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:
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

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

The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen

    Back to basic basketball defensive discussions today, after a brief hiatus from posting for a couple of weeks. If you are interested in going back and reviewing the previous four threads in this series, we already discussed the following:

    I. Defense at the point of attack
    II. Defending the wing
    III Defending the low post
    IV Help side defense

    Some of today's topic has been discussed ad nauseum before, but we have several new posters who have joined since then, so I feel like a review of this very critical defensive topic is merited. As always, I hope to get a high quality discussion going on the nuts and bolts fundamentals of the game, and how our own Pacers can get better in these specific areas.

    When discussing screen/roll defense, there are many nuances and details to discuss from a coaching perspective. I'll try to hit as many of them as I can in this thread, but if I leave anything out you want to discuss, just ask it within the thread and we can all give our opinions.

    Here are some of the decisions a coach must make in game planning screen/roll defense:

    1. Do I as coach decide how we will play each screen/roll, or do I let my players read the situation and make their own decision?

    2. Do we play the screen/roll differently depending on who has the basketball as the ballhandler for the opponent? Do we play it differently from a defensive planning standpoint depending on who the defenders are specifically?

    3. Do we play it differently depending on part of the floor we are on? Do we defend it differently if it is a side screen/roll vs a top screen/roll for instance?

    Once you make those decisions, then you have the following options on how to play this situation from a strategic standpoint:

    4. Do we simply switch? If so, who calls the switch, the person being screened or the person who's man is setting the screen? (in the archives of PD, I wrote a long article about this very question a couple of years ago....look it up and read it if you wish)

    5. Do we go "under" the screen, possibly risking an open jumpshot by the ballhandler right in rhythm, but hopefully preventing a drive?

    6. Do we "show and go", having our big show or "hedge hard" outside the screen, hopefully slowing the ballhandler enough to allow his own original man to recover to him, and not allowing the ballhandler to turn the corner with a head of steam?

    7. Do we just "trap" the ballhandler, aggressively attacking him with the screener's man and his own man, and rotating quickly behind ot cover up the "screener" now either rolling to the basket or possibly popping back out for an open jumper?

    There is alot to this obviously, so lets discuss all the aspects of this, and Ill sprinkle in my opinion in general and for this particular roster. Be prepared for me to argue something a bit uncoventional as a solution for this roster at the end of this original post.


    On the first point, I believe it is the job of the coaching staff to tell the players directly in each game plan how they are going to play this screen/roll situation. You do this by film work, scouting, and game prep, which is something more easily done with the technological advancies in those areas that all NBA teams have at their disposal. This is conventional wisdom of coaching, to not overload your players with decisions such as these. It is somewhat of a oddity that many coaches (such as myself) value and demand that their players read situations from an OFFENSIVE standpoint, but don't trust them from a DEFENSIVE one, but experience and perhaps a control freak nature of coaches in general has made this true.

    There was one famous basketball mind who felt that players COULD in fact handle reading this situation on their own. I heard him discuss it and heard others discuss his opinion of the matter before he finally became a head coach and got to try his theory out. His name? Isiah Thomas.

    I admired at the time Isiah's willingness to think outside the box in this matter. Since no one really at the NBA level had a great idea for defending the screen/roll anyway that was really working well, alot of coaches were interested to see how that would play out for him.

    Unfortunately for Thomas, his teams were notably abysmal at defending the screen/roll, often looking like they had no clue what they were supposed to be doing to defend it. In fact, that was true! Isiah Thomas wanted players to be able to read this on the fly, thought he could teach them to make judgments like that based on time and score, situation, who had the ball, etc etc, but it just failed miserably. For most coaches, that settled this question once and for all.


    This is a closer call as a coach I think. In an ideal world, you would have smart enough players to be able to say something like :"OK guys, if Rondo and Garnett run screen/roll here, go ahead and go underneath it and don't switch. But if it is Pierce and Garnett, go ahead and show hard, and if it is Ray Allen go ahead and switch it since he likely won't drive".

    Now, all of that I just wrote might be the most sensible thing to do in a given situation against the Celtics. But, CAN YOU TEACH IT THAT WELL?

    Defending this way, while it makes the most sense logically, is actually in my opinion mostly a mistake. This would require all of your players to be keenly aware and alert, and all of them able to rotate properly on the fly in many different various ways. This becomes even a more difficult thing to execute if you have multiple screen/roll situations within a single possession.

    Now, most NBA coaches who think they are brilliant teachers will indeed to try to plan this way. Most of them would be better off not complicating the game so much for their players, and simply letting them have a clear understanding of what was going to happen and letting them execute it. I think Jim O'Brien, no matter what you may read in the paper or in his quotes, will often out think himself with stuff like this, and try to give his admittedly poor defensive athletes an "uber specific" gameplan that they arent able to execute. To use a coaching phrase, the Pacers sometimes appear to be "overcoached and undertaught" in this regard I think.


    I do believe a coach can sort of adjust on area of the floor, just not as easily on personnel. Whether they SHOULD or not might be another question however.

    Much was made in the pre-season when O'Brien announced he was tweaking our team defense to always force the side screen/roll to the baseline, remember?

    But if you really watch the Pacers in depth with a critical eye, has that really worked? Do the Pacers in fact actually do that, or is that just something they announced but don't really do? Do they actually FORCE a team to the baseline side, even when the screen is designed to let the ballhandler drive to the middle? Or do teams ballscreen from the baseline side against us anyway, drive baseline by their own choosing, and then skip the ball across the floor to open shooters, using our so called design against us?

    I actually don't think the Pacers struggle as badly with the side screen/roll as they do with the screen/roll at the top of the circle. But that in and of itself is an issue, because that means you have to learn multiple techniques depending on where on the floor you are, making it even harder to execute something consistently well.


    Isiah Thomas wanted his players to switch this situation if it made sense to do so, and he wanted his players to read that on their own. We know that didnt work.

    But can you as a coach DECIDE YOURSELF a switch, and get your team to execute? I think in limited cases you can, but not often, especially when you have limited personnel.

    In Donnie Walsh's dream world toward the end of his career here, I think he envisioned an entire team of 6-10 guys with long arms, able to play multiple positions and almost be interchangeable on the floor. That would be awesome if you could pull it off, but it is unrealistic in the normal world we live in.

    But you can do this on a limited basis. For instance, I think you could do it on the Pacers if your defenders were Granger and Rush, or perhaps you may be able to add Daniels in to that mix. But that is really it. We have too many guys who would give you serious mismatches if you tried it very much. Envision playing New Orleans for instance, and seeing a Tyson Chandler ball screen for Chris Paul. If you were a switching team, you could end up with Rasho on Paul, and TJ on Chandler barreling down the lane. Not going to work!

    There are probably fewer than 10 players in the league that you can afford to switch a smaller man onto in the low post and get away with it. Unfortunately, two of them play for us: Dunleavy and Foster. In fairness, Foster has learned ot finish somewhat better when he can catch the ball and get a head of steam headed toward the basket. But if the timing isnt right, he isnt reliable posting up being guarded, even by a much smaller man.

    And this to me is a major flaw in Dunleavy's game.....the inability to be used in a screen/roll situation as the screener. Teams just switch a smaller man onto him and dare the Pacers to have Dunleavy post up, which he does remarkably bad for whatever reason.

    But getting back to defense, I think we can all agree that switching the screen/roll isnt a very viable option for us.


    This is a viable strategy on rare occasions, when you play someone who clearly cannot make consistently an outside shot.

    One of the players I thought could be a decent backup point guard but who has shocked me with his shooting improvement is Rajon Rondo. I specifically didnt want him coming out of college because in college at Kentucky he was one of the worst shooters I saw play that season. He was of the "Chris Reynolds" ilk, for all of you old IU basketball fans. But unlike 90% of pro players, Rondo actually improved as an individual at the pro level, and now is able to make that shot enough to be a near all star level guard, since he has so many other strengths on the floor as ballhandler and defender.

    But, there are others in the league you can afford to do this to. When on the rare occasion you play a team with someone like this, you should be able to have your guys just go underneath the screen and live with the consequence. This would be a pretty good idea for our second unit to try more than it does, since often back up point guards dont make that shot well, which of course is why they are backups!

    Now, here is another idea: Maybe the Pacers should do this MUCH MORE OFTEN than I would normally recommend. With all the giant problems we have in rotating to help, and getting beat off the dribble from the top. maybe we'd be better off just giving up even trying to guard someone correctly, just slide under all ballscreens at the top, and just let people shoot.

    While Im being somewhat silly and condescending with that, how many point guards would actually go ahead and take 20 open three pointers a game from there at the top anyway? It might screw them up, and it definitely would throw them out of rhythm. Maybe we'd be better off letting Tony Parker, Chris Paul, and Ramon Sessions get 50 points or more, just to keep them out of the lane and killing us that way. I can't really recommend it of course, but watching our horrendous defense occasionally has me screaming such lunacy at times.


    Having your screener's defender show hard to the outside of the screen, and hopefully stop the ballhandler from turning the corner long enough to let his original man recover to him, the having your "big" recover back to his own man as quickly as he can while his teammates temporarily cover for him is the oldest and most time honored way to defend the ball screen.
    Most coaches believe it is the best way to do it....although I am not one of them.

    This is the Pacers and Jim O'Brien's way to play this as well usually, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that from a strategic standpoint. Where we mess up too often is one fundamental issue, and one odd quirk that Jim O'Brien has taught that others like me find maddening.

    The fundamental issue is the same one all coaches who try and teach this "show and go" or "hard hedge" have: Getting your screener's man (normally on of your bigs) to "hedge" high enough and aggressively enough out on the floor to prevent the ballhandler from turning the corner at a sharp angle.

    This is easier to teach when the screener sets up early and is stationary somewhere on the floor. In this situation, the Pacers slower bigs are at least mediocre in stepping out far enough to make this plan work. In fact, this is probably Foster's one major strength as a defender....the ability to hedge fairly well and then recover to his man.

    Of course, this is mitigated by a couple of other issues. Often Foster in particular will leave the ball too soon, and before our man who was screened has recovered to the basketball. We lost a game in fact earlier this season when Jeff made this critical mistake against the Celtics in Conseco Fieldhouse, letting Ray Allen bury a three before Marquis Daniels had recovered to the ball.

    But this in itself wouldnt be an issue of our players recovered to the ball quicker to start with, and didnt leave players like Foster out to dry so long. One of my major disappointments in this team and it's defense has been our horrific defensive play from Ford and Jack, who I thought would be a major upgrade but in fact have not been. In a ballscreen situation, Ford and Jack have each lacked the toughness, quickness, and quite frankly in my opinion the EFFORT to recover quick enough to their own men playing this basic scheme of screen/roll defense on the ball. This is a weakness of some bigs anyway (who don't want to see their own man get the ball anyway so they tend to cheat back to their responsibility too soon) so guards being slow and lazy to recover to the ball only make that worse.

    This really shows itself when our bigs hustle and actually do a decent job at showing and turning the ballhandler back. Because our point guards consistently don't put forth the defensive effort, we get "split" alot by good point guards. Our already slower bigs can't help that, and I mostly absolve them of responsibilty. It is our others who let us down here, especially Jack and Ford, and we simply have to solve that moving forward. As of right now, I have no real answers why two guys who should be better defenders arent getting the job done.

    Where all the Pacers bigs struggle is when a team sprints a big from the block to the perimeter quickly. Our slow bigs like to hang back a step or two too long into their help responsibilities, and let their own men sprint to the perimeter ahead of them. This leaves them sunk in too low, and lets the ballhandler turn the corner with a head of steam and the advantage.

    This is smart coaching by our opponents in taking advantage of a clear weakness we have in both scheme and personnel. What needs to happen is our guys need to just sprint to the perimeter with their own men and not be encumbered so much with help responsibilities that they can be able to do this. But irregardless, guys like Hibbert, Murphy, and Nesterovic are very slow, and will likely struggle with this anyway. This often leads to our bigs either giving up easy shots passively (Murphy) being ineffective even though trying due to lack of mobility (Nesterovic) or fouling while trying to help from out of position (Hibbert).

    Now, even though we are playing it conventionally near the ball, there is still some "wackiness" I detect from the Jim O'Brien defensive scheme. This is what I often see, which is an overtendency to help by our bigs.

    What should happen is you run the "show and go", and your big defending the screen needs some brief help to cover his man rolling to the basket until he recovers back to him. This leaves you vilnerable for an instant admittedly, but that is the entire point of the offense running this play to start with! Everyone has to sprint and work hard and be in sync, but this method is taught everyday by coaches all across the country, and it can be done. It isn't easy, but since defending the screen/roll is the hardest play in hoops to guard some think, it's not supposed to be easy! This causes limited disruption and movement among your bigs, which is why 99% of teams who use the show and go do it this way.

    But not always our Pacers! Instead I sometimes see our Pacers bigs in helpside SWITCH to the original screener on a permanent basis, which means that ANOTHER player has to rotate to that guy's man, which means that our entire defense is scrambling around trying to figure out who has who on the run. It is no wonder that guys screw this up so often, and why we struggle at it so badly, especially when you consider that IT IS THE SLOWEST GUYS ON OUR TEAM WE ASK TO MOVE THE MOST!

    Now, what I believe but can't prove is that O'Brien tried this as an experiement, and that at the end of the year he will reevaluate. But I can't prove that. And, I must say that it is inventive, and maybe would work better with better personnel who are experienced and more athletic (by a bunch!). It also is death doing this to a team who has its screener float to the perimeter instead of rolling to the hoop....remember Mehmet Okur getting 40 plus against us for Utah? This wacky rotation after a ball screen is why I believe that happened.


    This is unconventional thinking, but this is the way I believe the screen/roll should be defended in general, and even by our admittedly glacially slow Pacers. It's probably too late in the season to do it now, but if I were in charge this is what I would make as my staple in training camp.

    Trapping the screen/roll hard every time lets you as a defense attack the offense, instead of being passive. It lets you play more free, and easier, with less thinking required. It lets you practice your rotations easier, and be better at them considering they will be similar almost every time. It lets you create turnovers hopefully that will lead to punishing the offense.

    The most important things I think it can do for you is to be consistent from night to night, and change your defensive mentality from being reactive to instead being PROACTIVE!

    You will almost surely if you do this right never give up an easy jumper by the ballhandler, and you will rarely give up a easy shot to the original screener (because you can see a sittuation developing, you should be able to clearly know where and how to rotate, there is no reading involved). You will give up some open jump shots to players spotting up, but at least you'll be making the offense make two passes instead of one, and if you are smart you can try to rotate in such a way that you leave pen their worst shooter.

    Another key to this would be something we discussed in the "defense at the point of attack thread" which is to have our point guards work hard to disrupt the oppoent bringing the ball up court, thereby using valuable time against the shot clock. If a team against us was forced to not run their screen/roll play against us until the clock was winding down, and bobble or mistake they make will result in a turnover, and any shot they take will be against the shot clock buzzer. Often, if this works right, they may not have time to make that second pass to the open guy....there may not be time to make it, even if he is wide open!

    But Tbird, doesnt this have problems too?

    Q. Won't our bigs get in foul trouble trying to trap away from the bucket?
    A. Our bigs are in foul trouble anyway most of the time.

    Q. Wont this require our bigs to move too much like you complain about now?
    A. Not if we cause a turnover or missed shot from the perimeter, but yes it can at times. That is why we need to let guys like Rasho go and maybe have Foster dealt, and why Murphy needs to be benched if he can't handle it. Hibbert only projects to me to be a 24 minute a game guy anyway, so I'm not real concerned about his foul trouble, I think Hibbert will actually be able to do this well in fact, as he has such size and intelligence I think he will be a force at it, not a problem. All Hibbert needs for this to work is a little coaching and some help from our porous point guards.

    Q. If we do this every game against every opponent, won't we be so predictable that teams will be able to gameplan us pretty easily?
    A. Not really a concern. I'd rather do something well that is sound and well concieved than trying to outsmart everybody all the time. This goes into the attitude and mentality change I want: "This is what we are going to do opponents....we are going to trap you hard for 48 minutes, and if you try to split our trap we will either steal it from you or knock you on your ***, and if you think you are going to dunk it on us inside we are going to punish that with force. When you come to play the Pacers, you better wear your camoflouge, becase it is going to be a war"

    If teams want to go small against us to run screen/rolls against us, that's fine. We will punish them on the other end with Hibbert.

    Ok, so lots to comment on, and lots of ground to cover on screen/roll defense. Next topic will be something I think we actually do fairly well, which is fighting over screens AWAY from the ball.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.


  • #2
    Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen

    From a coaching standpoint, are you available? What would it take financially for the franchise to hire you? When can you start? Do you, or anyone else on this board, have enough contacts to have a serious discussion with TPTB to at least hire you as a special consultant to the franchise?


    • #3
      Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen

      I think the initial post in each of these threads should be archived for future reference by everyone who comes to the forum.


      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...


      • #4
        Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen

        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
        From a coaching standpoint, are you available? What would it take financially for the franchise to hire you? When can you start? Do you, or anyone else on this board, have enough contacts to have a serious discussion with TPTB to at least hire you as a special consultant to the franchise?

        At this point, I could be hired pretty cheap..... Free access to the pre game buffet, an office with a window, and seats behind the bench might get me!

        Seriously though, thanks to you and to BillS for the kind words.

        I am surprised that so far no one wants to argue with me about my opinion that we should be trapping almost every single screen/roll defensively though.


        • #5
          Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen

          Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
          I am surprised that so far no one wants to argue with me about my opinion that we should be trapping almost every single screen/roll defensively though.
          They probably dozed off before they got that far.


          • #6
            Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen

            When I coached youth ball, a hard trap was ALWAYS what I used.

            From a young player perspective, it worked out very well for two reasons. 1. The best player on youth teams is often the player handling the ball... you stop him, you stop the team. 2. It was the easiest thing for kids to pick up and can be successfully executed against an opponent even if you are at a disadvantage athletically.

            Because we don't have particularly quick players, I believe it would work very well against MOST opponents. The opponents that we would have major problems with would be those with either super quick PGs that have good all-around skills or those with screeners that can work many of the options of a screen very well. But then... we would have problems against those guys anyway, regardless of how we played against the screen.

            Where I believe it would help us the most is that it would make our PGs more accountable. However, in providing our PGs with a consistent plan to be used against the screen, knowing that it has no chance of working without them staying with their man, I believe that they would also defend it better.

            P.S. I doubt the Pacers would spring for a window seat. However, on game days since Tinsley is not in attendance, I believe that Conseco would have ample supplies of hot dogs, nachos and Tasty Cakes.


            • #7
              Re: The Comprehensive Defense thread, part V: Defending the ball screen


              Might I suggest you add a link to each of the previous threads so that it will be easier for readers to access them even if just to refresh their memories, or in my case so I can go back and read what I missed.

              As usually, good stuff!