Francis and Iverson. These two always seem to be compared to each other. I remember when I first heard the Rockets got Francis, the only thing I knew about him was a comparison the news made of him to Allen Iverson. As similar as they appeared to be, it was only natural that a lot of posters would see the Sixers as a good model for the Rockets to follow in rebuilding midseason last year when it was clear the changing of the guard had already come. Now in what must be record time for rebuilding, the Rockets’ nucleus is pretty much put together, and it’s surprising just how far in the opposite direction the Rockets chose to build their team: Francis at the point so he can distribute shots vs. Iverson at the 2 so he can take all the shots Mobley instant offense, first guy off bench vs. McKie more D, first guard off bench Walt relatively strong on O, weak on D vs. George Lynch exact opposite – relatively strong on D, weak on O Kenny T – strength clearly not D vs. Tyronne Hill – the defensive-minded PF everybody on this board has wanted from Brian Grant to Jerome Williams Collier – big guy drafted for shot vs. Geiger – big guy paid a ton for toughness These guys are pretty comparable: shotblocking anchors of D: Cato – a real center vs. Ratliff – can only play center in the East, too scrawny for West Offensive frontcourt complements to the backcourt: Mo Taylor – younger, much more upside, real smart roster move vs. Kukoc – older, going downhill, real DUMB roster move Defensive backcourt starters to complement high scoring counterparts Anderson at 2 vs. Snow at 1 Smaller, quicker backup points: Moochie vs. Speedy Philly doesn’t have a player comparable to Hakeem, but Hakeem was already here when the rebuilding began Basically, Philly has thought defense when picking players to surround Iverson with, while the Rockets have thought offense. Which model do you think will prove more successful? Does defense truly win championships? Do you have to have defensive-minded personnel to build a strong D? What are your thoughts? [This message has been edited by Oatdog (edited September 25, 2000).]
No ? that Defense wins championship just look at all the teams that have won recently the lakers D was excellent last year SA's was great a year before that and still is the bulls D was very very good too. our championship runs were also keyed by defense. teams cant win w/ out it otherwise the sacremento kings would become a dynasty ------------------ --TEX
yeah but the rams won and their defense sucks. ------------------ I am so exasperated that I could expectorate.
Actually the Lakers D was very vulnerable. Rice and Horry were horrible defenders. Harper was average at best. Kobe is good defensively, but you can bait him into foul trouble and then post practically at will. Shaq was the only constant. They were not a great defensive team. You have to have defense to win championships. But not as much as some think. For example, we were the worst rebounding team in the league in our championship years. We do need Cato to defensively assert himself, and for Mo, Cat, and Steve to improve in that area as well. However, I've read many places that all of them (esp. Cat and Stevie) have been working hard all summer to improve their defense. Teams do need some D to win a championship. But not as much as some teams, like the Sixers apparently, think. I like our rebuilding model over theirs. ------------------ Looking for next year's Dan Langhi? Draftsource.net ClutchTown.com 4th Friday of August= Rocket Day 1999-Steve Francis 2000-Maurice Taylor
Lakers D help opponents to pretty low FG percentage. not saying they had a bunch of stars on D. but Shaq erases others mistakes so they have really good team D. The rams play fball a really different sport and D is important there too ------------------ --TEX
Isn't the real question: Is it easier for a offensive player to learn defense? Is it easier for a defensive player to learn to play offense? The Rams had all the "D" they need, when you score over 40 points a game it works. ------------------
I was just kidding about the rams crack. good oatthread. of course the Rockets need to improve their D. Francis will probably improve it. Cato needs to improve it or he is worthless. SA has it. Mobes and KT may get it, though they are undersized. Collier may even get it, he has the tools. Its more important to have guys who can score, esp in crucial moments, than guys who can only play D. IMO ------------------ I am so exasperated that I could expectorate.
Oak, Nice post, but how bout we compare matched up on positions, which may be a little more realistic. Centre Dream, Cato, Collier v Geiger and Hill If Cato improves this year especially on Offense, and Dream stays fit then I would give the edge to the rocks, but if Cato says as is and Dream struggles, then maybe i would give the edge to the sixers PF Taylor, Kenny and Rodgers V Ratliff, Hill and Kukoc. Defensively and on the boards the Sixers have a clear edge (even with Kukoc's d), at the offensive end both Ratliff and Kukoc are very inconsistant and Hill will only score from boards. Talyor and Kenny can both score, big if needed. Fairly even. SF Walt, Langhi and Anderson V Lynch and Kukoc Walt and Kukoc are similar player in that there is no D, and can score in bunch. Lynch and Anderson are similar in that they do what is needed for the team, although Anderson will clearly score more. Add to the mix Langhi and we should win the SF contest. SG Anderson and Mobes V Iverson and McKie The Anderson/Mobley combination is just perfect one provides high energy scoring and the other what ever the team needs. On the other hand Iverson is a scoring machine but a head case. McKie is an interesting player, primarily a defensive stopper he scored big when iverson was injured, maybe he should play more in combination with iverson Even contest PG Francis V Snow No contest francis wins by a mile, although snow does distribute very unselfishly. ------------------ Discombobulation Imminent
double post which i can't delete ------------------ Discombobulation Imminent [This message has been edited by SmeggySmeg (edited September 25, 2000).]
Would not the greatest contrast be the two coaches? Larry Brown is a good coach, but I feel the he has mishandled his conflicts with Allen Iverson. If Rudy T had a problem with Francis, do you believe that he would have settled it in a private discussion(or traded him), or take potshots at his star in the media every chance he got? Iverson is a great player, and Brown an excellent coach, but their relationship went from bad to non-existent over the summer. ------------------ Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice?
I like these comparison threads you've been doing Oatdog... Sometimes a single matchup is all that matters...this is the case last year with Sixers/Rockets. I was at the game...Shandon matched Iverson point-for-point, as we attacked Iverson over and over on offense. And when Shandon scores 30 points on posting-up a shrimp like Iverson, that's a win. Philly will have to play differently this year.
Couple of thoughts: Cato and Ratliff have very similar #'s at equivalent years of experience. The question is whether Cato has the mind and ability to be a more consistent player. Being as good as the 6ers isn't saying that much. The last couple of years they very well might not have made the playoffs in the West despite Iverson having terrific years. And absolutely no way they have won a playoff series any time in the West over the last decade or so. Having Iverson and a bunch of defensive players works against not so well rounded teams, but even against Indiana (who only would have been somewhere like the 4th or 5th best Western team) they just don't match up well. Still I like their philosophy (I like what Phily has done with their level of talent) and believe having at least a very good defensive team is neccessary to be a serious contender. ------------------ Elie buried the clutch 3 that would launch the Rockets to their second title run, driving a stake through the onwatching Suns fans hearts that will forever be etched in the dry Arizona landscape.
Like E.J. was saying, it seems like one of the biggest differences between Philly and Houston is their respective answers to the question: "Is it easier for a offensive player to learn defense or a defensive player to learn to play offense?" Rudy seems to be of the belief that a group of players can gel as a team defensively if given the time and stability to do so together (a view I've seen a lot of posters espouse on the board), while Larry Brown isn't as patient, trading out young offensive talent for personnel more focused on D. I can see Collier learning how to get in the right position to help his teammates on D a lot more quickly than Geiger adding consistency and range to his jumper to provide spacing for Iverson's penetration. Just look at some of the word class offensive talent that has passed through Philly during Iverson's stay there: Stackhouse, DC, Tim Thomas, Joe Smith, and most recently Larry Hughes. Don't you think they would have been in better shape if they had kept those players and allowed them to grow together into a nice team both offensively and defensively than impatiently trading them in for offensively limited defensive guys like Tyrone Hill and George Lynch? Even the Sixers themselves seem to have noticed this after getting trounced in the playoffs consecutive years by a team, Indiana, who seems to have followed a model closer to ours in collecting more offensive weapons as opposed to defensive stud after defensive stud. Just looking at the two team's most recent roster moves confirms my belief that the Rockets are moving in a better direction. The Sixers traded a young, extremely talented player, Larry Hughes, whose game closely resembles their franchise player in a desperate move to get a frontcourt complement, Kukoc, for their star, even though the difference in upside is so heavily weighted in Hughes' favor it's almost a lock Philly fans will be crying daily about the trade in a few years. Meanwhile, the Rockets re-signed their young, offensive-minded talent, Mobley, whose game closely resembles their franchise player while picking up a perfect frontcourt complement, Mo Taylor for the exception, not losing any talent in the addition. The Rockets saw how Mobley and Francis could work together on offense and still got a great frontcourt complement. Philly just seemed too short-sighted when looking at Hughes and Iverson together. Moreover, had they just left some of the offensive pieces they had earlier in place they wouldn't be so desperate for offense. Can you imagine subtracting both Mobley and Mo from our roster and adding Kukoc to replace them? That would be a pretty huge step back. While the Rockets might have a lot of room for improvement left on D, I am not of the belief that they necessarily need to make that improvement through personnel changes (except maybe getting James Posey somehow ). If they stay the course while adding a couple of minor pieces along the way, I think they will be a lot closer to their goal than Philly will or other teams following that model of team building. It seems like some of you agree? [This message has been edited by Oatdog (edited September 26, 2000).]
I think there is no question that the Rockets are a much better team. THey have more scorers, and although their defense might not be as good, the Rockets can easily beat Philadelphia by shutting down Inverson, as has been proven in the past. ------------------
also, the rockets have looked at the league's obession towards media ratings for more offense.. thus the hand checking rule and the barkley rule.. and have powered their offense that was once and inside-out routine. sure, our team is defensively lacking, but i think rudy was smart in acquring a lot of slashers to build around a running offense in the "new" nba. parse this team with some "thugs" off the bench and we'll be fine. ------------------ barkley for president
