Started By
Message

Will the Defense suffer even more?

Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:03 am
Posted by Bonck1987
Houma, LA
Member since Jan 2015
655 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:03 am
Not that our Defense was a strong suit last year, giving up 98.6 PPG, but I am nervous that this Run and Gun style might hurt us in the long.

I know this is Alvin Gentry's style of play and he has had some success with it on the other teams he's coached for, but its only been short term success.

Do you guys think we will be capable of scoring 110+ night in and night out, like the Warriors did last year? I just don't think we have the scorers for this formula to work. What is your take?
Posted by MrPel
Member since Dec 2014
2342 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:11 am to
My take is you should wait to watch a few games before making assumptions.
Posted by Bonck1987
Houma, LA
Member since Jan 2015
655 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:17 am to
Eh maybe, but we did give up 105 in a preseason game to the Pacers. Yes we scored 110 and 67 in the first half, but only scored 43 in the second half. I fear that we don't have athletic enough players to keep the pace up a full 48 minutes and will get tired leading to a lot of blown leads in the 4th quarter.

Don't get me wrong, I am very optimistic about this season. I just worry about the sustained long term success of this playing style.
Posted by Hazelnut
Member since May 2011
16433 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:20 am to
quote:

My take is you should wait to watch a few games before making assumptions.

Good thing he wasn't making assumptions and just creating discussion.
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:21 am to
quote:

Yes we scored 110 and 67 in the first half, but only scored 43 in the second half. I fear that we don't have athletic enough players to keep the pace up a full 48 minutes and will get tired leading to a lot of blown leads in the 4th quarter.
you do realize our starters didn't play the whole game right?
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 9:21 am
Posted by Bonck1987
Houma, LA
Member since Jan 2015
655 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:31 am to
Yeah I realize that, but starters also don't play 48 mins in the regular season either. If our bench lacks production then we may end up playing a lot of games from behind. Just something to think about.
Posted by Mystery
Member since Jan 2009
9003 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:33 am to
quote:

Not that our Defense was a strong suit last year, giving up 98.6 PPG


You do realize we had the 3rd lowest pace in the league last year. PPG is not a good indicator of Defense. Stats like points per possession and defensive efficiency are better indicators. Just because we held the ball all game does not make us good at defense. We were awful last year. The offense was the bright spot.

Expect improvements on both sides of the ball.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 9:34 am
Posted by Bonck1987
Houma, LA
Member since Jan 2015
655 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:44 am to
I know our Defense was bad, that's why I asked will it suffer even more...The offense was a nice surprise, I'm just scared that we might end up losing a lot of shootouts this year. That is all.
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:45 am to
quote:

but starters also don't play 48 mins in the regular season either
do they play more than 20? because except for Gordon the only other players to play over 20 minutes were luke babbit, Bryce dejean-jones, chris douglas-roberts.

I get what you are trying to say with your argument but using this game to support it is pretty bad.
Posted by Mystery
Member since Jan 2009
9003 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:48 am to
quote:

I get what you are trying to say with your argument


You do? Cause I don't. Nothing about picking up the pace should make us worse on defense. If anything it wears out the opposing offense.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 10:35 am
Posted by Bonck1987
Houma, LA
Member since Jan 2015
655 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:53 am to
Well it is the only game we have so far to judge off of. Obviously the Run style does work, with Golden State winning the title last year, but we don't have the same caliber guards as them. They also led the league in Defense efficiency. What worked for them, but not be the best for us.
Posted by quail man
New York, NY
Member since May 2010
40926 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:56 am to
The goal is to score more points than the opponent.
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:58 am to
quote:

The goal is to score more points than the opponent.
you play to win the game?
Posted by TigerinATL
Member since Feb 2005
61489 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:59 am to
quote:

I am nervous that this Run and Gun style might hurt us in the long.


The Warriors had one of the top defenses in the league last year, Run and Gun is not incompatible with good defense. One of the biggest keys to NBA defense is communication and everyone being on the same page. The Pels have simplified the defense and hopefully that will help.

quote:

I just don't think we have the scorers for this formula to work


This was a top 10 offense last year yet most of the complaints every game were about the offense. Why? Because it was run in a dumb way. One of the Pels blogs broke it down after the season but basically the best offenses run the 1 or 2 plays they are most efficient at the most. The Pels on the other hand chose the plays we were least efficient at as our bread and butter.

Things will take time to gel, but if healthy, the talent is there for both a top 10 offense and defense. Gentry was specifically chosen over better versions of Monty (JVG and Thibs) because Demps felt his coaching style played to the roster Demps had built better. I wanted JVG, but I've warmed up to Gentry and think he may well get more out of this roster than others would have.
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:09 am to
quote:

Well it is the only game we have so far to judge off of.
yes but you are using the decline in production from the first half to the 2nd half as your supporting argument. we had players playing 20+ minutes that likely won't even be on the team come the regular season
Posted by Bonck1987
Houma, LA
Member since Jan 2015
655 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:10 am to
Of course, but you obviously want to be able to slow down the opponents scoring barrages as well. 6 out of the top 10 teams in Defense all made the playoffs last year.

Team Defensive Rankings
Posted by Mystery
Member since Jan 2009
9003 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:22 am to
Oh look the best defensive team in the league is 15 on your list. Stop using that terrible stat.

Posted by Bonck1987
Houma, LA
Member since Jan 2015
655 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:29 am to
They also had the best offense in the league, so I don't think its a terrible stat. If they weren't able to score as much as they did, they would have easily lost a lot more games and not even be in the playoff hunt. Stats don't lie. We don't have the scorers that Golden State does.

Heres a couple more links for you:

Points Per Shot: Defense

Pels: 13th

Points Per Shot: Offense

Pels:

13th

Pretty Average, so one could argue that an increase in pace will cause a decrease in Defense.

This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 10:36 am
Posted by Fearthehat0307
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2007
65256 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:30 am to
quote:

If they weren't able to score as much as they did, they would have easily lost a lot more games
Posted by Mystery
Member since Jan 2009
9003 posts
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:32 am to
quote:

6 out of the top 10 teams in Defense all made the playoffs last year.



So 60% made the playoffs.
Fun fact. 54% of all NBA teams make the playoffs.


Point being... a lot of teams make the playoffs.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram