The Dude...I don't think we will go through this for another 3-4 years...but we will this year if the defensive approach doesn't change. On championship caliber teams, the defense is always the most consistent part of the team. Some games the offense struggles. But it's the teams whose defense 1-2 games per year that win conference and BCS titles.

Hassan, I hear you and agree with you to a point. But the reason guys are not making plays is that they are playing too slow. There are playing too slow because they are reading instead of attacking. As a result they are THINKING TOO MUCH and are out position and then don't make plays when they have a chance. I'm not a fan of a read and react defense, but with that said if you are gonna run it you need the right personnel. We don't have it at the key positions (DT and to some degree outside LB). We lack talent and/or experience at both those positions and the last thing we need is for them be THINKING TOO MUCH. We can have an 8 win year, but not if we don't change the scheme to a more attacking version.

CGNC...Yes it is. And it will continue to be painful until AG instructs (demands) D'No changes his philosophy. If not, the D will not improve and his loyalty to his friend will be his demise. The team is better conditioned, this was a matter of being outschemed on D. While the offesne wasn't great, it's a lot of pressure on a young team to know right off the jump that you have to score a touchdown on virtually every possession because the defense can't stop anybody

His read and react style is also the reason he plays his DB's so far off the ball in that soooft zone. That needs to change. DB's will get beat, but we need this team defense to play in attack mode so they can play faster. I don't think D'No is playing to the level of his talent and experience.

I'm not a regular and I haven't posted in a very long time, but I believe I have identified the problem on defense. The scheme itself is not the problem per se, but D'No philosophy of running the scheme. The problem is that D'No is running a read and react defense. The problem is that right now we don't have the talent at the D tackle spot to run a read and react defense. That affects the play of the whole D line because the tackles don't get penetration and the ends aren't able to go up the field. Given that we lack talent and are young at D tackles and are young at D end we don't have the strength at this point to run a read and react defense (p.s. I never liked read and react defense). As a result, are LB's also play slow because of the inconsistent play at tackle (can't anticipate whether play is run or pass b/cuz offense is successful with both)and they are THINKING TOO MUCH. The reason the D looked better in the second half is because they knew BC had to throw more and they played a more attacking style. They should have gamed planned to play K-State this way as well. If I am AG I am instructing (demanding) that D'No play an attacking style to his scheme. I actually like the technical aspects of his defense, but I don't like his philosophy of reading and reacting. Especially for a young defense.

"Actually, Beasley has been the teams leading rebounder for the months of December and January." Awe-some. Extrapolate that into a season, based on playing only the power forward position, excluding all minutes next to Anthony and Wright, and games on the second night of back to backs... Posted by: eddieomaha | January 26, 2010 at 02:45 PM When you take into account the strengths and weaknesses of Beasley (along with production) and compare them to the strengths and weaknesses of Haslam (along with production) it is no doubt that Beasley is the better player right now. You could've argued that he was the better player at the end of last year, but there's no doubt now. Beasley is better offensively by far, is similar, if not better if simply looking at the past two months, he is the better shot blocker, he is the better athelete, and he still has a very high ceiling. Haslam at this point is what he is, a 10 point, 8-9 rebound guy. There is nothing wrong with that and if used in the appropriate role (backup PF) is a very valuable asset. I personally want him to return next year as Beasley's backup cuz you won't find another backup PF better than him. But come on man, Spo is misusing/managing Beasley. He's giving Haslam too many minutes. Beasley needs to start closing out games. The beautiful thing is if Beasley fouls out we can count on Haslam to be a professional and provide good minutes and be productive because he definitely has the experience to help us close out games. But that should be the exception, not the rule. And until Spo gets out his comfort zone we will continue to play up and down lose games like last night that we should win. Come on eddie, you're one of the more intelligent posters on this blog. Admit that Beasley is not only better than Haslam, but is the second best player on the team and he needs to be paying crunch time minutes.

We lost the game because Wade missed his free throws and made some rare boneheaded mistakes. I don't care if Beasley's playing small forward, power forward or point guard, he wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game. He was -9 on the court last night. It’s not like he was playing particularly well. You can come up with statistics for time spent at the small forward spot, I don’t care. I watched the game. Having a player that can create his own offense wouldn’t have mattered toward the end of that game. It was between Wade and James. Neither was going to pass it to a teammate to create. It was going to be determined on which player hit his shots and which role players would knock down their open jumpers from their passes. Haslem knocked down his shots. He hit 4 field goals off passes from Wade. Do you really think Wade would have given it to Beasley and let him create at the end of that game last night? Posted by: eddieomaha | January 26, 2010 at 01:47 PM He actually had a VERY GOOD 3rd quarter, but an uneven start to the 4th. If Spo pulls him for just 3 or 4 minutes to allow him to regain his composure he MAY have played similar to what he did in the 3rd. We will never know however b/cuz our coach is a f*ckin moron. As far as Beasley not making a difference, yes he would have. It at the very least would have been a significant untangible difference...spacing for Wade to do his thing and limiting the way Clevland could double Wade b/cuz they could not use Beasley's man to double. They would have had to use either Q's or Alston's man and that leaves them vulnerable to 3 point shooting. Having said that, Wade ultimately cost us the game by missing free throws and that boneheaded pass when he should've just run the clock down to .5 secs and jacked up a three or drove to the basket and jack up a shot with .5 sec. But here is the thing. Even if we win the game it would have been IN SPITE OF SPORON, not because of him. His coaching sucked a$$ last night.

Beasley makes plenty of mistakes and his mistakes so happen to multiply the longer the game goes on. He commits stupid fouls, turns the ball over, gives up layups, espesially in the 4th. He does a lot of dumb things. I think that Spo is just trying to teach and challenge him, which I actually like. I agree that Spo's rotations sometimes really suck, but why would he sit a player who he felt would help him win? I mean Arroyo, chalmers, who cares really(I prefer Arroyo by the way). But Beasley's defensive mistakes and his inability to help out offensively in the 4th are a problem. I just don't see how Beasley would have played better than Haslem in the 4th. He scored 8 points. It was with Beasley on the court and Wade on the bench that the Heat missed 15 straight shots. Posted by: JD | January 26, 2010 at 12:03 PM Here is what your failing to understand. Beasley does make mistakes, but their not as glaring as they were last year and do not warrant him sitting on the bench for the last eight minutes of the game. I understood why he pulled him from the game at the 7:49 mark. He was a little too jacked up and he needed to calm down. However, instead of allowing mayby three to four minutes to allow your SECOND BEST PLAYER time to regroup and regain his composure, he held him out the rest of the 4th quarter when we needed another scoring "threat" on the court. If Beasley is on the court, even if he scored the same amount of points as Haslam did in the 4th, the "threat" of him on the court automatically opens up spacing and that in turn could have given Wade the "inches" he needed to attack and get better looks because they just could double with Haslam's man. Just because he had an uneven first four minutes in the 4th does not mean you keep him on the bench. Last year was about getting him to learn and play D. This year SHOULD be about allowing him to work through uneven play. If you need to pull him for a couple minutes to allow him to re-gain composure fine...Greg Popovich did that all the time with Tony Parker during his rookie year (subsequently the won the Title that year BTW). The reason why Spo would sit a player who could help him win is because it's easy to go to what you know because it is familiar. But this is not working. UD in crunch time will not get us into the second round, or the slimmest of possibilities into the third round. The problem is our coach needs to get out of his comfort zone and away from what is familiar if he wants to grow as not only a coach, but a person. Everyone sees it. He needs to get out of his own way. If Spo plays Beasley down the stretch instead of Haslam we still may not have won, but wouldn't it be nice to put yourself in the best position to win? Who knows, with Beasley in the game we might have broke it open (maybe 8 to 10 points) with another scoring "threat" b/cuz Cleveland's offense was just as inept.

Spo FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY closed out a half with their most effective, atheletic, defensive line-up with DWade at PG, QRich at SG, DWright at SF, Beasley at PF and JO at Center. I have long argued that this should be the line-up we use in the last four-five minutes of the half and game. Wade is essentially our PG at the end of the game anyway so unless Alston or Chalmers is on fire there is no reason to have them in the game to close. DWright can function as PF for the purpose of bringing the ball up the court, which is what our PG esentially do anyway in the closing minutes. Both Wright, Q, and now Beasley provide capable 3 point shooting as a group, Wright and Q can match up against the opposition's best two perimeter defenders, JO provides us a post presence, and Wade and Beasley provide scoring and can both create their own shot. I hope he continues to use this line-up to close out halfs and games with. No arguement with me regarding Spo's coaching today. His substitution pattern was next to perfect yesterday, with the exception of playing Chammers as opposed to Arroyo. I thought he was going to yank Beasley at the 3 minute mark in the second but he didn't and I must admit I was pleasantly shocked. Hopefully this becomes the rule instead of the exception. I think one of the biggest issues is trying to force Haslam minutes. Haslam should average no more than 20min per game with fifteen being at PF and minutes at C. Posted by: RARA | January 24, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Spo FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY closed out a half with their most effective, atheletic, defensive line-up with DWade at PG, QRich at SG, DWright at SF, Beasley at PF and JO at Center. I have long argued that this should be the line-up we use in the last four-five minutes of the half and game. Wade is essentially our PG at the end of the game anyway so unless Alston or Chalmers is on fire there is no reason to have them in the game to close. DWright can function as PF for the purpose of bringing the ball up the court, which is what our PG esentially do anyway in the closing minutes. Both Wright, Q, and now Beasley provide capable 3 point shooting as a group, Wright and Q can match up against the opposition's best two perimeter defenders, JO provides us a post presence, and Wade and Beasley provide scoring and can both create their own shot. I hope he continues to use this line-up to close out halfs and games with. No arguement with me regarding Spo's coaching today. His substitution pattern was next to perfect yesterday, with the exception of playing Chammers as opposed to Arroyo. I thought he was going to yank Beasley at the 3 minute mark in the second but he didn't and I must admit I was pleasantly shocked. Hopefully this becomes the rule instead of the exception. I think one of the biggest issues is trying to force Haslam minutes. Haslam should average no more than 20min per game with fifteen being at PF and minutes at C.

It will be interesting how this team plays after the trade deadline. Sometimes not knowing if one will be dealt at any point in time can have negative effects. This is especially true with a team full of potentially valuable expiring contracts. Once the trade deadline passes it will be interesting to see if this team begins to at least play more consistent by at least being competitive. With that said, I still think that coaching is a big problem and Spo and his staff need to shake things up.

Well if you believe that that it is so obvious that they will be a contender, then we have no problems here. Posted by: JD | January 21, 2010 at 11:49 AM True statement. Just trying to prevent people from stressin out. Not good for your health.

As far as this teams bi-polar nature it is now soooo obvious that this is a reflection on the head coach and maybe the whole staff. This team has to many games where they are not ready/motivated to play. Too many times we blow out an opponent only to get blown out the next game. I know every team gets blown out every now and then, and bad teams get blown out frequently, but average to elite teams do not. They are at least competitive 90% of the time. The Heat are way to inconsistent given the players they have. No the are not world beaters and talent is somewhat limited, but not to the point where we come to expect games like last night. It is totally a reflection of coaching. Spo needs to grow a sack and shake things up. I think this should be the line-up. Starters PG=Alston SG=Wade SF=Wright PF=Beasley C=Magloire Bench PG=Arroyo SG/SF=Richardson PF=Haslam C=JO Magloire gives the starting lineup more toughness, Wright gives it more athleticism. Arroyo gives the bench more continuity and flow, Richardson gives it a veteran presence, and JO gives it scoring. These lineups, given our personnel, gives the team the best balance. And as has been said ad nausea, Spo has to do better with his substitutions and pattern. If he uses this lineup he will always have two of he best players on the court (Wade, Beasley, JO) at all times.

He said that money would be the last thing that he would look at. It is of course important, but if we can offer Wade more, so can other teams to their stars. Chicago having a worse record now means nothing, just add Wade to them and they are a contender. Like I said, if Lebron is here or good trades are made, he will stay here, as I do believe that it is his first choice. But, if Chicago offers a better chance of wining, he will be in Chicago. Posted by: JD | January 21, 2010 at 11:27 AM If you believe that quote about Wade saying $ will be the last thing he considers I have a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell ya. Wade isn't going anywhere. It's so obvious. If people slow down and look at the big picture then people can stop pannicing every time the Heat lose and/or play like horsesh*t. We will have a build a contender next year and Wade knows it. It's just a matter of how dominant a contender will will be. But make no mistake, no matter what the roster looks like next year the Heat will have a legitimate shot to win titles for at least the next five years.

Simply, repubs and dems are two sides of the same coin. they do the best they can to divide us...If you really want to know how policy is decided, look behind the figure heads at the lobbyist and what corporations they represent. and beyond that further is the world banks, military industrial complex, intelligence community and the 1% that holds the majority of the worlds weatlth. Is not about Obama, Bush, Clinton, how you want your gun and I want freedom of speech, and Joe + Harry want to get married, these are all distractions meant to divide us... Posted by: 9/11 was an inside job | January 20, 2010 at 04:51 PM I'm starting to come to that conclusion more and more. It's really sad. That's why I say again we need public financing of elections to get a good amount of the money out so the people can have a real seat at the table. Again, just $20 A YEAR FOR EVERY WORKING INDIVIDUAL CAN FUND A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. If every working person paid $30-$40 a year we could fund all elections.

IMO, the Democrats are ideologically right (or closer to right) on basically every issue. Not every single issue, but I'd say a vast majority. And they *still* can't get sh*t done, because they're totally incompetent as a party. Say what you will about the insanely right-wing conservatives of the Republican party, but when they are given even a crack in the political door, they get sh*t done. The Democrats are too busy trying to appeal to the moderate Republicans while keeping their hardcore liberal allies happy that they effectively spread themselves too thin to make any significant progress. Posted by: josh | January 20, 2010 at 04:18 PM 1000% agree.

My brother (a repub) once told me that a conservative is a former liberal that has finally grown up. I understand how he feels, even though I can't claim either party. Well, I don't know about your brother's quote...actually I think he's dead wrong, but I am seriously considering becoming a progressive leaning independent.

Well, if they Dems get slaughtered as you say then you are looking at backward conservative idiots like Palin running the show. We had an idiot named Bush along with his neocon cronies and look what happened. I personally vote for an educated candidate and thus Obama rocks!! Besides, liberals are far better educated than conservative bible thumpers! Liberals rule, conservatives drool! Posted by: King Riley the Supreme Ruler of this Blog! | January 20, 2010 at 03:47 PM BTW, just because you believe in God or the bible doesn't mean your stupid or even conservative.

I just thought (and still do think) that Obama is a bullsh*tter. And I think the democratic party is a mess. They couldn't pass a bill for air conditioning in Florida. Posted by: josh | January 20, 2010 at 04:05 PM I'm so sorry to say I'm starting to agree with you. And glad we see eye to eye on healthcare. I'm a single payer guy myself, but the public option would have been a good starting place. I actually think that if we get true universal healthcare with the restrictions on denying coverage for insurance companies, I might be more fiscally conservative. How is it that Italy, who is by far more conservative that the U.S. has a nationalized healthcare plan.

Well, if they Dems get slaughtered as you say then you are looking at backward conservative idiots like Palin running the show. We had an idiot named Bush along with his neocon cronies and look what happened. I personally vote for an educated candidate and thus Obama rocks!! Besides, liberals are far better educated than conservative bible thumpers! Liberals rule, conservatives drool! Posted by: King Riley the Supreme Ruler of this Blog! | January 20, 2010 at 03:47 PM I hear what you're saying and trust me I don't want Palin becoming president as that would be a disaster, but does it really matter if an incompetent runs the country into the ground as opposed to and educated man. I agree that progressive policies are better for the country, but what's the point of claiming to be progressive if you don't act like it more ofter than not...even with issues like the public option with had 85% approval with Dems, 65% approval with Ind, and 45% apporval among repubs, and 67% approval across the country despite effort to cloud public opinion of it. It was only when the public option was killed and the individual mandate stayed in place did the majority of people sour on healthcare reform. BTW, that comment about liberals being smarter than "bible thumpers", while might be technically true it reinforces this idea of Obama and progressives as being snotty and elitist. Not helpful and probably not accurate. How well have our educated Dems done so far in effecting change?

60 votes, 61 votes, 59 votes, 58 votes, it doesn't matter. Republicans will not stop to hinder any bills Obama wants implemented. The republicans do not want Obama to succeed nor the country. They want their seats back. Obama wanted the public option, but even with the majority the republicans smeared him and the ideas to the point where it became a non option. Posted by: Ohshz | January 20, 2010 at 03:42 PM Obama never really wanted the public option. Now, he man=y have wanted it on an idealogical level, but he wasn't willing to fight for it, push pressure on people to pass it. Just tell me this...I GW Bush had 60 votes in the senate, big majorities in the house, and had only eight or so moderate republicans, do you think he wouldn't have gotten what he wanted passed a long time ago? Again, right now the two parites at their core bow to their corporate masters b/cuz they pay them so the the dems and repubs can duke it out around the marjains, but if anyhting that proposed affects the banks and corporations bottom line best believe you will always have juuuust enough votes to kill it, irrespective of party. That's what happend. Obama tried to do his corporate master's bidding and in the process got fcked with no vasaline or KY. The problems for the dems (actually a blessing in disguise) is that the base has opened their eyes and isn't going to be party loyalists the way repubs were with Bush. The people want real change and if that means dems get their a$$ kicked in 2010 so be it. Obama better start being more progressive and doing what's right for main street. He can start by firing his whole economic team as that would satisfy most Dems, Ind, and Repubs. The only people who would be pissed would be bankers, wallstreet peeps, and CEO's and executives that pay themselves outlandish bonuses. Since when do you DESERVE a bonus for f^uking up the U.S. economy. The public aint buyin it anymore. This may sound crazy but progressives and Tea Partiers, at their core, have a lot in common at the present moment as far as wanting change and being pissed off at the establishment. When you really look at it, both groups are pissed off at the same things. The anger is just directed at different places.

"when Obama came into office, everything he's done was far left" I don't know if I agree with that. I agree that he lied his a$$ off in his campaign, but I actually think his lies were more about being more liberal than he actually has been. He was talking about pulling the troops, ending detention without trial, single-payer health care, etc. He was running on platforms he knew he couldn't deliver on. Posted by: josh | January 20, 2010 at 03:23 PM I know you're conservative and we probably would disagree with you politically on a variety of issues, but thank you for not repeating the line of Obama was too liberal. It's obvious he has not governed as too liberal. Now I was not naive enough to believe that he would be a total progressive in his policies, but even common sense things that Dems and Ind agreed on (and some Repubs) like reining in bonuses or allowing share holders of companies to have more say so in how CEO's are selected and how CEO compensation could be decided by shareholders and not just board members. Just simple stuff. We need public finaning of elections. I heard a stat that if everyone who currently has a job now paid $20 a year by the time the next presidential election rolls around enough money would have been raised to fund the entire presidential election of last year, which was by far the most expensive election ever.

In major politics, scott brown (R) took ted kennedys seat, thus upsetting the Democrats and Obama. Wont get a clear needed party majority now, as he wanted. and massachusetts, has been democrats for how long now? Signs of the times to come...2010 senate seats in jeopardy. Posted by: doctorb | January 20, 2010 at 02:28 PM It's those people in the middle that completely turned against Obama. He flat out lied to all those independents, and when Obama came into office, everything he's done was far left. Those people in the middle who voted for Obama feel betrayed and stupid for electing him into office. Posted by: Heat-Struck | January 20, 2010 at 03:12 PM No, if you really examine the numbers what is happening is that Obama has turned his back on the base of the party. Progressives didn't get Sh^t we wanted this year. So as a result of not doing anything the (Obama and the democrats) promised, especially to those progressives who helped him get elected, the base was/is not energized and told Obama and the dems f&ck you. Independents and progressives have a lot in common. We both wanted the public option (which btw when they eliminated it from the discussion, along with still having the individual mandate to purchase private insurance, is when healthcare became unpopular to most people including myself), Dems, Repubs, and Ind all wanted Obama to do something about wallstreet bonuses, all wanted people who cause this problem to be investigated and go to jail, and focus more on job creation centered around main street, not wallstreet. Obama and the dems didn't do sh^t to the bankers and to this day still advocate policies that benefit them despite the fact the bankers and wallstreet caused this. That's why he lost not only Ind, but also Dems and that's why Coakly lost. Obama, Dems, and Repubs are still serving their banking and corperate masters. If Obama and the Dems don't course correct they will get slaughtered in 2010 and they should.

In major politics, scott brown (R) took ted kennedys seat, thus upsetting the Democrats and Obama. Wont get a clear needed party majority now, as he wanted. and massachusetts, has been democrats for how long now? Signs of the times to come...2010 senate seats in jeopardy. Posted by: doctorb | January 20, 2010 at 02:28 PM Honestly it doesn't really matter, democrats still have an 18 seat majority, more than either Bush ever experienced. Posted by: Ohshz | January 20, 2010 at 02:58 PM If they can't get sh#t done with 60 vote in the senate and huge majorities in the house, and the presidency, then why would we believe the can get sh$t done now. And this mind you, is coming from a progressive.

In major politics, scott brown (R) took ted kennedys seat, thus upsetting the Democrats and Obama. Wont get a clear needed party majority now, as he wanted. and massachusetts, has been democrats for how long now? Signs of the times to come...2010 senate seats in jeopardy. Posted by: doctorb like it really matters who is out front, the $ behind the figureheads is coming from the same place... Posted by: 9/11 was an inside job | January 20, 2010 at 02:38 PM Bingo...to bad it took this whole health care debacle (which I am in favor of, but not the Senate version. Which is a major reason Coakly lost BTW), bailing out Wallstreet and the banks, and pissing on main street to fully open my eyes to this. I'm an African American who not only voted for Obama but went door to door campaigning for him. He has so far been a disappointment. It is funny because a good friend of mine who voted for Obama told me two months after he won the election that nothing is going to change and requested that I watch the youtube video called "The Obama Deception". After all the bailouts of wallstreet, gifts to the banks, bonuses, and this healthcare debacle I finally watched it because with 60 votes in the house, huge majorities in the house, it made no sense why more was not being done to reign in bonuses, crack down on banks and wallstreet, and get a good healthcare bill passed. After watching this youtube video my eyes are open. Now I don't believe everything in the video as some of it is propaganda, but the overall take home message is that the gov and private sector is tooo cozy and the system is broken because the cooperations and banks have tooo much influence and access. I knew this to be the case but this past year has unfortunately opened my eyes to how corrupt the system is. We have to limit the influence of money in or system or nothing will ever change and our politicians will only do the bidding of their corporate masters. This is not a left or right issue. Meaningful debate on policies and issues can't take place because whoever wins elections (dems or repubs), the only people's interest who will be served is the banks and corporations. The only way to get a handle on this and level the playing field is to have public financing of elections. If we don't do this trust me the economy will collapse again and we, the tax payers will keep footing the bill. The bankers and wallstreet have not changes their reckless behaviors and despite what the Obama administration is telling people, the books are being cooked to make it look like the economy is recovering but if we keep doing what we're doing it will collapse again. And if it does Obama can't blame anyone but himself. Again, youtube The Obama Deception. We need public financing of elections. Thank you for humoring me. Now back to Spo bashing and Beasley conspiracy theories LOL.