'I DON'T LIKE WHAT HE DID TO DARVIN HAM' 🗣️ - Stephen A.'s UPSET with AD's comments!

Stephen A. Smith, Brian Windhorst and Tim Legler join Molly Qerim on First Take to react to Anthony Davis’ postgame comments about coaching, following the Lakers’ Game 2 loss to the Nuggets.

Anthony Davis’ comments about Darvin Ham’s coaching are seen as a big deal.

Davis is typically known as a nice guy but seemed truculent in his comments.
Darvin Ham, Lakers’ coach, has had success in his short tenure, reaching the Conference Finals.
Davis’ remarks insinuated coaching issues, which is perceived as unfair and unfortunate.
Legler draws a parallel with a similar situation involving Giannis and a coach’s firing.
The loss prompted public tensions between Davis and Ham, revealing underlying issues.
Davis seemed frustrated with not getting enough shots, especially when Aaron Gordon guarded him.
Ham faces challenges with defensive strategies due to lack of two-way players.
Despite challenges, Ham’s coaching record and his assistant’s credentials are defended.
Criticism is raised against Davis for not taking responsibility for his performance and for implying he didn’t receive the ball enough, which is deemed unacceptable for a star player.

The lack of scoring from Davis in crucial moments of the game is highlighted, questioning his accountability.
It’s emphasized that star players historically find ways to get the ball, and Davis should have asserted himself more on the court.
The importance of Davis and LeBron James’ influence on the team’s offense is reiterated.
The discussion concludes with a reminder that excuses about not receiving the ball are not acceptable for a player of Davis’ caliber.
Overall, the debate reflects tensions within the Lakers organization and raises questions about accountability, coaching strategies, and player performance.

The exchange between Anthony Davis and Darvin Ham sheds light on broader issues within the Lakers organization, particularly regarding accountability and team dynamics. Davis’ comments not only critique Ham’s coaching decisions but also imply a lack of responsibility for his own performance during critical moments of the game.

By publicly questioning coaching strategies and implying that he didn’t receive enough opportunities to score, Davis inadvertently shifts blame away from himself and onto the coaching staff. This deflects from his role as a leader on the court and undermines the team’s cohesion during a crucial playoff series.

Moreover, the analysis of Davis’ performance reveals deeper insights into the expectations placed on star players in the NBA. While Davis is undoubtedly talented, his inability to assert himself and demand the ball in key moments raises questions about his leadership and determination to win.

The discussion surrounding Davis and Ham’s public tension highlights the challenges of managing egos and maintaining team chemistry, especially in high-pressure situations like the NBA playoffs. It underscores the delicate balance between individual talent and collective success within a team sport.

Additionally, the defense of Ham’s coaching record and the credentials of his assistant coaches, such as Chris Jent and Phil Handy, serves to underscore the complexity of evaluating coaching performance. Despite criticism, Ham’s success in guiding the Lakers to the Conference Finals in his second season speaks to his abilities as a coach.

Ultimately, the debate extends beyond the specifics of Davis and Ham’s exchange to address broader themes of accountability, leadership, and teamwork within professional sports organizations. It serves as a reminder that success in basketball, as in any team sport, relies not only on individual talent but also on effective communication, collaboration, and collective effort.