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

Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

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

  • Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

    Hello all. Once again I want to post a few thoughts on some observations from some little, mostly unnoticed Pacer strategies from games 2 & 3, both of which I missed parts of due to work. However, I saw enough things that I havent seen discussed yet on here that I wanted to bring them up, and to ask a question or 2 of my own for those who have an eye for things like this.

    I mentioned in my analysis of game 1 that a big question I had going into game 2 was: How would we would handle success in the opener? I was disappointed but not overly surprised that we fell in this instance by coming out a little flat and lethargic. To be good, a team not only has to develop the toughness to handle adversity, but the concentration and maturity to handle success. We failed that handling success part of it, but bounced right back in game 3 with a road win. Now, our team is back home for a few days before playing again on Tuesday night....will we learn anything?

    In the game against New Orleans, I actually thought we got decent shots for the most part, but failed to recognize why that was. Against the sagging New Orleans defense, we took open perimeter shots, but what we didnt realize is the reason we were open is that New orleans thought we couldnt make a high percentage, and they were right. Those long range misses led to easier baskets on the other end, and failed to pressure the interior defense of the Hornets, particularly the poor defending Peja. Our guys have got to learn the difference between taking a GOOD shot, and taking a GOOD ENOUGH shot. I thought with a little more patience we'd have been much more effective against the Hornets.

    The thing I took from this game the most however from a strategic standpoint was our defending of the Hornets pick and roll. For big parts of this game, the Pacers tried to trap the ballhandler, and I absolutely LOVE that idea....its exactly what Id do against the Hornets and most every other team in the league. Unfortunately, we werent very good at it. Our trappers didnt attack the ballhandler hard enough and let him dribble out of it at times, and our rotations away from the ball were slower and more unsure than id expect. It looked like the pacers had decided to trap that screen/roll sometime before on gameday, and hadnt properly practiced it or prepared the team enough. I hope however that we go back to it, because that in my view is the single best way, most consistent way, to play that defensively....it wasnt the idea, it was the execution of it that was bad.

    In game 3 against the Knicks, I was very happy RC decided to stick with the same lineup, after calling out Harrington and Granger a little bit after the loss. I think its fine to use the media to your advantage to send a message, but then you have to play those guys to see if it got through or not. Clearly, I thought not just those 2 but the rest of the squad was more focused and energetic, although I'm not sure our level of play was all that different, just our intensity. Interestingly, I think it was a different kind of mental game on RC's part to be critical of in my guess are 2 of the most well liked guys in the locker room (just my guess about that.) That reminded me of my coaching days when I really would get on a popular, tough minded kid very hard at times, not just to be mean to him but to get thru to the rest of the players, who maybe couldnt mentally take the criticism as well as that other tougher player. For instance, RC mildly being critical of Jackson, Oneal, Sarunas, or Harrison in the press might have an entirely different reaction by the team and the individual players than doing the same thing to Harrington and Granger. As a matter of fact, I wouldnt be surprised if that entire episode was staged just a bit.....meaning RC might have forewarned Harrington and / or Danny he was going to do that. I'm not positive about any of that, but it makes sense to me, and if its true I think its a very clever ploy by Carlisle to do things like that.

    The strategic moves in this game were the playing of the zone defense and the offensive scheme in the second half. (I missed the first half and only listened on the radio while driving home). I'll get to the zone in a minute, but for now lets talk about the Pacers half court offense a little, and the "Isiah" factor for the Knicks.

    I'd already charted out and drawn the Pacers favorite set play from games 1 & 2....the "screen the screener flex action" along the baseline out of a pairs set, with a flare screen outside for our point guard. We ran that a ton of times in both the first 2 games, and I can only assume we ran it alot in the first half of game 3. However, to begin the 3rd quarter the Pacers ran a wing screen/roll for Tinsley and Harrington out of a very creative yet basic box set. This was easy for me to draw, because the Pacers ran this 5 straight times to begin the half, and numerous times the rest of the game, eventually expanding it to the other side of the floor and using different players. If I had a telestrator it would be easier to describe, but let me say it was effective in its design. How it worked for Harrington was that he recieved a diagonal downscreen himself, causing the Knicks defense to have to react to that action. Then, Harrington would continue his flash to the basketball and set a middle ballscreen for Tinsley (once again using the principle of screen the screener that RC loves so much). Anyway, the key to this screen being so effective is harrington really sprinting hard to the screen, leaving the man trying to guard him trailing it, and in no position to hedge very hard on Tinsley coming to the middle of the floor. Tinsley was great at going to the middle, and then hitting Harrington on the "fade" after ballscreening, ending up somewhere on the right wing area. Tinsley repeatedly passed the ball back to the wide open Harrington for a variety of open shots, including one 3 pointer in a very quick span.

    The Pacers eventually began running this to the other side of the floor as well, with a variety of ballhandlers and JO as the screener. Again, the bewildered Knick defense had no answer, as we scored almost every time we ran this particular set play. To his credit, RC kept "picking the scab", running it over and over and over until the Knicks finally adjusted.

    Finally, after seeing this for about 18 minutes or so, Isiah finally had his guards push the ballhandler toward the baseline and away from the screen when we ran this. This happened somewhere in the mid 4th quarter, and at this point we had ran it lots in this quarter too, with Sarunas as the ballhandler in this case. This adjustment actually worked a couple of times, as Runi was forced to break the play off and try and create something unplanned. Unfortunately for New York, the stupidly fouled Sarunas a couple different times, and when we were forced to take a bad shot out of this play ( a rare occasion), it was those possessions where Granger got offensive rebounds for us.

    So, after 3 games, the Pacers have shown in my mind 2 signature plays so far. These are plays apparently the Pacers can "hang their hat on" it would appear. You may remember me starting a thread a few months ago wondering what set play would become our bread and butter play, apparently these are 2 of them so far.

    For those of you who saw us in the zone more than I did, please if possible in this thread tell me how we looked in it, how we were aligned, who was playing, and how did the zone shift? I suggested in a zone thread earlier in the summer a 3-2 point zone used alot back in the day by Dr Tom Davis at Iowa....I assume we didnt actually use my exact idea, but I am curious what we exactly did from a technical standpoint, and how we looked doing it.

    As we go into the second week, its important that we keep being positive about this team, and start developing some patience....we are a work in progress but I basically like what I see so far. Clearly, we have a long way to go, but the enthusiasm, teamwork, and the coaching adjustments of the Pacers have me intrigued about this team's potential, while being realistic with my expectations. We need to grow up a little as a team and win this first home game back, which I think we will. I can tell you that my gambler friend who I mentioned in my last thread called to make sure I was aware of his "first game back home after a road trip theory" with the pacers, and how they lost a lot of games in that circumstance last season. Its time we show we can play well twice in a row, and put some wins against these bad teams in the bank while we can.

    As always, all this is JMO.

  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

    I'm no where near the coaching mind you are yet, but I would say we looked effective in the zone. It was obvious that we didn't have it down pat just yet, but there were flashes where it was obvious it was working. The Knicks really stuggled to adjust to it more than anything else as it seemed it was a wrinkle they were not expecting from us.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

      Thanks T-Bird I learn a lot from your well written posts.
      No matter how much success Larry Bird attains in Indiana he'll never top that first command to fire Thomas. -Peter Vecsey. NY Post 12/4/07

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

        Did you ever think of applying for a job with the Pacers?
        Here, everyone have a : on me

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

          Rick kept yelling out "thumb, thumb thumb!!!" in the third quarter. I wonder if this is the play that you mention or does it have another meaning.
          Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
          http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

            Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
            Rick kept yelling out "thumb, thumb thumb!!!" in the third quarter. I wonder if this is the play that you mention or does it have another meaning.
            I don't know. I havent been able to pick up the actual names of the plays so far. if anyone else on here has, please report in.

            That actually leads me to another observation about coaches that always confused me....which is why do some coaches keep the same names to their plays for years and years? Wouldnt it be smarter to change what you call them? Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

              Always a pleasure to read, T-Bird
              "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

              - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                I don't know. I havent been able to pick up the actual names of the plays so far. if anyone else on here has, please report in.

                That actually leads me to another observation about coaches that always confused me....which is why do some coaches keep the same names to their plays for years and years? Wouldnt it be smarter to change what you call them? Things that make you go hmmmmmm.....
                Yeah, I'm trying to listen and match them up as well but so far haven't (other than what I think "High 4" is, which could be wrong).

                I did notice a play vs NY that I hadn't seen before. I haven't been able to watch the whole game on Tivo yet, so this was just in the first quarter, but it caught my attention as maybe a screen the screener but turns out to be more complex (IMO).

                They scored their 3rd basket with it via Granger, then came right back to it.

                9:00 mark, out of bounds, Granger throws it in to Al who is high left lane (outside the arc). JO is just above the right elbow, Tinsley runs through the lane to sit high right wing (on the arc). So basically 3 wide high. JO eventually drifts closer to the arc to pull his man (Curry) away from the lane action.

                Jack flashes to the lane from the right baseline wing and shows his hands for mid-lane post position. This is play option #1. No go so they go to the next option.

                Al passes to JO and then Al goes to the left mid-block to set a screen (for Jack eventually). Meanwhile Jack clears the lane by moving to the left low block area to screen for Granger coming from the left wing. In this case the play ended here since Granger had backdoored his man even without the Jack screen. JO passes in for the open layup. Option #2.

                However when they ran it again this wasn't there. Even on this play Jack was running his part which is to curl all the way around Al's screen. This leaves him open and coming to the lane for JO to hit him with a pass for a layup attempt. Option #3.

                This is what they do the next time, though Granger actually goes into traffic instead of the baseline which helps disrupt both his man and Jack's (QRich). The Knicks are forced to attack Jack who now has his man beat and is a few feet in front of the rim.

                Al's man leaves him to stop Jack, Granger's man shows a flash to help as well, so Jack simply leaves it to Harrington who is now free and behind the defenders (meaning closer to the basket) and Al puts in the easy layup. Option #4.

                Granger would also be as free as Al if his man helped too much on either Jack or Al which would make him a similar option on the other side of the lane. Option #5.

                And JO is a serious threat to step in on his man and drop the elbow/FT line jumper if he sags to the lane to help out on the Jack curl. Option #6.

                Also note that the play was completely done by the 12 second mark after a Knicks basket (full length out of bounds). Again, I haven't noticed this particular play before. Could be that they've run it for years, but I sure never noticed it till the NYK game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                  While it's fun to figure out what the play calls are, I'm a little paranoid about giving a public lesson to the opposing teams.
                  “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                  “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    While it's fun to figure out what the play calls are, I'm a little paranoid about giving a public lesson to the opposing teams.
                    lol I thought about that too.

                    I think guys need to put a password on such highly argumentative coaching - style posts. We don't need any other teams spies to find out the schemes here
                    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                    - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                      Originally posted by Pitons View Post
                      lol I thought about that too.

                      I think guys need to put a password on such highly argumentative coaching - style posts. We don't need any other teams spies to find out the schemes here


                      Every team has a coaching staff, a hard-working multimedia staff, and scouts that dissect every part of every game. I don't think anything discussed here will be top secret to other teams.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                        Every team has a coaching staff, a hard-working multimedia staff, and scouts that dissect every part of every game. I don't think anything discussed here will be top secret to other teams.
                        I know man that's why there's lol and in my post
                        "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                        - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                          I have to say, I think our zone was downright bad at times, the Knicks just weren't able to take advantage of it. When I coach my kids at a zone, I really pound in the idea of the rotation aspect of the zone. There were a couple plays were our low block/wing defenders were extremely slow to rotate, and their position wasn't filled. 4 or 5 plays in a row Eddie Curry was wide open in a spot that wasn't filled, but he didn't get the ball. Not to mention the fact that the Knicks were unable to beat the zone by knocking down perimiter shots.

                          But for how bad we looked at some times, Darrel and Sarunas were very good in the zone. You can tell how much better Sarunas' team defense is already. When you play zone that type of thing is really easy to see, and Sarunas looked good. Jermaine is also very good as the middle man stopper in the zone, in fact he may be one of if not the best in the league at that. I haven't watched every team play zone, but Jermaine did the best job out of any Center I've seen in the zone, including Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                            Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
                            I have to say, I think our zone was downright bad at times, the Knicks just weren't able to take advantage of it.

                            I think that's why the zone works, at least as a ploy to disrupt the flow. Teams aren't able to execute that well against a zone because it's relatively new in the NBA, even if a team's zone has several flaws.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis/observations in games 2 & 3...."games within the games"

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              I think that's why the zone works, at least as a ploy to disrupt the flow. Teams aren't able to execute that well against a zone because it's relatively new in the NBA, even if a team's zone has several flaws.
                              I can buy that to an extent, but better offensive teams will exploit the weakness of our zone. With that said, we probably knew there was problems with it, but also knew that the Knicks wouldn't be able to beat it, so we used it anyways. I don't expect us to use a zone against better offensive teams. At least I hope we don't.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X