I hope I'm wrong, but I really think this was a bad move...While I have problems with the player himself (Rice), I have evn more problems with what this does to our team as a whole...If you look at our starting 5, Cato, Taylor, Rice, Mobley, and Francis, you now have at least 3 (!!) guys who bring scoring and not much else...A lot of teams have at least one of those kind of players starting, some have 2...but how many competitive teams have 3 guys starting who only score...Our forwards will probably be the worst starting forwards in the league defensively, and might very well be just as bad on the boards...And when Mobley's not scoring, what is he doing to help us win? I think he has a real future as a primary scorer, and his erratic play will, I think, level out with experience, but I don't see how adding another scorer helps with that. In any sport, individual weaknesses can be compensated for by other players in order to maximize each other's strengths...But, and this is especially true in basketball, when too many players have the same weakness, or in this case, weaknesses, they actually compound. Being a Toronto fan as well, I saw this first hand last year...When there was big hoopla in town about acquiring Mark Jackson, I looked at his lack of defensive quickness, saw it mirrored by the addition of Corliss Williamson, and with VC and rookie Morris Peterson, Dell Curry, etc..I saw too many players with the same flaws..and was sadly proven right...When this happens, the players cannot be compensated for,and are exposed night after night, with their individual play suffering as a result of the other team's ability to exploit the compound weakness...It's like having a baseball team made up of slow sluggers who hit home runs and strike out a lot...Individually, home run hitters are great to have, and every team needs some, but too many and there's nobody on base to take advantage of the dingers...Every sport has many similar examples.. O have already stated my reasons why I don't like the addition of Rice as an individual player, as well as my personal observations about his game's deterioration, but my overall concern is more systemic. Rice would have been the perfect player to add when we had Hakeem doing his thing in the middle. Offensively he would have provided Rice with the open shots he would have just killed teams with, and defensively he would have erased a lot of Rice's matador moves..Also, guys like Horry, Elie, etc. could have helped compensate...But who will do so now? Griffin might be that kind of guy, in time, but he's too young to count on, and besides, aren't we already counting on him to "complement" Mo..(translation: Play defense and rebound) So, given are starting 5, who helps out Rice? Or, for that matter, who helps out Mo...or Mobley? Again, I really hope I'm wrong, but I worry that the Rockets let their long-time desire to get Rice/a great shooter blind them to the fact that he's not the player he was, and he really doesn't fit our system/team...Add that to the fact that the guy complains better than he shoots, and it's shades of Pippen to me... I wanted to mention that it is quite possible that the new rules might help to alleviate this situation, but no one really knows yet what effect they will have. Until then, I remain very concerned...
I agree. While we may be the highest scoring team in the league, we may also be the highest scored-upon team in the league -- who knows if that will favor us. However, statistically, a team that gives up 90 pts and scores 95 will have (in a large sample) a better record than a team that gives up 100 and scores 105. We lost our two best defensive players (Olajuwon and Anderson) and added a pure-scorer (Rice) and two unknowns (Griffin and Morris). Obviously, those players were gone regardless, but it just seems like we should have focused on getting role/defensive players in return, rather than more "name" guys. Our biggest problem now is that our already-weak (in terms of defense) forwards and guards don't even have a stopper behind them, unless Cato comes to life. This will be an interesting year, if nothing else. I don't really understand our philosophy anymore. When we did our best, (94/95) it was one or two superstars surrounded by solid role players who did their jobs. Since then, it's like we're just trying to put stars on the floor, and all role players are expendable -- notice our roster turnover over the last several years. Even this year, which was supposed to be a stability chemistry-building year, we lost two starters and a team-favorite (Bullard).
JAG - I emphatically agree about the lack of "D" and too many players with only "O". There has to be some one guarding the basket. We all know how dependable Cato is at that function. The addition of Jelani McCoy or Marc Jackson doesn't add enough "D' and while I like Jahidi, he is a band-aid on a gash requiring stitches. Further, IMHO many cc.net posters are over exaggerating Rice's offensive skills. I have checked his stats against WC playoff teams and they are marginally better than Walt's. I also have a very bad feeling that Rice will complain about touches at some mid-season point. I know I'm going to take a hit for this, but we could have let Shandon walk and signed Anthony Mason for a lot less money and a shorter contract.
Very well put. I hereby anoint this the official "dump on the Rice trade" thread. I don't have the basketball knowledge to fend off the best of the Rice/Rudy cheerleaders, but I'm happy to stand here and reload shanna's weapons while she takes you all out.
Just note this: the Detroit Pistons were built around 5 shooters. Only two of their 7-8 man rotation could really play one-on-one defense. Their center was simply a thug on defense, and their SF/PF (Adrian Dantley and later Aguirre) flat out sucked. Their PG guard was not that great on defense, and their 6th man sucked on defense. With team defense and outstanding rebounding they stopped the two best teams ever, imo. But on offense, they built themselves around 5 shooters. They never fielded more than Rodman as a non-shooter. NEVER. They did not play a one-dimensional defensive specialist except for the BEST non-center defensive specialists ever. Will we ever have a multi-talented Joe Dumars...NO! but how rare are those guys. What is not rare is to find a defensive specialist to replace Shandon later...a player for special match-ups. Rudy is not ignoring the defensive side. He and CD believe Griffin will be a stud defender, soon. Another tall-strong player who has a 15er is not that hard to come by either. But first, Rudy wants to fill out his roster with shooters in order to make life easier for Francis and Mobley. Saying the future of our defense sucks is giving up too early on Griffin at 6-10 (and maybe still growing) being able to play Theo Ratliff defense in a few yrs.
The way I see it, was that 2 years ago there was a promise made to sign SA for a better contract than they could offer him. Not keeping that promise would have tarnished the front office's image with other FAs. I don't think anyone on the board thinks that SA is worth anywhere near that money (I think it is a worse contract than Cato's). So assuming you have to sign him to an obsene amount, where that amount came from only select few know, it's best to dump him right away if you have any takers. I see this as Glen for SA and I think that Glen's game will fit better and help our team win more games than SA - D or no D.
Rudy and CD aren't intending this team to be a championship contender this year. Obviously there are some holes to fill. But, we've got the core down. So we lost a defensive specialist who got torched when he played the SF position? Those are VERY easy to come by. Bruce Bowen signed for the minimum this year. There are tons of 6'6'' defensive swingmen all around in the draft. Ron Artest/Desmond Mason types float around the draft into the late-teens/early 20s all the time and they come on contracts over 4 years that are less than what you'd pay Shandon in one year. Griffin has great defensive "potential" and so does Cato. I'd guess CD/RT are in tune with Cato's habits right now, and are adjusting their plans accordingly. This team probably has 1 more move left in it (moving Walt to clear the SF glut). Let's wait and see how that pans out. GATER-As people overexaggerate Rice's offense, they also overrate Shandon's defense as a SF. Look at the Queens. They started one defensive specialist (Christie) and the rest of the lineup was offense. They filled their bench with defensive power.
Everybody is making such a big deal about lack of D. However, with the zone coming into effect, that will allow a previously mediocre defensive team to throw some different looks. The ONLY thing Cato is consistantly good for right now is a few blocks and intimidations. There weren't too many cheap layups. As soon as Dream and Cato were off the floor, teams immediately attacked the rim. Now we got Griffen so he can provide weak-side blocks, which we know are the most effective kind. More so than man-to-man blocks. So I'm not as discouraged about the defensive outlook. But time will tell. -krosfyah
Even if we score a lot and the other team scores a lot, we will be an exciting team to watch from around the league because of that.
I think there is also the possibility that you can tell a guy like Langhi, "You aren't goign to play unless you are out there hustling and fighting." Look at Rick Fox. Who would have thought that he could play such fantastic defense.
You have to realize that Anderson was an individual defender, almost a specialist. 1 good defensive player at the 2/3 position is not going to get anything done in the zone defense. To play good in the zone you need strong team defense, this is something that can be taught and hopefully something Rudy can teach. It does not matter if Rice is a sub par defender if you have someone on the interior stepping up and cutting Rice's man off and good rotation to get in front of the now open interior man everything would be fine. Defense is not a talent, it takes will and the ability to learn and become smarter. The Rockets have the potential to become a great zone defense team, they are quick and have Cato in the middle. My whole argument does hinge on Rudy using the zone. This zone defense is a bigger deal than you think, it changes so much. Hell Rick Pitino could make a killing with NBA talent and the zone on his side.
The Pistons were one of the best defensive teams ever. Ever hear of the Jordan Rules? The entire reason for their success was defense. What about Salley, Mahorn, Rodman, Lambier? You think Lambier was just a thug, but he was a great rebounder. Salley, Mahorn, and Rodman had no other purpose but to play D and rebound. The Rockets have no players like that, none. Rudy hasn't coached defense since '96. I remember a couple of years ago when training camp ended, Rudy said in the paper "we never even had time to address defense. We spent the entire time on the fast break" -- and their fast break was non-existent! Here you have the coach flat out saying that he didn't address defense in training camp.
Well if he does it will have happened before, like last year, do you think that will be before or after he goes on the IR? At the same time he can mention how he wants to be traded and that Rudy just doesn't know how to coach a shooter. I think a lot will be surprised by Rice, after what he has been going through the last 3 years he might really be happy here.
My fear exactly. This looks like a team making personnel moves to become fun to watch, not to become champions. I don't get how five mediocre defenders become, as a group, a good defense. If Rice can't stay in the shooter's face, the shooter scores. No one can bail out the defender on the perimeter. If Rice overplays, the shooter goes past him, and another mediocre defender tries to block the path to the basket -- or, more likely, doesn't really try. Somebody gets left open or gets underneath for the layup. Part of poor defending is poor rotation. Poor rotation is just as deadly in a zone defense as in man-to-man. -1 + -1 + -1 + -1 + -1 = -5.
<B>I don't get how five mediocre defenders become, as a group, a good defense. </B> Bingo -- sure, you can teach good team defense. However, a team of 5 mediocre individual defenders can't play good team defense as well as a team with 3 mediocre and 2 good individual defenders. It's all relative, and the more good individual defenders you have, the better your team defense will be (presuming all the good teams will be taught good team defense). If we thought our team defense was bad last year, imagine what it will be like now. Unfortunately, if our line up is Cato/Taylor/Rice/Mobley/Francis, we now have <I>zero</i> truly good individual defenders in the starting lineup.
So, my simple retort to that is: I don't see how an offense with 2 mediocre shooters can win no matter how good their individual defense is. This is a matter of extremes. Maybe in the NCAA you can surround one or two stars with defenders who are mediocre shooters. In the NBA, you do not have that luxury. All NBA athletes played above average NCAA defense, but many become mediocre defenders against prime NBA shooters. But, they all can still stop Stacey Augmon, Shandon Anderson, Doug Christie, and even Robert Horry from dribbling past them. <b>Hey, we are not talking about a bunch of slow ass players on defense here. We can swarm with youthful speed.</b> Compare the two sides of the court: If you place two mediocre shooters on the floor against the Rockets, we can defend you with our youthful speed and teamwork alone. We just leave the mediocre shooters open. On the flip-side, if you do not have two outstanding NBA defenders and team defense, you cannot stop us. It is a matter of extremes. Your Shandon Andersons allow us to play better team defense.
OK- A few points to address; Re: The Pistons, and one-dimensional defenders... First of all, as I think someone else pointed out, the Pistons had a slew of defensive players. In addition, they had rebounders, and possibly the best playmaker of all time. Dumars and Rodman both were in contention for the best defenders in the league at the time, and most of their big men were just there to pound, play tough (dirty) defense and grab rebounds...The entire "Nasty Boys" mystique was predicated upon their collective willingness to , er, go the extra mile to stop their opponents. In terms of one-dimensional defenders, I never stated that a player had to be there for his defense alone to help a team. I said that, on this team, we have too many guys who are there as one-dimensional offensive players. The need for guys who do other things, like defend and rebound, would be partially lessened were any of our scorers also defenders/rebounders. The issue of not wanting ANOTHER scorer to take away from our present group's touches is only an additional point, in that I don't think it was what we needed at the expense of degrading our collective defense. With regards to "team defense" and "teaching defense": I agree wholeheartedly that part of being a defensive team is team defense. Furthermore, part of being a good defender is being a good team defender. And I agree that part of being a good team defender is willingness and know-how. However, I think it's stretching the point to suggest that you can use team defense to compensate for 3 very poor defenders and 2 mediocre ones...Additionally, a lot of the reason why Rice, Taylor, and Mobley are sub-par defenders is BECAUSE they are poor team defenders. None of them has shown, in the 3 or more years in the league, the commitment and know-how alluded to. What, pray, is the reasoning behind supposing that they are suddenyl going to show it this year, when surrounded by other equally inept/unwilling team defenders...And, let's assume that Cato is the intimidating defensive presence suggested...My point is that the scenario which followed that suggestion is made all the more impossible, on a consistent basis, by the sheer number of matadors we'll be running out there...How can Cato be rotating to cover for Rice's defensive weakness while simultaneously doing the same for Taylor's man...and Mobley's man....That was my point...too many non-defenders make compensatory defense like the boy with his finger in the dyke...And teams go into the game knowing this...Don't you suppose the opposing team's gameplans might include attacking this rotation with counter passes and/or outlets to the men inevitably left open by these frantic (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) one or two guys running all over the court making up for Rice, Taylor, and Mobley's man beating them consistently... With regards to teaching defense, I'd suggest that's a bit of pie in the sky...Both Mobley and Taylor have played under Rudy T, and the results have been negligible...Mobley has become the poor defender he is under Rudy, and Taylor showed no noticable improvement in either willingness or ability as a defender last year...And to suggest that Rice will suddenly blossom into a team defender is daydream believing...If Jeff Van Gundy can't teach you to play defense, and Phil Jackson can't get you to commit to the team, and your entire career you've been a poor defender, and now you're even slower than before....I mean, seriously...what, other than blind faith supports any notion that Rice will transform into anything resembling a defender, team, individual, whatever... Re: Griffin...I already mentioned that I think it's way too early to count on him to be our defensive stopper, and I think it's asking too much of anyone to compensate for 3 of your primary playersbeing non-defenders...I actually think that this might r****d Griffin's development, here's why... Someone mentioned in another thread that part of the point in acquiring Rice was to remove pressure from Griffin to perform right away..I'd suggest the opposite, and the earlier post in this thread supports my point...With Mobley and Francis on the team there was never going to be any pressure on Griffin to be a primary offensive player. With Shandon, or a similar player on board, Griffin could have taken a decent amount of shots, developed his offensive game, and his defensive and rebounding abilites would justify his court time in the present while his offense progressed...However, the addition of Rice, and the subtraction of our 2 best defenders (including Olajuwon) alters that considerably...Now Griffin's shots are going to be mighty hard to come by, as 3 (not even counting Stevie who's going to take a hell of a lot more shots than Griffin) other players ahead of him in the rotation make their living by scoring alone...There are two kinds of ways to put pressure on a rookie's offensive development. One, as suggested, is to ask him to become The Man too soon, but I maintain there was never any danger of that here. A second way is to give him so few touches, and even those being so spaced out, that he feels pressure to make each shot count...I would suggest that the addtion of Rice and his projected 20 plus shots per night ( unless you want him demanding another trade, and I don't think we'd have acquired him were we not looking at him that way) creates a real danger of that for Griffin. But what's more, you have created a need for a young player to become The Man...on defense. That is equally as dangerous as on the offensive end...With Shandon and Dream, Griffin's defense would have been a bonus for now...With the moves, people (even in this thread) are already looking at this 19 year old kid as the answer to our running 3 non-defenders out there for 35 minutes each...I'd suggest that, while there was no real fear of putting too much pressure on Griffin to become The Man on offense, even before the moves, there is now a pressure on him to become The Man on defense, and that is way too much to ask of a rookie, let alone a one-year college player who has shown certain vulnerabilites one-on-one... With regards to the "we're not building for this year, but for the future" argument, I would agree...But I would suggest that, as mentioned above, the addition of a one-dimensional scorer who demands a primary scoring role or a ticket out of town on a regualr basis, and who does none of the " little things" like play defense and rebound, is hardly the way to establish a foundation for the future or teach our younger players...What example will Rice set for Griffin? He has shown that he puts individual accomplishments above winning (Lakers) and has equally shown a complete unwillingness to adapt his game to another coach's system (New York). This is the guy on whom an argument that we're building for the future is based? Ugh.... OK, there you have my (further) opinion. I completely agree with the poster suggesting that we'll be exciting, and I genuinely mean that...However, I think that far too many opposing teams are going to feel an equal excitment at the propsect of playing us, and I would anticipate many players "going off" or getting "in the zone" against us night after night...I just hope that it won't become a team chemistry issue, and that's what bothers me most...Before the trade it was hardly an issue,with Cato being the only possible attitude problem on board...Now our most senior player, and a starter at that, has at least as questionable an attitude as Cato, who is also being asked to start this year...I'm nervous that this team whose chemistry last year was so positive, is now very vulnerable to an implosion...
JAG, You miss the point about Detroit. Detroit had 5 shooters that were core to their offense. They fielded no one-dimensional players like Shandon Anderson. The fact is, the heart of their offense in '84-89 played worse indivual defense than the heart of our offense, but everyone was fast or strong. We need a defensive anchor. No one doubts that. But you're not really trying to say that an average NBA team will be able to expose our weakness versus us exposing theirs. You are not really saying that the average NBA team has no weaknesses. You are making too big of a deal out this extreme offense we are fielding. <b>You are playing the extreme argument, when we don't really have an extremely bad defense.</b> You write it off as bad defense. It isn't BAD. <b>Our defense SUCKED the past 2 yrs because we've been devasted with frontline injuries, and our big men have been playing out of position too much.</b> Now, how many times did we lose because our offense sucked in the 1st and/or 4th. Several! We have a sum gain here if we land a big thug and we don't have all the damn frontline injuries we've had in the past 2 yrs. We'll have a sum gain.
The combination of a group of very poor defenders and a group of very poor rebounders does not usually lead to a group of very big winners. Houston desperately needs rebounders and defenders. Griffin may mature into one, but it won't likely be this season and he won't likely get enough minutes even if it was this season. If Houston is looked at as a work in progress, then they've definitely got a lot of the tools and should eventually mature into a real force. I haven't a clue how Rice fits into that and I wouldn't be surprised if they took a bit of a step backwards this season. BTW, Detroit was a great defensive and rebounding team as was pointed out, they also were more than a jump shooting team like they've been said to be in here. They did rely primarily on shooting, but they had several very good post players in Mark Aguirre (and before him Dantley), James Edwards (an often overlooked contributor who was deadly in the post) and even Joe Dumars (who was very effective in the post). They were a well rounded team that beat their opponents into submission (something Mo Taylor and Glen Rice will never be accused of).
