A Commitment to Defense

KingKong

KingKong

Starter
#1
#1
We all know the cliche "Defense wins championships," and it seems to ring true every year. I think more than just defense, a good balance of both O and D are essential to win a championship. This was not necessarily true of the past year's champions. Ofcourse, there are various other factors that come into play like injuries, chemistry and depth, however aside from injuries, my other largest concern is our defense.

There were just too many times where I saw a Kings team too lacksidaiscal when it came to playing D. We would get outhustled by the Mark Madsen's of the world and by virtually most of the NBA teams. The times that I would get to see the Kings play (which were few and far between), players weren't running back on defense, other teams were getting second and third opportunites from out jumping our players and grabbing boards. Granted Webber's mobility was a part of the our defensive shortcomings but even earlier in the season our defense was suspect as we allowed teams average 97+ pts a game. Earlier in the season, we relied on our offense to win those games and it seemed to work until the last 1/3 of the season until the chemistry fell apart. But then when the playoffs came around it seemed like we had a sense of commitment to defense and we started hustling and scrapping to win games rather than relying on our offense.

Well to make a long question short, We all know that the Kings have the ability to play defense as evidenced by the 2002-2003 season and last year's playoffs. Do you think we will have a commitment on defense this year? Should we rely less on our offense and more on our defense to win games? I know a lot if has to do with being healthy, esp CWebb but I was just wondering.
 
B

bibbyweb

Bench
#2
#2
KingKong said:
We all know the cliche "Defense wins championships," and it seems to ring true every year. I think more than just defense, a good balance of both O and D are essential to win a championship. This was not necessarily true of the past year's champions. Ofcourse, there are various other factors that come into play like injuries, chemistry and depth, however aside from injuries, my other largest concern is our defense.

There were just too many times where I saw a Kings team too lacksidaiscal when it came to playing D. We would get outhustled by the Mark Madsen's of the world and by virtually most of the NBA teams. The times that I would get to see the Kings play (which were few and far between), players weren't running back on defense, other teams were getting second and third opportunites from out jumping our players and grabbing boards. Granted Webber's mobility was a part of the our defensive shortcomings but even earlier in the season our defense was suspect as we allowed teams average 97+ pts a game. Earlier in the season, we relied on our offense to win those games and it seemed to work until the last 1/3 of the season until the chemistry fell apart. But then when the playoffs came around it seemed like we had a sense of commitment to defense and we started hustling and scrapping to win games rather than relying on our offense.

Well to make a long question short, We all know that the Kings have the ability to play defense as evidenced by the 2002-2003 season and last year's playoffs. Do you think we will have a commitment on defense this year? Should we rely less on our offense and more on our defense to win games? I know a lot if has to do with being healthy, esp CWebb but I was just wondering.
Click to expand...
I think that the Kings are fine with winning with their offense in the intial part of the season as we seem to do all right without a lot of defense. Because we don't want the guys to be too banged up during the regular season. Probably we will need to step it up a bit against good teams like Spurs and TWolves and Pistons and Pacers.

Also, this season, we will have a better defense, with the addition of Ostertag, Webber having rested his knee more, Peja's defense improving every year and with him rested during the summer. Also, Bobby Jackson returning will make a lot of difference. We should also benefit from the energy of the younger players that we have added. Resigning Songiala was also a beneficial move.

So all in all seems that we should improve quite a bit on defense.
 
Packt

Packt

Starter
#3
#3
I would like to see an effort on Defense our very first game. You need to build trust amongst teammates and to be able to gauge what your teammates our capable of, and to instinctly rotate if an opponent gets free. These things take time and the quicker we get used to playing like that, the better off we'll be.
 
uolj

uolj

Starter
#4
#4
I think the Kings should absolutely make defense their number one priority now, at the beginning of the season. The mindset and habits that doing so will create should help them in the playoffs, even if it costs them a few games here early on.

I believe we'll see a better defense at the beginning of this season than we did at the beginning of last season, but I doubt that the coaching staff will give it the focus that I'd prefer.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#5
#5
KingKong said:
Well to make a long question short, We all know that the Kings have the ability to play defense as evidenced by the 2002-2003 season and last year's playoffs. Do you think we will have a commitment on defense this year?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
HndsmCelt

HndsmCelt

Hall of Famer
#6
#6
I nedver question the Kings ABLITY to play defense, but what Iwould like to see is a defensive mind set like Detroit's:Contest every shot, dive for every loose ball get a hand in every shooters face and bump and grind every chaceyou get. Great defense is not something you turn on and off, it is a developed habit and vocaion. That being said Iwonder if Adelamncancoachthat kind of play and if the team has the willingness to play like that. It seems to me the Kings have been content to be a daikr to good defensive team with an awesome offense. On ppaer it seems that this kind of play would be more than good enough to win a championship, but after watching last years NBA finals I have reconsiderd the proposition. I can only hope that the team did as well. Itcertainly soundslike Webber and Miller have.
 
piksi

piksi

Hall of Famer
#7
#7
Our defence will not win us a championship. However, it can be good enough - not to lose it. During PO our issue will be consistant scoring. Our offense will either win it or lose it.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#8
#8
piksi said:
Our defence will not win us a championship. However, it can be good enough - not to lose it. During PO our issue will be consistant scoring. Our offense will either win it or lose it.
Click to expand...
And that statement could have been made by virtually any coach during any season.
 
R

Rowdyone

Bench
#9
#9
Defense is mostly effort. And if the coach doesn't demand it from all of his players (stars) then it's tough to demand it from the others. In all sports you have defensive or offensive minded coaches and it all starts at the top. Since this is a team partially in transition it would be a great time to demand it especially from the bench players who cannot make up offensively for what they lack defensively like the starters do.
 
NME

NME

Starter
#10
#10
Last year was pretty bad on that side, but you only have to look to the previous two years to see many of these same players playing great team defense. Hopefully, they learned their lesson and will return to their former level of commitment.
 
piksi

piksi

Hall of Famer
#11
#11
VF21 said:
And that statement could have been made by virtually any coach during any season.
Click to expand...
On what grund ? There maybe 5 teams which offence is good enough for theor coach to make such statement. Not even 5.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#12
#12
piksi said:
On what grund ? There maybe 5 teams which offence is good enough for theor coach to make such statement. Not even 5.
Click to expand...
Allow me to elaborate:

Our defence will not win us a championship.
Click to expand...
No, defense alone cannot win a championship.

However, it can be good enough - not to lose it.
Click to expand...
If your team actually plays some defense, they won't lose because of no defense.

During PO our issue will be consistant scoring.
Click to expand...
I think every team in the league wants consistent scoring.

Our offense will either win it or lose it.
Click to expand...
If an offense scores more point than the opponents, they win. If they do not, they lose...
 
CruzDude

CruzDude

Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
#13
#13
The Kings have taken to heart the addage "The best defense is a good offense" because for about 3-4 years it worked.... up to a point. Usually, round 2 or conference finals when those with defense clamped down on the Kings offense.

Defense does win championships, as long as you can score more points than the other guy. But in the long run team defense wins (look at Detroit and the Spurs) not just the dominating D of Shaq or KG.
 
Kingsgurl

Kingsgurl

Starter
#15
#15
If we see a return to the defense of 02-03, which was highly under-rated, keep opponents field goal percentage down (top 5 here, at least) then the defense should be more than adequate. Last season's pathetic attempt won't cut it. Although they started turning that around by the time the play-offs rolled around, by then it is too little. too late, as old habits ingrained over an entire season die hard.
 
piksi

piksi

Hall of Famer
#16
#16
VF21 said:
Allow me to elaborate:

No, defense alone cannot win a championship.

If your team actually plays some defense, they won't lose because of no defense.

I think every team in the league wants consistent scoring.


If an offense scores more point than the opponents, they win. If they do not, they lose...
Click to expand...
Sorry but You are not making any sense here.
 
Heuge

Heuge

Starter
#17
#17
I beleive the point VF (I could be wrong) was making is that the statement which was made about the defense being good enough is a very relative statement. Every game we won the defense was good enough because it allowed less points then we scored. It is also important for consistent offense, because if we have enough offense to win than we won.
Every coach in the nba could make that appeal which was made.
 
Last edited:
LPKingsFan

LPKingsFan

All-Star
#20
#20
And I would add that it was the Kings' lack of offensive execution not defense that failed in the waning minutes against Minnesota.

Then again, who's to say if the Kings had hustled like Detroit if the series would even have been close...
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#21
#21
Heuge said:
I beleive the point VF (I could be wrong) was making is that the statement which was made about the defense being good enough is a very relative statement. Every game we won the defense was good enough because it allowed less points then we scored. It is also important for consistent offense, because if we have enough offense to win than we won.
Every coach in the nba could make that appeal which was made.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong...

:D
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#22
#22
LPKingsFan said:
I would argue that the Lakers weren't too shabby on defense, much less the Bulls
Click to expand...
There's a big difference IMHO between being not too shabby on defense, and being primarily defense oriented.

It's my contention that the ONLY team to be primarily defensively oriented AND the owners of the O'Brien trophy hail from Detriot.
 
slugking50

slugking50

All-Star
#23
#23
Kingsgurl said:
If we see a return to the defense of 02-03, which was highly under-rated, keep opponents field goal percentage down (top 5 here, at least) then the defense should be more than adequate. Last season's pathetic attempt won't cut it. Although they started turning that around by the time the play-offs rolled around, by then it is too little. too late, as old habits ingrained over an entire season die hard.
Click to expand...
In the words of Bjax," Mos Definately!"
 
KA_2

KA_2

Bench
#24
#24
The Spurs (99, 03), Pistons (89, 90, 04), Bulls (91-93, 96-98), and Lakers (00) were all defensive-oriented teams. The 2000 Lakers being the least defensive-oriented of the bunch. I define defensive-oriented as a team that centers their game plan around their defensive stars more than they do any other part of their game plan. That definitely defines every team listed above.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#25
#25
KA_2 said:
The Spurs (99, 03), Pistons (89, 90, 04), Bulls (91-93, 96-98), and Lakers (00) were all defensive-oriented teams. The 2000 Lakers being the least defensive-oriented of the bunch. I define defensive-oriented as a team that centers their game plan around their defensive stars more than they do any other part of their game plan. That definitely defines every team listed above.
Click to expand...
The Spurs and Pistons teams have been defense oriented, as in defense first and last even if it strangles the offense. Teams unbalanced toward the defensive end.

None of the PJ Bulls or Lakers teams fits that criteria. They all played strong defense, all emphasized it, but not at the expense of the offense. They were just great teams overall, and excelled at both ends of the court without ever consciously walking the ball up court to keep scores down or favoring low skill thug type players to key the defense over high skill offensive players to key the offense. Most of those teams were in the Top 5 in offense AND defense.

In the end what that probably means is that the best way to win is with balance, but that failing a great balanced team out there you might be able to win with an unbalanced defensive team. However, nobody has proven yet you can win with an unbalanced offensive team.

The interesting thing for us is how dramatically we picked up the defense in the playoffs even after an embarrasingly bad defensive regular season. Kind of throws the calculations off a bit if you suddenly play like a Top 10 defensive team when it matters.
 
allrightythen

allrightythen

Starter
#26
#26
Bricklayer said:
In the end what that probably means is that the best way to win is with balance, but that failing a great balanced team out there you might be able to win with an unbalanced defensive team. However, nobody has proven yet you can win with an unbalanced offensive team.

The interesting thing for us is how dramatically we picked up the defense in the playoffs even after an embarrasingly bad defensive regular season. Kind of throws the calculations off a bit if you suddenly play like a Top 10 defensive team when it matters.
Click to expand...
I'm too young too really remember, but I always imagined the showtime lakers as an offensively minded team. but thats probably because they only ever show those fastbreak highlights with magic leading the way, or kareem and his sky-hook.

regardless of how the kings lean, i think they have to play better team defense on a consistent basis. if you have the ability to be a high caliber player in the nba you can definitely be a good defender. will expending that energy on defense have a negative effect on the other side of the ball? most people would probably say yes, but I don't think it has to, but maybe i'm dreaming.
 
LjuboDaMan

LjuboDaMan

Bench
#27
#27
If we play great defense ... we'll score less points (players will be more tired)

If we play so-so defense ... we'll score more points

in either case ... we don't know if the team wins or not

it's important to stay in the game ... score 70-70 or 110-110 ...

what really matters is last 5 minutes, we are not really great there ... we gotta make a D stop or a playbook play on O ... and also i hate when we lose on the boards in those last minutes of the game ... we play good D ... they miss ... and they get O rebound .... ARGGGGGGGGGhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... not good :D
 
KA_2

KA_2

Bench
#28
#28
Bricklayer said:
The Spurs and Pistons teams have been defense oriented, as in defense first and last even if it strangles the offense. Teams unbalanced toward the defensive end.

None of the PJ Bulls or Lakers teams fits that criteria. They all played strong defense, all emphasized it, but not at the expense of the offense. They were just great teams overall, and excelled at both ends of the court without ever consciously walking the ball up court to keep scores down or favoring low skill thug type players to key the defense over high skill offensive players to key the offense. Most of those teams were in the Top 5 in offense AND defense.

In the end what that probably means is that the best way to win is with balance, but that failing a great balanced team out there you might be able to win with an unbalanced defensive team. However, nobody has proven yet you can win with an unbalanced offensive team.
Click to expand...
The Bulls relied on their defense more than their offense. That's a defensive-oriented team. That's what happens when you have three annual DPOY candidates in Rodman, Jordan and Pippen, not to mention great defensive players like Grant. Yes, the two Spurs teams and three Pistons teams that won those titles were VERY defensive-oriented teams, but that doesn't mean teams like the Bulls (who had several very good offensive players) didn't rely on their defense.

The 90's Sonics were another team that relied on their defense, as did the Jazz in some respects. Had the Bulls not won the some of their titles, those defensive-oriented teams would have won.
 
Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#29
#29
KA_2 said:
The Bulls relied on their defense more than their offense. That's a defensive-oriented team. That's what happens when you have three annual DPOY candidates in Rodman, Jordan and Pippen, not to mention great defensive players like Grant. Yes, the two Spurs teams and three Pistons teams that won those titles were VERY defensive-oriented teams, but that doesn't mean teams like the Bulls (who had several very good offensive players) didn't rely on their defense.

The 90's Sonics were another team that relied on their defense, as did the Jazz in some respects. Had the Bulls not won the some of their titles, those defensive-oriented teams would have won.
Click to expand...
Its probably semantics, but I think you are confusing being a good defensive team with being a defense oriented team.

the 90-91 Bulls scored 110ppg on 51% shooting as a team(!)
the 91-92 Bulls scored 110ppg on 51% shooting as a team(!)
the 92-93 Bulls scored 105ppg on 48% shooting as a team
the 95-96 Bulls scored 105ppg on 48% shooting as a team
the 96-97 Bulls scored 103ppg on 47% shooting as a team

In the year the Bulls me the Sonics in the Finals (95-96), those two teams were #1 and #2 in the league in scoring.

Those were great defensive teams, but they clearly had other things on their mind as well. Calling them great defensive teams is only giving them half the credit they deserve, and only explaining part of their success. They put a tremendous amount of focus on kicking your butt ont he other end of the floor too.
 
Nikos

Nikos

G-League
#30
#30
As an aside, in the 1995-96 Season the Sonics were actually 2nd in the league in defensive efficiency (behind the Bulls, who were #1) and 7th in offensive efficiency (Bulls were also #1 here as well). They were better on defense than offense. That was the best all around defense and possibly TEAM that the Bulls played in the NBA finals. The Jazz were also rock solid in the later years, but were never as good defensively as the Seattle Sonics, and guys like Hornaceck or Stockton never seem to do well offensively vs the Bulls (actually underacheived relative to their talents and even in terms of NBA finals standards).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.