Haven, I'm just egging you guys on to lose the stereotype debate about zone, and let's consider Rudy's comment "I want to attack the zone", considering beckerfan's topic about rosters. I first wanted to address beckerfan's statement "It appears to me that the Rockets are in the perfect position with their current roster to take advantage of the new rule changes". I don't see how we can really have a useful discussion if one believes anyone can take advantage of a defense that has more options next year. The Lakers are in perfect position to take advantage of the new rules, not us. We have to move to some sort of freakish offensive extreme to improve overall. So, who agrees that we should move to a freakish offensive extreme over worrying about improving our defense close to the rate many competitors will be?
I'll agree with that.... but I'd rather the Rockets be the Bucks than the Heat anyday anyhoo. ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
Achebe: I'm not sure I'll ever be able to prove it, but sometimes I think HP changes his argument from one you SLIGHTLY disagree with to one you completely agree with, just to make you feel foolish for ever disagreeing in the first place. Sometimes I could *swear* I found fault with what he said... and then he responds and I can't figure it out anymore. Grrrr.... ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
I can't imagine any team benifiting from zone defense more than San Antonio. Imagine DRob and TDunc never getting more than 3 or 4 feet away from the basket. And if one does the other is still their. I'm with Heypee on this one, Collier can take all the 20 foot jumbers he wants and I will send my 6'7" or 6'10" small forward to guard him but my shot blocking 7 footer is staying home. ------------------
crash, that's why I'm betting that Collier is shooting about 2000 jumpers a day right now. ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
achebe, Yes, I restarted the issue that dominant big men will dominate. But do you see why, considering the quote I italicized in the previous post. What do you mean it hasn't been the case in the NCAA. Zone was invented mainly to neutralize big men, yet I don't know any college coaches who don't think a dominating big man to anchor a zone and beat the best zones by drawing attention away from the perimeter is the most sure fire way to compete for a title....NCAA is single elimination. Sure Dream got beat and Ralph Sampson. But even the 76'rs this year win the title in single elimination....so, what is your point? Can we get off this trying to transplant the NCAA onto the NBA? If you don't want to consider that zone hurts Mobley/Francis ISOs more than Shaq's power, Duncan's high post game, or Wallace's quick turnarounds, then tell me why Stern forced the rule's change down our throat. ISO's are being hurt by the zone. How are we going to offset that? By playing Bullard/Collier more than Shandon/Rogers? Rudy seems like he wants to focus on the extreme of offensive firepower vs defensive innovations around a stud big defender. How much of that is forced upon him for lack of a dominating big man? For instance, if he could take any player in the draft, would he take a shooter/slasher over a dominating big man. If Ken Johnson shoots as well as LaFrentz, is he more helpful than Radman. Does Outlaw's offense hurt our ability to field an extreme offense to combat zones? At what point do you temper fielding better shooters with taller/better defenders?
Maybe I'm just looking for agreement to move on with the discussion, and am willing to come closer to your side to get it. Or maybe you damn pure logic debaters find it hard to allow yourself to agree once you paint yourself into a corner
Mobley and Francis play ISOs??? BTW, who's adversely affected more by the zones? Cato or Shaq? Sure thing shacka-brah! Shandon and Rogers aren't even going to be on the team next year. Call them and the opponent gets a power play until Rudy sobers up. He'd take a dominating big man if he could... but that has little to do w/ a zone. Nothing's changed. You find outlaw's orientation extremely offensive? What sorts of zones --- SGF4? Good question. I'm interested to see Rudy's first pick answer on the 27th. Unfortunately I suspect that it'll tell us more about the draft and player availability than Rudy's zone philosophy. ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
You cannot compare NCAA to the NBA because there is a far greater disparity in talent in the NCAA than in the NBA. Besides, if you ever wonder about why big men were not succesful in college I point you toward UCLA and two centers named Alcindor and Walton. Having a dominant big man gives you the luxury of doing things that someone w/o one would never. Consider the case of Gerald Wallace. Wallace as you know is an unbelievably athletic swingman out of Alabama. Unfortunately Mr. Wallace has an abysmal jumper, which is causing many teams to back off taking him. But lets say Pat Riley come along and looks at this guy and says, "Offense be damned, I'll take him and just trap the **** out of whoever I play." Imagine having a defense where the ball-handler is immediatly swarmed once he crosses half-court by 6'6" Eddie Jones and 6'8" Gerald Wallace. He can do this because he knows that with Zo(you can't spell zone without Z-O) hanging back in the paint, he can take the risk of having Wallace gamble on every possesion because of his man blows by him, he's still got to beat one of the best shot-blockers in the game. ------------------ "I always thought it was something that went around my house" - World B. Free on Defence
BTW, if Stern wants to control all basketball in the world, does this make the NBA the new "Evil Empire"? ------------------ "I always thought it was something that went around my house" - World B. Free on Defence
John Wooden won before Lew Alcindor showed up. John Wooden won after Bill Walton left. Who were the big men on those teams? Besides, that was 30 years ago. Doesn't the tourney record tend to reflect (one game elimination or not) that team play and shooters win? Was Christian Laettner a 'dominant big man'? He sure as hell sunk that outside shot. ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
Of course Wooden won before Alcindor showed up and after Walton left, but he won the most with Walton and Alcindor. Also, I think the tournament record reflects that teams with more talent tend to win. It seems simple, but you will never have the kind of talent gap that you have in the NCAA in the NBA. Obviously having good shooters helps, because there is always the chance that they will get on a hot streak, and in a single-elimination tournament, that can propel you pretty far(see Temple), but I believe that it is the superior talent level of the top teams that wins them the championship. If all you needed was shooters, what happened to Iowa St. this year w/o Fizer? All they had was shooters, but w/o the dominant low-post presence to get them shots, they got bounced in the first round. ------------------ "I always thought it was something that went around my house" - World B. Free on Defence [This message has been edited by Puedlfor (edited June 18, 2001).]
First, don't give me the Temple debate unless you can name one time that they've had a dominant big man I guess you've never heard of Kevin Lyde I don't have a clear understanding of your term of a "dominant" big man. I think the zone will hurt players like Shaq and Mourning offensively, but will improve their defensive games. The new rules make someone like Shawn Bradley very valuable. I think the scrawny,lengthy, skilled big men will be just as important to teams now because it will be easier to cover up their defensive deficiencies. That's why I'm not opposed to picking up a Loren Woods who would be ideal catching the ball in the high post for jumpers or backdoor passes to cutters. And I would take Radman over Johnson regardless. Like you said, I think short defensive specialists will become more popular. I don't know the name if this zone, but I used to run it, where you'll assign your best defensive player to the opposing team's best player and he'll play straight up man while the rest of the team will play zone. That's the kind of zone I think will be popular. ------------------
A box and 1...I run it with my youth teams all the time. It works best when the other team has poor ball handlers (not an option in the NBA). ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".
Achebe: I don't know if the 99 Duke team supports your point, or opposes it. That was the most dominant basketball team *I've* seen since I started following college ball regularly, but it lost (imo, just bad luck). I'd call Elton Brand a "dominant big man." OTOH, the 2001 Duke team didn't have one... and won. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
I'm not sure I really have a point haven. I do think that it's fair to ask the doomsday theorists why anything is going to be any different concerning big men w/ the zone. You can double the guy w/ the ball now. Somebody's going to be open w/ a doubled up zone or an illegal defense mechanistic iso machine. I guess my one point is that illegal defense rules are artificial, and IMO, hokey. ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?! [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 18, 2001).]
Achebe, I certainly agree that zones allow you to field better offensive players without hurting your defense much. But you make it sound like big men are more easily neutralized by zone while shooters can't be neutralized. Is that really your argument?? Just to get this back on topic, What is a better offense against the zone, one that focuses heavily on getting a shot off before the zone sets (Kansas/Bucks), or one that plays half court precision with shooters/ball movement (Hoosiers/Pacers/Supersonics)? This could be achieved by the same roster, but it seems that the Bucks game eliminates Walt and Bullard, as you might want to field Moochie more often than them.
disregard my 2nd response achebe. I'd rather get back on topic about roster effects. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 18, 2001).]
heyp, I'll have to reread the first post to see what the original thread was about. btw, I didn't mean to suggest that shooters won't be neutralized... just that the Lakers are less apt to repeat now. The Rockets w/ Webber and the Bucks w/o Webber ( ) should be some of the stronger teams in the NBA. ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?! [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 18, 2001).]
