Red
TYPE-A
Do I trust Landry Fields to stop anyone? No. Do I think he should be benched? Yes - to an extent. I think he can still help out in certain ways. I think these criticisms are fair. But if you are criticizing the defense this year (especially using PPG), you are just wrong, simple as that. PPG is an archaic stat with little to no value in actually analyzing a team.
Can coaching help this? Also no, because no coach is going to magically imbue Landry with the lateral quickness to make him effective on the perimeter defending his man.
Yes, there were people who bitched about signing Billups - this poster was not one of them.
There were people who said Billups would get us CP3 - this poster was not one of them.
Your issue is you project other people's comments on to me.
But the defense has been good. The offense has been stagnant, uninspired and just awful, that's the issue. Teams might have career shooting days against us - but if you think Ryan Anderson is a poor shooter you haven't been following the NBA this season. I'd rather force teams to take long jumpers and beat us that way than to give up easy layups in the paint. Forcing teams into lower percentage shots is to me good defense, and it starts with Tyson Chandler affecting this team and actually making us more physical near the rim.
And the fact that you use PPG to "prove" your point just shows you don't know a gosh darn thing.
And you obviously don't know what "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul" means. We detracted, heavily, from our PG position, by amnestying Billups to create room to sign someone in Tyson Chandler to fill a role where Jared Jeffries was projected to probably start. We severely hurt our guard position play to help our center play, and though it created a much more physical team in the middle, it created a much weaker team at PG. The issue is we improved heavily in one area by hurting ourselves in another, specifically in running a fluid and capable offense through Billups.
The quote you used was not from you. My response was not directed toward you, but toward the quote from the other blog.
The issue is we improved heavily in one area by hurting ourselves in another, specifically in running a fluid and capable offense through Billups.
Yes I understand. But how can you say "hurting ourselves in another" when nobody thought Billups was any good IN THIS SYSTEM?
Isn't that contradictory?
We have to now assume that the only capable way of "running a fluid and capable offense" is by keeping Billups even though our defensive interior (and perimeter) lacked zeal? The same guy who no one wanted?
The same guy who everyone said and agreed doesn't play defense well?
Poppycock. Not having Billups is not a valid excuse of this ineptitude and is made far fetched considering we replaced him with a defensive big.
My point being, with Billups we needed defense and never planned on keeping him; he was old, slow, and didn't FIT this system remember? So Chandler is here instead because this system needed a big, but now the system doesn't work because it's missing a PG...
ONE WE NEVER HAD IN BILLUPS. So what's the difference? That PG shit is just another excuse. But the apparent thing and common theme is... THE SYSTEM.
And further why are we just zoning in on the offense as if there aren't many issues apparent? Isn't that quite "D'antonian"?