Damp: 'I'm Going To Put Parker On His Back'

    I’m not sure this is exactly the sort of “guarantee’’ that does the Mavs any good.

   “Every time he drives the lane, we have to put him on his back,’’ Erick Dampier said of defending Tony Parker’s drives. “The first foul has to tell him he’s in for a long night. My first foul Thursday night is going to put him on his back. I guarantee it."

    I’ve got 10 Hairy-Chested Takes on Damp’s anti-Parker approach:

    But. …  

    TAKE 2: Why give voice to it? Why announce it? Damp – intelligent and well-spoken to those who know him well – generally speaks in “Bull Durham’’-like clichés when dealing with the media.

    Why choose NOW to decide to morph into some combo of Joe Namath and Joe Frazier?

    TAKE 3: Can a guy get fined for saying such things?

    TAKE 4: And even if he can’t. … Damp can certainly get fined AND suspended if the refs – with the heightened awareness of his "premeditated'' intent – goes through with his “put-him-on-his-back’’ plan.

    TAKE 5: Does the hard foul work? Jason Terry kind of tried one at the end of the first half, and Parker responded by absorbing the Flagrant-1 shoulder-to-the-chest and went ahead and got his 19 points in the first quarter, his 25 points in the first half, and his 13 more in the second half before settling on 38.

    TAKE 6: For that matter, Damp also tried to tackle Parker on one of his slices to the hoop. It occurred a few possessions before Jet’s Flagrant-1 play. So semi-attempts to hard-foul Parker were not successful.

    Which, I guess, pushed Damp beyond “semi-attempting’’ anymore.

    TAKE 7: As I pointed out early Tuesday, hard-fouling penetrators is solid basketball strategy. … but it’s mystifying to me that the Mavs (outside of the two examples cited above) essentially waited until 12:30 a.m. Tuesday to decide to utilize that strategy.

    Hard fouls on layups. ... Isn’t that pretty much an established concept for even eighth-grade basketball teams? And it took the Mavs until AFTER the game to seriously consider it?

    TAKE 8: If you go up and down the Dallas roster in reviewing the first two games, you know which Mav has been the most consistently solid over the course of eight quarters? That would be Damp. So – and it’s weird to say this – Damp in foul trouble or Damp in Flagrant-2 territory would threaten to rob the Mavs of a legit asset.

    TAKE 9: I know this is ungentlemanly of me, and I would never admit this to the kids.

    But you know how some fine and upstanding sportsmen say, “I want to face my opponents at his best’’? Not me. I want to face the Spurs at their worst.

   And you know how those same fine and upstanding sportsmen say, “I don’t wish an injury on anybody’’? Not me. I would love to see Tony Parker come down with a Game 3 stomach flu or something.

    So I don’t want to see the muscular Damp turn the slight Parker upside down.

    Just let him catch Kidd’s stomach flu, that’s all.

    TAKE 10: I see no wisdom in giving Parker any more ammunition. All indications are that he felt challenged by JJB’s fine Game 1 (and the publicity that went with it). Now we’re going to challenge him again?

    Maybe the Mavs should just let non-sleeping 38-point-scoring dogs lie, you know?

Discuss this story at DB.com Boards

945am april 21 2009