Plain & simple Defense: JVG has a good defensive scheme as long as the opposing team don't shoot the 3pointer well Offense: The slow kid down the street that dresses up his rock as Mr. Potatoe head can come up with a better offensive strategy than JVG... Seriously....... Bill worrell could come up with a better offensive strategy than JVG
I already said it before, his stubborness will cost us many games.... last night you could see that some players feel comfortable on the court, some don't, and those who don't are mosty bench guys I feel sorry for this team, JVG robot thinking will not get us anywhere
First of all, I was just point out to you what they run. It has nothing to do with me playing basketball. Phoenix runs those type of plays. Drive and kick is one of them. Don't get upset with me because I answered the question you asked. Regardless of what you think of the offense, I didnt design those plays. As far as JVG, there is a reason Phoenix can beat teams like us, and get past the 1st round each year and assistant coach has a bunch of defenders telling us why he's so great every year.
when in doubt start blamining innovation on offense. You can only do what fits the players strengths. Battier is a spot up guy and luther is basically too, although he is improving on the move. Alston is who who is, primarily a ball handler and a spot up guy. Howard is who is who is. Snyder is not a great offensive weapon when he is settling for jumpshots. Chuck hayes...not a great help on offense, at least without someone penetrating. so what exactly do should you do? like it or not, getting the ball to yao is the best option and that should be done every time you can. And if you watch closely, the rockets run a ton of different looks to get yao the ball in the paint. Watch all the ball movement, cuts, backpicks etc and you will see diversity, however ulitmately the play ends up the same , with getting yao the ball. It may looke like the "same" play, but doesnt mean it is. And with tmac, we all know that the offense tends to break down or at least becomes stagnant because, like mentioned earlier, of the players skill sets. Now, actually giving yao good post passes is something to complain about. What iss ultimately lacking, imo, is someone besides tracy who can get inside the defense and create. Rafer is great at setting up plays but for whatever reason he has forgot or lost the ability to get by people and inside the heart of the D.
This thread is pointless... The loss to GSW had more to do with defense and boneheaded plays by the players. Warriors Rockets Turnovers: 10 23 Fast Break Pts: 19 11 Biggest Lead: 16 3 Unanswered Pts: 5 0 Points in the Paint: 32 28 How many layups did we give up in the game? Thats a defensive breakdown not offensive.
good point. turnovers alone were a huge problem. THe offense always looks like crap when the players are throwing bad passed
JOH posters are really starting to get old and annoying. Their ability to blame any and all things on a general disdain for JVG is starting to overtake moronic trade proposals as the dumbest threads on the BBS. V-Span would be saving us now if JVG was willing to play him in December! The Iraq War: Stubborn Jeff refuses to bring our troops home. McGrady's back is going out on him now because JVG played him so much to save his job! JVG won't bench Rafer for VSpan! His hatred for Euros will be our undoing! Fire JVG so Sanjaya will finally be sent home! We'll probably get 50 wins cause JVG wants to save his job! Ugh........... Evan
I think JVG is a little bit of both. I think his stubborness has cost us some games and I think his philosophy and abilities to draw up plays during timeouts and switch up on the opposing teams has won us some games. However, there are some things I still do not understand one of them being about our rotations and the way we match up on guys during games. First of all, it was obvious that Davis was eating Rafer, Luther, and Lucas for breakfast, lunch, and dinner as was JRich, Jackson, and Pietrus during last night's game. So, VSpan finally is injected into the picture and we decide to matchup Shane against Baron to stop him and put VSpan on JRich. I thought VSpan still did a very effective job, especially when they tried to post the bigger man on him down low. I was very impressed with his post up defense against the 6'6" to 6'8" players that were simply hammering Rafer, Luther, and Lucas. He was our best defensive perimeter player besides possibly Shane last night. But, what I don't understand is why wouldn't Van Gundy play him on Davis and allow Shane to go back on JRich and Stephen J. There were a couple plays where Golden State ran JRich off screens and VSpan has no chance on those plays. He's simply not long enough. It was obvious watching the Shane-Baron matchup that Shane was not quick enough to stay with Baron, even though he was the best choice to put on Baron after Rafer/Luther/Lucas got cleaned out by him. He simply was not quick enough to stay in front of Baron and keep Baron from intiating. So, wouldn't the logical thing be to switch them off and let VSpan use his quickness against Baron and let Shane use his quickness and size against JRich and Stephen J? When he brought VSpan into the game, he left Rafer in and we were essentially playing Rafer and VSpan on Stephen J and JRich while Shane is defending Baron. Those defensive matchups don't make sense to me. It was obvious after observing VSpan for about 1 minute, that he was going to work his tail off defensively. Why not at least try him on Baron? Even offensively, Rafer is running the point and VSpan is standing in the corner. If there ever was a team that was begging for the pick and roll to be played on them it was the Warriors last night with all that fronting they were doing on Yao. But Yao staying in the low post all night and we piled up the turnovers trying to throw it over the top to him. The couple times VSpan got the ball, he made nice penetration and kicked out. All of those plays either led to a direct assist, a very good shot, or the extra pass off the defensive rotation for the wide open 3 ball. And he's doing that out of the corner. Why would you not bring him up top, and establish the offense with him at the top and run pick and roll to death bringing Yao up high. Our offense so desparately needed penetration last night to soften up all the junk defense on Yao and allow our shooters to get wide open looks instead of having to hurry the shot. VSpan finally did get to make a play or two from the top, but it was well into the shot clock and was an afterthought after whatever Rafer did. VSpan is a playmaker and especially with the turnovers already going through the roof as we tried to get the ball to Yao, what could have possibly gone worse by having VSpan work from the top in pick and roll? Yeah, he's a high turnover guy. But we were already in a high turnover game. A turnover is a turnover man, whether VSpan commits it or whether Rafer/Luther commit it. And here's another one. We have kept Bonzi inactive and in my opinion it finally bit us on the hiney last night. We had no other offensive option once they took Yao out of the game besides Luther jacking up 3s. And that 30 points from Luther is about the most ineffective 30 points I've ever seen, because he gave every bit of it back and then some with his porous defense and turnovers and bad decisions. But we had nowhere else to go. If you aren't going to run pick and roll with Yao and if you are going to let Yao meander around the low box with 2 and 3 defenders on him, then you should have Bonzi active and ready to step in and make a huge contribution for you. We needed Bonzi last night. And he was plenty healthy to play. It was obvious that our best defensive group last night included VSpan. But we come out the 3rd quarter with Rafer and Snyder and then Luther comes in. I think VSpan finally got a couple minutes around the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th and that was it. Back to getting crushed. So, in short, I do not understand some things about Van Gundy's thought process on matchups and at times strategy. To me, it was obvous they were taking Yao out of the game once McGrady got hurt. And it was obvious we needed a penetrator/finisher/playmaker in there to get our shooters wide open looks. And there was plenty of space no the floor for a high block post up player like Bonzi to do some serious damage. And there was a logical experiement in the making with VSpan at the top running pick and roll. It wasn't like it could possibly get worse if he was running the offense. The other guys obviously weren't the answer.
our offense was not a problem??? yao ming had 4 shots...we gotta get him more shots. i dont care if we scored 99. you dont win games when your big man shoots 4 shots
. i feel the same way. it gets old. Next time my team losses at the Y im going to blame the offensive strategy and the stubborness of the players...not the fact that they blow. the sloppy passes and t/os were the problem.
JVG learned all his bball from his daddy and some from Riley. I'm not sure JVG has an original bone in his body. He is stubborn, though.
Nonetheless if you give JVG a couple of healthy T-Macs who can't help but score, but have a natural ability to be good defenders so JVG leaves them alone, JVG could win some NBA titles.
Hell, I could argue with this pronouncent by glynch, couldn't you? Where is Dakota? He would argue with glynch, but then Dakota and glynch seldom disagree wrt to bball. Though a lot of Dakota's political posts are off the wall.
This is so stupid. JVG is a great offensive coach and it is proven when the team wins and scores 75 points in one half. If his players actually did their thing and Yao doesn't get three fouls in the first quarter or whatever, we're capable of scoring 100 points easily and at the same time shutting them down to 80 points easily. This is true now as it was back in 2005.
NOw this a radical position. JVG a great offensive coach? NOw probably a relatively good defensive coach.
Well he does have a point. Some of his schemes are pretty offensive. Offensive to fans like you and I.
I thought Van Gundy's comments about working with Don Nelson were very interesting. He made a statement something like it challenged everything he believed in and caused him to have to really evaluate what he believed in. I wish someone would ask him if working with Nelson changed any of his beliefs or just cemented what he already believed.
