I agree with this for the most part.I give a ton of credit to the Sixers for responding defensively on that final possession without the benefit of a designed chalkboard scheme. We saw tonight how effective that can be when given the opportunity to prepare for one set.
I will say that the two circumstances were different so I don't mind Kerr's TO as much as I would have Joe's.....
1. There was a dead ball for the free throws so the defense was already getting time to regroup.
2. The Lakers weren't going to be making a defensive substitution as Russell was already out of the game.
3. Unlike the Celtics who only needed a basket of any kind to win, the Warriors were down 3 and needed to go fast to get a quick 2 without time coming off the clock to give them the best chance to win the game. The idea here is to get quick & easy layup with the defense overextending while leaving :07-:08 on the clock, be able to foul, hopefully get one miss, then a 3 gives you a chance to win the game.
There was so much more for the Warriors to arrange opposed to the Celtics who simply needed a basket and be able to keep Maxey on the floor but we saw what can happen when a defense has the means to prepare.
But.....
If you're just going to walk the ball up, allowing the defense to get set, and then simply run your standard 2 man game with Tatum/Smart that everyone on Earth knows is coming, aren't you already simply giving the Sixers the same "designed chalkboard scheme" they probably planned for and used on just about every possession anyway?
I mean, besides maybe removing Maxey, what else did the C's force the Sixers into that would have been any different if they had called a timeout? Instead of walking it up court, they throw it in behind halfcourt, and then walk it up the court? And in either case, with a timeout or without, they end up in the same 2 man game with Tatum/Smart.