There are different types of fans in the world. I suppose there could be a distinction among how they are classified. The best example I can think of is a Liberal/ Conservative approach. They are your average fans who will root for a club and stuff like that. Then you have the committed people who go out and paint themselves riding for their squad. People like this may end up and all, but I believe there lies a line that is crossed when you blog about your team losing, and the words you use quickly become a tad critical. The author of a recent blog, John Krolik, does this and quite frankly, it annoying. Although I do agree with him in some aspects of his blog post, it is hard to tell if the guy is a Cavs fan or not.
In "Recap: Magic 101, Cavs 95 (Or, The Time The Cavs Lost Three Games In a Row" , John Krolik (author), elaborates on two main points. One involved how he believed the absence of Zydrunas Ilgauskas had major implications on the outcome of those three games. Basically the line of defense that comes in after Shaq does his duty. He says “after Shaq comes out, the unit Z heads up has been extremely productive.” Krolik goes on to talk about how the absence of Ilgauskas in the back up squad showed weakness and further more was the reason for the consecutive losses. While big Z was a contemporary piece of the way Cleveland did things, the wine and gold have guys that can play. Athletes like J.J. Hickson and Anderson Varejao are exemplary athletes who need to step it up in the event that Ilgauskas doesn’t come back after getting his contract bought out. The other half of Krolik’s thesis is in regards to the Cavaliers performance in the third quarter in games: particularly against premier teams like those whom they played in the games Krolik is discussing (Orlando Magic, Denver Nuggets). Krolik claims that this has been a big problem dating back to last season. Saying “They tend to get stagnant offensively going into the second half. I support this notion.
As I said earlier, Ilgauskas has done too many great things to count for Cleveland in every aspect. But I don’t think we NEED him. Yes, it would be great if he came back to as after all the buyout drama and helped us win the championship this year. I believe we have the necessary tools to fill that void though, at least in the event that he doesn’t come back. It all comes down to chemistry. The post-trade rotation, while slowly becoming more coherent, is still not fully intact. What team can get and lose guys, and still play their same style of basketball? After a couple more weeks and a good homestretch, the James Gang will be in great playoff shape. Ilgauskas is NOT the reason for these recent losses.
As for Krolik’s innate evaluation on third quarter performance, I have to agree with him. Last year we were arguably the best first quarter team in the league. That led to a great number of halftime leads. Though in that first quarter, especially in these recent ball games, it takes entirely too long for the offensive to reshape. Krolik’s research on the games against the Nuggets and Magic show that the Cavs got ran with a 13-3 ending against Denver and a finishing 8-2 in Orlando. This is not going to get it done against the Lakers and the other potential title contenders. He also touches on how the third quarter issue has been solved with the recent addition of forward Antawn Jamison. This is another point I which I feel I must express my agreement. I support his claim falling back on a game against the Magic, saying “the third quarter was easily the best quarter for the Cavs, and Jamison was the reason why”. Cleveland now has a solid 4-man in the post. While Varejao does his duty, c’mon, it’s Jamison.
Overall, I think Krolik was being a tad overly critical, and was possibly blinded by anger of the team’s game outcomes. Though I agree that the action of being a critic is an occupation of the fan, I think there is a point where it can eventually become bashing. I didn’t like the way Krolik put down the Cavs defense and based the problems solution on a guy I would love to have back, but don’t need. I think if I talked to him, maybe we could come to an understanding. Perhaps I’m looking at it all wrong. Who knows?