But has anyone seen our defense? Our offense is fine but when youre one of the best offensive teams in the league.... like we are and have a 11-14 record then there is something wrong with the coaching!! guys utah only have 3 less wins then us!!
 |
| . |
|
But has anyone seen our defense? Our offense is fine but when youre one of the best offensive teams in the league.... like we are and have a 11-14 record then there is something wrong with the coaching!! guys utah only have 3 less wins then us!!
Yeah, I am finding it very hard to watch games at the moment cause I spend almost all my time watching our help the helper scrambling defense and frankly it is getting depressing. Not saying it's not the right technique but it's the only look we give other offenses and it doesn't seem to work at all well. The amount of dribble penetration or open 3s a combo of Jrue, EG and Aminu give up is very concerning and they are all at least decent defenders.
yeah Morrow is quite stupid to be on the bench when we needed to make a three. A random ball goes to Tyreke who had to take it but we all know he aint good at it. Tyreke should have known to be on the bench. It really makes me mad that our players have such a low IQOriginally Posted by MichaelMcNamara
It seems that you odd that you cherry pick a very specific situation for a very broad statement.
"I don't know if people know — I dislocated my pinkie finger. And [Tyreke] told me, 'You wanna go home or you wanna be here?' I want to be here. And he said, 'All right, then go tape it up and let's play. Let's go. We not stoppin' at no stores. Straight gas. That's what we do, just keep going.'"
http://thebasketbawlblog.com/
That's what people do when they are trying to win an argument, as opposed to trying to gain knowledge
@mcnamara247
I don't necessarily disagree with this post. However high IQ players usually show themselves off early. If you are 23 with 3 or 4 years of NBA experience I don't think you can just naturally assume that will improve. Guys get better as they get more mature. They even can be coached up to get max value, but I'm not so sure guys IQ levels just gets significantly better with age. Just off hand most of the player whom I would deem low IQ players stayed that way as their careers progressed.
Let's also be careful not to confuse "IQ" with attitude/demeanor either. Case in point is Zach Randolf. Some may say he had an IQ "boost" when he finally pulled everything together after deciding to completely apply himself to basketball, but his skill and game knowledge was always there.
Jrue dat
Gotta agree on this one point.
IQ is an aptitude measurement, and these players aren't going to all of a sudden have more of it. Their low Basketball IQ has been exacerbated by playing on losing teams without good coaching, but changing the latter won't effect the former, even if it does improve their performance.
I guess what I'm saying is, "stupid is, as stupid does."
Our players will improve through repetition (every man, woman, child, and puppy does), but I'd expect plenty of mistakes from this bunch until we raise the overall aptitude level of this team and consider bball IQ an important factor in future acquisitions.
I could go through a large list of low IQ players when they were young that grew leaps and bounds. Heck, Tony Parker was a low IQ player for quite a while. Hence the reason they were always trying to upgrade at PG early on.
I would say IQ, more than anything, can be improved. Even more than a jump shot or strength- the two things that people tend to think are the most improveable.
IQ improves with every dribble, with every film session, etc. Some guys don't want to be coached and in those cases, IQ doesn't improve, but nobody on this team strikes me as a guy who doesn't want to be coached
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it goes without saying that studying, and doing any one thing of any kind will raise ones IQ for that particular thing.
With that said I don't think D- IQ players consistently becomes B+ IQ players just based on experience and study.
I think we disagree in how we're using the term "Basketball IQ".
Some players get concepts very quickly, and it might take them little to no time to adjust from one system to the next. They also might make the right decision more often than not, without much need to be coached over a period of time into making that decision. I would say a player like that has a very high basketball IQ.
If given the same system, another player might take 2 years to grasp it, and might still periodically, though infrequently, make the wrong decisions on the court. Will the end result ultimately be similar, with both players knowing where to be and what to do in most situations? Maybe, but it doesn't mean that the second player's BBall IQ increased, only that he got better at something because of repetition that the first player grasped immediately.
Throw both players into a completely new system for a second time, and the player with the high BBall IQ wouldn't regress much at all. The second player probably would regress significantly. Of course over a career, both players will gain experience and knowledge, but I've never seen a scenario where a guy with a low BBall IQ, like Brandon Jennings, catches up to a guy with a higher BBall IQ like Steph Curry.
I agree. I think the ceiling for someone like Tyreke is a C+, but that would b a significant jump- one big enough to make him a third guy on a title contender
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The goal of the coaching staff at least imho is to assess a player in all phases. In this case basketball IQ and try to increase it as much as it can be increased. Everyone will have different levels that they can increase their specific attributes; once the coach assesses each yeah a players basketball IQ; it's their job to put them in the best position to succeed. The Spurs are always the model for this using guys like Diaw and making him from a talented inefficient player to a good efficient player; same with Belinelli. Sometimes talent or lack there of will handcuff a coach on playing low basket basketball IQ players in a role thats not fitting to their current level of IQ.
Contributor
What happens when the coach doesn't have a high basketball IQ, let's say preferably on defense?
Defensive Efficiency by year
13-14 108.5 (22nd)
12-13 110 (28th)
11-12 105.1 (15th)
10-11 105.2 (10th)
09-10 110.1 (22nd)
I don't think it's our coach's lack of IQ; I think it's the players.
Yep, defense was fine with veteran, high IQ guys like CP3, Ariza, Okafor, and West. I would say there is more raw defensive talent on this team than that one, but it is just that - Raw. Gonna take them a while to figure out the system and each other. CP3 and those guys did it in one training camp. It will take much longer than that for a group of guys who are 20-23 years old.
I think you'll see us jump by year maybe to 17th next year to be average and maybe 2-3 years be in that 8-10 range.
Dude, those are all defensive studs.
As for the other post, the fact that our D has left so much to be desired under Williams every year coupled with the fact that the roster has been drastically different every year, all but beyond shadow of doubt proves that it's the coaching. There's no using the new players excuse either, Steve Clifford kills that.
So you're saying with defensive studs he can have a good defense and now that we don't have them we don't have a good defense proves it's the coaching... uhhh ok.
David West is a defensive stud???? And how have Emeka's teams fared defensively over his career? He blocked shots occassionally, but he was no stud defender. Ariza was above average, and CP3 got a lot of steals. Individually, those were not great defensive players. Throw in Marco or Willie Green at the 2 along with a thin bench without a plus defender in the bunch. But again, they were high IQ vets who picked up on a system that relies on communication and intelligence.
As for Clifford, his teams' big offseason acquisition was 29, not 23. A guy who had been through multiple playoff series and numerous systems. And besides Kemba, all of their recent picks prior to this year were defensive minded guys - MKG, Biyombo, Henderson. His system is also much simpler to understand.
Again, Monty has a system with a steeper learning curve than most, but a potentially higher ceiling. Not the thing people want to here, because we can only live in the present, but I personally care more about year 2 and 3 of this process than this season, so I am cool with them struggling in the short term.
I remember quite clearly back then people whining, pardon, complaining about mek not being able to guard a guy in the post and not playing the good defense required from a 5, ariza making stupid defensive (well, not only, but also) decisions and getting burnt repeatedly. CPME never was a top defender (but many still think he was because LOTSA STEALS MUST MEAN GOOD DEFENDER!!11!1 and so on) so really, back then people complained (myself included, no doubt) because the team had no offense and was far too predictable, now people complain because the team has no defense...the coach is the same, so is he a good defensive and horrible offensive coach or a good offensive and horrible defensive coach?
But of course, it's always the same argument...he had good defenders so his difense was adequate back then, he has Da Best Offensive Talent in the West now so clearly the team is good offensively.
Basically, if the team had no offense then, it was his fault. However, the team was made of good defenders, so a decent defense was a given and not monty's work.
The team has no defense now, and it's clearly his fault. However, having so many good talented offensive player on the roster, a very good offense would have happened even with Eman coaching, so it's not thanks to monty anyway.
Right?
Ah well it's almost 3 am i'd better go to bed anyway. Have a good debate guys
Makes sense, if something good happens, it's because of the players. If something bad happens, it's because of the coach.
It will always be that way, for every fan base, for every team. Fans wanna believe that the coach is the problem, because they can be let go without cap ramifications. They are the easiest thing to replace theoretcially. Once in a while, a new coach comes in with roughly the same players and you see a great improvement, but that is the exception, not the norm.
Yeah it's the only asset you can "upgrade" without having to give anything up value-wise (mostly). I think Monty has tons of things to improve on, so I don't want to seem like a Monty apologist at all; but i'll never be a fan who wants to keep swapping things out before making a decision. I think that's why i don't get as frustrated as a lot of the rest of the fan base with particular players and such. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying it's something that's grown with me with age. Plus like you've pointed out 50xs now; who are we going to switch Monty out with in the next 2 years that's going to legitimately not at least cause regression in the beginning that will actually come here? Maybe Thibs, but rumors are that he could end up a Knick but next season. Even if the Knicks have a worse roster, it's still New York.
Monty is an *** you play Ryan Anderson a weak defender on Cuz and let him kill the whole game. Then by using all his energy trying to guard Cuz was to worn to play offence instead of the 7'2 guy. Then you see he keeps back you down in the post why dont you double? why because it's good coaching and he doesnt believe in that.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
