Minnesota Sports Forum

This is the kind of game that I was thinking we would have this season. We may lose, but in the end you would be left with some positives to make you want to keep watching. A win would have been nice, but as I've said many times I'm not really into wins and losses this year. I want to see promise and development, and I think we saw some of both last night. Here is the 2 + 1:

1) Bringing in a cold Chase Budinger and drawing up a play for him to get the winning shot? I would rather sleep in a bunk bed under Oprah than see that again

2) Jim Peterson had me scratching my head last night over several of his viewpoints. I never used to notice him much during broadcasts. The one thing that bothered me was he would wait until a guy left the team before he would throw dirt on him. If the guy is bad, he's bad whether he's playing for us or someone else.

And now, he seems to be annoying me on a nightly basis. Almost turned the sound off last night at one point. Anybody else have a critique on his commentary?

Plus 1 - Maybe most of you are correct, Zach's natural position is the 2. I don't really care. The thing I care about is he has some "IT" quality to his game. We have to be patient with him, he's not going to be good every night. But he IS going to be a good player in this league. I'm talking starting quality on a contender. He's fearless, has great work ethic, and wants to be great. Couple those qualities with the fact he has tremendous athletic ability and don't see how he can miss.

Special mention also goes out to Shabazz. I liked the lineup we had in at one point with Bazz, Zach, and Andrew all in the game. That's a pretty electrifying group who need to be encouraged to run more.

And that's CoolBreeze's 2 things I didn't like last night Plus 1

Your first paragraph sums up my thoughts about last night's game. It's not about wins and losses anymore this season...it's about development and seeing those moments that make me feel good about the future. If we were in any way in a playoff race, a close loss like that would have pissed me off. But I enjoyed last night's game, and the loss in the closing seconds didn't detract from the positive experience.

I also want to see Bazz and Drew out there more together. Robson has been tearing his hair out the past week calling for that pairing, but Flip seems to see them both as 3's and doesn't want to have them on the court at the same time. I think he's wrong and needs to experiment with more rotations that include both of them.

I'm still a Jim Pete fan so I'm not with you on that opinion. He's a homer at times and certainly has his favorites (and they're often my favorites), but he's also not afraid to point out when a T-Wolf is horribly out of position on defense or screwing up the spacing on offense. I find him very insightful. I think he lost a lot of people last night when he praised Flip for leaving Bud in after a terrible start (did he really hit the back of the backboard trying to pass to someone??????), but I agreed with him. Rather than giving Bud the quick hook, he let him play through his futility, and Bud was part of the lineup along with Corey, Bazz, AB and Adrien that got us back in the game. So, even though I'm with Flip on that move, designing a final shot for a cold Budinger was an absurd call.

Here's Robson's case for starting Bazz next to Wiggins...I agree.

http://www.minnpost.com/sports/2014/12/shabazz-muhammad-goes-grind

I think in some prior threads, it was clarified that the play wasn't intended for Budinger as a first option. Perhaps the goal was to put him in there as a floor spacer, knowing that he's still a credible threat from beyond the arc. Unfortunately, option #1 didn't work out....

I love those Robson articles. He goes a bit over the top sometimes with the verbal gymnastics, almost flaunting his superior writing abilities. As for the suggestion that Bazz should start next to Wiggins, I think it would be interesting to see what playing heavier minutes would do to his production and efficiency. Right now he gets a lot of points through outworking and outhustling opponents. What happens when he starts to log 30+ MPG and playing primarily against opposing team starters?

I do like him as the first option off the bench, either subbing for Brewer or Wiggins. There is no question he's earned steady and consistent minutes at this point.

I like the idea of putting Bazz in to the starting lineup. The biggest reason being he is a terrific rebounder and that is currently a massive problem with our starting front court.

Start Bazz at SF, move Wiggins to SG and Brewer as 6th man.

I like that Kiwi, and I'd also just go ahead and put Bennett at the 4. Thad is one of the worst defenders I have ever seen. I'd let the young group play and develop all year. I'd keep starting Zach over Mo too. Flip was right to keep Mo's minutes in check earlier in the year.

For the last time. The play was drawn up for Bud. It wasn't a PnR that just happened to go to Bud when the PnR got stopped. Thad set the screen for Lavine so the pass was open to get the ball to Bud who was coming off a screen from Dieng. Wiggins cleared out to the other side of the court so the screen for Bud could take place. Lavine didn't look at any other options during the play (Thad was wide open, but Lavine wasn't looking that way). Lavine wasn't looking to drive on the play either. They held the play off so long they couldn't do anything but pass to Bud and take the shot. It was a bad play call. It happens. It shouldn't have happened but it did so lets stop trying to make it out to be something it wasn't. Flip tried to take advantage of Terry having to defend the shot, he just had the wrong guy take it.

khans2k5 wrote:For the last time. The play was drawn up for Bud. It wasn't a PnR that just happened to go to Bud when the PnR got stopped. Thad set the screen for Lavine so the pass was open to get the ball to Bud who was coming off a screen from Dieng. Wiggins cleared out to the other side of the court so the screen for Bud could take place. Lavine didn't look at any other options during the play (Thad was wide open, but Lavine wasn't looking that way). Lavine wasn't looking to drive on the play either. They held the play off so long they couldn't do anything but pass to Bud and take the shot. It was a bad play call. It happens. It shouldn't have happened but it did so lets stop trying to make it out to be something it wasn't. Flip tried to take advantage of Terry having to defend the shot, he just had the wrong guy take it.

Flip said to Jim Pete that the play was drawn up for thad, just saying

kekgeek1 wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:For the last time. The play was drawn up for Bud. It wasn't a PnR that just happened to go to Bud when the PnR got stopped. Thad set the screen for Lavine so the pass was open to get the ball to Bud who was coming off a screen from Dieng. Wiggins cleared out to the other side of the court so the screen for Bud could take place. Lavine didn't look at any other options during the play (Thad was wide open, but Lavine wasn't looking that way). Lavine wasn't looking to drive on the play either. They held the play off so long they couldn't do anything but pass to Bud and take the shot. It was a bad play call. It happens. It shouldn't have happened but it did so lets stop trying to make it out to be something it wasn't. Flip tried to take advantage of Terry having to defend the shot, he just had the wrong guy take it.

Flip said to Jim Pete that the play was drawn up for thad, just saying

Thad was wide open. Both defenders followed Zach after the pick. Unless Zach just completely forgot what the play was I think Flip was just covering his butt from a questionable decision. Peterson also said right after he saw it that it looked like the play was designed for Bud so if it was drawn up for Thad (according to Flip) it was not even close to being executed properly because the #1 option was wide open in the spot he was supposed to be in.

Cool - I would rather sleep in a bunk bed under Oprah than see that again

that was pure eloquence sir