One man doesn't make a transition defense more effective. It's a team effort to get back on D. Francis should keep going to the glass. ------------------
I'm not worried about our transition D with Francis and Cat crashing the glass. The reason I don't want them always attacking the glass is b/c they could hurt alot easier going in there. It's not healthy for them to try to outrebound 7 footers day in and day out. I don't want Steve to have a shortened career b/c of all of the wear and tear his body will take from crashing the boards. Same thing on the offensive side. He needs to stop trying to jump through the big men in the paint for the slam, instead he needs to just pull up for the short jumper. ------------------ "I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather...Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."
Tacoma, I was not just referring to Steve. Earlier in the thread I mentioned how I named this thread wrong, and that it should read "Should our guards back off the offensive rebounds?". However, one man does make a difference on transition defense, especially since he is our fastest player and also 1/5 of our total defensive unit on the floor. It is a team effort to get back on D, but that should be led by Francis, because he is the point guard. ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson
The rockets offensive system, as it is, doesn't put our players in position to rack up many second chance points, and you're wanting our 2 best offensive rebounders to stop crashing the boards? The lack of second chance's hurts far more than a lack of transition D. The Rockets are not bad on the ball defender's, but they are bad team defenders. You could hear Rudy in the New Jersey game say "See the ball guys." It's not so much about the guards getting back as it is other players picking up our guard's guys, if they release. One man does not make a good transition defense IMO. The other player's aren't going to get motivated by seeing him get back on D and do so themselves. Him getting back, means the other team only has a 4 on 3 as opposed to a 4 on 2. Either way the numbers are still in the opponents favor. ------------------ [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited April 04, 2001).]
I see your point, TPL, although I don't agree that Cat is our second best offensive rebounder. I guess I just don't think that having Mo or Wiz or any of our frontcourt release to cover Francis's or Mobley's guys would be that much better than having no one at all... ------------------ "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).]
It's not like I'm asking Cato to pick up Nash on the break or anything, but Shandon, Walt, even Bullard could at least slow down the guy in time for our guards to get back on D. ------------------
Hey Toothless, how on Earth can you say that offensive rebounding does not help transition defense?? Offensive rebounding stops fast breaks. Why am I arguing with a crack smoker anyway? That is why I said to alert the SF and SG that Steve is crashing the boards so they need to get back. I never said anything about the C and PF. PUT DOWN THE PIPE. Steve is the best rebounder on the Rockets. How can you say something so dumb? Oh I forgot- its the crack. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Say_Jack (edited April 04, 2001).]
Say Jack, getting the offensive rebound does not fix problems with the fast break, because eventually another shot must be put up, and at some point, you won't get the rebound, and then the break is off. Considering the rate at which we get offensive rebounds versus how often teams like Dallas and Sac town run on us, I think the trade off is not worth it. But since you insist on calling me things like Toothless, and referring to me as a crack smoker... I guess I am going to have to give you the pre-kicked ZRB treatment, and refuse to even acknowledge your existence anymore. Great post, Say Jack! ------------------ "Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian." Lee Simonson
Raven, I have alerted your family and friends, and the intervention is on for tomorrow night. Remember, the first step is admitting that you have a problem. Good luck. ------------------
Say_Jack: You seem to be proposing we get all the offensive rebounds, which is the only way offensive rebounds fix the fast break....which simply won't happen. Therefore, every offensive rebound we don't get, which will be plenty, would result in the other team going for, and usually getting a fast break. Kinda like saying why don't we trade for Shaq, KG, Reef, and Kobe, isn't it? It's not possible. And Steve is the best rebounder on our team, notwithstanding Olajuwon. That doesn't mean he has to crash the offensive board every time, and make him exempt from the fact that the other PG is going for 30-10 on him because of the transition offense. I think the Rockets just need to be more aware of the court, for instance only one of the PG, SG, and SF stays for the offensive board, based on which side the ball is going. For example if the ball was going to Steve's side, Mobley and Shandon should head back. On inside shots they need to be going back ASAP, but sticking close enough to half court that a big man could kick it out if needed. Conversely, I also think the guard's rebounding presents some problems on the defensive side. It's much easier to get fast break points if our big men rebound and outlet to Francis/Moochie at half court, rather than going the 94 feet. The problem is, our big men don't always rebound well. Part of it is the fact the guards seem to have the bigger egos, and "want it" more, but the big guys do have rebounding trouble. The guards don't seem to trust the big men to hit the boards, with good reason, and in turn, it hurts our fast break game. ------------------ "That's been a lifelong dream of mine." -Vince Carter, after laying it in on a breakaway, much to the Vancouver crowd's displeasure. [This message has been edited by NIKEstrad (edited April 04, 2001).]
In a word, no. It is silly to ask or expect a player, no matter what position to back off rebounds. Get better and rebounding, don't neglect it. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
Is it silly to expect a player to get back downcourt and play defense before the other team? Because if Steve's zeal for offensive rebounds is part of the this problem, how can you say it is silly to solve it? I am not saying that the offensive rebounding is the sole reason our transition defense was bad. I get to see maybe 3-4 games a year, and this was one of them. In it I saw that the transition defense sucked bad. Now, not all of this was Steve's fault, the whole team failed in this regard, largely. But if telling our point guard to lay off the offensive rebounds so he can get back to play defense is silly, then I would prefer the Rockets to play silly basketball. ------------------ "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).]
