Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

    In my first thread of this series, we had a great discussion I thought on the Pacers style of defense at the point of attack. Today, in this the second part of a long series examining our overall team defensive scheme, personnel, effort, and basketball theory, I want to discuss the myriad of details that go into playing man to man defense in the wing areas of the floor. This particular thread will primarily be examining wing defense on the ball side of the floor, and/or when guarding the ball. I will hit helpside responsibilities and techniques in a later thread. While it may be briefly mentioned, I also intend to discuss screen/roll defense in a separate upcoming "defending the ballscreen" article Ill write at a later part of this series.

    In my view, playing high quality wing defense is vital to having a championship level squad. I also believe that there are more decisions to be made by the staff on how to properly play defense in this area of the floor than in any other. In this thread I'll try to go over the myriad of options and styles of play available to us, examine what we currently do and what we may want to do better.

    Among all the key decisions a team has to decide how it wants to play are:

    1. How hard do you deny a wing entry pass, especially at the beginning of a possession?

    2. How do you play a wing man individually once he has caught the ball on the side of the floor? Play him straight, shade him baseline, or shade him middle?

    3. How much help do you want your wings to provide on a straight drive to the basket from the top? Do you want to stay at home or do you want to "defend the split"?

    4. Do we want them to stay at home when they feed the ball inside, or do we want them to "dig" into the post?


    Let's try to take these one by one:

    A. WING DENIAL OF THE ENTRY PASS

    This is a really big decision actually, and it gets harder to make the higher the level of play you are talking about. At the youth or high school level, most of the time I believe it is the proper thing to do to really deny this pass hard, and make it hard for your opponent to start their offense. When you pair that with pressure defense at the point of attack, you can really make it difficult for your opponent.

    On the other hand, players at this level will almost always be good enough to get open along the wing areas anyway, due to their superior skill level, and the pace of the game. With that being said, is it worth the physical effort it takes for your defense over 82 games to make a conscience effort to make this a key central point to your team? I would say that it is worth the effort, but I would couch that by saying it takes a really athletic and highly conditioned and focused athlete to be able to do it consistently. I can only remember in my era of being a Pacer fan Derrick McKey doing this consistently, and often Ron Artest when focused would do it to. These type players are hard to come by.

    My preference for this team would be to make this a real focus for our bench players, particularly Brandon Rush. It is unrealistically to expect Dunleavy to be able to do this due to his lack of athleticism, and it's tough to ask Granger to do it due to foul trouble risk, the fatigue it would cause his offense, etc etc. (I would ask Granger to deny much harder on occasion however). But in Rush's case, I would demand that he develop this as part of his defensive repoitoire.....the ability to keep his man from catching the ball easily on the wing, especially when not having to fight thru a screen. I hear people say we need a big man coach constantly...I would much rather we had an individual DEFENSE coach, and I think Rush would be my first and main pupil!

    But, due to our personnel, I think from a strategic standpoint that we have to assume teams will be able to catch the ball on the wings with minimal difficulty. I would make acquiring another player who can deny wing passes well a high priority though in the future, as the ease of where the opponent initiates their play is a major factor in how easy it is to score for them.

    B. PLAYING THE WING MAN ONCE HE HAS CAUGHT THE BALL....HOW DO YOU PLAY THIS COMMON AND CRUCIAL SITUATION?

    I admit it, this is one of my favorite discussion points in basketball in general, and in the NBA in particular.

    Your choices are to either play the man in an exaggerated way to FORCE HIM BASELINE (toward the corner), play him in an exaggerated way to FORCE HIM TO THE MIDDLE (toward the lane), PLAY HIM STRAIGHT (play directly in front of him, and react to what he does offensively), or to ADJUST WHAT YOU DO BASED ON THE OPPONENT.

    Now, the common answer, as you no doubt are reading this nodding your head in the affirmative is to force him baseline. Indeed, as a high school coach who was trained in the ways of Coach Bob Knight, that is how I was taught and have taught others to play. "DON'T GET BEAT MIDDLE" and "KEEP THE BALL TO ONE SIDE" are 2 common phrases heard in practices all over the land. I would say that the vast majority of coaches play it that way at younger levels, and some do even at the pro level. By and large I think this is what the Pacers are trying to do too, but they don't do it well or consistently.

    Some coaches don't emphasize forcing a player to any particular direction. They play it straight up, usually in a sagging non pressuring defensive posture. These are coaches who believe in the "pack line" style of defense I mentioned elsewhere. Play conservative, switch often against screens, "zone up", don't get beat, defend the 16'6 area and inward.....these are the beliefs of the "packline" guys. Some of the better teachers of this philosophy all descend from Wisconsin: Coach Dick Bennett, Coach Bo Ryan, Coach Mike Heineman, and others.

    The Pacers have some, but not all, of these traits in their system. These coaches all emphasize sagging to the middle, and showing help early. But the Pacers don't switch much (which is correct in my view) nor do they willingly give up outside shots like these guys recommend to do. (although it looks like we do sometimes). These guys teach your defense to be more stationary, while the Pacers defense most of the time overreacts to drives, an exact opposite thing.

    Some coaches believe you should make this decision of where to force the ball from the wing depending on your opponent, and his strengths and weaknesses. I think this is more rare than you think, as most coaches want to be loyal to their "system". For the most part I agree, although scouting well can give you some obvious tendencies. I think teams DO GET TOO MARRIED to their philosophy at times, cutting their nose off to spite their faces. For instance, if you are playing Detroit, assume Teyshaun Prince has the basketball on the wing. Prince only can go left, everyone knows this I believe by now. Yet, if your team has a defensive philosophy that says that you need to FORCE HIM LEFT based on where he is on the floor, I think you are asking for trouble.

    This is one thing I believe we need to do better. Scout better, take advantage of the opponents weaknesses, and adjust our defensive plans slightly to take them into account.

    But now, I want to talk about the concept of FORCING TEAMS TO THE MIDDLE INSTEAD OF THE BASELINE. This is almost never seen at the high school level, but does it make sense at the pro level to do this, since it seems so counter to what most of us have been taught?

    I've come full circle in this personally. I think this is primarily EXACTLY what the Pacers should do on EVERY DRIVE SITUATION FROM THE WING AREAS. This would be a pretty dramatic difference for this coaching staff, but we have people in our organization who believe in this theory. In fact, he runs our team: President Larry Bird.

    Bird's old Celtic teams forced teams toward the middle of the floor. In Red Auerbach's viewpoint, forcing players to the middle MEANT THE HELPERS WERE CLOSER, AND THEREFORE HAD TO MOVE LESS TO GET THERE!

    Watch old Celtic tapes, and see if you don't see guys like Bird, Dennis Johnson, and Kevin McHale forcing the ball to the middle. It didn't always work, (nothing always works of course) just watch the old tape on NBA classic sometime of Magic Johnson hitting his famous hook shot in the finals over McHale. McHale actually turns after a second in order to make sure Magic drives to the middle, expecting help from his teammates! He didn't get enough obviously, but that was the Celtic philosophy, handed down from one generation to the next. And it wasn't just in that one particular play, that was the defensive philosophy of the Celtics for many many years.

    By being closer in proximity to the driver, your help desnt have to move their feet as much, and your original defender gets help earlier before it is too late. This enables guys like Hibbert to be more effective, and it lets you play wings like Dunleavy so they don't get burned as often. It allows you from a help perspective to not have to help as far off of your man, thereby letting you recover more efficiently in theory.

    I often wonder what Larry Bird is thinking when he watches us play defensively. My guess is that it is this difference he has in philosophy with Coach O'brien that galls him most of all. Go back and look at Indiana tapes from Bird and his coaching days, and tell you didn't see guys on the wings in those years forcing the ball to the middle....slow guys like Mullin, Reggie, Jackson, and Rose.

    Forcing guys to drive towards the middle of the floor I think is the one defensive adjustment Bird himself would most like to implement or change about Jim O'Brien's coaching philosophy, and I bet they discuss it often. I bet it may even get mandated for next season if JOB stays in power....we will see if I am right.

    III. DEFENDING THE SPLIT (THE POINT GUARD DRIVE)

    This is another coaching decision to make and discuss. At most levels, you want your wings to be very cognizant of point guard drives, because you want them to help early and prevent the ball from getting into the paint. Defending a point guard drive is almost a death sentence to your defense, as we find out constantly in Indiana, as both TJ Ford and especially Jarrett Jack seem to get beaten like rented mules way too often.

    There is no right answer, other than having your point guards just play defense better. But your choices are to have your wings primarily stay at home and continue to be in denial defense, letting your bigs handle the driver, or to have your wings "jump to the ball", and forcing a pass from the point guard driver to the now open wing player. If you do that, you have to practice "closing out" alot on open shooters by your wings, and you need really good athletes in order to get there.

    O'Brien seems ot favor a third way, which is to have your wings "sink in" and help very early to try and prevent drives, forcing a pass back outside. But instead of teaching the wing to recover, he (it appears on film to me) to prefer his BIGS TO ROTATE OUTWARD, and his recovering wing to drop into help and try and guard the post. I think this is why you see Jeff Foster and Troy Murphy flailing our running to the perimeter in vain so much, and why he seems so reluctant to play Roy Hibbert, who may even be slower than those two guys.

    This may be good on a chalkboard, but in practice it is just too complicated and difficult, in addition to us not even being close to having the personnel to make it work. I think this is why you hear comments about our guys "missing defensive rotations" and other such comments. This is ill advised defensive strategy, and it teaches unnatural movements that complicate the game too much.

    Basketball is supposed to be simple, and JOB has complicated it way beyond the norm I believe, and did it in an unsound way. Since I believe Jim O'Brien to be a really really good basketball mind, I look forward to seeing his adjustments after another offseason of reflection about this subject. I think his solution was innovative and creative, but it hasn't worked, and I don't think it ever will.

    IV. "DIGGING" FROM THE WING TO THE POST

    This hasn't been a major problem in my view, but if the Pacers ever decide to play post defense differently (another future topic) we will have to discuss it. "Digging" means coming down to help on the low block, attempting to bother a posted up player with the basketball, while still maintaining an eye on the man you are responsible for. The Pacers don't due this much, and I think rightly so for the reason of personnel. Our slower wing guys have difficulty in recovery anyway, and it is easy to make a pass from the post right back to the man who fed it to you.

    Again, my own coaching mentors favored this strategy, and at times I have taught it too.

    If the Pacers decide to someday not fight/front the post as much (thereby eliminating the need for so much weakside help behind a posted up player) then we will have to discuss this again. I think our emphasis on fronting the low post has been somewhat effective in defending this area, but has left us weakened on the opposite side of the floor. We are realy bad at defending the skip pass, as again our weakside guys are often "flooding" the ball side area.

    If we change our post defense, we will either need to "dig" from the wing or need to rotate a full double team man from the top and rotate around, like the typical NBA team does.

    We have only one truly typical NBA post defender on our roster now who is both tall enough and strong enough to play behind a guy on the block (Hibbert), so I hope we can add a guy or two to that for next year via the draft. More on post defense in a later thread.


    As you can see, there is a lot that goes into the thought process of how to play defense from the wing position.

    I wouldn't be surprised if a creative idea is tried by Coach O'Brien fairly soon, which is to have his team play some 1-2-2 zone. Long term it isn't part of his core philosophy, but I bet he tries that before making the kind of fundamental changes in philosophy that he seems very reluctant to make at this time.

    The next thread will cover the Pacers low post defensive philosophy, which was mentioned a little in this one.

    I look forward to much good, hard core defensive discussion about our wing defense.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

    Good stuff...and, as I've posted elsewhere, I do disagree with the complexity of the system. I don't like coaches who overcoach in games, and Obie generally doesn't do this, but I do think he's overengineering the defense.

    I've seen it too often in my professional life. People try to design programs or systems that are designed to eraticate errors, and thereby become surrogates for good management, good decisions, and good execution. They believe the system will prevent the errors, but the system is far more susceptible to errors because it is more reliant on people, who, notably, make errors.

    I like your series, but I have a strong suspicion that, while the separate points will be interesting, that the real conversation will start when we start to talk about it as a whole. To me, it seems that an apt simile for the defense is a blanket that is too small. Every time you move it to cover your shoulders, your feet get cold. In this case, I suspect every strategem that is used is influenced and informed by another piece of either the defensive strategy or the personnel.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

      Originally posted by count55 View Post
      To me, it seems that an apt simile for the defense is a blanket that is too small. Every time you move it to cover your shoulders, your feet get cold. In this case, I suspect every strategem that is used is influenced and informed by another piece of either the defensive strategy or the personnel.
      I tend to think a big part of why that blanket is too small is on the coach. He's refusing to turn it sideways (lay under it corner to corner) or stretch it to cover as much body as possible.

      -Bball "I love analogies"
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        I tend to think a big part of why that blanket is too small is on the coach. He's refusing to turn it sideways (lay under it corner to corner) or stretch it to cover as much body as possible.

        -Bball "I love analogies"
        I think that the blanket is too small, regardless, but I will agree that there are things that O'Brien could do to get better coverage.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

          I don't think the system is that complex - it is the same from game to game, no matter who the opponent is, so it isn't like the players have to try and re-learn or adjust from game to game. From an X&O or academic standpoint it isn't complicated.
          Perhaps in the execution it is difficult to master. (In many ways it is similar to the triangle / triple post offense - read and react type of offense the Lakers and under Phil Jackson the Bulls ran for years - not difficult to play, but tough to master)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I don't think the system is that complex - it is the same from game to game, no matter who the opponent is, so it isn't like the players have to try and re-learn or adjust from game to game. From an X&O or academic standpoint it isn't complicated.
            Perhaps in the execution it is difficult to master. (In many ways it is similar to the triangle / triple post offense - read and react type of offense the Lakers and under Phil Jackson the Bulls ran for years - not difficult to play, but tough to master)
            I think it has too many moving parts. It's one thing to know what you're supposed to do, but if there are too many things that can get set askew, then it can fall apart easily.

            (BTW...I think that's why Diener can't get a consistent shot. He's got too much motion in his shot...he jumps too much, he goes too fast, etc...it's why he's streaky...)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

              Great post, tbird.

              This has me pretty much convinced that I am a non-believer in this defense. Not for what it wants to do, but for HOW it goes about trying to get what it wants.

              I don't want my big men leaving the post area to chase after perimeter wings like that, and I don't want a system that has players doing things that would typically be considered "unnatural".

              If it were up to me, after deciding what my players can and can't do best, I would simply drill the X major, classic, proven ways of playing defense at the level I'm coaching, and adjust based on the scouting reports of who we're playing. I'd rather they be B students at all the (few?) major proven methods/scenarios than keep trying to make them A+ at one system while they end up with C- efforts at best when asked to do anything else.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Great post, tbird.

                This has me pretty much convinced that I am a non-believer in this defense. Not for what it wants to do, but for HOW it goes about trying to get what it wants.

                I don't want my big men leaving the post area to chase after perimeter wings like that, and I don't want a system that has players doing things that would typically be considered "unnatural".

                If it were up to me, after deciding what my players can and can't do best, I would simply drill the X major, classic, proven ways of playing defense at the level I'm coaching, and adjust based on the scouting reports of who we're playing. I'd rather they be B students at all the (few?) major proven methods/scenarios than keep trying to make them A+ at one system while they end up with C- efforts at best when asked to do anything else.
                But if you go back and watch the Pacers play defense from 1998-2000 when Dick Harter did run the defense and when we did play a classic man-to-man stye - the big guys were all over the place, trapping every pick and roll and then recovering to help the helper. Which was the same thing that the Knicks and Heat ran at the time also.

                Overall I think forcing the driver to the baseline is a good thing (perhaps if you had Duncan and david Robinson down low to block shots I could see funneling things to them) but the worst thing for a defense is when the ball is in the lane - the whole court is open - the whole defense has to collapse - where as if the ball is forced baseline - that does a number of things - it cuts down the passing angles - the baseline out of bounds line acts as a second or third defender - two defenders can do the work where as in the lane 3 defenders are often needed to stop the ball.

                Overall, I do like this defensive system - I just don't like the execution - but I think the principles are sound and if I were to be a defensive coach in the NBA - I probably would run this defense or probably a good 75% of it.
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-23-2009, 05:08 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  But if you go back and watch the Pacers play defense from 1998-2000 when Dick Harter did run the defense and when we did play a classic man-to-man stye - the big guys were all over the place, trapping every pick and roll and then recovering to help the helper. Which was the same thing that the Knicks and Heat ran at the time also
                  Games were slower overall then and we as well as the Knicks (I am not certain of the Heat) were considered relatively slow, half court oriented teams. Due to the slower overall pace of the games, classic man-to-man style defenses on teams that had an inside presence were likely more effective, especially when those teams successfully controlled the tempo of the games. I feel that due to more play in the half court back then, our bigs could afford to be all over the place because there was more time for help to rotate in behind them. Now, we don't have nearly that luxury due to our defense being more extended on the floor due to our pace of play, especially if our opponents choose to run with us as most do.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

                    But at least when it's a pick and roll one of THEIR big men is out there with your big man. With the O'Brien system, you have them LEAVING a big man in the post for a SMALL to cover while they go chasing after a small of the other team.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I don't think the system is that complex - it is the same from game to game, no matter who the opponent is, so it isn't like the players have to try and re-learn or adjust from game to game. From an X&O or academic standpoint it isn't complicated.
                      Perhaps in the execution it is difficult to master. (In many ways it is similar to the triangle / triple post offense - read and react type of offense the Lakers and under Phil Jackson the Bulls ran for years - not difficult to play, but tough to master)
                      I don't know if the word to describe it is "too complex" or not....but a Defensive system shouldn't be so "black or white"...where it either works cuz everyone is in sync ( which is near impossible given the makeup....IQ, athleticsm, speed ....of our team ) or it's not as effective cuz one player out of the five makes a mistake and therefore leaves a weakness exposed and exploitable ( which happens more often then not ).

                      Originally posted by count55 View Post
                      I think it has too many moving parts. It's one thing to know what you're supposed to do, but if there are too many things that can get set askew, then it can fall apart easily.
                      Unless we have an entire roster of players that fully comprehend and are completely capable of implementing the Defensive system ( which we don't ), any defensive system that REQUIRES that EVERYONE on the court is on the same page in order to be properly implement it ( otherwise it completely falls apart or can easily be exploited ) is IMHO the wrong type of system to run. As you have said....the more parts that are needed to run the system properly, the greater chance that it will simply break down on a regular basis.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 01-23-2009, 07:10 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

                        Another very good post, tbird. I think this series of posts on defense are some of your best.

                        Ironically, I think your post came a day early because it looks like we did a little digging tonight when Yao was in the game. For a while, the strategy looked like front the weakside, straight up on the strongside with the occasional switch. I was both 1) surprised to see it and 2) see how successful we were at trying a strategy we haven't really used this year. Here are a few videos that are somewhat related:

                        Here is Yao being guarded straight up by Troy on the strong side. Danny drops down as soon as Yao makes his dribble. Danny's opponent rotates, for a wide open shot, but it's too late as Yao has committed.


                        Here is a slight switch, but same idea. Murphy starts off behind but then fronts. As ball comes in, both Dunleavy and Jack come in to bother Yao. Dunleavy keeps an eye on his man (though is not quite athletic enough to recover). Also, either Foster or Granger make a mistake in help defense. Overall, this is poor execution, but this is more about showing the type of help that we haven't seen much of. I think this was a result of Yao's height, btw.


                        Here's a failed attempt. I believe it's O'Brien that says "come on, Steve" in reference to Graham's inability to follow through. This is part of the "off the ball" stuff that Graham is failing to pick up, for the most part.

                        Originally posted by Hicks
                        If it were up to me, after deciding what my players can and can't do best, I would simply drill the X major, classic, proven ways of playing defense at the level I'm coaching, and adjust based on the scouting reports of who we're playing.
                        Me too. I feel like we're consistently out-scouted, and I think some very basic scouting would correct some of the crazy flaws we've been showing in games. I think we're too "married" to a particular philosophy, and we should be forcing players to make plays they aren't as comfortable making.

                        III Defending the Split is a great example of this, and it's the key reason we lost both Hornets games, imo. I scream at the tv sometimes.
                        Last edited by imawhat; 01-24-2009, 05:36 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Comprehensive defense examination thread, part II: Wing defense

                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                          Another very good post, tbird. I think this series of posts on defense are some of your best.

                          Ironically, I think your post came a day early because it looks like we did a little digging tonight when Yao was in the game. For a while, the strategy looked like front the weakside, straight up on the strongside with the occasional switch. I was both 1) surprised to see it and 2) see how successful we were at trying a strategy we haven't really used this year. Here are a few videos that are somewhat related:

                          Here is Yao being guarded straight up by Troy on the strong side. Danny drops down as soon as Yao makes his dribble. Danny's opponent rotates, for a wide open shot, but it's too late as Yao has committed.


                          Here is a slight switch, but same idea. Murphy starts off behind but then fronts. As ball comes in, both Dunleavy and Jack come in to bother Yao. Dunleavy keeps an eye on his man (though is not quite athletic enough to recover). Also, either Foster or Granger make a mistake in help defense. Overall, this is poor execution, but this is more about showing the type of help that we haven't seen much of. I think this was a result of Yao's height, btw.


                          Here's a failed attempt. I believe it's O'Brien that says "come on, Steve" in reference to Graham's inability to follow through. This is part of the "off the ball" stuff that Graham is failing to pick up, for the most part.



                          Me too. I feel like we're consistently out-scouted, and I think some very basic scouting would correct some of the crazy flaws we've been showing in games. I think we're too "married" to a particular philosophy, and we should be forcing players to make plays they aren't as comfortable making.

                          III Defending the Split is a great example of this, and it's the key reason we lost both Hornets games, imo. I scream at the tv sometimes.

                          My expertise is in teaching & learning, and for me this is a BEAUTIFUL post; well done! If you two (and others) want to start a technology-driven company illustrating material in this way (for basketball and other matters), count me in!


                          "I think if he is and we pass on Leaf we'd be some dumb mother ****ers."

                          - Larry Bird to Kevin Pritchard before their pick on Draft Day

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X