Not necessarily the defensive rebounds, it helps to have everyone crash those. But on offense, it seems like our guards go for the offensive rebound too often, because our transition defense last night was atrocious. At halftime, the Mavs had around 20 points on the fast break, I don't know what they ended up with. Should Steve back off on the offensive rebounding so he and others can get back and play some defense? It was frustrating to watch so many layups and open jumpers coming down the floor just because the Mavs ran past us on the break. ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson
The problem with our team is we don't have a good rebounder in the frontcourt. Hakeem isn't even as dominant as he once was on the boards. If you're going to be a team that shoots alot of jumpshots, you need someone to clean the glass for you. Asking our guards to do that job hurts the Rockets on both sides. It hurts our transition defense and offense. Back during our championship years, when we had OT and Dream clearing the glass our guards always released early and recieved the touchdown pass from the big men. Unfortunately now the guards can't release b/c Mo and Cato can't rebound. Hopefully CD can draft or sign a player that can be reliable on the boards, then this team will be very dangerous, IMO. We're just 1 forward/center away from being in the elite. ------------------ "I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather...Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car." [This message has been edited by Band Geek Mobster (edited April 04, 2001).]
Jack, as convincing as this argument is, do you have any serious reasoning behind your statement? ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson [This message has been edited by RunninRaven (edited April 04, 2001).]
Raven, I understand where you are coming from, but I think the resolution behind getting back and playing defense doesn't lay in backing off rebounds. Yes, the transition D has been horrible, but it has been horrible on and off all year. Considering the fact that Francis and Mobley, as well as Anderson are all fairly good on the glass, but no one else aside from Hakeem really is, we need them to rebound on both ends. If we back off the glass (Francis, Mobley, or both) we cause a greater set of problems than bad transition defense. Shot selection is a BIG reason we have bad transition defense. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
What greater set of problems would we get for snagging fewer offensive rebounds? Obviously, on defensive boards, we need to come up with them anyway possible. But, on offensive baords, it's a gamble and an extra to snag one. That said, as I had asked before when I started a thread on this subject (like a year ago), what is the Rockets' game plan on transition defense? I asked HP to look out for it. Since we have jump-shooting big men and slashing guards, maybe we put more of a rebounding burden on the guards because we put more of a transition D burden on the forwards. I don't know because I haven't really checked. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
HOOP-T, I know the thread title is misleading... it should have been "Should our guards back off offensive rebounds?" Do you still think it would create a bigger set of problems if Steve and Cat laid off the offesive rebound attempts? To me, it seems that offensive rebounds by your guards are just pluses, and should not be expected as part of the production of that guard. But if this extra production comes at the expense of some other fundamental aspect, such as transition defense, then I think that guard needs to be told to concentrate on what is more important (stopping the fast break). What problems could be created from getting fewer offensive rebounds by our guards? ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson [This message has been edited by RunninRaven (edited April 04, 2001).]
If our guards lay off the rebounds The second chances points pummetts because our front court AIN HACKING IT What good is cutting Fast Break Points by 10 . . .if your second chances points go down by 15? our shots per game would go down I think the MO TAYLORS/CATOs of the world should be hustling their asses back on D If you not going to get the rebound. . . HUSTLE BACK ON D Rocket River ------------------
I agree to some degree, Rocket River. If our forwards are not going to rebound, then go play some defense. The problem with this theory is that our forwards are slow, and in the open court, they cannot hack it with the guards who would be sprinting for the opposing team. In reality, Steve and Cuttino are not that much better on defense (open court or set), but they are better than Mo or Kenny Thomas or even Olajuwon when running with fast guards and trying to stop the fast break. Does anyone know the numbers from last nights game? The fact is, Rocket River, I am not suggesting that the Rockets lay off all offensive rebounds, just the guards. Hakeem, Taylor, and Kenny, etc would still get theirs. Between our guards, we get maybe 3-4 offensive rebounds a game, and this does not translate to 15 points. I would say that 3-4 fewer offensive rebounds would translate to maybe 4-8 points, if we execute well after the rebound has been obtained. To sacrifice 4-8 points for 15 or so points defense on the fast break is acceptable. This I would do. ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson
We're 21st in the league in offensive boards. I don't think we'll be hurt that badly if our guards would lay off on the offensive glass. Also, maybe a reason our guards are worn out now is b/c they're crashing the boards. ------------------ "I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather...Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."
Yes, Francis is the best offensive rebounder on the team. Asking him not to rebound is like asking Cuttino to not shoot. ------------------
In regards to offensive rebounds: It is situational, and depends on the opponent. Against a weaker rebounding team, I say hit the offensive glass in full force, and chances are your second chance points will far outweigh the fast break opportunities. But if you are playing Philly, LA, or another strong rebounding team or a superior fast-breaking team, then you have to pay more attention to stopping the break. Weak transition defense is not a product of gambling for offensive rebounds necessarily, as much as it is strategy, playing the odds, and court smarts. Plus, Steve and Cat can immediately initiate a break for us if they grab an OREB. If the opposing team sends a player down court on a perimeter shot, or two players down court, you have a distinct advantage on the boards with a 5-4 or a 5-3 situation. More often than not, in that situation, you have a great shot at an OREB. This is an age old stategy.....the other team wants to fast break, you send your guards to rebound to combat it. Yes, you will lose out on some boards, and the other team will get some cheap points. But like I said, the success of this is contingent upon the opponents strengths or weaknesses. Dallas is a great fast-breaking team, especially when Nash is running the point. I am not sure it was a good idea against them. But your Atlantas, your Washingtons, your Chicagos, your Vancouvers can be played differently. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." [This message has been edited by HOOP-T (edited April 04, 2001).]
Well honestly the numbers don't tell it all I see at least 3~5 tips by cat and francis that fall into the hands of Cato/Moe/Kt/Hakeem they don't the rebound but they kept it alive If we rotate them back. . . I have no problem my problem is that it will hurt our scoring if we ask Franchise to lay off WE MUST *DEMAND* CATO, MOE, KT, HAKEEM, LOS make up for it. . . . we cannot afford to lose rebounding anymore than we can afford to let fast break pts pile up damned if you do damned if you don't Rocket River ------------------
Hey Say_Jack, how about reading HOOP-T's post, eh? Now that is how you argue your point. I can definetely see that, HOOP-T. Since last night was one of the few games I was able to see on TV, it seemed as thought the problem is probably worse that it really is. Definetly, if playing against the Kings or Dallas, or an equivalent team, I think the Rudy needs to tell our guards to make sure and get back. Part of my concern is also for Steve and Cuttino's health, as Band Geek stated earlier. It does seem as though Franchise and Cat are burned out here at the end of the season, and I wonder if they would have more energy if they weren't having to crash the boards as often as they do. ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson
It was definitely magnified last night against Dallas. Man, are they good off the break or what? Health and endurance are definitely a concern and a factor obviously. But given the cometitive nature of those two guys (Cat and Steve), I don't see them conserving anything, especially in light of the closeness of the playoff race. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
Yes, Dallas was amazingly good on the break. If it wasn't Finley getting to the basket straight out (man that guy can finish well), then it was Nash dishing out to anyone of their freaking 20 or so 3 point shooters who never seem to miss... Man it would be sweet to have a player like Dirk on our team. ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson
If only Cat wasn't burned out, maybe he could have logged a few more minutes against Dallas. ------------------ Hike up your skirt a little more, and show the world to me.
Hey cracksmoker, I did read his post, and in my opinion, his observation did not make any sense. If you are worried about transition defense, get some freaking offensive boards! Also, alert the SG and SF that the PF and C suck at rebounding, so they need to help on transition D, because Steve Francis is crashing the boards. ------------------
It would be nice if Francis didnt have to worry about the offensive glass but he does and he does a heck of a great job at it. Unless the Rockets get a solid O. rebounder like D. Davis, A.Davis, Webber, etc... Then Francis will still have to get the boards because the Rockets cant afford him not to. As of now Steve Francis is a better offensive rebounder than Karl Malone, Anthony Mason, Charles Oakley, Rasheed Wallace, and could easily catch up with David Robinson, Kevin Garnett, etc... Suprising yet true. ------------------
Offensive rebounding does not fix transition defense. And I already stated earlier that having Dream and Mo Taylor run back to defend the fast break is no substitute, because neither is fast enough to stop the opposing guards streaking to the basket. Steve Francis does not get enough offensive boards to justify what we would give up on transition defense. Boy, I hope all of this makes as much sense I think it does. I am smoking so much crack right now, my posts might just be huge letters that read "Hell No" for all I can tell. You know, us crack smokers ain't too bright. ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson
