jazz identity under Corbin

[NUMBERICA]

That's not quite a fair statement, because 2 pt shots are fouled at a much higher rate than 3 pt shots--particularly if you're talking about inside shots.

But layups are harder to get than 3s, in addition to that 2-point jumpshots aren't fouled at a high rate either. Mid-range shots are garbage.

 

[NUMBERICA]

3. Part of the lack of adjusting D to the new rules may be the Jazz offense is so complex, coupled with the influx of new players, that they didn't have much time to practice D or focus on it. Spent most of their time getting the Offense 'right', and Jerry was always hard to please...

The Jazz were a MUCH better defensive team to start the year.

 

[//r00t 4 Jazz]

The Jazz were a MUCH better defensive team to start the year.

Yes I remember the Jazz were near the top in defensive FG% and points per game up until around or after Christmas break but bottom half in rebounding which negated much of their good defense.

 

[gomretat]

Wow - the Sloan rigidity thing is rearing its head again.

1)Did he have set rotations -Yes
2)Do others such as Pop do the same thing? - Yes
3)Did his degree of set rotations change with personnel? - Absolutely

Anyone who watched the Jazz during the S&M era and the non S&M era saw a real difference. Sloan was about winning - period. His rotations his last 3 years in Utah were always being tweaked. Booz got minutes because the Jazz were overall worse with him out of the lineup.

 

[Brown Notes]

No he didnt. You did a pretty poor job of defending Sloan, if that was your intention, by making the above statement. Thibodeau had all sorts of problems with Booz and Korver right till the end. You just cannot turn players like that into great defenders suddenly.

How did Dallas suddenly improve into a better defensive team? Hmm..having a healthy Chandler who can do what he does when he is healthy doesnt hurt at all. Kidd and Stevenson were already known to be more than adequate individual defenders. Butler, when healthy is tough as nails. Marion is'nt bad at all either. Ironically, Nowitzki was the one weak link on defense, but he has improved a bit over the years in that department, has atleast become a good team defender even if he isnt a great individual defender.

Bottomline: You can have Larry Brown as the head coach, with Sloan and Thobodeau as his assistants and your defense will still be crap most of the times if your main big men are Boozer and Al and Memo. Lets not forget that Deron was'nt great at dribble penetration defense either. And Miles, the less said the better.

Maybe I used the wrong phrase. The Bulls were a very good defensive team with Boozer and Korver playing a lot. It's a fact that Thibs focused on defensive drills while getting the team ready for the season. But that wouldn't have worked without having Deng, Noah, etc. I didn't say Thibs turned Booze and Korver into great defensive players. My point was that they were able to be part of a great defense because the other guys were so good.

Which, funnily, appears to be your point here. Cheers.

 

[Harcher]

I have no choice, not that I mind, but rep InGrameStrategy.

I have no choice, not that I mind, but rep vj_74

 

[gregbroncs]

Wow - the Sloan rigidity thing is rearing its head again.

1)Did he have set rotations -Yes
2)Do others such as Pop do the same thing? - Yes
3)Did his degree of set rotations change with personnel? - Absolutely

Anyone who watched the Jazz during the S&M era and the non S&M era saw a real difference. Sloan was about winning - period. His rotations his last 3 years in Utah were always being tweaked. Booz got minutes because the Jazz were overall worse with him out of the lineup.

Except that they were not . They were just as good if not better with Boozer out of the lineup.

I said they should have traded him 2 years before they eventually lost him. We could have had Bogut, Chandler, or a bunch of other players straight up for Boozer. I was happy with the AL trade but would much rather have Bogut right now.

 

[vj_74]

Except that they were not . They were just as good if not better with Boozer out of the lineup.

I said they should have traded him 2 years before they eventually lost him. We could have had Bogut, Chandler, or a bunch of other players straight up for Boozer. I was happy with the AL trade but would much rather have Bogut right now.

So now the debate has evolved from whether Sloan should have punished Booz everytime by benching him to whether he should have even had Booz on the team at all. Nice. How about we take it a bit further and argue whether the Jazz should have signed Booz at all in the first place? There is no end to these what-if scenarios. Lets just limit ourselves to what Sloan could have done or what was under his control.

Coming back to the main discussion, I agree with this mostly:

Sloan maybe in his younger days could've been both but since he had S&M he didn't need to be the leader as they provided the leadership and Sloan provided the identity. With the recent teams he didn't have the 1 or 3 players to buy in and be that defensive leader that would force the others to pick up their defense.

I also believe to a lesser degree that with the Jazz' D did need to be tweaked a bit to adjust for the 3pt a line but we did see Sloan try a little zone the past couple of years.

To those who think Sloan should have benched Booz or Memo every time they didnt play D, I wonder why they give Deron a free pass. Its not like as if Deron was all-NBA first team on defense. Ever wonder about that? Now, THAT would have been interesting, if Sloan had actually benched Deron everytime he dogged on defense, which was easily about one-third of the games. Maybe the trade would have ended up happening even earlier, because can you imagine Deron's pouty face if he were benched for non-performance? Sloan would have been an "idiot" again if he had done that because the Jazz clearly dont have better options than Deron for running the offense and they cannot afford to piss off Deron. But somehow Sloan could afford to bench Booz or Okur everytime because those guys were'nt capable of getting pissed off or pouty and they were'nt important at all to the offense, right? Not to mention, by just benching them those players would automatically start being better defensive players while the Jazz would have won a ton of games in the meantime with those two watching from the bench. Mind-boggling.

If only the Mavs would have benched Nowitzki everytime he had a medicore defensive game, they would have had 2 or 3 titles by now. Stupid Don Nelson, Del Harris, Avery Johnson and whoever else who coached the Mavs.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Some coaches bench players to get their attention and change the laziness and bad habits .. and it often works.

You also can't bench a player who is on the disabled list.

 

[Brown Notes]

It also serves no lesson to bench people only to see their replacements be less effective. Losing games has never proved a point, other than the coach sucks.

 

[Zerol]

we need to bring someone like Lawrence Frank in to be the coach that preaches defense like what Thibs did for the Celtics... Brian T Smith was on twitter ranting about the Jazz has a limited 3-man coaching staff even after Sloan/Johnson are gone.

 

[vj_74]

we need to bring someone like Lawrence Frank in to be the coach that preaches defense like what Thibs did for the Celtics... Brian T Smith was on twitter ranting about the Jazz has a limited 3-man coaching staff even after Sloan/Johnson are gone.

what was he exactly ranting about? He should know by now that the Jazz generally like to take their own time with things like this, especially with the offseason and lockout. And as a bonus, $$$ saved for Greggy boy.