be. Team USA can put the ball in the hoop. Even if their offense is ugly isolation basketball, they're still an offensive powerhouse.
> 
> Their offensive discipline doesn't hurt them, but their defensive discipline does. Hinrich and Battier were the least athletic players on the team, but were the best defenders. It's just discipline and understanding. Keep a star on the team, but more understanding and defensive discipline will go a long way. It will make the LeBrons and Carmelos that much more dangerous with a perfect compliment by their side.


Kirk didn't appear to be exactly locking guys down to me. I'm also not sure he was one of the least athletic players (for his position at least). Kirk rated out as a very good athlete in his combine results coming into the league. It's a bigtime stereotype that he didn't.

That being said, LeBron and Carmelo are nothing close to elite defenders. They're not above average defenders, I don't think. Stick Kobe on this team, who's athletic, a powerhouse on offense, and an elite defensive player, and you've got something.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Kirk didn't appear to be exactly locking guys down to me. I'm also not sure he was one of the least athletic players (for his position at least). Kirk rated out as a very good athlete in his combine results coming into the league. It's a bigtime stereotype that he didn't.


It's hard to be a good defender when the team defense is piss poor. Everyone ends up looking bad by association. However, Hinrich and Battier were clearly the best defensive players out there for Team USA in my opinion]. That's evident in the fact that their defense was good enough for Greece to intentionally keep them out of pick and rolls because they actually knew how to play them. 

I know Hinrich is a really good athlete, but compared to the rest of the team, I think he is pretty average athletically. Besides Brad Miller who is so unathletic it's depressing, I think him and Battier are the least athletic.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

How interesting of an experiment would it be to have the 2007 NBA Champions play in the 2007 Tournament of Americas?

Then, for every non-USA player on the 2007 Championship Team, they get replaced by an analogous USA player. 

Of course, this idea goes out the window if a team like the Mavs or Spurs win that chip. 

The idea is that we spend all this time and effort to find out which NBA team is the best NBA team. They are already a team. The work has been done for USA. Just set the champions loose on the world!


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

~~edited for for misunderstanding~~


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Just brilliant. Lets close the talent gap ourselves and unlike the other countries, lets foolishly not send our best players. So then not only will be have an experience deficit, we will have a talent deficit also. I wonder if Argentina is thinking of using this brilliant strategy and telling there top NBA players not to play either since they couldn't score or defend against a decidedly flawed team like Team USA.

I think the biggest thing is to get a consistent rotation down. Stop all the situational substitution. Figure out your rotation in camp and stick to it. Then learn how to defend the pick and roll. Then learn how to attack zone defenses.

However, people have to remember. They only practice for 3 weeks. It is hard to do all that in 3 weeks. I hope they don't turn over the roster to much so Coach K will have an idea of what players he wants to play.

Let Kobe replace Battier while Battier takes Jamison slot. Add Redd in Brad Miller's spot. If Amare is healthy then find a way to add him probably in place of Bosh.

Keep: Wade, LeBron, Melo, Hinrich, Joe Johnson, Battier, Brand, and Howard at all cost. Chris Paul can be replaced at point by LeBron or JJ. You want to take a big, physical team. However this is for Olympics purposes. The Tournament of the Americas is not going to have stiff competition.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

paxman said:


> oh no
> i think somebody attacked my logic using great logic himself!
> how ever will i live with myself, knowing i am *gasp* asinine?
> 
> ...


I think Mike was referring to the author, Givony, not you. His post just happened to come right after yours.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think Mike was referring to the author, Givony, not you. His post just happened to come right after yours.


Yup, no offense meant to you Pax!

I just thought it was an uncommonly silly article. I don't agree with, but can at least appreciate the concept of needing fewer talented players, but taking it to the nonsensical extreme of replacing Wade, James, and Anthony with Eddie Jones, Anthony Parker, and Charlie Bell is just plain crazy.

On the brighter side, if USA basketball continues down this road, perhaps after they lose with the Anthony Parker featured team, they'll start scouting local pickup games. Eventually you, I, and everyone else here will have our chance to play good old fashioned team ball for the US of A! :clown:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think a lot of you are missing the point. We sent our best players, for the most part, and they got their clocks cleaned by Greece of all teams. And no, USA basketball finishing with the bronze was not a success but rather an abject failure. This is like the NCAA's, this is like having a team in the NCAA's that is ranked #1 all year and doesn't make the final four IMO. It's an abject failure and there is no reason why US teams shouldn't mop the floor with a Greece team, hell, Greece wasn't even as good as Argentina or Spain really. The problem is clearly that our players don't have enough time together to become a team. We send a mish mash of players, all very good of course, and expect them to beat teams that have been playing together for years...thats crazy. We would do better with a team of Ronald Dupree's and Paul Shirleys that played together all year long for a few years than a mish mash of Lebrons & Wade's. Obviously that team wouldn't be AS talented but it WOULD be a team which would make all the difference in the world. Plus we could always throw a Kobe on there to be a star if we needed one. 

Personally I like the idea of sending the starting units from the two finals teams. Let unit 1 play the 1st quarter, unit 2 the 2nd quarter, etc... And if Shaq couldn't play he would be substituted for Howard or Amare. If there was a foreign player like Nowitski he would be substituted for the next best American than fits. It's a whole lot easier to integrate 2-3 players than to bring a whole team together. As long as the US has 3-6 weeks to practice they are not going to beat teams like Argentina that play together years and years. Sure, they will win sometimes but as we have seen they will also loose sometimes. We need to send a TEAM next time...


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I don't see why everyone wants Johnson back. If we need a shooter there are much better options. On defense there are much better options, we don't need for him to have the ball in his hands.

As for the article, Brown, Bell, Bonner, E.Jones, I don't know about that. Parker at least makes a little sense.

My team would go something like

James/ Bosh/ Brand
Anthony/ Wade
Amare/ Howard
Bryant/ Redd/ Gordon or Hamilton
Paul/ Hinrich

Bryant can be the lock down defender instead of Battier, Gordon can take over for JAMISON on the PERIMETER, Amare gives the team a dominant post presence instead of Miller's weak presence, Redd can be thee shooter instead of Johnson. I would highly consider not bringing in both Wade and James, but since I know that's not going to happen...

I don't know if this team would be more team oriented, but whoever doesn't move the ball around will easily be pointed out as the cancer's of the team because there is just too much ability here. Gordon might be well suited for FIBA, a lot of the guys are smaller and Gordon wouldn't be much of a liabilty on defense.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Hustle said:


> I don't see why everyone wants Johnson back. If we need a shooter there are much better options. On defense there are much better options, we don't need for him to have the ball in his hands.
> 
> As for the article, Brown, Bell, Bonner, E.Jones, I don't know about that. Parker at least makes a little sense.
> 
> ...



I don't see much difference in that team and the team we sent. A mish mash of stars. The problem with the US isn't the talent level it is the fact that the players we are sending can't become a team in 3 weeks that is ready to compete with a team that has been playing together for years. I don't see how making minor modifications to the roster changes that.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Personally I like the idea of sending the starting units from the two finals teams. Let unit 1 play the 1st quarter, unit 2 the 2nd quarter, etc... And if Shaq couldn't play he would be substituted for Howard or Amare. If there was a foreign player like Nowitski he would be substituted for the next best American than fits. It's a whole lot easier to integrate 2-3 players than to bring a whole team together. As long as the US has 3-6 weeks to practice they are not going to beat teams like Argentina that play together years and years. Sure, they will win sometimes but as we have seen they will also loose sometimes. We need to send a TEAM next time...


ANd if the SPurs win substitute Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker. Aside from Detriot being 1/2 the team I don't like this idea. Wade is still going to be Wade he was in FIBA, Jason Williams, Antione Walker and Haslem are not going to make him something more. His game is just not suited to dominate FIBA ball like it is in the NBA, where he has never traveled or not been fouled driving the lane. Josh Howard, Devon Harris, Dampier, and Terry for some reason doesn't scream gold to me either. Detriot's starters might be a good idea, less Nazr, they did very well in the All-Star game (w/o Prince, but still).


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I don't see much difference in that team and the team we sent. A mish mash of stars. The problem with the US isn't the talent level it is the fact that the players we are sending can't become a team in 3 weeks that is ready to compete with a team that has been playing together for years. I don't see how making minor modifications to the roster changes that.


The only real difference would be much better shooting. The core of this years team would have to form some chemistry, I don't know where else it would come from. Having Kobe, the team would at least have a vocal leader. The idea of sending NBA team less the stars doesn't make sense to me, because the team was built around those particular stars. Also the team who wins the Finals is that much more likely to not want to play FIBA.

Kobe can lock down guys and hit a shot or finissh at the basket unlike Battier, he is also the only guy who would be able to say anything to anyone about not playing team ball, so I'd consider him a huge upgrade. Jamison and Johnson played some average d and were primarily shooters on offense, Redd and Gordon/Hamilton would make the offense much more fluent.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Hustle said:


> ANd if the SPurs win substitute Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker. Aside from Detriot being 1/2 the team I don't like this idea. Wade is still going to be Wade he was in FIBA, Jason Williams, Antione Walker and Haslem are not going to make him something more. His game is just not suited to dominate FIBA ball like it is in the NBA, where he has never traveled or not been fouled driving the lane. Josh Howard, Devon Harris, Dampier, and Terry for some reason doesn't scream gold to me either. Detriot's starters might be a good idea, less Nazr, they did very well in the All-Star game (w/o Prince, but still).



Yeah, I admit if SA won it it would be difficult to do but I don't see that happening anytime soon anyway. Wade iwould still be Wade but he would have the comfort level of playing with teamates he knows and is familiar with, not trying to compete with Lebron & Anthony for who looks best out there. I really don't think a lot of people understand the problem here...it isn't talent level. The USA could field a team of Parker, Dupree, Hinrich, Ndubie Ebi, and Paul Shirley and win internationally with ease...assuming those players could practice together all YEAR ROUND. The biggest impediement to winning isn't talent or roster makeup or even FIBA rules or officiating, it is the US sending a mish mash of players instead of a team. We send teams that have been playing together and they will crush most international competetion, even with Udonis Haslem or Josh Howard.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hustle said:


> ANd if the SPurs win substitute Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker.




I think Ginobli will be playing for Argentina.


:biggrin:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Hustle said:


> The only real difference would be much better shooting. The core of this years team would have to form some chemistry, I don't know where else it would come from. Having Kobe, the team would at least have a vocal leader. The idea of sending NBA team less the stars doesn't make sense to me, because the team was built around those particular stars. Also the team who wins the Finals is that much more likely to not want to play FIBA.



The only stars that would have to be replaced would be the ones who couldn't go or were playing on foreign teams and they would be replaced by players with similar skillsets who are stars in their own right, Dwayne Wade doesn't want to play? Fine...bring in Kobe. It is an honor to represent the US and even after the finals we need to put teams out there that will win. Those guys would just have to suck it up and represent and if they were unwilling or unable to we have a very large pool to draw from. Again, the main idea is that it is a whole lot easier to integrate one or two players onto an established team than to..well...to establish a team from a mish mash of players.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think Ginobli will be playing for Argentina.
> 
> 
> :biggrin:


Which is why he said substitute him! :biggrin:


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> The only stars that would have to be replaced would be the ones who couldn't go or were playing on foreign teams and they would be replaced by players with similar skillsets who are stars in their own right, Dwayne Wade doesn't want to play? Fine...bring in Kobe. It is an honor to represent the US and even after the finals we need to put teams out there that will win. Those guys would just have to suck it up and represent and if they were unwilling or unable to we have a very large pool to draw from. Again, the main idea is that it is a whole lot easier to integrate one or two players onto an established team than to..well...to establish a team from a mish mash of players.


I don't disagree with you, but the options that would be available would just be kind of weak versions of the idea. Detriot would be the exception, maybe sub in Howard for Nazr, keep the top stars, and when they aren't playing team ball, bring in Detriot.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I don't think there's much to be gained by constantly reshuffling team USA. In the games I saw Anthony and Lebron played pretty well. Apparently Wade had some good games that I didn't see (Argentina). It's reasonable to expect that each of these three young players will improve during the next couple of years, and their ability to play together will also improve when they play in next summer's games.

The cost of adding & subtracting players is the loss of what little team cohesion was developed this summer. That said, adding Kobe Bryant to the mix seems like a good idea. Oddly Kobe is not on the list of additions compiled by Givoney. 

As many have pointed out, the team could use some outside shooters on offense and needs to tighten up on defense. Kobe would certaining improve the team's outside shooting and overall defense. 

The main solution for the defensive problem would be additional practice playing together, and the addition a zone defense of some sort just as a change-up to throw at the opposition from time-to-time. I've always been partial to the 1-3-1 zone trapping defense when you have a smart quick point guard, tall quick wings and a shot-blocker down low. Flashing it from time to time would disrupt the comfort zone of FIBA teams that rely on jumpers from spots on the circle.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sounds like if jerry colangelo has his way, kirk won't even be on the team anymore.





> - On the court, an athletic, talented young team showed its inexperience, especially in the backcourt. The likely additions of another point guard in Chauncey Billups to join Chris Paul and veteran shooters like Kobe Bryant and Michael Redd could help address those concerns. All three have committed to the Team USA program but skipped this summer for various reasons.
> 
> "I saw Kobe in Japan. He was coming in for a Nike promotion as we were departing," Colangelo said. "He was disappointed he couldn't play (due to surgery) but is looking forward to the chance. Leadership is important in the international game, and we were pretty young. We could probably use more experience."


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=73367&source=rss&dest=STY-73367



oh, and steve kerr in his yahoo column yesterday called kirk a "loser". he also called chris paul a "loser" too. not very complimentary.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think a lot of you are missing the point. We sent our best players, for the most part, and they got their clocks cleaned by Greece of all teams. And no, USA basketball finishing with the bronze was not a success but rather an abject failure. This is like the NCAA's, this is like having a team in the NCAA's that is ranked #1 all year and doesn't make the final four IMO.


I think the #1 team in the NCAAs is a good comparison, but I don't think it leads where you think it does. I mean, my GMU Patriots beat UConn, but that doesn't mean a perennially elite team should suddenly start emulating GMU and forego the possibility of getting top recruits.

Anything can happen in a one game and out tourney, but GMU is the exception to the rule and UConn (and Duke, Kansas, UNC, UK, U of L etc) are the exceptions.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> sounds like if jerry colangelo has his way, kirk won't even be on the team anymore.



Redd sure isn't going to help the USA defense much. It's important to add outside shooting, but not at the cost of adding a poor defender.

Kirk has another year in the NBA to show his leadership. If he hasn't raised his stock a bit by the end of this year (which I think he will), then he'll probably not be invited back.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> sounds like if jerry colangelo has his way, kirk won't even be on the team anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's Paul that should go, not Kirk. Is CP big enough to stay with those bigger guards? I don't think so. Speed isn't everything. 

Defense is a team concept as much as offense is. If Wade, LeBron, etc, understood team defense better, both Kirk and Chris would have fared better. 

Billups being there would have made a difference, but I still don't think Kobe would be a good addition. Could he put his ego on hold long enough? 

And if leadership was an issue, shouldn't Jerry be looking at the three captains? That's where the leadership should have come from.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think it is ridiculous to expect much out of a cobbled together team like this. A team can spend a whole year learning each other defensively and still have plenty of work to do. Offensive schemes can likewise require a great deal of time and chemistry. I don't think our players so much failed as we failed by asking them to do the unlikely. You can't create a team in 3 weeks to compete with teams that have been together for years and expect to have any degree of success no matter how talented the individual players on that team might be. It isn't just about basic principles, it is the implementation of those principles and the lack of a team game. It isn't the US players faults that they only had 3 weeks together to try to merge into a team, they did all they could do, and as we saw it wasn't enough.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sheridan also thinks, in his typical snarky fashion that kirk no longer has a place on the team.



> Kirk Hinrich: Supplanted Chris Paul as the starting point guard, but does anyone honestly believe he's the best point guard in America? If Billups plays next summer, Hinrich could get squeezed off the active roster -- *especially if the team hierarchy believes it'll pay more long-term dividends to keep Paul on the active roster.*



it's called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

along that same train of thinking, where do any of the TEAM USA heirarchy state that they expect/desire/intend to select "the best point guard in america" for TEAM USA? hinrich's skills complement what that team was trying to achieve. would billups be better, maybe, but billups is somewhat like arenas although less inclined to shoot his team to victory. 

hinrich, alternatively is content to play the tough d, initiate the offense allowing the more skilled players to play with the ball, move to an open spot and stick the j when needed. 

i think hinrich will return if he chooses, billups, paul et al notwithstanding, kirk did nothing to hurt himself by his play. politics are another thing altogether.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

BULLHITTER said:


> along that same train of thinking, where do any of the TEAM USA heirarchy state that they expect/desire/intend to select "the best point guard in america" for TEAM USA? hinrich's skills complement what that team was trying to achieve. would billups be better, maybe, but billups is somewhat like arenas although less inclined to shoot his team to victory.
> 
> hinrich, alternatively is content to play the tough d, initiate the offense allowing the more skilled players to play with the ball, move to an open spot and stick the j when needed.
> 
> i think hinrich will return if he chooses, billups, paul et al notwithstanding, kirk did nothing to hurt himself by his play. politics are another thing altogether.


The most negative thing about Billups that I can say is that he didn't play for team USA this summer. If you want to improve teamwork, you don't change point guards every year. They ought to stick with the two guys they have. Both Paul and Hinrich are still on the upside of their careers, and both will be better players two years from now.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

yeah 3 weeks more practicing during the summer and a few exposition games isn't going to suddenly turn this group into a team. We NEED to send a team. The guys on this squad are not going to gain any continuity playing for their respective teams during the season. This whole concept is flawed and I don't see how team USA is suddenly going to gel because they have another 3 week stint practicing together next summer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I think Jonathan is wrong.

Chris Paul rocks at PG.

What the team needs is 5 all-star starters and bench players who can fill roles as needed. The problem with the team is that with 14 (or whatever) all-stars, there's just not enough playing time to go around.

Realize this team blew everyone out and had just one bad game.

It wasn't about defense, it was about overwhelming firepower on offense.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

See people were opposed to the Tyson Chandler trade. If the guy writing the article had his way, we'd have traded Tyson for an Olympian!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I think Jonathan is wrong.
> 
> Chris Paul rocks at PG.
> 
> ...



What is needed is a team. THe # of all stars playing is less important than how long they have been playing together IMO. And this team didn't "blow everyone out", they edged out Brazil by 4pts, Italy had the US down by 12 at one point and they fought back. They were very fortunate and their talent carried them a while, only so far though. The sad thing is Brazil & Italy aren't even very good. Greece is pretty good but not normally better than Spain (who beat them by like 50pts in the final game) or Argentina.

It was about defense, anyone who watched the game should know that the US couldn't defend Greece's pick and roll to save their lives.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

Attention media sources. Quick, scramble to spin this poor showing as a problem with anything but the mega stars we are trying to create. Kerr, Sheridan, and everybody else can say it's their own opinion all they want. But it's not in anyone in the NBA or the sports media's best interest to break down the game tape and show the captains not delivering leadership or team play, even though we all saw it. (I still think Anthony tried really hard and I'd be less critical of him than James and Wade.)

Kerr: Wade isn't a loser because he finally shot beautifully in the Argentina game? Good timing there buddy. James isn't a loser because he agreed to play less than 40 minutes? That's the only concession I saw from him.

I really hate sports media. There aren't any reporters left, let alone any facts.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

USA 111, Puerto Rico 100
USA 121, China 90
USA 114, Slovenia 95
USA 94, Italy 85
USA 25-11-35-23 94 
Italy 19-26-19-21 85
(Italy beat us for one quarter, we killed them in the 3rd)
USA 103, Senegal 58
USA 113, Australia 73
USA 85, Germany 65
USA 96, Argentina 81

Italy was the closest margin of victory at 9 points


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

For all the 'Melo bashing I do (I advocated that he shouldn't have even been invited to try out for the team this time around), he's the only real "winner" from that whole team in my book. He came to play on both ends of the court every game, and produced. If he can return to the states and not revert to being the whiny little ***** he had become, he will have succeeded in changing this fan's perception of him. 

Moving on.

For all his scoring, I thought Dwyane Wade was a major disappointment (and he's my second favorite player in the NBA after Garnett). Especially on defense where it was revealed that his supposed prowess is based totally on bursts of energy and gambling and devoid of fundamentals and consistent intensity in the half court set. He was flat out sleep walking on defense in the Greece game. 

And James. I love LeBron James. And I love the fact that he sacrificed minutes and shots for this team. But for all of his sacrifices, did they pay off? When he wasn't shooting, was he really making plays for others? Sometimes yes, but nothing spectacular. And when he was shooting, it was almost always 1 on 5 penetrations or contested fade-away 3s. Overall though, he was very solid if not spectacular. 

I'm not advocating that either Wade or James be left behind. That would be, as MikeDC stated, silly. But I certainly don't think Kerr is correct in classifying them among the "winners" while giving a guy like Hinrich - who to my viewing experience had basically one bad quarter of basketball in the tournament - a contrary label. 

Hinrich wasn't 'Melo, but he sure as hell wasn't a "loser". Indeed, it is mind boggling to me that Battier and Hinrich could garner different labels. Taken as a whole, they both played very solid ball in my opinion. 

Anyway, if Hinrich isn't invited back it won't bother me as I have been on record the whole time as being conflicted about his involvement (despite ScottMay's near-successful attempt to change my mind). 

Oh, and for what its worth, both Hinrich and Paul will be better than Billups by the time 2008 rolls around. If you want the "best point guard in America" in 2008, Billups ain't your guy.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

How about a selfishly Bulls team with continuity and a little bit of umph

B.Wallace/ Chandler
Prince/ Anthony/ James
R.Wallace/ Curry
Hamilton/ Gordon/ Wade
Billups/ Hinrich


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Ok ' tell us what you think about PGs Bron:



> _"That's something me and coach talked about this morning at breakfast time. Hopefully we could have thought about it earlier, but it was a great adjustment by coach. I played the point guard for the most Part of the game and led our team to a victory."_


perhaps the team has all the guards they need, PG and otherwise. Offense was never really the problem anyways. This team had breakdowns on post defense. Concentrate on that, and not the offense. Team USA beat Argentina when they buckled down at the defensive end.

I hate to keep repeating get over offense..............but please do


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> logical antonym of the reductio ad adsurdum argument



What he just said.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

People.


The team lost by six on a off night. All teams suffer offnights. No need to radically change the mixture. We'll have several stars next time around that weren't available this time. We'll be ok. The worst thing we can do is make a bunch a radical changes right now.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> oh, and steve kerr in his yahoo column yesterday called kirk a "loser". he also called chris paul a "loser" too. not very complimentary.



He didn't call them losers as far as the word is used in the modern-day society. He said in the context of their future on Team USA.

Hinrichs main weakness (in Kerrs POV) is his lack of height. And Paul can't shoot.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

fleetwood macbull said:


> Ok ' tell us what you think about PGs Bron:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite right!!

Clearly looks like no lesson will be learned from poor showings ever. I was so torn on this whole group. Fun to watch, but I could see them slipping into bad offensive modes whenever defense was not sharp. I'd be very happy with a bronze showing if I thought the team had played it's best ball, but I'm just not happy with how they played as soon as it got a little tough.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Lets remember this:

For team USA: An off-season expedition after playing in some cases 100 games.

Team Greece: What they have prepped for their entire lives.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

GB said:


> Lets remember this:
> 
> For team USA: An off-season expedition after playing in some cases 100 games.
> 
> Team Greece: What they have prepped for their entire lives.



Which is exactly why we need to send a team that has experience playing together and not an all star wannabe mish mash.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Which is exactly why we need to send a team that has experience playing together and not an all star wannabe mish mash.


Would you support sending the current defending champions?

Or maybe the team they beat, they'd have a bit more motivation.

Edit:

Better yet, let the coaches vote on the team most likely to win and send them.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

McBulls said:


> The most negative thing about Billups that I can say is that he didn't play for team USA this summer. *If you want to improve teamwork, you don't change point guards every year.* They ought to stick with the two guys they have. Both Paul and Hinrich are still on the upside of their careers, and both will be better players two years from now.


I agree. Those other teams have great chemistry from playing together for periods of time. Argentina lost but I doubt they'll be switching out players. USA lost 1 game. If they add and subtract players, there's no telling how USA will do. Could win it all or not medal at all. It all remains to be seen.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

If it's height at issue, is Billups going to wear platform shoes? He's got a couple pounds on Hinrich, but no inches.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

thebullybully said:


> Quite right!!
> 
> Clearly looks like no lesson will be learned from poor showings ever. I was so torn on this whole group. Fun to watch, but I could see them slipping into bad offensive modes whenever defense was not sharp. I'd be very happy with a bronze showing if I thought the team had played it's best ball, but I'm just not happy with how they played as soon as it got a little tough.


yes certainly we are going to need the right directional focus if we are to build on this experience. We need more defensive intimidation. More Zone defense. Toughness. IQ. The focus should be on defense with a young team, because the other stuff takes more time to learn and figure out.

#1 Fundamentals. The zone defense must be learned. Sorry Coach K. This is FIBA. And little things like free throws must be hit. Picks must be set. Bigs have to have more skills, especially in the IQ dept. Players must be on the same page. This is like having a tight rock group. Takes some time. leads you to....

#2 Experience. No easy remedy there. We had some kids out there who lose focus and confidence once in awhile

#3 Be more physical. I'm not going to say we can't use more physical guard play since its ben brought up, but everyone, especially our bigs need to learn how to be aggresive and physical in Intl. style ball. I think this probably also naturally comes with a higher confidence level.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

GB said:


> Would you support sending the current defending champions?
> 
> Or maybe the team they beat, they'd have a bit more motivation.
> 
> ...



Yes, I would advocate that. In fact, someone posited an idea that I really liked, send the starting squads from BOTH finals teams. Use squad 1 for Q1, squad 2 for Q2, platoon basically, you get the idea. Of course we would have to sub some players for guys who can't or won't go or who will be playing for an opposing team but it is a lot easier to substitute one or two guys than a whole team. I would say we could add the remaining 4-5 spots from both rosters as well. THEN they will be playing a US team and we can really see whats up IMO.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Yes, I would advocate that. In fact, someone posited an idea that I really liked, send the starting squads from BOTH finals teams. Use squad 1 for Q1, squad 2 for Q2, platoon basically, you get the idea. Of course we would have to sub some players for guys who can't or won't go or who will be playing for an opposing team but it is a lot easier to substitute one or two guys than a whole team. I would say we could add the remaining 4-5 spots from both rosters as well. THEN they will be playing a US team and we can really see whats up IMO.



I just don't see any system like this working. The NBA is increasingly international. Teams are bound to have foreign players who won't be playing for the US. Plus, the Olympics is optional. I can't imagine the NBA players or the players' union going for a system where making it to the Finals means you're on the Olympic team. All it would take is a couple of superstars bowing out and the makeup of the team would be totally skewed.

I think this system is great if you believe that everyone wants to be on the national team.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I just don't see any system like this working. The NBA is increasingly international. Teams are bound to have foreign players who won't be playing for the US. Plus, the Olympics is optional. I can't imagine the NBA players or the players' union going for a system where making it to the Finals means you're on the Olympic team. All it would take is a couple of superstars bowing out and the makeup of the team would be totally skewed.
> 
> I think this system is great if you believe that everyone wants to be on the national team.


The foreign born players would be replaced with their American born counterparts. Can't have Pau Gasol for instance, add Elton Brand. And it wouldn't be mandatory for players to go play but I do think most of them would. If Wade didn't want to go for instance, give his spot to Kobe. The whole idea is to have to integrate as few players as possible onto an already established team used to playing together and succeeding at a high level. It is a lot easier to add 2 players to an existing team than to make a team out of the ether...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Sport1: What did the Americans lack?
> 
> Nowitzki: It was bitter that Kobe Bryant got injured. His presence alone would have been enough to win the tournament. That's the level I see him on. To me he is the best player in the world right now. That guy doesn't know fear at all. He doesn't care. He would have won it for the Americans single-handedly.


truehoop.com


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> Yup, no offense meant to you Pax!
> 
> I just thought it was an uncommonly silly article. I don't agree with, but can at least appreciate the concept of needing fewer talented players, but taking it to the nonsensical extreme of replacing Wade, James, and Anthony with Eddie Jones, Anthony Parker, and Charlie Bell is just plain crazy.
> 
> On the brighter side, if USA basketball continues down this road, perhaps after they lose with the Anthony Parker featured team, they'll start scouting local pickup games. Eventually you, I, and everyone else here will have our chance to play good old fashioned team ball for the US of A! :clown:


oops, sorry mate. 
i thought i had an antonym in my post too and got a little sensitive.
this should teach me to never post on my period, which makes little sense b/c i'm a dude.

my bad....


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I seriously wonder if Kerr even wrote that article, just reaks off assistant / intern carrying the load.



> If it's height at issue, is Billups going to wear platform shoes? He's got a couple pounds on Hinrich, but no inches.


What I find amusing is how much this is doing the rounds and it hadn't occured to any of them that they're both the same height, lazy *** sheep.



> The foreign born players would be replaced with their American born counterparts. Can't have Pau Gasol for instance, add Elton Brand. And it wouldn't be mandatory for players to go play but I do think most of them would. If Wade didn't want to go for instance, give his spot to Kobe. The whole idea is to have to integrate as few players as possible onto an already established team used to playing together and succeeding at a high level. It is a lot easier to add 2 players to an existing team than to make a team out of the ether...


The idea is like fools gold, looks great but is worthless in the end. Replacing one player seems easy, but we'll be trying to replace relatively unique players who are the key to their teams success. Just look at the top teams and try replacing the foreign players:
Suns and Nash, Spurs and Parker, Mavs and Dirk. Some players possess similiar qualities, they just operate totally different when compared to them. Heck if we have anyone like them, put them on the roster now!

Oh and the last thing we really need to do is send the Heat, Payton, Shaq, Williams and the pick and roll, that's all that needs to be said.

There are changes that need to be made and the first one has to be the coach, K needs to go.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

My solution: put in a _FREAKIN'_ zone on defense. Our players obviously can't or won't play the type of fundamentally sound man d that the other teams just LOVE to tear up with pick-and-roll, movement, and backdoors. It's a different game than the NBA and calls for different defenses to be put in. Can these guys not put in a zone in 3 weeks?

(I still like Coach K in charge though.)


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

GB said:


> Lets remember this:
> 
> For team USA: An off-season expedition after playing in some cases 100 games.
> 
> Team Greece: What they have prepped for their entire lives.


This is the part I don't get, if you can't get motivated playing for your country, when will you be?


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

LegoHat said:


> if you can't get motivated playing for your country, when will you be?


contract year


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Forgive me for the dumb question, but if Mike D'Antoni has so much experience with the international game (not to mention he's a pretty good NBA coach), then why wasn't HE qualified enough to be head coach and they went after Krzyzewski instead? A little voice in my head (that's a little louder than all the other voices in my head) whispers "they could sell him to casual fans" much like the tricaps (Anthony, James, Wade) and how much more visible those three were I think because of marketing and their preexisting mega-superstar cachet.

Other than that, this version of Team USA still miles better than other recent teams, but what with a little bit of tweaking?

Sorry if this doesn't make sense ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

LegoHat said:


> This is the part I don't get, if you can't get motivated playing for your country, when will you be?


I think this is one of those things that's different in Europe (vs. the US) based purely on geography. Europe is chock full of pan-European events because you've got a lot of relatively small countries. International competitions with country-based teams seem a natural sort of way to go.

In the US, you've got 50 states with roughly similar size and population to the entire EU. So it can support the same sort of level of competition internally, and you get very good rivalries based on states. Growing up in Kentucky, it was always great if UK or U of L kicked Indiana's *** in college hoops. Even after I moved to Indiana, it was still great if UK or U of L kicked Indiana's *** at college hoops.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think this is one of those things that's different in Europe (vs. the US) based purely on geography. Europe is chock full of pan-European events because you've got a lot of relatively small countries. International competitions with country-based teams seem a natural sort of way to go.
> 
> In the US, you've got 50 states with roughly similar size and population to the entire EU. So it can support the same sort of level of competition internally, and you get very good rivalries based on states. Growing up in Kentucky, it was always great if UK or U of L kicked Indiana's *** in college hoops. Even after I moved to Indiana, it was still great if UK or U of L kicked Indiana's *** at college hoops.



I think it probably has more to do with the time the team gets to play together. I mean, it isn't a lack of desire to win but more a lack of having the tools needed to win. And I agree, it is always good when UK & UL kick ***! :biggrin:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think this is one of those things that's different in Europe (vs. the US) based purely on geography. Europe is chock full of pan-European events because you've got a lot of relatively small countries. International competitions with country-based teams seem a natural sort of way to go.
> 
> In the US, you've got 50 states with roughly similar size and population to the entire EU. So it can support the same sort of level of competition internally, and you get very good rivalries based on states. *Growing up in Kentucky, it was always great if UK or U of L kicked Indiana's *** in college hoops. Even after I moved to Indiana, it was still great if UK or U of L kicked Indiana's *** at college hoops.*


I resent a lot of this. And I thought rooting for Kentucky *and* Louisville wasn't allowed. I don't know anyone who likes Indiana and Purdue, at any rate.

But you're right. We love our internal rivalries, even at the high school (or younger) level. And another thing to consider is the ethnic makeup of America. Most of us love the country and would be thrilled to represent it internationally. But our allegiances seem to be a little more fragmented than they are in more homogeneous countries. Plus the issue gets even more complicated when you introduce race and post-9/11 - Iraq stuff to the conversation.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I resent a lot of this. And I thought rooting for Kentucky *and* Louisville wasn't allowed. I don't know anyone who likes Indiana and Purdue, at any rate.
> 
> But you're right. We love our internal rivalries, even at the high school (or younger) level. And another thing to consider is the ethnic makeup of America. Most of us love the country and would be thrilled to represent it internationally. But our allegiances seem to be a little more fragmented than they are in more homogeneous countries. Plus the issue gets even more complicated when you introduce race and post-9/11 - Iraq stuff to the conversation.



Yeah I know I am one of the weird people that roots for both UK & UL even though I am a Louisville native. I figure they both rep our state so I might as well root for both! When they play against each other I just pick a favorite based on rosters, for instance I was rooting for UL when they played the Cats in football last week.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I resent a lot of this. And I thought rooting for Kentucky *and* Louisville wasn't allowed. I don't know anyone who likes Indiana and Purdue, at any rate.
> 
> But you're right. We love our internal rivalries, even at the high school (or younger) level. And another thing to consider is the ethnic makeup of America. Most of us love the country and would be thrilled to represent it internationally. But our allegiances seem to be a little more fragmented than they are in more homogeneous countries. Plus the issue gets even more complicated when you introduce race and post-9/11 - Iraq stuff to the conversation.


UK and Louisville is allowed. It's still Kentucky basketball. On the other hand rooting for both Michigan State and Michigan isn't, at least in my world. 

Of course the intra-state rivalries is a good point though. I root for Louisville except against Kentucky. The absolute best rivalries are the local ones, like Louisville vs. Kentucky or UNC vs. Duke.

I don't think that's unique to the US though. Who could ignore the Battle of Alberta between the Calgary Stampeders and Edminton Eskimos? More seriously, especially in the larger countries in Europe, there seem to be some pretty major intra-national rivalries. I don't know if Paris vs. Marseille in soccer compares to UNC vs. Duke, but it seems to be a pretty intense rivalry.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think this is one of those things that's different in Europe (vs. the US) based purely on geography. Europe is chock full of pan-European events because you've got a lot of relatively small countries. International competitions with country-based teams seem a natural sort of way to go.
> 
> In the US, you've got 50 states with roughly similar size and population to the entire EU. So it can support the same sort of level of competition internally, and you get very good rivalries based on states.



Thats really insightful analysis.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> UK and Louisville is allowed. It's still Kentucky basketball.


No, ace2004u is wierd, like he says. I grew up in Louisville and went to U of L for a while when Unseld was playing there. Most of my family still lives there. Somewhere around 12 years old or so you have to choose sides -- red or blue. Your wardrobe is thereafter filled appropriately, and you root only for the chosen team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> No, ace2004u is wierd, like he says. I grew up in Louisville and went to U of L for a while when Unseld was playing there. Most of my family still lives there. Somewhere around 12 years old or so you have to choose sides -- red or blue. Your wardrobe is thereafter filled appropriately, and you root only for the chosen team.


I guess I could be messed up, because I was born in Louisville, lived there for six years, then moved to Lexington, then moved to Indiana when I was about 12, so I missed out on chosing sides.

I wouldn't wear U of L clothing under any circumstances though. I would root for them if they're not playing Kentucky, however.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

McBulls said:


> No, ace2004u is wierd, like he says. I grew up in Louisville and went to U of L for a while when Unseld was playing there. Most of my family still lives there. Somewhere around 12 years old or so you have to choose sides -- red or blue. Your wardrobe is thereafter filled appropriately, and you root only for the chosen team.


Yes thats very true. I am the exception to the rule and hear it all the time that I need to get off of the fence and root for the Cats or Cards. Sorry, I like em both for different reasons. But your spot on, definitley is weird not to root for one or the other here in Louisville. Incidentally, might want to check out a group called "Code Red" that has made some pro Card songs that are kinda cool.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

Lebron and Wade are distinctly NBA players. As opposed to playing tough defence they linger off their man looking for a steal and a fast break. Instead of moving off of the ball they move with it on offense. Great talents that can shine in any arena, they're just not suited to all being on the same team and not particularly suited to this style of game at all. I dont really see why Kobe would be much better on the offensive end. He is the ultimate NBA style player quickly being caught up to by the Wade and Lebron. His D is ahead by further which is why I think he'd be a little more suited to FIBA, but essentially, not by much


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

Nice article, i can appreciate the role player argument but he seems to be taking it just a bit too far adding relative unknowns (who the heck is Parker?) and average vets/journeymen like Brown, Bell, Boner, Jones and Haslem, Nelson and redick have no place on this team either.

where's the scorers in that squad? 

i appreciate the too many scorers problem but he's overdone it..

Hinrich/Billups/Paul
Redd/Johnson/Wade
James/Anthony/Marion
Brand/Amare/Battier
Bosh/Howard

maybe Rip Hamilton as 15th man, his mid range game may translate well to int'l play

thats maybe as strong as the US could be right now but the bigs still look weak, Brand, Bosh and Howard were'nt all that in this tourney, none looked totally at ease in int'l play...and i'm not sure about the 3 captains either...though you do need scorers i would'nt be against dumping two of them and bringing in maybe a defensive specialist (Prince) and another shooter (maybe Allen if he's up for it).


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Kerr gets mail or something



> Coach K is an idiot. Why in the world wouldn't you put LeBron at point guard if no one can guard him in the NBA? Why would anyone be able to guard him internationally? Chris Paul was useless and so was Kirk Hinrich.
> 
> Andrew N.
> Sydney, Australia
> ...


----------

