Yes, I always feel that any player we get will be taught to play defense. But I still wont cut conrers at the PG spot. Not in the long run. Maybe your standards are lower. I'm not looking for a 55-58 win team. I'm looking for a 65+ win team. Maybe my standards are too high. But that's what I shoot for. Leaving no stone untouched.
It's more like a two quarterback rotation. Or a great Quarterback/running back duo that opens up an offense. What we actually need from our point guard is the football equivalent of a Jay Novacek. A guy who can block a little to free up Emmit Smith(a.ka. Yao), but also get open and catch the ball from Aikman (a.k.a. McGrady). So to translate that back to basketball terms, he needs to pass the ball down low to Yao and hit the open shot from McGrady. I'm not sure how to work the defensive angle in there. But I do want my point guard to D it up as well.
While the analogy of NBA-PG/NFl-QB breaks down at some point as all analogies do, I still think it has some merit. Someone has to initiate the action, set up the play, set up players. I want a PG to do that. Get TMac or Ming or JJ or Howard in the right position at the right time and feed them the ball. They can kick it back if appropriate, but someone (PG) has to direct traffic. Carry on.
I think JVG is a great defensive coach. He comes up with great schemes to mask weak defenders. JVG didn't teach Francis to be a better defender in the absolute sense. JVG taught the team how to minimize Francis' weaknesses as a defender. McGrady is already a good defender. I think JVG can help McGrady be a great defender in the absolute sense. I'm all for 65+ win teams.
I agree with you that a point guard has to initiate the action (i.e. get to ball to Yao and McGrady) and set up the play (i.e. get the ball to Yao and McGrady). I disagree in that I think McGrady and Yao will be primarily responsible in setting up other players, not the point guard. I'm from the Rudy T school of offense, not the Larry Brown school of offense. If you are a Rudy T alum, you would believe that ball should be in your star players hands and let them create for themselves and their teammates. If you are a Larry Brown alum, you would believe that your supporting cast should set up the play and try to create an open look for your star player through picks, screens, and what not. So it boils down to whether you want the ball in your star players hands towards to beginning of the possession (Rudy T)or towards the end of the possession (Larry B). Rudy's offense worked a lot better when he had Dream, Clyde and Barkley. It worked damn good with Mobley and Francis when there wasn't a zone in place. It bogged down with Mobley and Francis after the zone. So basically I want an uber version of Matt Maloney. Matt Maloney worked pretty good for that 1996-1997 squad until he lost his mojo during the Western Conference finals. So give me back another Matt Maloney with better defensive skills and more confidence.
I can't remember the last time I disagreed with anything in one of "Da Man's" posts... RE: McGrady - He WILL be the best perimeter defender in the game. Anyone who says he's a poor defender is an idiot.
I could tell. Ugh...I'm glad we WILL NOT play that offense under JVG: "If you are a Rudy T alum, you would believe that ball should be in your star players hands and let them create for themselves and their teammates" I do NOT want to use that offense ever again! EVER! It prevents others from being integral parts of the offense, other than spot-up shooting. And it also limits your options on internal passing. Very few lay-ups and very few easy scores. It's more predicated on ISO's and 3-point shooting. It's too predicable and can become stagnant. I'm all for shooting skill. But we should not overlook that PASSING IS AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON; specifically, passing off pick-and-rolls and screens. Not just shooting. I'm from the school of Billy Cunningham, Larry Brown and Chuck Daly.
You could probably make a pretty good argument that Matt Maloney won the Seattle series for us with his performances in games 1-4. His inexperience absolutely killed us against Utah however. That's where Kevin Johnson could have helped, but I digress. However, yes, I do agree, Matt Maloney with better defensive skills would be fine by me. We don't need to be panicking and overpaying for these free agents. We just need a guy who doesn't take risks, plays within the system, and can shoot the open 3 pointer. I don't think people realize how important good spot up shooting is. I can't even count how many games Matt Bullard won for us in Steve's 2nd year or Glen Rice in Yao's rookie year. When your scrubs are knocking down their looks, playing hard, buying into the system, and playing hard on the other end, you're going to compete.
i think it more of a game manager. Pg like Marbury and Nash are good, but they also have to have players around or they become a 1 man show. The pg is like any other as far as talent surrounding them. The first thing a pg has to be is smart. Thats why Francis never became what we thought he would be. The pg has to know when to push,when to pull back, when to deliver the ball and when to shoot it. It all happens so fast that most can't do and wind up a to machine like Francis. It helps a pg getting his own shot, but its not a pure necessity because with Yao and Tracy, shot will be there, ask Kenny Smith and Robert Horry. When running the pnr, the pg has to know when to penetrate and when to pop or deliver to the big guy. In a sense he does have to be a qb, but more in the sense of a Joe Montana and not a young elway who had to do it all.
Rudy's offense worked better when he had Robert Horry dropping the ball to Dream in the post and Clyde leading the break. Once Barkley got here, the offense competely bogged down while the perimeter players sang a chorus of " Illegal, illegal" and Gene Peterson chanted "backenitin, backenitn,backenitin"...until there was 3 seconds left on the shot clock. j
The thing about Steve Francis in Houston and why his "tenure" was such a "failure", is that he was surrounded by teammates with his level of basketball IQ. i.e. Mobley, Taylor, Cato. Francis is a very, very good basketball player. He would have been fine as a long term solution at the point if only he would have been surrounded with smarter basketball players. Teamming up with Mobley, which was exciting for a few years, was a match made in hell. Two firecrackers in the backcourt with questionable decision making. You are only allowed to have one firecracker in the back court at a time. Just look at Vernon Maxwell and Kenny Smith. Or John Starks and Derek Harper. You replace Chauncey Billups with Steve Francis and that Detroit Pistons team becomes favorites to win next year's championships. Francis is a better player than Billups period. Billups is like a Steve Francis lite (with slightly better defensive skills). You surround Francis with teammates who know how to play the right way, and you can still win BIG. People have got to remember, Billups stunk it up during the Nets and Pacers' series. He took advantage of an old Payton and an injured Fisher, and people want to call him a top 5 point guard. PLEASE!!!!
I admit our offense during that era was boring to watch. But it was effective. Ahhhh.....the memories.
Again, you are talking about Francis's pure athletic ability. You forget to talk about his BRAIN, or lack a brain. Billups never had a high-turnover year. He's always been smart (career 1.93 TO) Thus, having Francis run the Larry Brown offense would have created many problems! He couldn't do it just based on his "mad hopps!" You have to have a player that can understand the system that he's running. Francis could NOT do this; due to his inability to learn new things. And trust me, he would HAVE TO learn new things under Brown. Much more complext than SF is capable of learning. Basketball IQ? Mobley, MoT, Cato? Hmmmm. Ok, lets give SF smarter players...what then? I don't care how you slice it. If you have 4 smart players, and one low-IQ player, that single low-IQ player will hold the team back! Period! He's the weakness in the chain. Don't believe me? Watch Orlando for the next 3 years.
How many times must we repeat this? Seriously, why after the knowing fact that many knowledgeable of T-mac's game and career have gone on to point out in various ways in several occassions, that T-mac already possesses in his arsenal substantial defense. Is it STILL questioned or doubted or just frankly labeled as non-existent? Or flawed?? I just don't understand it.
I agree on the not needing a point gaurd not just yet.Why not give Lue a chance and have Gaines as a backup.He did play point in collage.I think we need to get focus on getting a backup center and a small forward.I dont understand in the draft why didnt we try to draft Jamer Nelson knowing that we were going to be trading Steve.At small forward Al Harrington would have been nice playing aside with T-Mac.Im sure we could of made a trade with the Pacers for Harrington.For a backup center McDyess is free agent and said that he would like to play for the Rockets. Go Rockets
With ball control being such a huge issue for the Rocks last season I think its a bad idea to spend half the season experimenting w/ who is going to bring down the ball, run the offense and run fast breaks (another glaring weakness). We need someone to do these things efficiently and be able to defend the opposing PG (Remember without Cato our interior defense is not going to be as solid as last season). Lue, Gaines and Jackson can all do the job in pinch but if we have the cap room for an upgrade we need to go after it. Someone slightly better that Matt Maloney=Bryce Drew, how about someone slightly better that Kenny Smith.
