If anyone noticed (I know I did) we switched on every single screen., but here:



And also Tommy Dee:

http://www.theknicksblog.com/2009/01/13/knicks-recap-brought-to-you-by-ssom/

We talked earlier this year about the team’s inability to get over screens. I stopped keeping count a while ago and will save judgment until we have a full roster of players. The guards are dead some nights so it’s really not all that surprising the get under screens.

But Gian makes a great point, it looks like they are switching on everything. I’ve talked to more than a few college coaches over the years and it seems that D’Antoni’s strategy makes sense.

From what I gather, most teams that have a “level” roster, as in everyone is relatively the same size, will switch on screens because they feel comfortable with their players guarding all positions. Obviously, you don’t really want Nate Robinson to get posted on a switch, but Nate does a nice job of holding his ground.

Jefferies can keep some guards in front of him and guys like Harrington, Chandler and Tim Thomas can stay with smaller players as well as guard the post.

It’s a good strategy, keep an eye on it tomorrow verses Washington.

There's no way teams aren't going to catch on to this. I understand if our guys can't get over screens, but this is just going to make teams take advantage of us even more, once they catch it on film. We caught the Hornets blindsided, but what's gonna happen when we play teams like the Suns in a couple of weeks, or even the Sixers. It's not going to work against the good teams.

[Edited by - Allanfan20 on 14-01-2009 12:22 AM]

It's OK when you got Jefferies and Harrington and Chandler, who can guard multiple positions. However, there's no way Duhon and Nate can switch to a bigger player, and there's no way you can have Lee on a shorter or quicker player. I think we got lucky on this one, and it also shows are glaring need for a shotblocker.

Posted by crzymdups:

i don't understand this thread? teams aren't going to fall for good defense? it was good defense. switching makes sense - it's better to have a mismatch than a guy flying down the lane because he beats his man off a pick. if we have quick bigs who stay with guards we should take advantage of it. it's not a gimmick its good defense.

I agree. If you are going to have an undersized center and power forward, you might as well make use of that fact and have them switch on the perimeter. Jeffries and Chandler can guard multiple positions, so it works to our advantage, especially since we have no shot-blocker.

Posted by Allanfan20:

It's OK when you got Jefferies and Harrington and Chandler, who can guard multiple positions. However, there's no way Duhon and Nate can switch to a bigger player, and there's no way you can have Lee on a shorter or quicker player. I think we got lucky on this one, and it also shows are glaring need for a shotblocker.

Actually part of the clip shows Lee switching and picking up Paul. I guess Paul wasn't feeling comfortable with his outside shot and drove on Lee who did a good job of staying in front of him, and Paul missed the lay up.

There is no reason Lee can't do as decent a job all the time.

And Jefferies was brought here because he could defend the 1-5. Crap, he plays D like this Walsh might even be able to trade him!

Still, I don't understand why other teams' guards can get over screens, and ours can't? Nate, as quick and as strong as he is, should be able to get over every pick. And I thought Duhon could play decent defense.

I'm not saying we haven't been playing better defense (Where were you people when I was argueing that in the other thread?) but when you're switching at screens, the mismatches are bound to be glaring. There were a couple of times when Lee had to guard Paul, and he got lucky when he missed that layups.

I have, however, been an advocate of a big guarding a smaller player, if he's quick enough to handle the little guy. That's why I said I'm fine with Harrington, Chandler and Jefferies doing that. I just see Lee being exposed sooner than later. Hopefully I'm wrong, b/c our defense HAS been better.

Like I said though. I still see no reason why our guards can't get over screens. It's inexcusable. Maybe I should be directing that at Nate, b/c at least Q and Duhon make the effort. Nate gets killed, and he's the most gifted of all of them.

Posted by franco12:

Posted by Allanfan20:

It's OK when you got Jefferies and Harrington and Chandler, who can guard multiple positions. However, there's no way Duhon and Nate can switch to a bigger player, and there's no way you can have Lee on a shorter or quicker player. I think we got lucky on this one, and it also shows are glaring need for a shotblocker.

Actually part of the clip shows Lee switching and picking up Paul. I guess Paul wasn't feeling comfortable with his outside shot and drove on Lee who did a good job of staying in front of him, and Paul missed the lay up.

There is no reason Lee can't do as decent a job all the time.

And Jefferies was brought here because he could defend the 1-5. Crap, he plays D like this Walsh might even be able to trade him!

Still, I don't understand why other teams' guards can get over screens, and ours can't? Nate, as quick and as strong as he is, should be able to get over every pick. And I thought Duhon could play decent defense.

We only have 2 guards. They play a lot of minutes and running over screens takes a toll on you. This defensive philosophy is perfect for this team. We have interchangeable parts. Use it.

Posted by Allanfan20:

If anyone noticed (I know I did) we switched on every single screen., but here:



And also Tommy Dee:

http://www.theknicksblog.com/2009/01/13/knicks-recap-brought-to-you-by-ssom/

We talked earlier this year about the team’s inability to get over screens. I stopped keeping count a while ago and will save judgment until we have a full roster of players. The guards are dead some nights so it’s really not all that surprising the get under screens.

But Gian makes a great point, it looks like they are switching on everything. I’ve talked to more than a few college coaches over the years and it seems that D’Antoni’s strategy makes sense.

From what I gather, most teams that have a “level” roster, as in everyone is relatively the same size, will switch on screens because they feel comfortable with their players guarding all positions. Obviously, you don’t really want Nate Robinson to get posted on a switch, but Nate does a nice job of holding his ground.

Jefferies can keep some guards in front of him and guys like Harrington, Chandler and Tim Thomas can stay with smaller players as well as guard the post.

It’s a good strategy, keep an eye on it tomorrow verses Washington.

What are you guys talking about?

Switching on defense is as common as setting a pick on offense.

With the current make-up of our team switching is absolutely a great idea because it protects us from having point guards ram the ball down our throats after our guards get hung up on screens. By switching every pick there is no more getting hung up or trailing the ball handler - the other defender simply assumes responsibility. If teams want to take advantage of us let them go ahead because that typically results in one on one play.

I'd prefer to encourage the other team to go one on one trying to take advantage of one of our switches than have us trying to deal with constant dribble penetration and recovery to cutting dunkers or open 3-point shooters.

D'Antoni's defensive philosophy is actually solid - he just doesn't seem to emphasize it and we don't have above average defenders.