I think the Rockets must plan on using the zone more than other teams are against them. A zone is still only as good as the players play it. Temple is a team that plays a zone that kills the flow of the offense. If they play zone like they play man, it doesn't matter what defense they play. The Rockets will score if they defend and rebound, but as we saw with the Kings of 2 yrs ago, you have to defend to go from a 8th seed to a 3rd.
I keep seeing this emphasis put on zone defense. Has anyone actually heard Rudy T's take on playing zone? It seems like a zone D would fit this team's personnell, but I have not seen Rudy T comment on this anywhere. If I missed it, could someone please fill me in.
Regardless of the defense we use -- zone, individual, whatever -- a team full of good individual defenders can run the exact same defense more effectively than a team full of bad individual defenders. Unless there's some magic potion to make these guys good defensive players, I don't see us being a good defensive team. Hopefully, they'll be so good offensively that it won't matter. We'll find out in a few months!
This is the problem: If you look at every NBA champion in history, you will see that there have been no more than 3 designated scorers on the team. On this Rockets team, we see Francis, Mobley, Rice, and Mo - all of which (besides Steve) do very little else well. Then when you look to our bench you see Eddie Griffin and T-MO. That is six players that have the potential to be number one or two options on a team. Now, if you go back and look at all the championship teams in history, you will see that each player has a clearly defined role on the team, whether it be scoring, rebounding, defense, etc. This Rockets team really has none of that and until we can solve this problem by either trading fo role players or having players sacrifice stats for wins, we are not gonna see a championship very soon.
This argument is mute. This question should be "are the rockets better with Rice than with Shandon Anderson" I would definitely say Rice. No, we will not win a championship but we will make the playoffs. What were our chances of winning a championship anyway with Shaq and Kobe playing together. I am just happy that I can root for someone during the playoffs if only for three games. We can address the D question later.
JAG: You offerred the extremist debate (strengths vs weaknesses), but don't seem to want to do anything but "respectfully disagree," whatever that means. Relax guys. Just like Detroit and Chicago did....there is nothing wrong with locking down your core offense FIRST, so you can build a scoring system!! <b>It is easier to add defense to scoring systems that the other way around</b> The Rockets have no real identity, yet. Rudy wants them to learn offense, if nothing else, while he tries to find some Mahorns and Salley's and awaits the emergence of Griffin. So bet it!
I agree that we need to improve on defense, but Crispee is right about one thing. There were at least 10 losses last year, where the Rockets forgot how to shoot, and ended up scoring 18 points in the first quarter. Even worse, there were games where they were outscored by 10-15 points in the fourth quarter. Not just because of their defense, but because of their horrific dry spells. Still, just think how good this team would be with Hakeem still manning the middle. Francis-Norris Mobley-Francis Rice-Griffin-Williams Taylor-Thomas Olajuwon-Cato sigh
<B>Not just because of their defense, but because of their horrific dry spells. </B> Have you considered that it's sometimes the other team's defense that creates those dry spells? ALL teams go through offensive dry spells. The beauty of good defense is that when you go through those, you can keep the other team from getting too far ahead.
IMHO, you have missed the point. The issue is not who is better Rice or Anderson - the issue is we just spent $8M for a 34 year old one-dimensional player. Was this the best the Rockets could do??? Shandon was out of position defending the 3 and wanted a big payday. Why not let him walk? Or at least S&T for a better defender/rebounder at the 3. Everyone here expects the Spurs to make the playoffs. They signed Bruce Bowen for $715,850 !!! Bruce Bowen held Rice to 7 for 20 (2-6 3PT) in 2 games last season. My biggest problem with the whole Rice situation is that it is too narrowly focused and too many other dominoes have to drop for it to be successful. I just don't think the Rockets got enough bang for the buck. Many posters tell us to be patient...RT & CD aren't done dealing yet. Who in the h*** are we going to deal? KT? Langhi? Cato? Walt? When we tied ourselves to Rice's contract, we forfeited virtually all of our flexibility to be a player in the FA market or broker deals with other teams. For a 34 year old player who did not post exceptional numbers against WC playoff teams even when he got minutes!!
I'll admit that I'm no salary cap expert here, but I think that the small amount of cap info that is at my fingertips coupled with a reasonable sense of logic enables me to ask what on earth are you talking about? We traded Anderson for Rice. Straight up; there was no amount of money spent on Rice by the Rockets management, there was money spent on Anderson who was then traded to the Knicks in exchange for Rice. Would you have preferred Anderson to stay in the lineup as our SF? That was the option. Berfore making this exchange, we had cap room, sure; but who was out there to spend it on? Overpay on this or that player just to get them away from their home teams offer sheet? Or be used as a dumping ground for other teams junk players in order for them to make a deal with someone else? The cap space doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Look at the "major" players in the cap-room game this off-season; they haven't done a great deal have they? In fact I'd say it's probably more beneficial to improve your team via trades then through wooing FA's with your cap-room - heck, they all know how far under the cap we are, so that just makes them want more money from us and we get stuck paying "Cato-contracts" Trading Anderson for Rice doesn't tie the Rockets hands in the slightest. If anything it gives us a genuinely tradable commodity in Walt Williams. And about Bruce Bowen; He may have held Glen Rice to 7-20 FG (35%) in those 2 games last year, but he also got held to just 36% from the field for the season. Assuming that the great job he did on Rice holds true for all opposing SF's, then Bowen would net you a gain of 1FG% point. That's GREAT!. So if that is to be considered a succesful defensive player then surely Rice (who shot 44% from the field) would only have to hold his player to 43% Fg shooting to be a success? Of course, this is not taking into account the fantastic defense that Glen Rice put on Bruce Bowen by holding him to 5-17 from the field in their match-ups. The question IS one of Rice or Anderson.
Rice is not all that bad a defender as people make him out to be, he's averaged a steal a game for his career, and also, he's a better rebounder than Shandon is, something the Rockets severely need.
I think there are a number of knee-jerk reactions to the Rice trade which need to be corrected. First, many have decimated the "why didn't we give Hakeem the money we gave to Rice" whining that inevitably appeared on the board as soon as the trade went down, so I won't dwell on this too much. I would only say that Hakeem decided to leave in the middle of last year when he asked to be waived, or traded. A number of people are wondering why the Rockets couldn't get more for Shandon Anderson. Shandon Anderson is the very definition of a role player. At his best he is nice slashing player who can play adequate defense and run the break. At his worse he stands around and contributes nothing offensively and against the top players gets his lunch handed to him defensively. Shandon is closer to Roderick Rhodes than he is to a player worth a $40 million plus contract. Good guy, mediocre player. Arrivederci (and die, Feagan, die! ; ). Rice is a far better player and a far better fit for the Rockets. His game had not fallen as far as Hakeem's and his is an excellent all-around offensive player. He can bomb threes better than most of the league and is a strong post-up player. With the zone coming, shooting is at a premium and Rice and the backcourt should slap some folks around. Rice had a bad year last year, no question, but this was mitigated by a foot injury that was more of a freak thing than a terminal problem and by the fact that he had two all-star level players in front of him in the Knick rotation. Rice is actually one of the more durable players in the NBA over the course of his career and his three year contract is not crippling. No matter what anyone says Glen Rice was a key player in the Lakers' Championship run in 2000. Rice averaged 17 points a game, which is something given the number of shots that Shaq and Kobe eat up. And RIce also hit a number of clutch shots during the playoffs. For every person that harps on Rice's complaints during that season consider that Rice was in a contract year, Phil Jackson's continuing baiting in front and behind the scenes and the prominent role played by his wife with the press in exposing these matters. Rice was no more a team cancer than Hakeem Olajuwon was last year. Finally, the notion that the Rice deal ruined the Rockets cap flexibility is muted by the fact that this dream of landing a big free agent in a few years was never going to happen. First, Steve Francis will be next in line with a max contract so the money would not be there anyway. (No one will ever take on Cato's contract until he plays well...in which case, why trade a good young center?) Second, even if the Rockets could have cleared enough cap space, the free agent market is essentially devoid of huge front-level talent once you get past Tim Duncan. The Webber free agent story should be instructive of why you shouldn't put all of your roster eggs in one basket (sorry for that lame metaphor). The bottom line is that Glen Rice makes the Rockets a better team. The Rockets were not going to get Dikembe Mutumbo, or even Marc (one-year-wonder) Jackson for Shandon Anderson. He will add punch to the offense that Shandon, or any other option could not provide and he will enable Eddie Griffin to develop at a steady pace I commend Rudy and Carrol Dawson for thinking out of the box and daring to be great, and not merely safe. -Elvis!
OK. There's nothing we can do about this deal. It's done. And maybe, if I strain really hard and cross my fingers and click my heels together like most of you are doing, Anderson for Rice starts to take on the logic of Thorpe for Drexler. (Never mind that Anderson was no Thorpe. The more important thing is that Rice is no Drexler, and the current Rockets didn't lack scoring to begin with.) You wanted your (fourth, aging, malcontent, cap-eating) scorer, you got him. Now get us some freakin' defense.
DrN - Your posts are normally insightful and articulate. Perhaps you had a long weekend and it was very late when you posted this. You somewhat suprprise me. I don't think we need Larry Coon, aelliott, or crispee for this one. After losing Dream the Rockets had (depending on who's figures you believe) between $16m-$15m. They then signed Mo T and this number dropped to slightly less than $10m. With almost $10m dollars on the table, the Rockets chose to give $8m to Glen Rice. I don't see the need for a cap expert at this point. JAG's original point (which Shanna, Will & myself agree with) was that Rice's inclusion gives the Rockets a team with all "O" and little to no "D". The debate continued with various posters providing personal analysis on balance and importance of "O" VS. "D" and then LA Fadeway33 stated that no NBA chapionship team had more than three scorers. I don't know how you personally define "scorer" but for me this is someone who'S contribution to the team is lopsided to the "O" side. I do not define Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, Rodman, Sally, Rambis, Ainge, Otis Thorpe, Bill Cartwright, B.J. Armstrong, Ron Harper, Horace Grant, or even "Quitten" as scorers. They all brought something else to the table. Francis, Cat, Mo T & Rice are all "scorers" and IMHO it's one too many. No one out there? How about Anthony Mason for $6m and Jelani McCoy for $2m. (Mason is only about 6 months older than Rice). Both for two years deals. We will pay Rice $10+m in his year 3! I know most Rockets fans (me included) do not like Mason, but how many of us truly liked Barkley before he became a Rocket? Not many. Your suggestion that Walt is a tradable commodity also applies here. How about letting Shandon walk and we keep the $8m we just spent on Rice. We could then go with just Jelani and SF by committee. Walt, Langhi, & Griffin's game's are dissimilar enough to be used situationly for matchup purposes. Griffin gets more PT without Rice here. Come the February trade deadline and guess who is eveybody's favorite trading partner? The Rockets are then in the drivers seat and do not have to take any "junk". FYI - Glen Rice shot less than 40% from the field against WC playoff teams last year. I have one thing to say to all of those Rockets fans who are jubilant with the addition of Glen Rice -be careful what you wish for, you just might get it
Rice is as bad a defender as he's made out to be. He's horrible there. Anyway, the whole zone defense will make up for everything remark that seems to be prevalent here sounds nice, BUT did any of you watch the summer league games? The NBA will not have zone defenses like they do in college. Players have to be next to a man at all times (3 second rule) or they'll get called for a pseudo-tech (you get to shoot a ft and keep the ball). This was called extremely tightly. This limits the effect a zone can have a ton. Bad defenders will still be bad defenders in a zone. Bad defensive teams will still be bad defensive teams. Just because NY made a mistake (getting Anderson to that contract), it doesn't mean Houston should make a similar mistake (taking Rice at that contract).
I wasn't offering the extremists' view, I was responding to a specific post which disagreed with my point, stating that I missed the point...I did a lot more than respectivley disagree, and in fact found myself repeating things I had said earlier..Maybe I don't understand your complaint...could you elaborate?
GATER, The refute is that is no team ever won a championship fielding more than 1 guy at a time who couldn't make an open shot consistently. The Rockets were headed towards fielding 2 <b>starters</b> (Shandon and Cato). Even mediocre defensive teams can corral Francis/Mobley when they have 2 guys to slack off on. The BIG POINT is that the best defensive team ever (Detroit) built their offense FIRST. Their defense was nothing special until Dumars' second year in 1987-88. They had Isiah, Tripucka, Vinnie and later Dantley before Dumars made an impact. And those 4 guys SUCKED on defense. Show me a team built on defense with mediocre shooters, and I'll show you a team who will have to break up their line-up in a big trade for a scorer. Show me a team built on offense with mediocre defenders, and I'll show you a team who can find their final pieces via mid-late draft slots and Mid-Level Exceptions or humble trades...if not, they can always dangle one of their scorers at you.
It seems that some people are missing the point of my post...This is not about which player has higher open market value, Shandon Anderson or Glen Rice...I have previoulsy stated that on paper we won that deal in terms of talent for talent, and I agree that guys like Shandon are easier to find then guys like Rice...My point is one of the team as a whole, what were our strengths and weaknesses before the trade, and what have we done to those strengths and weaknesses by the trade...It is my argument that we ill-advisedly added to our strength, possibly at the expense of the development of our younger players...But what is more to the point, we significantly increased our weaknesses, namely defense and rebounding. I maintain that this weakness to this extreme starts a chain reaction, whereby weaker defenders cant' be accounted for by their teammates (as is normally done) simply because we now have too many to account for, and those doing the thoretical compensation aren't good enough in the first place.. Defense isn't the kind of quality you can define by numbers alone, it's primarily one of accumulated opinion...So when people make statements which I consider completelty lacking in merit, such as Glen Rice is a pretty good defender, or that the Rockets individual defenders are better than the "Nasty Boys" defenders were, short of citing hundreds of "experts", I really have no other option but to respectively disagree...For example, were I to state that, say, Jason Williams is a much better defender than Jason Kidd, you would all laugh and disagree...But you'd only be able to use common perception to back it up, as numbers don't really apply...Steals are a double-edged sword, and are more an indication of the defender's style than his ability...Blocks are a little more reliable, but there are two kinds of blocks...For example, early in his Raptors career, Marcus Camby repeatedly got pounded and beaten by bigger players against whom he was matched, but he would get a couple of recovery blocks a game, and would be among the league leaders, while, at the time, being a very poor defender.. Thus, when we reduce an argument about defense to it's core, we have little measurable basis for our argument, it's a matter of perception, and if you think that Cutino Mobley is a better individual defender than Joe Dumars was,well...what can I say but that I think you're wrong, and I think most would agree with me.. Let's turn this around...Let's suppose that our strengths and weaknesses were reversed, and we were a team composed primarily of tough, scrappy defenders who don't score, and our weakness was easily defined as scoring...And then we lost our senior player who was one of our few credible scorers...And our next move was to trade our best scorer, as one-dimensional as he may have been, for another guy that does nothing but play defense...Would you not see that as compounding our weakness? And I would argue that the reality we are presented with is worse, as offensive options are limited by the number of balls on the floor, whereas defense can be played by all players on the floor all the time... I'm NOT saying let's boo Rice off the floor, my philosophy is never to blame the player for what I perceive to be a poor management decision. As he is now a Rocket, while I don't agree with it, I will cheer for Glen Rice, and having stated that I think his atitude stinks, I will from now on elvaluate him only based on what he does as a Rocket...I hope he has a great year, and I hope that our scoring makes up for what I think will be a terrible defense...But, as a fan of this team, I am concerned with our immediate future.
JAG, I respectfully disagree with your blinded interpretation that anyone here said our defense was better than Detroit.
