Jimmer = Adam Morrison + JJ Redick

[Covert Rain]

They were very solid defensively but they had an unstoppable offensive force down low in Duncan and two very good offensive players in Parker and Ginobili. Again, switch those three guys for 3 players that are weak on offense and even if the replacements are the 3 greatest defensive players of all time, that team goes to the lottery every year. I'll go a step further, just take Tim out and replace him with Dikembe and that team probably fails to win a championship, IMO.
Steve

Using that same logic, if you replace Tim Duncan with an offensive oriented player that doesn't play great defense and I will show you the same. Take away the best defensive players on the Spurs with guys more offensively oriented and I show you the Phoenix Suns.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Using that same logic, if you replace Tim Duncan with an offensive oriented player that doesn't play great defense and I will show you the same. Take away the best defensive players on the Spurs with guys more offensively oriented and I show you the Phoenix Suns.

I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me in the first place. I'm not saying that defense is unimportant, I'm just pointing out that you need basketball players, not just great defenders. The teams that win championships play good defense but they have players that can score even against strong defenses. I used the Spurs because people always point to them as good defensive squads (and they are) but they also had three players that were exceptional on offense also. You need both, you need balance.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me in the first place. I'm not saying that defense is unimportant, I'm just pointing out that you need basketball players, not just great defenders. The teams that win championships play good defense but they have players that can score even against strong defenses. I used the Spurs because people always point to them as good defensive squads (and they are) but they also had three players that were exceptional on offense also. You need both, you need balance.

Steve

I am not sure I am disagreeing per say. I am just agreeing with the original concept that it was the defensive capabilities of the Spurs that won those titles. Despite what talent they had on offense, none of that would have mattered had it not been for the defensive capabilities of that team.

I agree with you that you need balance. At least enough of it to be able to score when it counts. However, defense should be your #1 concern IMO. It's much easier to find scorers in this league and add them to your roster then it is to find lock down defenders.

The Suns have tried to add defense for years taking the approach of building your team from an offensive mindset first. The Spurs and other good defensive teams seem to take the opposite approach IMO.

 

[Errntknght]

I have to agree with Daren about focusing on D when you're getting players. Not so much because you can find offensive players more easily, but because almost all players will work hard to improve their offensive game with any encouragement at all.

 

[Magnus]

Bottom line here is that it's easier to teach offense than defense. You need more natural instinct to be good at defense, while pretty much everyone can learn how to shoot if they are persistent enough. It's all about repetition and practice.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Bottom line here is that it's easier to teach offense than defense. You need more natural instinct to be good at defense, while pretty much everyone can learn how to shoot if they are persistent enough. It's all about repetition and practice.

I beg to differ. Depth perception, body control, and muscle memory vary between people. We are talking about the ability to function on a very high level here. Playing the piano is very similar. Not everyone can teach their body to make those micro adjustments.

 

[Bufalay]

Bottom line here is that it's easier to teach offense than defense. You need more natural instinct to be good at defense, while pretty much everyone can learn how to shoot if they are persistent enough. It's all about repetition and practice.

I agree with the opposite of this statement.

 

[Magnus]

I agree with the opposite of this statement.

In that case we should target offensive minded players and teach them defense easily, but that doesn't seem work.

 

[Mulli]

No. Did I miss some requirement that says you can only compare players of the same race? That's just ridiculous, IMHO.

You actually thought that was a question you needed to answer?


Note: You don't have to answer that question either.

 

[mojorizen7]

I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me in the first place. I'm not saying that defense is unimportant, I'm just pointing out that you need basketball players, not just great defenders. The teams that win championships play good defense but they have players that can score even against strong defenses. I used the Spurs because people always point to them as good defensive squads (and they are) but they also had three players that were exceptional on offense also. You need both, you need balance.

Steve

You do need both,but IMO the balance should swing in the favor of having a roster composed of capable team defenders with a few very good one-on-one defenders and at least one defensive juggernaut. Put a few offensive stars(all of which have to be capable defensive players) amongst them and thats my definition of balance.

You cant go the other way with that philosophy....putting together a roster full of offensive-minded shooters,slashers and having flat-out bad defenders among your starters,while only putting 1 or 2 decent defenders in your entire rotation....thats what you DON'T NEED....if you want to win something important.

 

[mojorizen7]

Bottom line here is that it's easier to teach offense than defense. You need more natural instinct to be good at defense, while pretty much everyone can learn how to shoot if they are persistent enough. It's all about repetition and practice.

+1
Its about desire. Just about every player in sports history has the desire to score(Mr Obvious says).
Does every player have the desire to stop the man in front of him?...Not so much.

 

[Errntknght]

Bottom line here is that it's easier to teach offense than defense. You need more natural instinct to be good at defense, while pretty much everyone can learn how to shoot if they are persistent enough. It's all about repetition and practice.

I wouldn't go that far. And we really have to drag the coaches involved into the equation. A coach like D'Antoni or Alvin Gentry, to a slightly lesser extent, is not going to teach anyone how to defend squat.

Remember how Barbosa never learned to play on a guys strong hand - thats pretty trivial thing to learn but if your coach doesn't make you do it, then he's the one not doing his job.

Maybe if Carlisle was our coach we wouldn't have to shade toward defense so much but with Gentry if a guy isn't a good defender on his own he's going to be a weak link.

Its certainly true that there are coaches that can teach defense - teams of guys like Carlisle, Thibadeau, Riley are always good defensively. As we've seen with Skiles and Porter having a philosophy of emphasizing defense doesn't mean a whole lot - they've got to know the precise nuts and bolts of how its done and how to drill the players so it becomes 'instinctual'. (Yeah, I know you can't teach real instincts - the reactions we have with no higher level mental processing whatsoever - but you can drill/practice until they're habitual.)

 

[AzStevenCal]

You do need both,but IMO the balance should swing in the favor of having a roster composed of capable team defenders with a few very good one-on-one defenders and at least one defensive juggernaut. Put a few offensive stars(all of which have to be capable defensive players) amongst them and thats my definition of balance.

You cant go the other way with that philosophy....putting together a roster full of offensive-minded shooters,slashers and having flat-out bad defenders among your starters,while only putting 1 or 2 decent defenders in your entire rotation....thats what you DON'T NEED....if you want to win something important.

Well, I pretty much agree with this. However, I think MOST offensive players have it in them to be good team defenders but I don't think the reverse holds up anywhere near as often. I want basketball players that can score (including a few that can do it on their own) that are willing to work on defense. No more Hakim Warricks. Everybody bashes Nash for his defense but he's worked to become a slightly below average team defender but compared to Warrick he's first team all defense. You can afford a Nash or two in your rotation if the rest of the team is strong but you can never afford a Warrick.

Steve

 

[Errntknght]

So true, so true, Steve. And you really can't afford a coach that doesn't realize the wreckage a Warrick creates on defense.

 

[mojorizen7]

Well, I pretty much agree with this. However, I think MOST offensive players have it in them to be good team defenders but I don't think the reverse holds up anywhere near as often. I want basketball players that can score (including a few that can do it on their own) that are willing to work on defense. No more Hakim Warricks. Everybody bashes Nash for his defense but he's worked to become a slightly below average team defender but compared to Warrick he's first team all defense. You can afford a Nash or two in your rotation if the rest of the team is strong but you can never afford a Warrick.

Steve

Well thats just the thing...i do think Nash alone could survive on a team surrounded by good defenders...we haven't seen that in PHX.

I dont think you can afford to have your top 2 players be poor defenders(Nash/Amare),and surround them with average to below average defenders just because they compliment Nash offensively. You put one stopper ala Raja Bell or Grant Hill on those squad's and its not near enough balance to compete with the elite teams that simply keep throwing better defensive players at your guys(talking playoffs of course).

 

[AzStevenCal]

So true, so true, Steve. And you really can't afford a coach that doesn't realize the wreckage a Warrick creates on defense.

Nothing concerns me more about Gentry than the fact he continued to play Hakim even after his defensive issues became obvious. It seemed to me that he would use Warrick as long as the guy was putting in the effort on offense and would only bench him when he lost focus on that end. It made no sense to me. If I were absolutely forced to use Hakim I'd have him stand at half court when we go on defense so that we only have to play 4 on 5 while he's out there.

Steve

 

[Bufalay]

Well thats just the thing...i do think Nash alone could survive on a team surrounded by good defenders...we haven't seen that in PHX.

I dont think you can afford to have your top 2 players be poor defenders(Nash/Amare),and surround them with average to below average defenders just because they compliment Nash offensively. You put one stopper ala Raja Bell or Grant Hill on those squad's and its not near enough balance to compete with the elite teams that simply keep throwing better defensive players at your guys(talking playoffs of course).

As support for the above statement, the Suns defense was pretty good during the first half of the 05-06 season when the starting lineup was Nash, Bell, Marion, Diaw and Thomas.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Well thats just the thing...i do think Nash alone could survive on a team surrounded by good defenders...we haven't seen that in PHX.

I dont think you can afford to have your top 2 players be poor defenders(Nash/Amare),and surround them with average to below average defenders just because they compliment Nash offensively. You put one stopper ala Raja Bell or Grant Hill on those squad's and its not near enough balance to compete with the elite teams that simply keep throwing better defensive players at your guys(talking playoffs of course).

I agree as long as there's some context here. Nash can more than survive regardless of who he's paired with. We didn't fail to win championships because of him in any way, shape or form (IMO). Even with the mistakes the front office made, we still could and should have won a championship with the guys we had. Our biggest problem is that we had a very good offensive weapon in Amare that, with the right coach, would have been a defensive stalwart instead of a subpar defender.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

I dont think you can afford to have your top 2 players be poor defenders(Nash/Amare),and surround them with average to below average defenders just because they compliment Nash offensively. You put one stopper ala Raja Bell or Grant Hill on those squad's and its not near enough balance to compete with the elite teams that simply keep throwing better defensive players at your guys(talking playoffs of course).

100% agree. Also, I think team defense isn't the only factor. Teams that have bounced the Suns in recent history seemed to have players that could individually shut down or limit our best players. Some of those teams managed to stay at home against our 3 point shooters one on one which limited our offense. The Suns bread and butter has been shooting teams to death that don't have good 1 on1 defensive players. Those teams try to defend the 3 via committee and get caught in bad rotations. Getting caught in bad rotations against the Suns was D'Antoni's bread and butter. It's been an essential part of our system ever since. The teams that we have struggled against have stayed at home against our 3 point shooters.

Team defense is important for sure but individual defensive skilled players gives you a huge leg up to scheme against a good offensive teams like the Suns. The biggest difference between teams that might be OK versus elite defensively are those that have skilled enough defensive players that you can put on an island and trust them do get it done. When the Suns did that for example with Nash or Amare....we were burned over and over. Either by an easy drive around Nash, or forced into a stupid double team or getting other guys into foul trouble.

 

[Gee!]

So how is Jimmer doing so far?

 

[asudevil83]

i always thought if Jimmer as a rich mans Casey Jacobson.

Granted, he's only been in the league for 2 seasons and shot better from the field last years, i just dont see him ever making the leap past a 10/2/2 guy.

 

[JCSunsfan]

i always thought if Jimmer as a rich mans Casey Jacobson.

Granted, he's only been in the league for 2 seasons and shot better from the field last years, i just dont see him ever making the leap past a 10/2/2 guy.

Because they are both white and Mormon I assume.

 

[Neo]

Because they are both white and Mormon I assume.

Plus they both have a hot blonde wife. That must mean that they are identical players. Nevermind the fact that Jacobsen was a 6'6" G/F and Jimmer is a 6'2" PG/SG. They must be the same since they have similar levels of pigmentation and share views about religion, kinda like how Kenneth Faried and Nazr Mohammed are the same.

 

[asudevil83]

Because they are both white and Mormon I assume.

not at all. sure they are both white, but i had no idea Jacobson was Mormon. I do love how race and religion automatically jump into the conversation though.

Both are/were shooting specialists, taking about half their shots from outside the arch, and both shoot at a 40% clip from there. Neither have/had the skills to be an elite player, or anything more than what they are/were.