We weren’t even supposed to be able to compete. I have hope in the guys that we can still learn our way in those situations. At least this game exposed our weaknesses. Double-team AB or put a big guy on him and he will be forced to pass out. Trevor should NOT dribble in traffic. The last play should be very creative. TA receiving the ball on the 3-point line ain’t good enough. Yeah, I think Chase has the potential to be a better closer. Give the team time.

I also hope that in time we can utilize the new guys off the bench like Pops and Jermaine more once the games with the weaker teams come around.

that the Rockets need a “finisher”. The current roster, as constructed, can only be successful if they move the ball around so that someone/anyone can take a high percentage shot. The success of the current system is predicated on two things:

1) Making the other side be completely honest in their defensive rotations, and take a high percentage shot, by anyone. There are going to be nights, when the other side is just as intense and committed on their defense with their rotations sharper and Rockets simply may not have the talent to win.

2) On the defensive end, the Rockets to stay committed to a defensive philosophy that forces the other team to take shots outside their comfort zone. If they make it, and some nights they will, live with the results.

These are not abstract concepts. A team composed of intelligent players such as Battier, Hayes, Scola, can attain goal #2 feasible on most nights. They all have some offensive capabilities. When you mix this with the speed, and athletic abilities of Brooks, Landry, and Ariza, you can hope to attain goal #1 above.

I don’t think they can play any differently as constructed. For the type of trapping that the Lakers did in the last few possessions, Rockets will need to come up with a counter strategy. It is a learning process. Brooks is too short to see past his double team, and perhaps, Lowry should handle the ball until the first pass, or the team does not spread the floor too soon.

In my view, this is a good basketball philosophy to adhere to, whether you have a closer or not. Every night, teams with closers, lose. I see the logic of the post, but this does not apply to this team.

Kari

1) I think the fact that we played the Lakers who have one of the best (if not THE best) finisher in the game, makes the Rockets’ lack of a go-to guy a little more obvious than if we had played someone else. Not that it changes the fact that we don’t have a clear go to guy, but by comparison to the Lakers, our situation seems much more desperate.

2) I think the fact that two starters, Scola and Hayes, had fouled out, really limited the Rockets’ options at the end of the game. Hayes often handles the ball near the three point line and sets screens while Scola is a guy the Rockets can give the ball to in the post and can run some sort of offense through. Without these two guys we are forced to either have Brooks or Ariza try to create a shot or penetrate. We also could have tried to go through Landry on the block since he had such a great game, but I don’t think he is as trustworthy to create his own shot like Scola is on the block.

Anyways, I think those two factors are important to consider when looking at the outcome and determining that the Rockets have no finisher. I’m not all about moral victories so this loss gets me riled up since we were up down the stretch in the 4th, but I think if we had Scola and Hayes for the end then it might have gone differently. Good effort Rockets!!!!

If Landry had been playing in the fourth period instead of sitting on the bench, we would have won it in regulation and we wouldn’t have needed a finisher to take the final shot. Why did Adleman have him sitting for so long when no one else was shooting well in the fourth period?