In Defense of Monty - A Theory

[ShamelessPel]

I tend to agree that his rotations are terrible. My only possible justification for those is that he wants young guys to CLEARLY beat veterans to earn those minutes. He wants to see how hungry and resilient they are. Will you whine about the league "not being fair" (cough, cough, Pierre Jackson) or will you work harder and make it so the coach can't afford not to play you?

Popular coaching tactic, used by Hall of Famers like Larry Brown. Am I sure that is what Monty is doing with Rivers and Withey? No, but he has told us he has used that tactic in the past - and guys like Marcus Thornton showed their true colors when he did.

As for your initial question - it would depend on my intention. Am I trying to win the game or the war? If I truly believe in a play or system and I see the big picture, I might keep running it even if it keeps failing. Only way to learn is through repitition and I know the kids will get it eventually. If its a physical abilities issue - no. I will not keep running an alley-oop play for a kid who can't jump. But most systems just require repitition.

Of the four major ways to play the P&R, hard hedging is the most difficult to execute. But I also think it can be the most effective if perfected. If I really believed in it, and the long term goal was to win a title in 3 or 4 years, I would personally stick with it

I see the logic in the first paragraph. However, how do you explain bringing Withey as the 3rd big off the bench in the second half last night? How do you explain saying "Withey brought a great spark off the bench tonight?" and playing him FOUR minutes? How do you explain sitting Rivers every game regardless of how him or Roberts is performing that evening? To use a 42ism, Monty uses confirmation bias to an extreme ends. Roberts had nothing to do with the end of the Memphis win, but I'm sure he got credit for finishing it in Monty's mind.

I see your point about the hard hedging. I think that it's more reasonable to use it in spots. Combinations of Davis/Jrue or Davis/Rivers might be able to carry it out, especially if the other big has a clearly defined role with ONLY using Davis to hedge for example. To just assume that everyone on the team has the skillset/mobility/mental capacity to make it work on a consistent basis is borderline insanity though. Rivers/Davis for example have performed it fairly properly from what I can tell lately. Rivers has the lateral footspeed to cut under Davis and force the ball out of the PGs hand. Roberts/Davis is a disaster of epic proportions though. They end up dribbling past the hedge and now both Davis and Roberts are out of the play momentarily. What baffles me even more is that he seems to use the hard hedge as help for his weaker defenders. That makes no fricking sense to me at all and makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

Honest question MM: Do you think that any team in the league is capable of carrying out the hard hedge using almost every perimeter defender/big man on the roster?

[RaisingTheBar]

It doesn't work like that. If 1 guy is messing up the whole scheme gets messed up.

Think of it like a safety who thinks he should blitz when he should playing cover two. the corner thinks he has help and lets him release to play the under and next thing you know it's a 60 yard TD pass.

That is a mistake that will happen once or twice in a game, not all game every game.

[BallSoHard]

That is a mistake that will happen once or twice in a game, not all game every game.

Who says the mistakes are happening on every play, do we not get stops?

[PowerPel]

Anthony Davis dad is obviously not defending Monty either.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I love this whole '4 years' argument.

Year 1 his team overperformed. Years 2 and 3, we all knew the goal wasn't wins. Yet, now everyone now uses this against him. Where was this during years 2 and 3? A year ago, I was one of the first people to question him and I got attacked more for that than anything else, ever.

Now, people use that against him to justify their anger for THIS season. Too funny.

Again, I am not a fan of Monty, never have been. But I am grounded enough to know that I dont have enough evidence to make a strong case either way. I know such a small part of the large equation, so I won't be shouting one way or another.

[DefensiveMind]

It doesn't work like that. If 1 guy is messing up the whole scheme gets messed up.

Think of it like a safety who thinks he should blitz when he should playing cover two. the corner thinks he has help and lets him release to play the under and next thing you know it's a 60 yard TD pass.

Great analogy, except with our D its more a linebacker continously ending up on a WR.. kinda like when Brian Roberts and Eric Gordon are forced to be our last line of defense in the paint.

[RaisingTheBar]

Who says the mistakes are happening on every play, do we not get stops?

I'd like to know who said that to. All game = every play?

[MichaelMcNamara]

I see the logic in the first paragraph. However, how do you explain bringing Withey as the 3rd big off the bench in the second half last night? How do you explain saying "Withey brought a great spark off the bench tonight?" and playing him FOUR minutes? How do you explain sitting Rivers every game regardless of how him or Roberts is performing that evening? To use a 42ism, Monty uses confirmation bias to an extreme ends. Roberts had nothing to do with the end of the Memphis win, but I'm sure he got credit for finishing it in Monty's mind.

I see your point about the hard hedging. I think that it's more reasonable to use it in spots. Combinations of Davis/Jrue or Davis/Rivers might be able to carry it out, especially if the other big has a clearly defined role with ONLY using Davis to hedge for example. To just assume that everyone on the team has the skillset/mobility/mental capacity to make it work on a consistent basis is borderline insanity though. Rivers/Davis for example have performed it fairly properly from what I can tell lately. Rivers has the lateral footspeed to cut under Davis and force the ball out of the PGs hand. Roberts/Davis is a disaster of epic proportions though. They end up dribbling past the hedge and now both Davis and Roberts are out of the play momentarily. What baffles me even more is that he seems to use the hard hedge as help for his weaker defenders. That makes no fricking sense to me at all and makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

Honest question MM: Do you think that any team in the league is capable of carrying out the hard hedge using almost every perimeter defender/big man on the roster?

I think the hard hedge should be case dependent, and honestly, I have seen Monty switch it up. Ajinca doesnt hard hedge.

This is where the unfairness lies for me. People say he ALWAYS hard hedges or NEVER calls a timeout after an opposing run, or he is ALWAYS just sitting in his chair looking clueless.

That is the part that makes me laugh. have debates, fine. But at least be honest both ways. Nothing is ever all good or all bad.

[PowerPel]

I love this whole '4 years' argument.

Year 1 his team overperformed. Years 2 and 3, we all knew the goal wasn't wins. Yet, now everyone now uses this against him. Where was this during years 2 and 3? A year ago, I was one of the first people to question him and I got attacked more for that than anything else, ever.

Now, people use that against him to justify their anger for THIS season. Too funny.

Again, I am not a fan of Monty, never have been. But I am grounded enough to know that I dont have enough evidence to make a strong case either way. I know such a small part of the large equation, so I won't be shouting one way or another.

You have a case but look at his overall record. Not even above .500 and you want to tell people wait two more years?

[Hercule]

To even begin to defend Monty, you have to go down the dark road of wondering if our players look different in practice, if he has a longer-term goal that we can't see yet, if there's really some great plan to his rotations and starving young players of minutes.

But he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt with me. To those saying there's not enough evidence to thoroughly condemn him, it can just as easily be said that there's not enough there to defend him either. In fact, we have a lot more to condemn him for, with basic things like record, rotations that don't put us in the best position to win, etc.

I've been impressed with those of you trying to stay level-headed and not go after the guy blindly, but again, as a coach, his record sucks, he does confusing things during games, and he doesn't seem to put us in a good position to win games. That's the triple crown of coaching and he fails at all three. Why should we, as fans, have to discover new ways to defend a man who simply isn't succeeding at his job after 4 years? The way it works now is you get three years to show SOMETHING, anything. After 4 he still hasn't.

I understand the excuses of injuries, a tricky roster, etc. but in my opinion (and I understand nobody can support the argument for or against perfectly) even considering those excuses, he's not helping the team win. Maybe he turns it around eventually, but how many more years are you willing to give him to work things out? Do you really think this year has shown that he's capable of becoming a successful coach next year? So do you give him yet another year? I say just cut bait at the end of this season and try again.

[BallSoHard]

You have a case but look at his overall record. Not even above .500 and you want to tell people wait two more years?

Wrong. The one year he had talent, he was above .500.

[PowerPel]

Also Doug Collins made a comment during one of his broadcasts that the NBA is a win now league now. Guess that is through his own experience. People want to win now. That is just the nature of the business now. We have given Monty 4 years. How many chances do we give him now? Keep Anthony Davis happy a priority?

[RaisingTheBar]

You have a case but look at his overall record. Not even above .500 and you want to tell people wait two more years?

Wrong. The one year he had talent, he was above .500.

Come on now I'm all for debate but that isn't what was said.

[PowerPel]

Wrong. The one year he had talent, he was above .500.

OVERALL record, not one year.

[BallSoHard]

I'd like to know who said that to. All game = every play?

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by all game, because i took it as.. the whole game it's happening.

[BallSoHard]

OVERALL record, not one year.

Misread, completely my fault.

[RaisingTheBar]

Also Doug Collins made a comment during one of his broadcasts that the NBA is a win now league now. Guess that is through his own experience. People want to win now. That is just the nature of the business now. we have given Monty 4 years. How many chances do we give him now? Keep Anthony Davis happy?

Honestly, I have said in the past that I would never let a player dictate this or do something like this, but if I'm Benson or Demps, I let Anthony Davis give his input on what he feels should be done. Not take it 100% and act on, but I would heavily value his opinion. IMO the potential of Davis is bigger than anyone can ever hope for of Monty's coaching abilities.

[Hercule]

I think the hard hedge should be case dependent, and honestly, I have seen Monty switch it up. Ajinca doesnt hard hedge.

This is where the unfairness lies for me. People say he ALWAYS hard hedges or NEVER calls a timeout after an opposing run, or he is ALWAYS just sitting in his chair looking clueless.

That is the part that makes me laugh. have debates, fine. But at least be honest both ways. Nothing is ever all good or all bad.

It's true that people attacking him can get extreme. I've gone there myself. But to me, this is a very, very simple issue that has a very simple solution. Fire Monty Williams and hire a coach who plays the best players and runs a system that our players can actually execute.

All the b.s. about his demeanor on the sidelines, what we really know or don't know is periphery. What we do know is that we're losing, the better players aren't playing, and our team D looks raggedy. That's enough for me to look elsewhere, so why string out a complicated argument for keeping the dude? Unless you think this guy is Popovich 2.0, it just isn't worth it.

[RaisingTheBar]

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by all game, because i took it as.. the whole game it's happening.

I guess I could have used the word consistently instead of all game.

[BallSoHard]

I guess I could have used the word consistently instead of all game.

Yeah I get what you're saying now, like sporadically throughout the whole game the same mistake happens.

[ShamelessPel]

I think the hard hedge should be case dependent, and honestly, I have seen Monty switch it up. Ajinca doesnt hard hedge.

"Case dependent" as in, it's not Monty's fault that he can't recognize which players can't execute that particular scheme properly? Triple negative aside, do you at least see the issue here? You basically admitted we should use it in spots. Then fail to admit that certain players simply aren't capable. Then use it as an example of trying to win the war not the battle. I just don't understand the logic. If part of the hard-hedging scheme is determining which players can actually perform said scheme, then why is Monty not to blame for putting people in position to fail?

[WhoDatPelican]

So i guess this is the "unofficial" Fire Monty thread?

[BP225]

I love this whole '4 years' argument.

We've lived with excuses for 2 straight years. Going for 3 in a row makes you start losing hope that next year will be any different. It makes it especially bad when the losses are blow outs where the team looks terrible. Let AD plus scrubs be fiery and competitive and people will start having hope again. At this point how they play is more important than wins and losses. Don't give me 20 minutes of Stiemsma looking like a Stiff, give me 20 minutes of Withey running all over the court.

[BallSoHard]

"Case dependent" as in, it's not Monty's fault that he can't recognize which players can't execute that particular scheme properly? Triple negative aside, do you at least see the issue here? You basically admitted we should use it in spots. Then fail to admit that certain players simply aren't capable. Then use it as an example of trying to win the war not the battle. I just don't understand the logic. If part of the hard-hedging scheme is determining which players can actually perform said scheme, then why is Monty not to blame for putting people in position to fail?

That's just not true. He named a player as an example that he sees monty not use it with.

What I got out of it was the guys Monty continues to hard hedge with, he thinks has the talent to hard hedge but aren't executing it in the game.

[ShamelessPel]

That's just not true. He named a player as an example that he sees monty not use it with.

What I got out of it was the guys Monty continues to hard hedge with, he thinks has the talent to hard hedge but aren't executing it in the game.

The key words in your statement are "thinks" and "aren't". That doesn't dispute the fact that it's still excuses for lack of evaluation/direction.

ETA: Of course, the other side to that coin is, why are the players who seemingly CAN execute his defensive scheme sitting on the bench in place of the ones that CAN'T execute his defensive scheme?

There are holes everywhere with very little substance to fill them with is the general agreement I seem to see amongst most people here.