Play smart or Play with guts, which one is more important...

Darren · Post #1 » by **Darren** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:59 am

...to a title contender.

I know this is not easy to distinguish those 2. I find it interesting while listing some of the coaching style to championship calibers' teams in this decade. Assumed those teams are having adequate pieces to the puzzle, it seems to me that playing smart is as important as playing with guts.

Popovich - smart(?)
Phil Jackson - smart(?)
Avery - guts
Sloan - guts
D'Antoni - smart
Neille - smart
Railey - guts(?)

Of course, smart and guts can be there at the same time. Should AJ put some emphrasis on playing smart? We play too many one-on-one and settle for jumpers lately. I think it's the reason for latest inconsistency. It takes five.

JES12 · Post #2 » by **JES12** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:52 am

Nellie...smart?
Sloan guts?

I think no one responded to this thread because you lost them with you definition od smart & guts.

dirkforpres · Post #3 » by **dirkforpres** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:31 am

Playing with guts= Playing aggressive= Foul trouble

Playing smart= Passing to open teammates and taking smart shots

Unless you have a player like Wade(who the refs will give you every call), you have to play smart in order to win. Thats why Pop wins so much. Pointless thread though.

Post #4 » by **studcrackers** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:03 am

lol you think dantoni is a smart coach, that guy sucks

ppp000 · Post #5 » by **ppp000** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:10 am

I think you have it backwards. I see this team as a well-coached, well-disciplined team so I guess you could say that is "smart"

I definitely don't see this team as a team that plays with "guts"...to me that implies an aggressive team with a lot of heart. This team is too passive. Players with "guts" (to me at least) are those like Davis, Ginobli, Kobe...players that can dominate and change an entire game. That's not something you can coach and something that we're lacking...the go-to guy who you know will put it all out on the floor and will come out with a gutsy performance.

Black Jesus 1 · Post #6 » by **Black Jesus 1** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:14 am

studcrackers wrote:lol you think dantoni is a smart coach, that guy sucks

Well it was defined by dirkforpres as
Playing smart= Passing to open teammates and taking smart shots

D'Antoni does have his team do both..

FGump · Post #7 » by **FGump** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:24 am

I think the PHX players are generally smart and do a reasonably intelligent job of playing their system that D'Antoni has designed.

But if the system itself is DUMB, then would we say the players are playing smart or dumb?

Or if the system is smart at maximizing the ability of THESE players but is incapable of winning a title, would we say the system itself is dumb, the GM is dumb, or are they all smart in spite of the flawed structure they are maximizing?

Post #8 » by **studcrackers** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:09 am

Black Jesus 1 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Well it was defined by dirkforpres as
Playing smart= Passing to open teammates and taking smart shots

D'Antoni does have his team do both..

i think when we've talked about this you've said nash is the system

Post #9 » by **catalyst** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:34 pm

I am not sure who "Neille" and "Railey" are.

Nellie is a smart coach who claims to never have talent. Since Nellie has never made a finals, I think he would have to be excluded, as well as D'Antoni. Riley has had both in his history, both smarts and talent. I am still not sure the point of this.

Post #10 » by **catalyst** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:35 pm

Of interest in this strange assessment would be George Karl