PDA

View Full Version : Finding solutions to rebounding issues/game 7 vs Bulls analysis



thunderbird1245
11-12-2006, 01:12 AM
Hi all. I normally write on Sunday early afternoons just after church, but as Im going to play hooky from that tomorrow morning, Im still awake and thinking about our Pacers. I turned the computer on just now and saw there was a thread asking me about our rebounding problems, so instead of answering in that now 3 page thread I decided to start my own.

First of all, a couple of disclaimers on tonights game from my perspective: I missed the first half to attend a high school scrimmage with the team I used to help coach in years past. Im just a fan now due to my new job duties, but I was there anyway tonight, so I missed the first half. Secondly, Im not nearly as emotional either way as some of you are...I tend to not get so excited after we win, or as down as some of you get after a tough game tonight. With that said, let me analyze things from my view tonight, with a special emphasis on rebounding.

First of all, I thought the intensity and effort from both teams tonight was very good for an early season game. With the exception of the washington game, I think the Pacers in general have been well prepared and have played hard and smart every game this season, and tonight was no exception in those regards.

Solving our rebounding issues isnt going to be that easy, because we dont have clearly one problem, we have a few different ones that all add up to a deficiency on some nights. Solving one problem in one way might create other issues in other areas. Basically, like every other team in the league, we are a flawed team that constantly has to tweak and plug holes, and therein is the challenge for the coaching staff on a nightly basis. Just like I did a few weeks ago when I wrote something about turnovers and how to prevent them, Ill post my proposed solutions on rebounding, as I see them. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. Play better rebounders more minutes. Now, that seems obvious and silly, but we need to understand that we can solve lots of problems in one area by playing people who specialize in this area. In tonight's game, I think RC made the decision that he'd play his normal frontcourt despite the lack of board work, because he liked the defensive matchups that grouping gave him on each end. I think in general that proved correct, but we couldnt score enough points to maintain our advantage late in the game. I thought in what I felt was the biggest game of the year to date that RC managed the offense a little to closely, and having to score in the halfcourt against the superior Bulls defense proved too much to handle late. Perhaps when we play again he'll play Foster some more to offset Wallace some, and cut back on some minutes of other guys slightly.

2. We can sag more defensively, dial back the ball pressure, and concentrate more on defending 20 ft in rather than contesting passing lanes. This would be more of a philosophy change than Id want, but it is a possible solution. I felt the Pacers defense tonight in the half court was outstanding, other than we didnt close the deal by rebounding the misses. This would mean hedging softer on ballscreens, backing off pressure in order to not get beaten off the dribble forcing JO to help, etc etc. Less pressure, less taking chances, less switching and rotating. Much more conventional defense.

3. Against the Bulls, we could purposely try and attack Wallace offensively to try and get him out of the game. Not sure this is intelligent, but if it worked having him out of there would certainly help.

4. We could play odd matchups in who we have guard Wallace, and play it unconventionally. I say this because having JO guard Wallace makes conventional sense, but all of his helping, rotating, and going for shot blocks gave him a free reign to crash unimpeded to the lane too often. Again, we'd have to drastically think outside the box with this, and possibly put a smaller man on him, and jigger the other matchups accordingly. In this game, maybe you'd matchup like this if this was your solution:

Hinrich/Tinsley
Gordon/Granger
Wallace/Jackson
Deng/Oneal
Nocioni/Harrington

5. We couldve gone to the "jumbo" lineup, playing Daniels and Granger/Jackson in the backcourt with Foster, JO, and Harrington/Jackson. Now this lineup is a fave of mine that hasnt been used yet, and I wonder how it wouldve fared tonight. If you do go big like this, then you have to get big time rebounding help from your backcourt, otherwise it isnt worth it.

6. Offensively, you can post your guards more, to get Wallace away from the defensive glass. We did this anyway, and it was effective mostly. In my view there were 2 moments offensively that I thought were indicitive of our immaturity and inexperience in this game. One was in the fourth quarter, approximately 6 minutes to go or so, Pacers need a basket badly. RC goes to his bread and butter play, which is the Pacers version of "flex" (screen the screener, like we talked about earlier this week). Except in this crucial moment, Granger just spaces it and forgets what he is doing, and forgets to cut along the right baseline. We end up with Tinsley driving awkwardly to the goal shooting a runner, missing it, and the Pacers giving up an easy fast break basket. This wouldve ended up if ran correctly with JO a wide open elbow jumper, or a Granger post up.

Secondly was when RC correctly ran a iso post up for Jackson at a crucial time. Even Kellogg said take him Jack, "its time to go to work". For some reason, Jackson faced up instead, held the ball too long, and couldnt score over the much smaller Duhon. That was a good call by the coaches, except Jackson just didnt deliver.

I still wish we'd post up Tinsley alot more than we are. I dont think Hinrich can guard him down there at all, and I think Jamal is a very good post player as a creator and scorer. This wouldve likely caused the Bulls to have to double him, making them rotate and giving us more offensive rebounding chances if nothing else.

7. We couldve played zone, to anchor our defense closer to the bucket and keep JO from being pulled away from the goal. With the Bulls shooters struggling tonight in general, this is the solution I wouldve gone to, and the one I think RC will try next time, especially later in the year when we are better at playing it. With Gordon not playing the 4th quarter much if at all, I wouldve played this to keep our legs a bit fresher, slow down the Bulls movement a bit, and change the rhythm of the game some. I like this idea alot, even though it goes against the conventional wisdom that zones hurt your rebounding. This I think wouldve been the way to go tonight, because it wouldve made the Bulls be more predictable offensively and forced them to play differently. Particularly if you combine this with going to the jumbo lineup, youd have an advantage I think against this opponent.

8. When you emphasize the running game, its only natural to have your wings tend to leak out a little too often. The way to beat a real running team is to crash the board extremely hard, and tonight it worked for Chicago. As much as we all like to watch Harrington run the floor on the break, everyone needs to understand that comes at a price, and you saw it tonight. Maybe just a determination that we were just going to send all 5 defenders (point guards too) and not even attempt to run tonight wouldve solved the rebounding issues, but of course that opens up other questions.

Summary of tonight: I think these teams are very close in talent and makeup. Both of them play hard and smart, have clear strengths and weaknesses, and are both going to make the playoffs with wins around 45-50. I wouldnt be surprised at all if these teams meet again in round one, and if so it would be a fascinating chess match between 2 very good coaches.

Bottom line: Rebounding is a team effort, and we got poor rebounding from our backcourt too. We need all 5 players on the floor to excel in this area, because in general Harrington and JO arent the strongest players on the floor physically at their spots, especially in how they are being used. Lets also not lose sight that we are 4-3, playing well, playing smart, and playing together, and improving and beginning to gel. Let us also not fail to recognize what a true stud and star Wallace is at his particular skills. No team in the league has an answer for him, we arent any different than the other teams. Lets realize that he is world class at what he does, and give him and Deng their credit where it is due.

Long term: We need a better player to come off the bench and play the minutes Foster gets if we really want to be an elite team. Jeff can only do so much....thats the one clear area of upgrade we can look at in 2007 and beyond in my view.....not that thats easy to find. Someone who rebounds and screens like Dale Davis, but with slightly better offensive game and size perhaps. Right now we dont have that guy, and very few teams do.

As always, just my opinion.

Tbird

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 01:18 AM
I think a lot of our rebounding troubles at time stem from not having a Dale Davis type muscle player who will not get the Foster type dirty work boards, but get the put an elbow in someones gut and make them think twice about coming to the offensive boards again type player. This isn't JO, Al, or Foster's style and Danny is not in the interior enough to pull it off. Harrison makes sense, but he is almost too physical and unrestrained and at times out of place to make the play. Pollard when healthy last year seemed to be able to pull this roll off and I would be interested in seeing what an offer of Sarunas could net us. Also I wouldn't mind to see if Josh Powell could evolve into this type of player with a midrange offensive game. Hes not tall, but he is built pretty sturdy and might be able to do it.

D-BONE
11-12-2006, 07:43 AM
Lots of great ideas here. The idea I most agree with is that we're just lacking a tough interior specialist on this team. For me, Foster's the closest we have and does help, but we need at least one more guy who fills that role and who's got a bit more mean streak than any of our current big guys.

I don't think this guy is on our roster. I don't think DH will ever be this guy even if he ever improves and improves his propensity to foul.

On a couple other related points, zone would definitely have been interesting. Did we play zone at all last night? I just have some recollection of seeing it briefly in the first half. Definitely not in the second. Maybe the games are starting to fuse together in my mind. After only 7 games. Geez!

Finally, I would not question the Pacers effort in any game thus far. Even against Washington I felt we fought. We just executed poorly, were without JO, and ran into a talented team having a great night. I do want to check back on the box score of that game though. Seems to me we had some trouble keeping the Wiz of the offensive glass, too. Perhaps not to such an extreme as the Bulls. Will have to be addressed if we want to compete with good teams that have aggressive and active teams.

speakout4
11-12-2006, 09:25 AM
I think a lot of our rebounding troubles at time stem from not having a Dale Davis type muscle player who will not get the Foster type dirty work boards, but get the put an elbow in someones gut and make them think twice about coming to the offensive boards again type player. This isn't JO, Al, or Foster's style and Danny is not in the interior enough to pull it off. Harrison makes sense, but he is almost too physical and unrestrained and at times out of place to make the play. Pollard when healthy last year seemed to be able to pull this roll off and I would be interested in seeing what an offer of Sarunas could net us. Also I wouldn't mind to see if Josh Powell could evolve into this type of player with a midrange offensive game. Hes not tall, but he is built pretty sturdy and might be able to do it.

I like what you said. If Al doesn't give the team an interior presence with his size then we could just as well eventually replace him with some perimeter sharp shooter. I was hoping that al would improve on his rebounding stats with the hawks where he essentially had no help but so far that isn't happening. Further, I think that some of the real criticism of RC is that posters do not feel he has communicated to some players especially Al that it's not just points alone. I expect Al to step up in rebounding the next few games but it won't last. The solution is to use Al the same way the Pacers used Artest. This really gives us a hole in the front court so it's time to give Harrison, Powell and even try Williams (I know a stretch) for some real minutes.

thunderbird1245
11-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Like Bill Parcells says sometimes "you are what you are."

JO has skinny thin legs, and doesnt always hold his ground well when being pushed from behind. Harrington is a bit stronger, but doesnt have long arms or a great knack for the ball. Foster has a nose for the ball but is so limited in other areas its hard to always use him. Granger isnt strong physically as some others and can get pushed around. What I saw with our rebounding last night wasnt a lack of effort by any means, I just saw a lack of ability and strength and technique. The officials let the game get physical underneath, and our skinnier guys got pushed up underneath the rim too often, while the ball bounced over their heads.

Other than just becoming physically tougher or acquiring some tough big guy from somewhere, this is always going to be a weakness for us. We'll just have to overcome it in other ways. Last night, we simply couldnt close the deal offensively, and our bench didnt play that well outside of Foster's few minutes.

This also can lead into a discussion about my contention earlier in the summer that blocking out is overrated, and that Id rather have big tough physical guys who are quick to the ball instead of having my guys spend energy trying to prevent the rebound from coming to someone else. I thought our blockout EFFORT was pretty good, we just didnt have the wherewithall and ability to just man up and go get the freakin ball......I didnt see the Bulls blocking us out much, I just saw them out muscleing us and being tougher than we were going after it. That is the Bulls team biggest asset, and they used it last night to beat us. We can beat them by putting up better offensive numbers and with movement and execution, but we couldnt sustain it into the entire 48 minutes. But, this is just November, lets see how much we improve thru the year and on into the playoffs.

One loss, or one win, does not a season make.

JMO

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 10:18 AM
The interesting thing is until last nights game the Pacers were a top 5 rebounding team

thunderbird1245
11-12-2006, 10:26 AM
The interesting thing is until last nights game the Pacers were a top 5 rebounding team

This is a true statement. Some of that is who our opponents were of course and how the games were played and officiated, but we've been ok mostly on the backboard other than a couple of key losses.

With our running game functioning fairly well, it will be curious in the NBA coaching chess match whether teams try and really crash the boards hard on us like the Bull did, and try and beat us that way like was successful last night. Some coaches often go the other way when facing a good running team, and plan everything around the concept of getting back on defense, thereby basically conceding the offensive glass. (This is what the Pacers often did last year btw) It will be curious to watch the strategy of the various coaches, and whether we can make enough rebounds to fuel our running game to make those teams rethink that strategy of attacking us on the boards, leaving them vulnerable to a counterattack fast break.

Unclebuck
11-12-2006, 11:12 AM
Tbird, I'm certainly not expecting the Pacers to be a top 5 rebounding team this season. I'd be satisfied if we are:

- around 11th or 12th overall,
- 8th or 9th in defensive rebounding
- 15th or so on the offensive end.

If you look at our starting 5 , the only player who is an average average rebounder at his position is Granger as a small forward. The other 4, I think are average for their positions. Coming off the bench we have Foster, but that is about it, although Daniels is a sneaky rebounder.

But I don't think rebounding will be a strength of the Pacers.

speakout4
11-12-2006, 11:23 AM
Tbird, I'm certainly not expecting the Pacers to be a top 5 rebounding team this season. I'd be satisfied if we are:

- around 11th or 12th overall,
- 8th or 9th in defensive rebounding
- 15th or so on the offensive end.

If you look at our starting 5 , the only player who is an average average rebounder at his position is Granger as a small forward. The other 4, I think are average for their positions. Coming off the bench we have Foster, but that is about it, although Daniels is a sneaky rebounder.

But I don't think rebounding will be a strength of the Pacers.

Specifically JO, Al, and Granger average ~32 minutes per game and 20 rebounds per game. I doubt that your stats will be met with those numbers.

BlueNGold
11-12-2006, 11:44 AM
Like Bill Parcells says sometimes "you are what you are."

JO has skinny thin legs, and doesnt always hold his ground well when being pushed from behind. Harrington is a bit stronger, but doesnt have long arms or a great knack for the ball. Foster has a nose for the ball but is so limited in other areas its hard to always use him. Granger isnt strong physically as some others and can get pushed around. What I saw with our rebounding last night wasnt a lack of effort by any means, I just saw a lack of ability and strength and technique. The officials let the game get physical underneath, and our skinnier guys got pushed up underneath the rim too often, while the ball bounced over their heads.

Other than just becoming physically tougher or acquiring some tough big guy from somewhere, this is always going to be a weakness for us. We'll just have to overcome it in other ways. Last night, we simply couldnt close the deal offensively, and our bench didnt play that well outside of Foster's few minutes.

This also can lead into a discussion about my contention earlier in the summer that blocking out is overrated, and that Id rather have big tough physical guys who are quick to the ball instead of having my guys spend energy trying to prevent the rebound from coming to someone else. I thought our blockout EFFORT was pretty good, we just didnt have the wherewithall and ability to just man up and go get the freakin ball......I didnt see the Bulls blocking us out much, I just saw them out muscleing us and being tougher than we were going after it. That is the Bulls team biggest asset, and they used it last night to beat us. We can beat them by putting up better offensive numbers and with movement and execution, but we couldnt sustain it into the entire 48 minutes. But, this is just November, lets see how much we improve thru the year and on into the playoffs.

One loss, or one win, does not a season make.

JMO

This has got to be the post of the century and, of course since I agree with it, explains precisely what happened last night. This needs to be read and understood by anyone interested in seeing this team do much in the playoffs:

"JO has skinny thin legs, and doesnt always hold his ground well when being pushed from behind. Harrington is a bit stronger, but doesnt have long arms or a great knack for the ball."

This is not a slam on JO or Al. These are facts that will dictate and limit the level of rebounding and thus the success of this team.

Pacerized
11-12-2006, 12:11 PM
Long term: We need a better player to come off the bench and play the minutes Foster gets if we really want to be an elite team. Jeff can only do so much....thats the one clear area of upgrade we can look at in 2007 and beyond in my view.....not that thats easy to find. Someone who rebounds and screens like Dale Davis, but with slightly better offensive game and size perhaps. Right now we dont have that guy, and very few teams do.
As always, just my opinion.
Tbird


I think I agree with about everything you say here.
However, if could get the player you describe he'd be a max contract guy, and not a bench player. Anyone who could defend, and rebound that well, and have a decent offensive game comes at a very high price. Big men a just that much of a premium. This was one of the best defensive teams we'll face, and we weren't that far off trying to out run them. I think a few rotation tweeks could solve our problems, and I would hope our guards won't rebound that poorly next time.

thunderbird1245
11-12-2006, 03:02 PM
This has got to be the post of the century and, of course since I agree with it, explains precisely what happened last night. This needs to be read and understood by anyone interested in seeing this team do much in the playoffs:

"JO has skinny thin legs, and doesnt always hold his ground well when being pushed from behind. Harrington is a bit stronger, but doesnt have long arms or a great knack for the ball."

This is not a slam on JO or Al. These are facts that will dictate and limit the level of rebounding and thus the success of this team.

I'm glad Im not the only one who sees it that way.

Thank you for the compliments, as always.

We just need our guys to get better at attacking the basketball in the air after their initial blockout. I felt like watching the game some our guys got pinned to the floor, and were just out quicked to the ball. I dont know if their was excessive hilding by some of the Bulls or not, it just seemed like after contact that the Bulls got into the air quicker and more aggressively.....

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 03:34 PM
The interesting thing is until last nights game the Pacers were a top 5 rebounding team

Yep, 5th best in the NBA. So maybe we shouldn't look too much into this like I was last night. We will see what happens on Wednesday against Boston. I want to see an angry hungry team.

Trader Joe
11-12-2006, 03:35 PM
Tbird, I'm certainly not expecting the Pacers to be a top 5 rebounding team this season. I'd be satisfied if we are:

- around 11th or 12th overall,
- 8th or 9th in defensive rebounding
- 15th or so on the offensive end.

If you look at our starting 5 , the only player who is an average average rebounder at his position is Granger as a small forward. The other 4, I think are average for their positions. Coming off the bench we have Foster, but that is about it, although Daniels is a sneaky rebounder.

But I don't think rebounding will be a strength of the Pacers.

I actually think Tins has been doing a very good job for a PG on the boards for us this year.

McKeyFan
11-13-2006, 11:43 AM
I don't think DH will ever be this guy even if he ever improves and improves his propensity to foul.

This is impossible; it would defy the laws of physics.




;)

Skaut_Ech
11-13-2006, 12:54 PM
Just some stuff that I thought about reading your post:


With the exception of the washington game, I think the Pacers in general have been well prepared and have played hard and smart every game this season, and tonight was no exception in those regards.

See, I've been bothered by how many mistakes we make. I know turnovers tend to happen quite a bit in the early season, but I'm seeing a lot of fundamentals type mistakes: a lazy pass, misreading where a man is going to be, lsing the dribble. Matter-of-fact, my biggest gripe is that we haven't been playing smart. What we seem to do is let the other team take it to us, then we ratchet up the effort and concentrate more.



I felt the Pacers defense tonight in the half court was outstanding, other than we didnt close the deal by rebounding the misses. This would mean hedging softer on ballscreens, backing off pressure in order to not get beaten off the dribble forcing JO to help, etc etc. Less pressure, less taking chances, less switching and rotating. Much more conventional defense.

I don't think we're capable of straight up on-one-on D. I think we are moreso thatn in the past because we have better athletes, but I think this is a team that needs to play as they did. I think we're a good reactive D, but not a good anticipatory D and I think that's a fundamentals things that has to be a team philosphy. I'm not talking gambling, but anticipatory.


Secondly was when RC correctly ran a iso post up for Jackson at a crucial time. Even Kellogg said take him Jack, "its time to go to work". For some reason, Jackson faced up instead, held the ball too long, and couldnt score over the much smaller Duhon. That was a good call by the coaches, except Jackson just didnt deliver.

I thought it was a GREAT call. Jackson did the samer thing Jermaine did a couple of times. I'm going by memory, but I remember twice where JO had a guy almost on his hip and no double was coming. For some odd reason, like Jackson, Jermaine, turned around and faced the guy, then settled for a jumper. :confused: Goes back to that playing smart thing I mentioned earlier. Man, I'd like to see us take advantages of mismatches more.


I still wish we'd post up Tinsley alot more than we are. I dont think Hinrich can guard him down there at all, and I think Jamal is a very good post player as a creator and scorer. This wouldve likely caused the Bulls to have to double him, making them rotate and giving us more offensive rebounding chances if nothing else.


6. Offensively, you can post your guards more, to get Wallace away from the defensive glass.

That's what I mean. Not to live in the past, but remember how bad we would beat up on small G by posting Mark Jackson up on them? And we'd do it over and over and over, till the other team committed to stopping it? Granted, we were a better jump shooting team then, but Larry Brown early on used to run what I called an inverted offense, with the Gs posting up and the forwards floating out for mid-range shots if the post up did fail, and the Fs crashed the boards with a running start. Giev that we've faced shorter guys like Chris PAul, Biobby Jackson, Jameer, etc, of late. it would have been nice to have Jamaall get some post ups. (with Sara's size, it would be nice to have him do it, too, but that's not his game.)


7. We couldve played zone, to anchor our defense closer to the bucket and keep JO from being pulled away from the goal. With the Bulls shooters struggling tonight in general, this is the solution I wouldve gone to, and the one I think RC will try next time, especially later in the year when we are better at playing it. With Gordon not playing the 4th quarter much if at all, I wouldve played this to keep our legs a bit fresher, slow down the Bulls movement a bit, and change the rhythm of the game some. I like this idea alot, even though it goes against the conventional wisdom that zones hurt your rebounding. This I think wouldve been the way to go tonight, because it wouldve made the Bulls be more predictable offensively and forced them to play differently. Particularly if you combine this with going to the jumbo lineup, youd have an advantage I think against this opponent.

I agree. A lot of team are popping into sporatic zones and I think it's great. (Not against us, though) It really throws off a opponent's offensive rhythm, if done right and the spacing is tight enough.


As to our rebounding woes.....how much do you guys think conditioning is a factor? We get tired, we throw a lazy pass. We get tired, we block out, but don't quite aggressively jump for the rebound. Is this just a case of some timly substitutions and better teaching of rebounding fundamentals?
I look at a take no sh:censored: taskmaster, like Sloan and how well he has that collection of talent rebounding as a whole. It shows me that it takes a coach who knows how to teach above average rebounding. I see a wavering focus and intensity with this team. I think our rebounding is a reflection of that.

Rebounding is one thing that can be done using pure desire and a relative lack of skills, yet we can't seem to master it. I'm thinking part of the reason is that our offensive philosophy has changed quite a bit. I think guys are still learing the Xs and Os of where they need to be to run the offense and haven't quite figured out how and when to attack the boards and not break a play. I suspect our rebounding will be self correcting, along with some timely substitutions for some crazy energy minutes from guys like Powell and Maceo.

Bball
11-13-2006, 01:25 PM
I suspect our rebounding will be self correcting, along with some timely substitutions for some crazy energy minutes from guys like Powell and Maceo.


They will have to find a way onto the active roster and/or off the bench first.

I'm taking the Bulls game as I do most early season games.... For the most part, make a few mental notes and then wait and see.

Considering the amount of games played in the first few days of the season, and then taking Chicago on the road in the 2nd night of a back to back to the wire, it was a disappointing loss but it's hard to say whether the undoing was a fundamental flaw of the Pacers or simply we ran out of gas.

We did apparently see Carlisle revert a little... Was that for the good of the team and the tired legs that he was seeing or was that an early crack in sticking with the offense? And might the Chicago game been a place to use some more of the bench a bit more creatively? It wouldn't have hurt to have done something to try and neutralize Wallace (especially early) and keep the Bulls of the offensive boards... plus hopefully save the Pacer legs for the end of the game. Maybe Carlisle just misjudged how much gas we had in the tank to start the game.

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
11-15-2006, 04:34 PM
I actually think Tins has been doing a very good job for a PG on the boards for us this year.
He's caught my attention several times with true leaping efforts to chase down contested rebounds. Let's be honest, leaping and Tinsley typically don't go together. :) He's clearly trying to help in that area.


One thing I was reminded of in all this was the "Insta-Foster solution" as it applied to Big Ben in Reggie's final year. After a strong showing late in the game 1 loss, Jeff came on in game 2 and went off, huge rebounding in a Pacers win. They came home, Jeff got a huge reception, and then had another good, but not as good, game in the 2nd Pacers win.

And that's where it ended. Detroit saw what was happening and made an effort to limit Jeff and it worked. He couldn't get it going at all in game 4, was only modest in limited minutes for game 5, and then only had 6 boards in 27 minutes of game 6.

JO actually matched or beat Jeff's rebound pace in a couple of those games.

My point is that the idea that no matter what Jeff will come in and solve the problem when facing a guy like Ben Wallace is not 100% true. At times he can help, but he's been taken out of games by Ben too.

Naptown_Seth
11-16-2006, 02:11 AM
Well how timely was the Boston game for proving my point about the Insta-Foster solution.

4 boards and if you saw the game you know why. Jeff had 2 different JO shot blocks come his way and he failed to gather them up, letting them go back to Boston instead. He also had several regular rebounds go the same way for him.

As much as JO got beat on several occassions he was at least putting up a fight. I think he and Al brought the best effort to try and stop the bleeding.

The fact is that JO is focused on help defense at the rim more than blocking out (I watched him do it, keeping his eye on the ball more than his guy), and the team probably needs it. His blocks haven't been cheap ones, many come just in the nick of time to save a really bad situation, and he keeps the ball in play. You can't have JO help on your man and not block out his man in return (see Jackson in tonight's game, he was terrible about this).

ChicagoJ
11-16-2006, 10:07 AM
I finally got around to watching the Chicago game (I was a glutton for punishment last night)...

The easiest solution to the rebounding problems is to not play four games in five nights in three different cities this early in the season. Rebounding is 75% energy/ hustle and 25% instinct. This team doesn't have a great rebounding instinct in the first place (no surprise there) and when their legs go dead on them, it gets ugly.

But I noticed a very telling sequence in the Boston game where Granger had a drive and dish that led to a perimeter jumper. Don't remember which player missed the jump shot but it went right to the right side of the rim, which was exactly where Danny was running to after making the pass.

But the Celtics easily controlled the defensive rebound. I had to hit rewind on my TiVo several times to figure out where Danny disappeared to - as soon as the shot went up he abandoned excellent rebounding position to get back on defense.

I think Rick continues to place less emphasis on rebounding, period. And it shows.

Putnam
11-16-2006, 10:19 AM
I noticed a very telling sequence in the Boston game where Granger had a drive and dish that led to a perimeter jumper. Don't remember which player missed the jump shot but it went right to the right side of the rim, which was exactly where Danny was running to after making the pass.

But the Celtics easily controlled the defensive rebound. I had to hit rewind on my TiVo several times to figure out where Danny disappeared to - as soon as the shot went up he abandoned excellent rebounding position to get back on defense.

I think Rick continues to place less emphasis on rebounding, period. And it shows.


This was one of the most fustrating things about the Pacers late last year, and evidently it is going to continue. Ouch.