<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Can we say this yet? mopper8 theorized this in the Cleveland thread in response to a Cowology ironic statement, and my own questioning that these playoffs may be disproving mtothe12s theories about the absolute neccesity of title winning teams to be elite defensive clubs,: mopper8 wrote: They weren't always before. It was a 15-20 year trend, started by Daly, popularized by Riley and Jackson, perfected by Pop and Brown. Now that it's peaked, its starting to decline IMO, as the NBA's popularity has waned as its popularity as a philosophy has waxed. it was definately the religion of coaches. They still preach defense, even the newer coaches preach defense. They are at least paying lip service to defense....besides D'Antoni you look at this list of recent coaches, and they all talk the talk. A handful of them believe in defense 1st at the gut level you know for sure, and you can pick them out. I think where it becomes consequential is that certain coaches have the ability to coach it, and communicate the intensity to the players they have, and have GMs that back them up. In the Spurs case, You might suspect the talent and biorythmic enthusiasm probably just wasn't there to execute the vision. Mike Woodson Doc Rivers Bernie Bickerstaff Scott Skiles Mike Brown Avery Johnson George Karl Flip Saunders Mike Montgomery Jeff Van Gundy Rick Carlisle Mike Dunleavy Phil Jackson Mike Fratello Pat Riley Terry Stotts Dwane Casey Lawrence Frank Byron Scott Larry Brown Brian Hill Maurice Cheeks Mike D'Antoni Nate McMillan Rick Adelman Gregg Popovich Bob Hill Sam Mitchell Jerry Sloan Eddie Jordan I tend to believe its probably just a temporary thing, this matter of defensive clubs becoming less dominant in terms of the championship picture. I still believe in defense 1st I just can't decide for certain if this years playoffs are just a matter of circumstance.... Maybe a blip on the radar...or a consequence of new rules, more than a league-wide defensive philosophy running out of steam. Is mopper8 correct? Was the reason defensive clubs dominated just because it was the dominant coaching method? Or was it because defense 1st was the effective way to build a title winning club?</div> Thoughts?
I think that as overall defense declines, as well as overall talent, the level of defense needed to win declines.Today, we see poor outside shooters and bad defense all around, so of course teams aren't allgoing to be required to play San Antonio Spurs defense. However, in orer to win a title, you are going toneed to paly better defense than your opponent
I think so, defense is becoming less important, but, you still need to have a good solid defense in order to win a title. An example is these playoffs, where Dallas(who can play ok defense), PHX(who doesnt play a whole lot), and Miami(a team that when i see it, it is built for offense but can still defend sometimes) are teams in the conference finals. You can even put Detroit in there, with their new sense for offense. The need for defense is diminishing but it is still needed.
I don't think you need ELITE level defense to win anymore, unless you are the Pistons, who only can win with GREAT defense.But teams like Dallas and Miami play solid enough defense win a title, not sure PHX has "enough" to actually win the whole thing, but they might be close enough.
No. Look at last years' championship series. Detroit and San Antonio. It is obvious that you have to atleast have average defense to be able to go to the final step in the playoffs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ May 27 2006, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No. Look at last years' championship series. Detroit and San Antonio. It is obvious that you have to atleast have average defense to be able to go to the final step in the playoffs.</div> And San Antonio get beat this year and the Pistons seem to be getting beat everyother night...if it's defensive issues or offensive issues it's your guess....I think you need a good defense to get by but you don't need an elite defense as long as your offense doesn't lapse like the Pistons where your averaging 80 something points in the playoffs.
I dont think a team like the Suns could break through. They let teams drop 120 on them too much. The Mavs are pretty much locks for the Finals though. They have average defense. They have good perimeter defenders in players like Armstrong, Griffin, Daniels, Howard, Harris.
The series is tied 1-1, they have a great shot at going to the finals. The NBA is funny this way, after the Heat game so many people thought the Pistons were out of it and suddenly Detroit comes marching in and now most people think the Pistons will win the series. The Suns give up a ton of points but the score a ton of points as well and with how streaky the offense can go they can be down 10 points and 10 minutes later be up by 15. When the Suns go back to Phoenix it could shift back in their favor, it's how things go. The Mavericks 'good defenders' haven't really proven much to me so far in the Suns series.
Noone defends the Suns well, c'mon man. Use a litle comparison BCB...you wouldn't say the Spurs were bad defenders, especially last year, and the Suns STILL put up big numbers on them.The Suns aren't a good judge of how good your defense is or isn't.I mean heck, the Mavs kept the Suns under 100, that's good enough defense on them...plus good defense means playing defense at the right times, and making key stops....Now THAT the Mavs do. Look the Mavs kept Nash from scoring but once in the second half, and normally Nash would get 15 or more assist if he doesn't score, and he ony had 11...that's good defense, when you take inot account that it's Suns...And as for the other part of your post, noone thinks the Mavs are going to walk away with this series. We all know the Suns have a shot at winning it too, but remember when the Suns won game one, with a inexusible meltdown by the Mavs in the 4th quarter of that game...everyone was acting like the Suns were unstoppable, and the Mavs had no chane....Now THAT, was overreacting.
