Here are some of KG's thoughts:
"What people fail to realize is Perk was one of the parts of our team that made us really, really good. Made us tough," Garnett said. "We had built that chemistry and rapport with him. With Perk we had a style of play that worked for us. We're playing without the Big Fella and we're playing without JO. To say we're not playing with the same physical presence, you're right. We don't. Because Perk was a real physical presence. . . . Yes, losing Perk did cost us some physicality but we have enough physical presence on this team that I think we can endure."
Notice you don't see the name "Nenad Krstic" in there. Hopefully when KG says the exact same thing that fans are talking about he won't be disregarded as a chicken little.
Why would he say Nenads (or any other active players) name there? He only mentions the names of players that are missing from the lineup right now, to point out pieces they lack to have the physical presence of before. As far as the active players, he only uses "we" to address them, and he uses it to say that what they currently have should be enough. Using that quote to indicate that KG feels they've been playing worse due to Perks absence above the absence of JO or Shaq, is twisting his words (especially when the question posed to him was most likely directly related to Perkins).
Twisting his words? He came out and said that the team misses Perk, because he made the team good, tough, and physical. He further cites JO and Shaq as guys who can help out in that regard, while conspicuously failing to mention Krstic? Why? Probably because Krstic doesn't make this team good, tough, or physical.
As I said, he doesn't mention ANY active players. Addressing the players on the team now, he only uses "we", and he says that who they have should be enough. Look...It's common for people to end statements with a point that essentially summarizes their opinion. He ends his, by saying.. "Yes, losing Perk did cost us some physicality but we have enough physical presence on this team". To paraphrase...losing Perk cost them some toughness, but the team they have now still has enough to win.
Also, what question was he asked? If he was asked a question that directly mentioned Perk, then it's obvious that his response would focus on that player. Also, if that is the case, and the question didn't directly mention JO or shaq, then his mention of them could be seen as an indication that he's NOT trying to focus on the absence of Perkins, and that he's trying to specifically bring up other pieces that he sees as main factors to the issue. If you're going to try to take a quote, and glean a players personal opinion from it, then context becomes quite important.
As for the uptick in OKCs defense, I hardly think it's a fair comparison to put the average of the 6 or so games Perkins played, against a rating the team earned over the 60 or so previous games. The sample sizes are completely incomparable. Another factor in that, would have to be the way Ibaka has been playing recently. In the same span since Perks been in OKC, Ibakas has an 8 blk game, a 5blk/13rb game, a 4blk/13 rb game, a 3blk/2stl/12 rb game, etc....all well above his average. That and the overall weakness of their recent schedule, could be more than enough to explain their recent defensive success...and could have absolutely nothing to do with Perk.
Topic: The trade has killed this team (Read 62048 times)