The defense is bad but not irredeemable. I think now is the time to fit the scheme more to different lineups, if I were Thibs. Going switch-everything with Sims plays to his strengths and forces everyone to be more engaged defenders and forces that inertia (re: Randle) Benjy speaks about so much. Then when he's off, you could go to drop more with IHart. (That's not to say it's a perfect solution, but how much worse can we be/what do we have to lose if we have been the worst defense in the A for this stetch.) I think lineup changes should be considered after the fact. There's a lot of tinkering that can be done before switching lineups again.
Right now, the team feels like a quasi Snyder-Jazz team when they could funnel everything to Gobert and now that our center is gone, defenders are playing in the same system but there's no last line of defense.. But I think there's more the team can do defensively.
Very fair, although I do worry about Sims. He looks overmatched. He can switch, but I worry about Randle in any defense that requires him to read and react.
Sims has been a nice story for one or two games but we need an upgrade due to Mitch's extended absence.
Realistic, potential trades that would add something new but wouldn't deplete the asset base too much -
a) Fournier and one of this year's FRP's or the Detroit 2nd for PJ Washington (Kentucky guy). Concept is to acquire small ball 5 who spaces the floor better than Sims with some 3 pt shooting capability (career 36% 3 pt shooter). Let's us play switching scheme on D. He had 79 blocks last year - so a version of Obi that can protect the rim to some extent as insurance for Randle going down as backup 4.
b) Fournier, Deuce and one of this year's FRP's or the Detroit 2nd for Olynyk and Horton-Tucker.
Olynyk isn't really a rim protector but is a career 37% 3 pt shooter. I think he would really help us vs Boston & Milwaukee by forcing Lopez and KP to guard the 3 pt line. Both Olynyk and THT are expiring so if it doesn't work it didn't cost too much.
Jon's mention of Breen's comments has opened the door for me to speak about some thoughts I've had for some time.
I must preface by saying most will think they're crazy and I know the changes will never happen. However, I've been watching the game since 1969 and think that when played well, it's the most beautiful of sports to watch. It's not that now. Simply put the game is out of balance.
Here it is: Enlarge the court and extend the three-point line.
That would reduce the amount of threes shot/made per game.
Bring back the offense/creativity of the midrange game.
Resuscitate the importance of the center play in the paint.
Crazy? Maybe, but look at what the drastic changes made last year in baseball did to improve that game. Basketball players now are so much larger now than years past. They take up more space and reduce the relative size of the court.
I know what detractors will say, at least in part. Too much added work for players (spare me the tears) and effect on the game at high school/college levels. Still think it would be good, again knowing it's far more likely Adam Stern will install a four-point line to further add to the current(undesirable) trend.
Belatedly, I don't think your nuts at all that the league will do something to lower the scoring. But it'll be something more feasible, like reverting back on some of the hand check rules, which have gotten out of hand.
The defense is bad now, the offense is good. I'm confident it'll get better with more time under these new circumstances. Losing Mitch the tent-pole of the D at the same time as playing some of the best offenses is gonna leave the team...flaccid
One thing that was strange about the clipper game was that Julius seemed more engaged on D than usual. He played some very good D on kahwi on a number of possessions on which Kahwi just played better O.
Time to roll out some old footage of DeBusschure, Clyde and Oakley. Though as Jon alluded to, back then every team had 1 or 2 guys who could shoot from 22 feet out so defense is much more difficult.
As much as the defensive collapse is tied to Mitch’s injury, that was predictable in the construction of this team. Losing any of Mitch, Hartenstein or Randle meant we would be overmatched by bigger teams to a huge extent. It is beyond me how the FO thought this would work. That isn’t even to talk about the jam up that won’t allow plus players to get on the floor enough.
I was going to ask about the current offensive explosion in the NBA. Glad you covered so thoroughly. Starting to feel like All-Star Game basketball. It isn’t something that I enjoy (being old and all), but I suspect the league loves it. So I doubt it will change. But it is definitely a turnoff to me.
I think you're being a bit harsh. As you say yourself, there's an offensive explosion happening. There is no team in the league, save for maybe Boston, who can survive a key injury to one of their 2-3 most indispensable players and maintain strong defense and offense. It's also unfair to kill the FO without suggesting a realistic, available move that they bypassed. Having a more traditional backup four, which is what most people were yelling about, wouldn't make a blessed difference to what we're seeing. The Knicks built a team around 2 minus defenders who both need to start. It's not like they'd be better off without either one. That's really the issue here.
Probably. But big guys tend to get injured. And since none of us are inside the room, I don’t see how it’s on me to suggest moves since I don’t have the information they do. I did see other teams picking up useful guys that are over 6’ 4”. That said, they get paid a lot of money to build a team. It just seems unbalanced to me. It seems naive to me to assume perfect health in a NBA season.
It's not about having guys over 6'4"...it's specifically the center spot that they rely on to prop up the defense, and specifically Mitch. They have good defenders - the number more than bear that out. It's about the particular challenges that come with finding time for those guys when they have to start 2 subpar defenders and 1 "meh" defender in Barrett. I'm always happy to suggest alternate paths they could have taken; this is one instance where I don't see anything reasonable that they bypassed. But I could be wrong.
The defense is bad but not irredeemable. I think now is the time to fit the scheme more to different lineups, if I were Thibs. Going switch-everything with Sims plays to his strengths and forces everyone to be more engaged defenders and forces that inertia (re: Randle) Benjy speaks about so much. Then when he's off, you could go to drop more with IHart. (That's not to say it's a perfect solution, but how much worse can we be/what do we have to lose if we have been the worst defense in the A for this stetch.) I think lineup changes should be considered after the fact. There's a lot of tinkering that can be done before switching lineups again.
Right now, the team feels like a quasi Snyder-Jazz team when they could funnel everything to Gobert and now that our center is gone, defenders are playing in the same system but there's no last line of defense.. But I think there's more the team can do defensively.
Very fair, although I do worry about Sims. He looks overmatched. He can switch, but I worry about Randle in any defense that requires him to read and react.
Sims has been a nice story for one or two games but we need an upgrade due to Mitch's extended absence.
Realistic, potential trades that would add something new but wouldn't deplete the asset base too much -
a) Fournier and one of this year's FRP's or the Detroit 2nd for PJ Washington (Kentucky guy). Concept is to acquire small ball 5 who spaces the floor better than Sims with some 3 pt shooting capability (career 36% 3 pt shooter). Let's us play switching scheme on D. He had 79 blocks last year - so a version of Obi that can protect the rim to some extent as insurance for Randle going down as backup 4.
b) Fournier, Deuce and one of this year's FRP's or the Detroit 2nd for Olynyk and Horton-Tucker.
Olynyk isn't really a rim protector but is a career 37% 3 pt shooter. I think he would really help us vs Boston & Milwaukee by forcing Lopez and KP to guard the 3 pt line. Both Olynyk and THT are expiring so if it doesn't work it didn't cost too much.
Jon's mention of Breen's comments has opened the door for me to speak about some thoughts I've had for some time.
I must preface by saying most will think they're crazy and I know the changes will never happen. However, I've been watching the game since 1969 and think that when played well, it's the most beautiful of sports to watch. It's not that now. Simply put the game is out of balance.
Here it is: Enlarge the court and extend the three-point line.
That would reduce the amount of threes shot/made per game.
Bring back the offense/creativity of the midrange game.
Resuscitate the importance of the center play in the paint.
Crazy? Maybe, but look at what the drastic changes made last year in baseball did to improve that game. Basketball players now are so much larger now than years past. They take up more space and reduce the relative size of the court.
I know what detractors will say, at least in part. Too much added work for players (spare me the tears) and effect on the game at high school/college levels. Still think it would be good, again knowing it's far more likely Adam Stern will install a four-point line to further add to the current(undesirable) trend.
Belatedly, I don't think your nuts at all that the league will do something to lower the scoring. But it'll be something more feasible, like reverting back on some of the hand check rules, which have gotten out of hand.
Obviously, I meant Adam Silver :)
The defense is bad now, the offense is good. I'm confident it'll get better with more time under these new circumstances. Losing Mitch the tent-pole of the D at the same time as playing some of the best offenses is gonna leave the team...flaccid
One thing that was strange about the clipper game was that Julius seemed more engaged on D than usual. He played some very good D on kahwi on a number of possessions on which Kahwi just played better O.
In the first half, sure. In the third, he seemed to let go of the rope
Time to roll out some old footage of DeBusschure, Clyde and Oakley. Though as Jon alluded to, back then every team had 1 or 2 guys who could shoot from 22 feet out so defense is much more difficult.
As much as the defensive collapse is tied to Mitch’s injury, that was predictable in the construction of this team. Losing any of Mitch, Hartenstein or Randle meant we would be overmatched by bigger teams to a huge extent. It is beyond me how the FO thought this would work. That isn’t even to talk about the jam up that won’t allow plus players to get on the floor enough.
I was going to ask about the current offensive explosion in the NBA. Glad you covered so thoroughly. Starting to feel like All-Star Game basketball. It isn’t something that I enjoy (being old and all), but I suspect the league loves it. So I doubt it will change. But it is definitely a turnoff to me.
I think you're being a bit harsh. As you say yourself, there's an offensive explosion happening. There is no team in the league, save for maybe Boston, who can survive a key injury to one of their 2-3 most indispensable players and maintain strong defense and offense. It's also unfair to kill the FO without suggesting a realistic, available move that they bypassed. Having a more traditional backup four, which is what most people were yelling about, wouldn't make a blessed difference to what we're seeing. The Knicks built a team around 2 minus defenders who both need to start. It's not like they'd be better off without either one. That's really the issue here.
Probably. But big guys tend to get injured. And since none of us are inside the room, I don’t see how it’s on me to suggest moves since I don’t have the information they do. I did see other teams picking up useful guys that are over 6’ 4”. That said, they get paid a lot of money to build a team. It just seems unbalanced to me. It seems naive to me to assume perfect health in a NBA season.
But mostly, love you Jon....
I am never wrong 😂🤣😂
It's not about having guys over 6'4"...it's specifically the center spot that they rely on to prop up the defense, and specifically Mitch. They have good defenders - the number more than bear that out. It's about the particular challenges that come with finding time for those guys when they have to start 2 subpar defenders and 1 "meh" defender in Barrett. I'm always happy to suggest alternate paths they could have taken; this is one instance where I don't see anything reasonable that they bypassed. But I could be wrong.