Wu Mo Xiong won the Lakers, equalized the big score, and kept himself from falling into a desperate situation of going 0-2 to the road. In the past, no Mo Bear winning is not a new thing, there have been a lot of game samples to prove that no Mo Bear and You Mo Bear are just two different forms of strong teams, and even in last year's playoffs, Mo Bear caused more pressure on the Warriors than Mo Bear. But things changed this season, and during Morant's absence, Morant was only 11-10, a very different 20-5 from last season. No Bears is based on roster depth, not effective against any opponent, and some games, without Morant's Grizzlies development offense is constipated.
Without Adams and Clark, without Morant, the Grizzlies don't have much manpower left at their disposal. Jenkins enabled G1's non-regular rotation of Conchal, and reusing G1, who was only half a rotation, in G2, was actually a riskier choice.
But Jenkins won the bet, and Conchar gave two big shots to the thick eyebrows, as well as a front rebound. Roddy continued the intensity of the confrontation given to James when Dillon was trapped in a foul, responding with three three-pointers after being cleared. This is deadly, in a constipation game, which side makes an unexpected three-pointer, enough for the other to drink a pot. Just as the Grizzlies' strategy in G1 was to release Hachimura's three-pointers, the Lakers' strategy was also to release the three-point shoots of Dillon, Roddy, and Tillman, and the three combined to shoot half of the Grizzlies' three-pointers in the game, which was enough to crush the Lakers.
Of course, the three-point response of the two bench rotations without dropping the chain and being cleared is far from the backbone of the Grizzlies, and the other three things that are done well are more important:
First thing, X-factor Tillman.
Tillman has improved a lot this season. In addition to contributing admirable defensive work in some games (e.g., defending letters, defending Jokic), his finishing has improved, and occasionally some tackles. But objectively speaking, Tillman's presence only makes the Grizzlies less frustrated by Adams' injury, he is still a weak offensive interior lineman, he faces thick eyebrows when he is on the floor, and the Grizzlies' offense is not very good to play.
The result?
Tillman did these things in this game:
back singles Van Debiao;
Block the dismantling down to play thick eyebrows;
High position to feed the ball to the empty cut;
5 frontcourt rebounds;
Shot 1 three-pointer.
Even if Adams is there, it is a small explosion to fight like this.
Tillman played well, partly benefited from his teammates, and more was in personal competitive form. His contribution is of course not limited to attack, and his original strength defense has also played a great role.
This has to say the second thing that grizzly bears do well.
Second, Jenkins' meticulous alignment filled the defense.
Tillman vs. thick eyebrows, Dillon vs. James, these two can change the defense to break James' eyebrows, there is no surprise. In last year's playoffs, the Grizzlies played against the Timberwolves, and we saw similar scenes. Bane to Russell, can also change defense, Russell can not play at all to change defense, Bane for thick eyebrows reluctantly, the Grizzlies can rely on pinch shots to solve the problem. It's nothing special either.
The highlight is that when the Lakers took Vanderbilt and took the eight villages, ready to finish, the Grizzlies were in the same position:
Tillman defends James, 3J defends thick eyebrows, Dillon defends Reeves, Bane defends Russell, and Jones defends Hachimura
Jenkins finally realized that Reeves, the kid, is the key big brother of the Lakers?
I'm not sure Jenkins thinks so, maybe he just didn't want 3J to play against Hachimura, who was a three-point blaster in the last game, or maybe he wanted to use Tillman to limit the high and low positions of James, who had been a frequent hit before the Lakers, so he arranged such a matchup. But the objective result is that the Grizzlies single-defense arrow went to defend Reeves, and at the same time, the Grizzlies used the change of defense to remove Reeves' and the inside block, which made it difficult for Reeves' ball to develop and close the game, and also made James unable to play high and low.
The Lakers should have responded at this point by attacking around Hachimura's superiority over Jones, but Hamm did not react immediately. This is not surprising, it is normal play.
G1 was blasted by the Lakers guard, Jenkins was painfully determined, and G2 was very targeted to the Lakers' two starting backcourt defensive arrangements. Russell sleepwalked all the time, and Reeves was not as good as the G1. The tight defense encountered by thick eyebrows in the low post has been continued and can be expected, which makes the Lakers' offense fall into the rhythm of James' attack. With 3J letting go of Vanderbilt Town to guard the basket and Dillon/Roddy/Bane giving enough counterpoint strength, James had a hard time playing.
Conversely, is it easy for the Grizzlies to attack?
The third thing is that the Grizzlies play smarter than the G1 in the backcourt.
In addition to Tillman's super-level play, Kennard shot accurately, and the Grizzlies' other core rotations were not efficient. Bain, Jones, and Dillon all hit no more than 45% from the field, and the 3J efficiency is okay, but it is not as unsolvable as the G1.
But I still think the Grizzlies' core rotation played well — constipation, where scoring is more important than efficiency. Jones has dealings, throws, breakthrough baskets to seize the moment, and feeding cakes behind the hanging Lakers basket guard, which is what G1 Morant did not play - full rammed front, how do you play thick eyebrows?
Ball carriers, finishers, and shooters must be linked together in order to truly test high-level defense. The G1 Lakers guard is smart, the G2 Grizzlies guard is smart, Morant is watching from the sidelines, and lessons should be learned.
Bane's three-point shot still hasn't improved, but his value on the offensive end is still great, the Lakers will clip him in some rounds, he has a lot of turnovers, and breaking the clip shot is not always possible. However, he also made two very good game readings in the crucial moments of the fourth quarter:
For the first time, he used the containment force to attract the clip to hit the ball Tillman, putting the latter on the free throw line;
The second time, the Lakers switched positions, allowing Hachimura to face Tillman, while Russell blocked and switched to Bane, who immediately broke through and went to the free throw line himself.
This distinction is something Bain needs to insist on. If he can continue to do it, the pressure on the development of Grizzly Positional Warfare will be much less.
In addition to these three things, the Grizzlies have another advantage that has been carried over from the G1, which is the one-on-one threat of 3J. Like the G1, except for thick eyebrows, no one else can prevent 3J. The Lakers opened with a continuation of G1's defensive matching, with James vs. 3J, thick eyebrows vs. Tillman, Morant absent, and Vanderbilt going to the right Jones. In the second half, the Lakers changed their alignment, James to Dillon, Vanderbilt to 3J, and Russell to Jones. In fact, whether it is James or Van der Biao, including Hachimura who came off the bench to defend 3J, their effect of defending 3J alone is not good, so the advantage of changing the position is to reduce the pressure on James, and the disadvantage is that Russell has to go to the first line to defend Jones's blocking.
These are not all, there is an interesting phenomenon - as long as 3J is beaten one-on-one, it won't be long before Hamm will let the thick eyebrows go to 3J. I paid attention to it, and it didn't seem to be a random result of retreating to find someone. This alignment is risky, and although thick eyebrows can prevent 3J's one-on-one, the Grizzlies will also let 3J go more outside the three-point line when thick eyebrows are aligned with 3J, which will free up the basket at other points.
The feeling I got from G2 was that Hamm wasn't happy with the alignment from start to finish. In fact, this is a problem shared by both sides. Just as the Lakers are worried about who goes to the 3J, James and Russell both want a simple matchup is Dillon's not enough points, and the Grizzlies will certainly not be able to hide Jones and Kennard all the way. Therefore, one of the themes of the game between the two sides must be to grasp the weaknesses of the opponent. The Lakers have some positional battles in this game to open the situation, relying on eating misalignment - the value of Hachimura is playing again.
G1 is a three-point explosion, G2 eats misplaced, and Hachimura is very powerful. The Lakers need Hachimura to continue hitting three-pointers and hard-hitting one-on-one, which is very important for them. If Morant continues to be absent, Hachimura deserves more time and a closing lineup than Van der Biao, who drags too much space. But the Lakers Hachimura + James' connection section inside combination has gradually been found by the Grizzlies, and the defense at this time today is a little strained, which is a hidden danger that Hamm needs to be wary of.
Overall, G2 looks more like what is expected in this series – constipation, suffocation, both sides struggling for a goal, an unexpected three-point response or a mid-range hard tackle can overwhelm opponents. This suffocation is likely to continue, and both sides need to make a fine offensive and defensive arrangement, and try their best to catch the few weak points of the opponent to break the game. The Lakers' backcourt needs to step up again, even if they can't continue to rely on their individual abilities, and the puzzle can't be vague. Russell's fixed-point response was ineffective, and Beasley was unsuccessful with James' roll call, which hurt.
Both parties may each have a similar odd X-factor:
Jones opens with Reeves and ends with Hachimura, Kennard will also play a guard with the ball against the Lakers at certain times, and in turn, James will continue to face the strong man. From the perspective of G1G2, it is easier to directly attack the grizzly bear's weakness than the core attack;
Morant's hard steel thick eyebrows are not a good idea, and the Grizzlies are more likely to break the game by 3J facing the counterpoint outside the thick eyebrow, Jones blocking when facing the simple match, and Bane attracting the defensive improvisation. Will the Grizzlies be able to play reasonably first?
Horse racing is jealous, let's see who figures it out first.