Would you give up scoring in order to stop your opponent from scoring?

If we give up scoring, it would be based on a replacing a player at a specific position.

The greatest impact would be felt at C. A 6-11"+ shotblocking C would not just help the interior defense. It would allow the Rockets to play their man tighter on the perimeter, since a C could cover for them.

Giving up offense for defense at PG not so much. There are very few PGs that can keep the opposing PG from scoring in these days of no-hand checks.

 

It seems that most people are extremely divided regarding Gundyball, there those who idealize it and then there are those who dramaticize the ugliness of the offensive scheme. Let's get it straight: GUNDYBALL IS A DEFENSIVE SCHEME. From what I recall much of the scheme involves being extremely conservative on D, JVG prefers to stop transition offense at all costs, guys like Yao and Juwon Howard were expected to sprint back into D the moment a shot is missed forgoing any and all attempts to grab the offensive reb. For an idealized defense, look at the Celtics D when both Perkins and KG are playing at full health. To pin the offense on Gundyball is the same thing as pinning the D on the Read-and-react system.

The offense is not part of Gundyball, its something that was created based on a traditional inside-outside offense with a dominant post-player, a dynamic wing man and spot-up 3 pt shooters. The only reason it looked "ugly" was because all of our roleplayers were average shooters at best. We didn't have a Mike Miller/Kyle Korver or even Anthony Morrow who could be counted upon to hit wide open 3 pointers with consistency. Look at the Magic right now, our offense looked exactly like that except you have Juwon Howard instead of Lewis/Brandon Bass and Tmac instead of Turkey Glue, or look at Chicago with Rose being the dynamic force instead of Tmac and Joakim Noah manning the paint instead of Yao. Not exactly ugly when you have elite 3 pt shooters who can complement the wing man and low post guy.

 

our season was still considered a success to an extent by some people last year, because we shocked alot of teams, coaches and media by playing good without stars. (even though we did not make the post season.)

 

Sure but if Boston had given up only 90 PP100 would you say that was a not so great defense since they were 10 pts behind? Regardless, that was one of the best defensive teams we've ever had and it just shows you that the name of the game is personnel not coaching. If we had Cato and Yao right now we would be top 5 defensively easily.

 

Not enough playmakers on this team. Just one and it's Kyle Lowery. Playmaker to me is someone that can score pass to his teammates and command a double team. In the 4th no one on the rockets gets double teamed so opponents defense is not going to break down. I would give up offense in a heartbeat because lets be honest rockets are trying to be the suns/kings but are not really that great at it.

 

FIFY.

DD

 

Thanks but Aaron Brooks really can't pass without turning it over. Maybe I am mistaken though because now that I think about Kyle is only great in transition. My double team comment was not about him as well.

 

You know alot of people on this team are decent role players and some are in that stage between great role player and bottom tier star. Also what I see is alot of people conserving their energy by slacking on defense, but they have all the energy in the world on offense.