Gundy's way = 1 way to defend all opponents. Stick to the plan. Adelman and Elston's way = Tune it up based on opponents and make adjustments on the fly. We have already seen how Gundy's philosophy failed. They went up 2-0 in two different series and when the opposing teams made adjustments and came back, Rockets failed to make make ones of their own. Gundy gets credit for instilling discipline in this squad but too bad he wasn't smart enough to think outside the box and take them to next level. This is where Adelman comes in. He has a very similar style to Phil Jackson's. The new way will pay dividends in playoffs where constant adjustments are needed.
This is ridiculous. Of course they're not running the exact same defense as JVG - it's a new coach, and new system. Talk about tearing down the strawman. Do you really think they would be playing so well defensively this year if the importance of such intensity wasn't hammered home every last second for the past 4 years?
I figure I'll post this here instead of starting a new thread. I wanted to compare our progress offensively and defensively over the course of a season for this year and last year. I use a 5-game moving average for an adjusted offensive and defensive rating based on opponents faced. For instance, if opponents faced over 5 games has an average DRTG (for the season) of 100, and the Rockets score at 105 over those 5 games, then the offensive rating plotted below would be 106.5*[105/100] (where 106.5 is league average efficiency for last 2 seasons). Statistically, the Rockets have definitely been improving offensively and defensively over the last month. But the numbers don't show this to be some radical shift in performance compared to last season. Of course, the numbers don't show everything ... but just for some perspective I thought this would be of interest.
This kind of "need to give JVG credit for defense" talk is laughable. Give Adelman a big center and a defensive wing, Adelman/Turner can coach them into a good defensive squad. As a matter of fact, 2001-02 Kings' defensive rating was 101.1 (6th of 29) and 2002-3 was 99.1 (2nd of 29). OMG! The Kings had Mike Bibby and Chris Webber in their squad. Bibby & Webber are defenseless asses. If JVG can figure out how to defend pick n roll like Adelman does, the Rockets wouldnt lose to the Jazz in playoffs.
1. As some have pointed out, of course the schemes are different. I mean, when the current coaching staff talk about defense to the team, do you really expect them to just say "Well, guys, remember what you did last year? Do exactly that. Those of you who were not on the team ask Shane and Chuck what they did. Now, let's move on and have some fun working on making cuts in the offense." As for saying last year's scheme was just "pack the paint" with no adjustments. You are ignoring the fact that the Rockets actually were very good defending against the 3 point shot (which they struggled with in 05/06). This year, the opponents's 3 pt % is actually higher (though the attempts are down). Also, last season's team won 58% of their games against opponents with high eFG%, this year's team won 48% of games against those kind of opponents. Of course, these facts are irrelevant to a good rant. 2. People are ignoring the beginning of the article, which says The previous coaching staff deserve credit for getting guys to think and to take pride in working as a unit on defense-- not just defensive specialists like Shane and Chuck, but also Tracy, Rafer, Yao, Luther, etc who are not known for their D. Of course, the current coaching staff are responsible for continuing that philosophy, for developing and implementing their scheme-- especially with new guys in the rotations, and for working on the daily game preparations. Frankly, it's silly to try attribute credit solely to one or the other. Both staff deserve credit, and it's impossible to come up with a exact distribution of such credit.
No, I think the only way to properly give Adelman the credit he deserves for our success this year is to vilify Jeff Van Gundy and juxtapose every aspect of their philosophies. I mean, it has to be one or the other. Jeff Van Gundy must have been horrible if we are doing so well this year under Rick.
JVG's team was obviously out-talented by those two teams. I would think if Rockets had a healthy Jowan Howard(Yes,the same JH was quite effective in his first year here), or a Scola/Landry combo, Rockets would have passed 1st round both times. It really wasn't that much a failure if you look at the players JVG got, in fact, the defense by JVG gave Rockets a chance to win. This year, Boston is the best defensive team thanks to JVG's favorate assistant coach. I do agree some adjustments by Adelman is good, but I don't disagree to discount how JVG made some of Rockets players from bad or average defensive players to good ones.
The majority of times when a team led by 2-0, they won. JVG's teams are the exceptions. If there isn't enough talent, how come they could've won 2-0 twice? They should've been swept without talent. It's true the talent level needed upgrade, but it wasn't the deciding factor. JVG's teams were talented enough to win first two games of two series, but not smart enough to close it out. JVG's lack of adjustment makes the opponents play easy once they get used to the Rockets. Once they figured us out, oops, first round exit.
It could mean JVG prepared his team better and caught the better team off guard at the beginning. But once the opponent figured out, there is nothing a less talented team could do.
Maybe... although I can't imagine the Rockets had so little talent they'd go a combined 2-8 against Utah and Dallas in games 3 through 7. Had they even gone 3-7, JVG would likely be still coaching here.
You make it sound like JVG made some great unexpected moves that caught the Jazz off guard and made us win game 1 and game 2, could you elaborate on it?
Game 7 against the Mavs, a 40 points blowout. That's not because of lack of talent. The team lost interest and confidence in the WAY they played against the Mavs. They gave up, they folded up under despair.
I said could be. There were many factors. But I still believe JVG's defense was the main reason which kept Rockets in that series because the offense was just beyond terrible and Utah's talent level obviously was higher than Rox.
With enough talent, there wouldn't even be a game 7 after Rox won first two on the road. Once Dallas completely ignored Bowen, Rox had no chance.
Yao on Boozer caught Utah off guard in game 1, I believe. But Utah and Boozer figured it out quickly.
How do you gauge "enough talent"? Because the Rockets won so they had enough talent? And if they lost, it means they didn't have enough talent? That sounds like toutalogy to me. It's not just about talent. It's about everything. Everything plays a role. Talent, chemistry, coaching, tactics, execution, you name it. The results include all those factors.
