|
Post by FLCeltsFan on May 29, 2006 9:58:18 GMT -5
I missed this but got this from Celticsblog. I disagree that Doc was working hard on defense. That quote from him still bugs me.... He said that they stressed offense in practice because that is the hardest to learn and that the defense would work itself out because while half the team was playing offense in practice the other half had to be playing defense. If that is his idea of working hard on defense, then he needs a new brain. Well, maybe he does anyway... I sure hope he is working on how to install defensive sets and how to work on defense in practice instead of letting it take care of itself while working on offense because just blaming our lack of defense on youth and the players won't cut it....
From Celtics blog.... NESN "caught up" with Doc to talk about the plan for the summer and how the Celts were viewing the #7 pick (not a single question about the draft was asked or answered). Here is what Doc had to say:
- We're young and the players are working very very hard this summer. They really have no choice, because they have to get a lot better.
- Young teams aren't good defensive teams, and we knew that. We put a major focus on that last year and it wasn't enough.
- "I still believe" that if we control the ball better and rebound better, then we will improve defensively.
- Another year of experience in the system we are playing for Perk, Al, Delonte, and TA will help defensively too.
- Still, if we want to be a playoff team we have to get better defensively, and that will take a major commitment from all the players.
- Re: trades and free agents: "Obviously we have a list. The free agent thing is tough because not many guys leave their teams anymore. The trade route is always a viable option, especially when you have as many young players and picks as we do. That may be the way we go."
Again, any talk about the draft, other than "we are preparing for the draft and I am watching films" was edited out.
Big Al and Gerald were there in the background working on their games.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on May 29, 2006 11:59:16 GMT -5
I played a lot of hours in the gym a few years ago. I played probably like 3 nites a week for 2 and a half years straight in addition to other hours in the summer and whatnot when I was younger.
"I still believe" that if we control the ball better and rebound better, then we will improve defensively.
This quote doesn't strike me as making any sense.
To be able to control the ball better I practiced dribbling two balls at once, using only my left hand, closing one eye, bouncing the ball off the wall and catching it with one hand, and dribbling in front of a mirror. None of that helped my D.
To be able to rebound better I tried to throw the ball off the board, catch it, and shoot it. I also mixed it up underneath a little more and tried to figure out the timing of the ball and other players. Didn't help my D.
My D improved when I started reading on the net about playing D, not giving up baseline, keeping players in front of me, communicating, switching off, playing with different size players, double teaming, moving my feet more, and being really pesky, and improving my conditioning.
I don't see how the three are related.
|
|
|
Post by FLCeltsFan on May 29, 2006 12:07:21 GMT -5
Excellent point Eja!!! It just supports what I have been saying all along. Doc does not understand how to coach defense. He thinks that controlling the ball and rebounding will help the defense. He thinks that the team will pick up defense from half the team playing it while they are working on offense. I was really hoping that Danny would bring in a defensive minded assistant to work on the defense, especially since he kept saying that defense was our biggest need for improvement. Maybe Clifford Ray will teach our bigs how to play defense and that will be a start. But I don't have any confidence that Doc can teach and install defensive sets that will make us play better team defense. We can run and score all we want but if we don't play better team defense we won't make it to the next tier. Just a look at the Suns/Mavs series proves this. Being a run and gun team with a great offense is good but you also have to play defense to be a great team.
|
|
|
Post by ferbo on May 29, 2006 16:43:57 GMT -5
If you don't turn the ball over, you cut down on t he other team's offensive opportunities. Turnovers are more likely to lead to fastbreak opportunities for the other team.
Same with rebounding. More you keep the ball out of the hands of the other guys, fewer opportunities.
But t he point is that those things do not address other things of a defensive sort. Defending the pick and roll. Defending the paint. boxing out to keep them away from offensive rebounds. Switching to defend the 3 on in-and-outs.
The interesting thing about the Mavs is that the defensive mindset started with Avery, in less than 2 seasons. And the team has had lots of kids and players new to the team, unlike the Piston.
Another thing Avery does very well IMHO is to make alterations in his rotation to matchup and rto create matchup problems. sitting Griffin in game 2 of the Spurs series was a case in point. His use of Diop is another.
The 8=man rotation the Cs had in the mid-80s in the Walton year was an anomaly.
It would be interesting to know who on the coaching staff is supposedly a defensive specialist. If there isn't one, then the question is "why not"?
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on May 29, 2006 19:00:22 GMT -5
Ball control--not in terms of being able to dribble the ball better, but in terms of keeping turn overs down. In essence, Doc is saying that turning the ball over less will give opposing team less chances to score. Not directly tied into defense, but in effect, yes. I consider rebounding a part of defense because if you give up a lot of defensive rebounds, they other team scores more by getting second and third chances.
Ainge said that Doc tried numerous defensive schemes and he hopes that Doc will choose one and stick with it. A team who is constantly trying different defensive schemes will be a confused team.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on May 30, 2006 14:15:24 GMT -5
Ball handling and rebounding may make you defensive statistics better, but not your defense.
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on May 30, 2006 14:28:54 GMT -5
But you measure your defense by statistics, and that's what he's talking about in a round about way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2006 16:14:53 GMT -5
I played a lot of hours in the gym a few years ago. I played probably like 3 nites a week for 2 and a half years straight in addition to other hours in the summer and whatnot when I was younger. "I still believe" that if we control the ball better and rebound better, then we will improve defensively. This quote doesn't strike me as making any sense. To be able to control the ball better I practiced dribbling two balls at once, using only my left hand, closing one eye, bouncing the ball off the wall and catching it with one hand, and dribbling in front of a mirror. None of that helped my D. To be able to rebound better I tried to throw the ball off the board, catch it, and shoot it. I also mixed it up underneath a little more and tried to figure out the timing of the ball and other players. Didn't help my D. My D improved when I started reading on the net about playing D, not giving up baseline, keeping players in front of me, communicating, switching off, playing with different size players, double teaming, moving my feet more, and being really pesky, and improving my conditioning. I don't see how the three are related. I understand your point and I think it's a valid one, but I do see what he's saying. By taking care of the ball and limiting turnovers, Boston will limit an opponents opportunity to get easy buckets in transition; thus making them a better defensive team, at least on paper. Same principle with rebounding; failure to get rebounds allows opponents to add scoring opportunities. You make a good point if you’re talking about individual defensive effort; I just looked at it as a team defensive effort. That said to say that the C’s defense was anything less than a complete and total disaster would be the cornerstone of understatement. Failure by the coaching staff to take proactive measures to address the defensive deficiencies of the Celtics will land the C’s back in the lottery on 2007. --Fin
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on May 31, 2006 1:45:14 GMT -5
If you don't turn the ball over, you cut down on t he other team's offensive opportunities. Turnovers are more likely to lead to fastbreak opportunities for the other team. Same with rebounding. More you keep the ball out of the hands of the other guys, fewer opportunities. But t he point is that those things do not address other things of a defensive sort. Defending the pick and roll. Defending the paint. boxing out to keep them away from offensive rebounds. Switching to defend the 3 on in-and-outs. The interesting thing about the Mavs is that the defensive mindset started with Avery, in less than 2 seasons. And the team has had lots of kids and players new to the team, unlike the Piston. Another thing Avery does very well IMHO is to make alterations in his rotation to matchup and rto create matchup problems. sitting Griffin in game 2 of the Spurs series was a case in point. His use of Diop is another. The 8=man rotation the Cs had in the mid-80s in the Walton year was an anomaly. It would be interesting to know who on the coaching staff is supposedly a defensive specialist. If there isn't one, then the question is "why not"? I was basically gonna post the same thing until i realized Ferbo summed it up perfectly. Consider yourself exhalted.
|
|
|
Post by eja117 on May 31, 2006 17:28:08 GMT -5
Every single time I saw a defensive highlight on sportscenter it did not involve rebounding or ballhandling. Usually it invilved aggressiveness in terms of steals, blocks, altering shots, getting in the passing lane, etc, and I think that is why guys get on the all defense team. Otherwise a guy with the best assist to turnover ratio would get it. I suppose you could consider boxing out a defensive skill, but that's about it. I didn't think Doc meant that he only wanted his defensive stats to be better. I think it's a pretty bad message to send your young team to say "we need to improve our defense, so today we're gonna work on our dribbling."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2006 19:27:47 GMT -5
I’m not debating that at all. Each and every element you pointed out is on point. The issue I was bringing to light was that the Celtics team defense will improve, albeit marginally, by limiting turnovers and increasing rebound production on both end of the floor. By no means am I discounting the defensive importance of the items you brought up, but at the same time I can’t freely dismiss the impact of turnovers and rebounding on defense. If you limit a team’s opportunities to score, then by definition you have improved your defense. I think we’re just caught up in semantics.
--Fin
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Jun 1, 2006 1:29:16 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that what the good doctor is saying is that by eliminating turnovers and keeping the other teams off of the boards, we will force the teams to play less transition ball and more half-court ball, allowing our D to get back and get set. Reading any more into this would be accepting the controversial DaRivi Code, and I as a good Lutheran will refute such black magic all the way to the grave.
|
|
|
Post by ferbo on Jun 1, 2006 12:59:38 GMT -5
Topically I think this fits here. It is comments by Doc about what each player needs to do in the offseason. www.nba.com/celtics/news/doctors-orders.htmlIncludes olowakandi. Very surprised about that. Assumed it a done deal that he was gone.
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Jun 1, 2006 13:02:47 GMT -5
Oh, it probably is. But just to be cordial and not hurt the big guy's feelings, Doc had to put him in there.
|
|
|
Post by ferbo on Jun 1, 2006 19:06:51 GMT -5
lord, I hope that is it.
|
|