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 examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

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

  • Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

    This will be the first of 7 articles I am going to post concerning the Pacers current defensive system under Jim O'Brien. This series will encompass the keys to an overall defensive structure as I see them in a generic sense, then compare and contrast what we consider to be what the Pacers current staff has implemented here with our current roster.

    First, a couple of comments.

    Obviously, a team and its overall individual strengths and weaknesses have some effect on how well something you implement works. While I am completely aware of that and will no doubt mention our particular players within the scope of what I write, this will be more defensive theory than exact strategy.

    My plan at this time (while it may change as I type these) is to give my thoughts on how a team in my opinion SHOULD build a team defense, and then I'll contrast that to what seems to be actually happening. The theory of these I hope will be to discuss the various choices coaches have to make when implementing a plan, and discuss whether the choices our Pacers have made need to be tweaked from a strategic point of view.

    The long term view of this thread I hope will be to identify what our Pacers can do to become a better defensive team not from a personnel standpoint necessarily (although that is an obvious need) but from a "system" standpoint.

    Hopefully, we can engineer some good discussion points, ask each other some good questions, and hopefully all learn from each other, even if disagreement may eventually still exist.

    For my purposes, I'm breaking down this "manifesto of defense" into the following parts:

    I. Where defense begins: Pressure at the point of attack
    II. The intricate details of wing defense
    III. Help side defense: a thorough examination
    IV. Fighting over screens away from the ball
    V. Defending the low post
    VI. Defending the screen/roll
    VII. "Spillover": How offensive strategy ties into defensive game planning

    Depending on how this goes, I may add an part VIII: Defensive conclusions: A summary of what we have learned and what we think.

    With all of that established, let me now begin.






    Part I: Where defense begins: Pressure at the point of attack

    In my judgment, the success of an overall man to man defensive strategy begins here, at the point of attack. It should be the responsibility of the point guard defender to pressure the ballhandler of the opponent. This ideally should occur right at the half court line, or if possible, a couple of steps before that.

    We've discussed this before, but let's review some of the reasons why POINT GUARD PRESSURE is so critical in my judgment:

    1. It takes future time off the shot clock for our opponents to use against us. This may keep them from making one extra pass per possession.

    2, It limits the playbook options of the opposing coaching staff. They may have to limit their set play choices if their first pass to initiate their offense is forced to be a few seconds later than they plan.

    3. Pressure on the ball can sometimes "steer" a ballhandler to a particular side or area of the court you may want them to go. In other words, point guard pressure can make the opponent be in a "reactive" state, instead of you being reactive.

    4. Point of attack pressure can eliminate the chance for communication between the opposing coach and his point guard.

    5. Point of attack pressure changes the geometry of the game, perhaps making the offensive wing players cut further up onto the floor to help alleviate the pressure and start their set plays slightly off from where they have practiced.

    6. Point guard pressure can have a cumulative effect from a fatigue standpoint, hopefully causing mistakes and tired legs for later in the game.

    7. Point af attack pressure can create occasional extra turnovers, leading to fast break transition opportunities.

    8. Point of attack pressure sets a "tone" of a defensive mentality to your entire team, hopefully that effects the intensity of the rest of the players on the floor, and perhaps even the home arena.

    9. Point of attack pressure causes your opponent to have to use valuable preparation time before the game planning to counter it, keeping them from using their time to learn to attack other weaknesses you may have.

    There are probably a dozen other reason why point guard pressure at the point of attack is a highly effective and important defensive weapon.

    Now, there are downsides to applying major man to man pressure that far from the court. The obvious one is that your point guard may get beat off the dribble immediately before a pass is even made, and your entire defense can be compromised if that happens for that possession. Others are that it is physically demanding, and likely will require your own team to need to substitute more at that position, requiring you to play your subs more minutes over the course of a season at this particular position. There is also a greater likelihood of your point guards picking up fouls 50 feet or more away from the basket.

    As a coach, you have to weigh all the pros and cons of this as it relates to your own personnel. If you have a slower point guard, or one older, maybe you wouldn't pressure as much. If you have a quality starter but an extremely poor backup, maybe the risk of having to play this inferior player too many minutes isn't worth the advantage of having your starter pressure the ballhandler that hard. Or maybe you need your point guard to score a bunch of points for you, and this much intense defense limits his own offensive effectiveness.

    One of the reasons I thought Indiana would be much better defensively than it has turned out to be was what appeared to me ot be a huge upgrade defensively (at least from a physical standpoint) with the additions of T.J. Ford and Jarrett Jack. I believed in the summer and pre-season (and actually, I still do) that this was an almost ideal tandem of players to play the point guard position from a defensive pressure at the point of attack standpoint. Knowing we were going to play these guys nearly equal minutes, knowing we now had the quickness necessary to apply pressure, and knowing we had other defensive personnel issues that point of attack pressure could help hide, I thought we might be seeing the best point guard defensive pressure we've seen in Indianapolis since Haywood Workman. I expected consistent and relentless attacking, hounding defense on our opponents as they brought the ball into the frontcourt.

    The decision to not emphasize point of attack pressure and instead retreat to the three point line area is probably one of my biggest disappointments with this team and this coaching staff. I hated watching it, but I understood why the Pacers had to play this way with Tinsley playing this position....he neither had the desire or the physical quickness to pressure the ball without getting completely toasted often. Playing further back to keep his man in front of his was what he had to do. But this roster was ideally suited to not need to do that, but our staff has chosen to do that anyway.

    It is these kind of discrepancies.....a difference in how our roster is put together and its strengths vs how our staff sees the game, that led me to write early in the fall that I didn't feel that Larry Bird and Jim O'Brien were on the same page as much as was commonly thought.

    Some coaches really don't emphasize involving their point guards in help situations, as they want them to concentrate on pressure. However, obviously Coach O'Brien and his staff feel they want their point guard in more of a help position, even after just one pass early in the shot clock. This isn't a new thought....many coaches in many staffs at all levels believe that this is the way to play. In some coaching circles it is known as the "pack line" defensive philosophy....emphasizing help over pressure.

    My big disagreement is that I think you could have meshed both philosophies a bit better. I think an athletic poijnt guard pressuring the ball is more important than being in an early help position near the top of the key. Even if you believed that having a guy near the top of the key early in a possession was more important than I do, you still with hard work can have your point guard pressure and then "dive" quickly back to a help area.....although, like I said I think that is somewhat silly personally.

    The next time the Pacers play, watch how far up the floor our point guards are asked to pick up and engage the opponent's lead guard. Try and decide of you think that is the proper "pick up point" or not, based on what we are trying to do, or should be doing.

    I want to be clear: our point guard defense and where we pick guys up is a coaching decision....it is not just a player being too lazy to get out there. Our coaches have clearly decided to back off inside the three point line, for whatever reason.

    Now, to give the staff the benefit of the doubt, maybe they saw in practice or on film that our point guards are slower and weaker than I believe them to be. Clearly, Jarrett Jack particularly is getting beat off the dribble from the top some of the time anyway, although I would tell you that is more from recovering poorly from help position instead of just completely getting beat athletically.....Jarrett has poor balance I think particularly when coming up from a help position to a recovery position in a closeout situation.

    But my major nag on this exact subject is that I do not believe this is a great analysis of our personnel. Instead, this is a philosophy believed in by Coach O'Brien that he would implement no matter who he had, as O'Brien is a zealot to his own scheme. (I wrote when he was hired that he suffered from true believerism). In other words, I don't think his defensive scheme would change in this regard even if he had a great pressure point guard like Rajon Rondo or someone else playing the position.

    So, the questions are as follows:

    1. Are we using our personnel in the correct way defensively at the point of attack?

    2. Are we using them the way we are using them because it is an honest (but flawed in my judgment) decision based on what our staff sees as a weakness, or is it because they are married to a philosophy that doesnt fit our personnel?

    3. What does Larry Bird truly believe as he watches us play every day in practice and every game?

    4. Would picking up the pressure further up the floor, and with more intensity, help our Pacers as much as this writer believes it would?

    Clearly, I have a pretty big problem with Coach O'Brien on this one issue....the lack of his emphasis on point of attack pressure. In the next post, which will be about wing defense, the debate is quite a bit murkier and harder to decide upon. I believe that will be a pretty interesting discussion.

    But for now, the topic de jour of the day is pressure at the point of attack....and why we don't have any. Feel free to discuss, agree with me, or tell me why I'm wrong.



    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

    As always, an enjoyable read.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

      Very good post, tbird. For purposes of debate, I wish I disagreed with you on something, but I don't.



      Originally posted by thunderbird1245
      1. Are we using our personnel in the correct way defensively at the point of attack?
      No, not at all.

      Originally posted by thunderbird1245
      2. Are we using them the way we are using them because it is an honest (but flawed in my judgment) decision based on what our staff sees as a weakness, or is it because they are married to a philosophy that doesnt fit our personnel?
      I'm not sure. If Boston/Philly didn't pressure during Obie's tenure, then I'd be more likely to say it was philosophy, but I don't remember.

      I highly doubt our staff sees this as a weakness, considering we have the fastest player in the league and Jack applied good pressure while in Portland. Then again, from this staff, it wouldn't surprise me.

      Originally posted by thunderbird1245
      3. What does Larry Bird truly believe as he watches us play every day in practice and every game?
      Given his mixed comments on the players (i.e. Dunleavy), I'm unsure of where Bird stands defensively. Being the coach of a team with far less defensive talent, I'm sure he thinks this team should be doing better.

      Originally posted by thunderbird1245
      4. Would picking up the pressure further up the floor, and with more intensity, help our Pacers as much as this writer believes it would?
      I'm convinced it could. We have the fastest player in the league and I think we need to take advantage of that as much as possible. And when Daniels returns (and with Dun back), Jack can spend more time @ PG, meaning the sub patterns should allow for more opportunities to use extra energy.

      At this point, I think our coaching staff should spend more time on the basics. It doesn't get more basic than ball pressure.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

        Contained in this article from the United States Chess Federation is the Jim O'Brien philosophy of always trying to control the middle, both in chess, and on both ends of the basketball floor:

        The United States Chess Federation

        By David Friedman
        September 8, 2007

        http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7853/141/

        O’Brien describes some strategic similarities between chess and basketball: “In both basketball and chess the middle must be controlled. In our sport, it’s the three second paint—defensively we want to control that by keeping the ball out of the middle and offensively we want to control it by making sure that we get the ball into the middle. I have never won a chess game—or have not won very many times--when I didn’t control the middle of the board.”
        There is a lot of additonal content in this article, but this may be one of the most relevant sections of it.

        Could our defensive difficulties be somewhat traced to this philosophy and its possible requirement offensively of deeper penetration of multiple perimeter players on a consistent basis, thereby leading them to be delayed getting back defensively, especially on misses and turnovers?

        Also, to successfully defend this way, would it be a requirement for successful implementation of this philosophy to have the presence of a lane filling shot blocker on the court the majority of the time to provide an "insurance policy" in case the perimeter defenders get beat for whatever reason?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
          Contained in this article from the United States Chess Federation is the Jim O'Brien philosophy of always trying to control the middle, both in chess, and on both ends of the basketball floor:

          The United States Chess Federation

          By David Friedman
          September 8, 2007

          http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7853/141/



          There is a lot of additonal content in this article, but this may be one of the most relevant sections of it.

          Could our defensive difficulties be somewhat traced to this philosophy and its possible requirement offensively of deeper penetration of multiple perimeter players on a consistent basis, thereby leading them to be delayed getting back defensively, especially on misses and turnovers?

          Also, to successfully defend this way, would it be a requirement for successful implementation of this philosophy to have the presence of a lane filling shot blocker on the court the majority of the time to provide an "insurance policy" in case the perimeter defenders get beat for whatever reason?
          Ding, ding, ding! An athletic shot blocker is our #1 need on defense.

          BTW, in addition to an insurance policy, an athletic shot blocker simply covers more of the floor resulting in other players not expending as much energy on defense and reducing the likelihood of fouls. It reduces the floor space in which the offense can operate. It's essential for a good defense and the Pacers lack that.

          I'm not sure how many teams have that facet, but I can name just a few shot-blockers in the EC: Boston/Garnett & Perkins, Philly/Dalembert, Cleveland/Wallace, Detroit/Sheed, Orlando/Howard, Atlanta/Horford, NJ/Lopez, etc. Notice that all the teams with the best records are represented here. Also, I don't think you need the best shot-blocker in the NBA for the intimidation factor to be present.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

            I think we could get Sean Williams from New Jersey, and shot blocking is his specialty. Not sure if LB looks at him as too big a risk to take a chance on.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

              Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
              I think we could get Sean Williams from New Jersey, and shot blocking is his specialty. Not sure if LB looks at him as too big a risk to take a chance on.
              I thought I read somewhere that Sean isn't like StroSwift.....athletic Forward that can block shots...but not a very smart Basketball Player ( a requirement in JO'Bs offense/defense ).
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Ding, ding, ding! An athletic shot blocker is our #1 need on defense.

                BTW, in addition to an insurance policy, an athletic shot blocker simply covers more of the floor resulting in other players not expending as much energy on defense and reducing the likelihood of fouls. It reduces the floor space in which the offense can operate. It's essential for a good defense and the Pacers lack that.

                I'm not sure how many teams have that facet, but I can name just a few shot-blockers in the EC: Boston/Garnett & Perkins, Philly/Dalembert, Cleveland/Wallace, Detroit/Sheed, Orlando/Howard, Atlanta/Horford, NJ/Lopez, etc. Notice that all the teams with the best records are represented here. Also, I don't think you need the best shot-blocker in the NBA for the intimidation factor to be present.
                I totally agree with this. I read an Article in ESPN Magazine that talked about the merits and importance of Shotblocking as it relates to overall defense for the team. Next to limiting the FG% of the opposing Team, blocking shots is the next most important defensive stat.

                The fact that Granger is our leading Shotblocker tells you something about our lack of a Shotblocking presense inside the paint.

                Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                I think we could get Sean Williams from New Jersey, and shot blocking is his specialty. Not sure if LB looks at him as too big a risk to take a chance on.
                I thought I read somewhere that Sean is much like StroSwift.....he's an athletic Forward that can rebound and block shots...but he's not a very smart Basketball Player ( a requirement in JO'Bs offense/defense ). That's one of the huge problems that I have with JO'Bs defense.....the sheer requirement that everyone must work in concert and completely understand how it works ( as in have a high Basketball IQ ) in order to even get minutes in the rotation limits who we can acquire.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  I totally agree with this. I read an Article in ESPN Magazine that talked about the merits and importance of Shotblocking as it relates to overall defense for the team. Next to limiting the FG% of the opposing Team, blocking shots is the next most important defensive stat.

                  The fact that Granger is our leading Shotblocker tells you something about our lack of a Shotblocking presense inside the paint.
                  Yes, Granger certainly should not be our leading shot-blocker. That's a really bad sign.

                  There is an order to this. To limit FG% consistently, you need a good defense. To have a good defense, you almost always need a shot-blocking presence in the middle. The only signed player remotely capable of helping the Pacers in this department is a rookie named Josh McRoberts, who admittedly, is green and it's not clear whether he will ripen.

                  Allowing open jumpers at the end of ball games is merely a symptom of the problem. While we may improve our defense as it stands, IMO it's impossible to build a contender without that presence.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                    Could our defensive difficulties be somewhat traced to this philosophy and its possible requirement offensively of deeper penetration of multiple perimeter players on a consistent basis, thereby leading them to be delayed getting back defensively, especially on misses and turnovers?

                    Also, to successfully defend this way, would it be a requirement for successful implementation of this philosophy to have the presence of a lane filling shot blocker on the court the majority of the time to provide an "insurance policy" in case the perimeter defenders get beat for whatever reason?
                    Wow. This could explain a lot. Because we have lost JO, and because we don't have a good shotblocker, we probably crowd the lane and rotate to help in the paint so much, which is why we allow opposing teams things such as open 3's.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                      I still think shotblocking per se' is over-rated. What is needed is a strong interior defender that can hold his ground and make people pay for violating his space. If he can block shots, all the better...
                      ...but IMHO shot blocking is secondary and many times gives a poor defender an undeserved reputation as a "good defender". JO could block shots, he could even take charges, but he wasn't a good defender in a one on one situation.
                      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, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                        I have a couple of points:

                        1. JO would repeatedly get beat in a physical match-up with a stronger post player because JO doesn't have strong legs. That is probably a lot of the reason he has had such issues with his knees/legs over the years. He is top heavy even for a skinnier guy. JO could usually make up for it with his ability to block a shot however.

                        2. JOB runs a help and recover type of defense. Boston and San Antonio run this type of system and are the two best defensive teams in the league. The difference is that they have solid big men that won't consistently get beat when playing man in the post. The issue with JOB I think is that he realizes there is such a weakness with our front court to hold their own, it disallows pressuring the point guard up the floor, because we absolutely need the extra man to be in the recovery process. It is kind of the chicken vs the egg thing. If we pressure the ball up the court, the other team would look to get the ball to the post as fast as possible to take advantage of our bigs. At the same time, if we don't pressure the ball this gives the other team more time to work the ball around while we "scramble" in the help and recovery. I think that JOB feels that his ONLY option defensively, is to have the extra man, especially the quickest player, to help in the recovery process.

                        If I look at the other four defensively, lets say we have Foster, Murphy, Dunleavy, and Granger out there and ball pressure with Ford. They pass to the wing from the point where Ford picks him up. The wing then feeds the post. If Foster is guarding the man, Murphy comes across the lane, Dunleavy cheats down to the post from the wing, well that isolates Granger to the strong side, leaving Ford to be the one that must get back to recover to the weak side wing. That creates too much of a gap too early in your rotation. The problem with all of this is that Dunleavy and Murphy are WAY too slow to both be on the floor together defensively, while Foster and Murphy are WAY too small to defend the paint together. There needs to be a reliance on a bit of man to man defense to slow the initial recovery process, very similar to what ball pressure would do. The problem is that our three biggest players will get burnt more often than they already do and it will create a larger gap in the recovery process if we pressure the ball with our PG.

                        3. I really, really like Troy Murphy.... as a person. I am of the coaching philosophy to prioritize a defensive PF. I HATE PF/C's that hang out around the three point line, unless its to take advantage of the team over-playing the drive on the pick and roll and you can burn them with the pick-n-pop to mix it up. He tried to guard CP3, but I don't know what JOB was thinking even having him in the game. You know they will pick CP3's man off and why would you allow that play to even start knowing that Troy Murphy will end up on Paul? This is not the sort of thing that is hindsight is 20-20. This is, I SEE SOMETHING REALLY WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE AND NEED TO CALL A TIMEOUT. I wouldn't have Murphy in the game if I need a defensive stop, PERIOD. I don't understand why we wouldn't have had a smaller, faster lineup in the game, because the person setting the pick, Melvin Ely, was not an offensive threat. I really question the judgment of the player selection knowing that they will set the play up for either Paul or Peja, and NO ONE else. It would be different if Dunleavy got burnt on the play being picked off because he was guarding Peja.

                        Sorry so long. I LOVE THIS THREAD IDEA TBIRD!!!!
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                          1. Are we using our personnel in the correct way defensively at the point of attack?
                          I don't think so. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on how much pressure we should put on or what the proper pick up point should be. My main concern with our point of attack defense is that I think it invites penetration by instructing our PG's to force their men to drive toward the sideline/baseline to protect the lane. With Ford and Jack we have PG's who should be physically able to stay in front of most PG's. I'd much rather see them instructed not to get beat rather than to force their man in one specific direction.

                          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                          2. Are we using them the way we are using them because it is an honest (but flawed in my judgment) decision based on what our staff sees as a weakness, or is it because they are married to a philosophy that doesnt fit our personnel?
                          It's philosophy, not adjustment to personnel.

                          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                          3. What does Larry Bird truly believe as he watches us play every day in practice and every game?
                          Personally I think that Bird is very happy with the effort he sees, but that he's probably not terribly excited about some rotational and strategic issues. I'd bet that he's hoping for a healthy roster for the second half of the season so that he can truly evaluate O'Brien's coaching with the full roster he's put together. I'd also bet that he doesn't view O'Brien as a long-term fixture in Indy. O'Brien's got to show some improvement over the 2nd half of the season if he wants to be here next season, and probably be over .500 with a pretty strong playoff showing in '09-'10 if he wants to continue after that.

                          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                          4. Would picking up the pressure further up the floor, and with more intensity, help our Pacers as much as this writer believes it would?
                          I'm not sure it would make a dramatic difference. It certainly could, but I'm not sold on it as a major part of the solution to our defensive woes.
                          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                          - Salman Rushdie

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                            Melli,

                            Your response to question 2. "It's philosophy, not adjustment to personnel". Do you not think that the lack of "personnel" contribute to the inability of the coach's "system".

                            I think it is hard to make a concrete statement about it being the fault of JOB that our team defense is not good. It has to be much more difficult for JOB to make adjustments due to the lack of defensive prowess on our team. It basically forces him to make choices in personnel versus making minor adjustments within the flow of the game. He seemingly forgoes complete aspects of his coaching preferences to hopefully get the most out of the talent he has.... I.E. playing Murphy 36+ minutes per game (I think Murphy would be extremely effective as a 3rd or fourth big off the bench getting about 20-25 mpg). He would be PERFECT next to Tim Duncan or Dwight Howard (or any beefy big man with a back to the basket game).


                            "personnel" - I believe this to be a judgment that we don't have especially good overall defensive talent.

                            "system" - I believe this to be a general attempt by JOB to implement his help and recover style.
                            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Comprehensive examination of man to man defense and the Jim O'Brien defensive system, Part I

                              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                              Melli,

                              Your response to question 2. "It's philosophy, not adjustment to personnel". Do you not think that the lack of "personnel" contribute to the inability of the coach's "system".
                              I was specifically referring to our PG's when I made that statement. I wholeheartedly agree that we do not have a ton of defensive talent, but when I look at Jarret Jack and T.J. Ford, I see two guys who should be able to pressure the ball effectively. Therefore, I see our lack of ball pressure as a philosophical stance rather than an adjustment to personnel.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X