Emmanuel Acho has basketball takes now.
They’re a lot like his football ones.
We all know what sports media has devolved into at this point, and it’s not just about saying anything to chase clicks on daily debate shows anymore. It’s about saying something just controversial enough to drive the conversation. That’s been the formula, that is the formula, and that’ll keep being the formula.
Even as NBA players like Kevin Durant have pleaded with NFL media types like Acho to stay in their lane.
Durant’s comments came when Acho said the Celtics matched up better with the Knicks without Jayson Tatum. Now, he’s back again, this time suggesting that Jalen Brunson getting in foul trouble somehow helped the Knicks win a pivotal Game 3 in the Eastern Conference Finals.
He kicked things off by saying the Knicks didn’t win on purpose, that they just kind of stumbled into it. Incidentally. Incidentally enough to erase a 20-point deficit in a must-win playoff game.
But hey, let’s hear him out, shall we?
“If Brunson doesn’t get in foul trouble, I don’t think they win that game,” Acho said on Monday’s The Facility. “I think they incidentally won that game last night. I don’t think they intentionally did. I don’t know, ‘Shady’ (LeSean McCoy), if you’ve ever missed a hole, but it still turned into a 35-yard gain. Actually, I know you have, because that’s what you do. You turn things into 35-yard gains. I don’t know [James Jones] if you ever ran the wrong route, but somehow, that was still an explosive play. I know sometimes I may have stumbled over an offensive lineman, but somehow tripped into the tackle. I incidentally had success instead of intentionally.
“If Brunson doesn’t get in foul trouble, I don’t think they win that game. Brunson was having an off game. We already know that Brunson’s primary impact on a basketball game is his clutch ability and his scoring, not necessarily his defense. If he doesn’t get in foul trouble, the Knicks do not tighten up their defense. I don’t know if they win that game. They incidentally won that game. They didn’t intentionally win that game. Think about it, once [Miles] McBride, [Dorell] Wright came on the court, plus [Mikal] Bridges and [OG] Anunoby, now you can switch everything. The Knicks’ big cancels out Myles Turner, the Pacers’ big. So big for big, they’re gone.
“So, now, Anunoby, Bridges, [Josh] Hart, McBride, [Landry] Shamet, now you can switch off ball screens, and there is no mismatch. However, when Brunson was on the court, particularly don’t know if he was hobbled, don’t know otherwise, but when Brunson’s on the court, now you can’t necessarily switch everything. Now, because you’re only playing the 7 or 8, at best, rotation if Brunson and [Karl-Anthony Towns] aren’t in foul trouble, now, the Knicks players are dogged tired. But because of the foul trouble because Brunson was forced to go to the bench. He didn’t want to go to the bench. He was forced to go to the bench. I think the Knicks stumbled, like I might’ve stumbled into a tackle. I think the Knicks stumbled into that victory.”
If there’s any real basketball takeaway from all this, it’s probably that Tom Thibodeau should ease up on the minutes for his starters. That’s a reasonable conclusion. That’s something worth discussing. But saying the Knicks won because their best player was sidelined? That feels anecdotal at best and a take for take’s sake at worst.
But, as we said before, this is the same guy who said the Celtics matched up better with the Knicks without Jayson Tatum… after Tatum tore his Achilles.