RealGM

Our "D" has been awful. Have we spent enough time learning TEAM DEFENSE?

Is our time focused on learning that extremely complicated offense, the triangle? Where has our practice time been focused? I don't know. But I don't see any defense on teams that run the fast break. Transition defense is non-existent. Our defensive rotations are terrible on athletic teams that move the ball well.

Its hard to watch! What to work on first our broken defense, or our broken offense? I don't know!!

They need to improve on every facet of the game of basketball.

Wolves2011 wrote:Our "D" has been awful. Have we spent enough time learning TEAM DEFENSE?

No because WE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) GAMES INTO THE SEASON!!!

we need to improve transition D definitely, but we also need to give the other team less opportunities by converting on offense once in awhile.

Frighteningly, I'd take Iverson on this team in a heartbeat. It'd be a massive improvement. Let him play 42 minutes a game too to make him happy, that'd be just fine with me. I just want to have a guy on the team that doesn't need to stare at his defender for 9 seconds before he can decide what to do because he's thinking "will this work? no. Would this work? no. Maybe this? no"

I think a big part of the problem here (besides lack of talent) is that everyone is thinking too much right now. It's normal and expected with an new coaching staff and new system that players are trying to learn and it should improve with more games. It's kind of similar to last year when Wittless had players thinking too much (for different reasons). When McHale came in he had them just play more and they responded. I don't think that is the right response with this situation, though. The players just need time to learn the system and learn how to play with each other. The fans need to be patient.

Lets stop with making excuses ... 10% of the season is gone and they suck balls right now. There is only one way to go and that's up!

Rubio oh Rubio ... where art thou Rubio????? 2 years is going to start looking like an eternity!!!

Good lord...

It's funny that you made a big deal at one point about your screenname being "Wolves2011" because the Wolves won't be competitive until 2011, yet here you are 8 games into 2009 and you're flipping out about 20 times a day.

john2jer wrote:Good lord...

It's funny that you made a big deal at one point about your screenname being "Wolves2011" because the Wolves won't be competitive until 2011, yet here you are 8 games into 2009 and you're flipping out about 20 times a day.

After the wolves tie a team record for points given up, and exceed a team record for margin of loss, to a BAD TEAM, I'm concerned about our defense. So shoot me. Its not like the Celtics or Lakers or Cav's did this to us. It was the Warriors, who are probably on their way to the lottery.

So yes, I'm concerned about our TEAM D and especially our transition D, which seemed non-existent in both the Portland and Warriors games.

Has everyone seen that youtube video of the over-weight German kid who flips out on his computer because his video game didn't work or he lost? That's kind of what I picture Wolves2011 is doing everyday on this forum.

So I ask again, what happened to 2011?

john2jer wrote:Has everyone seen that youtube video of the over-weight German kid who flips out on his computer because his video game didn't work or he lost? That's kind of what I picture Wolves2011 is doing everyday on this forum.

So I ask again, what happened to 2011?

ah... more "name calling".....so were you the bully in high school who picked on all the weaker kids in school?

2011 depends on many things:

1) getting good value for Rubio or Flynn - one or the other is traded in the next few years. They need to have good trade value. The triangle hurts both of their trade value -- I'll explain in more detail if you like.

2) being able to use our cap space efficiently. We need to attract people to want to play here, either in free agency, or through a trade. But even if we trade for someone, it is always best if they aren't trying to "shoot" their way out of town, like Stephen Jackson.

3) We are assuming our star players want to stay. Will Jefferson try to shoot his way out of town, if we don't win (and look hopeless) and play an offense that emphasizes all of his weaknesses.

4) if we play the triangle for say 2 years and it is failing here as it has failed everywhere it has been played except in "Phil's town", what happens then? We have Rambis signed for 4 years.

5) What happens to Sessions? He gets no playing time. We are undercutting his trade value. He should be one of our most important talents and he mostly justs sits and when he plays, he's confused.

The road to 2011, is not paved in gold with everyone singing the wolves praises en route. Many "good decisions" must be made to get there. One important piece is making good trades, drafts, and attracting free agents. All of those are affected by what we are doing and trying to do on the court. Including what type of offense we play an if we have can play "any defense as a team".

Just to take the Rubio situation and free agent situation:

Will Rubio want to play for a team that minimizes his value, with its offense?

Will any free agent want to come here if he sees us floundering with our offense and knowing how difficult it is to learn the triangle?

The wolves have good potential assets that could make us a top playoff team in 2011. But we could ruin or squander those assets as well.

Note: look at how poorly we are ranked by ESPN on future power rankings......this was from the chat about why we were ranked poorly:

********************************************************

question: I was surprised to see the Wolves so low considering all their young talent, money, flexibility, and draft opportunities. Are the Twin Cities that unappealing? Does Kahn deserve a 26th out of 30 so early on?

John Hollinger: The problem is that we weren't just rating Khan. Minnesota's owner is a big negative, their coach isn't exactly winning rave reviews thus far, and they stll have a lot of dead wood from the previous regime left over there. I like his moves thus far, but we really haven't seen the end-game yet. And when you say all their young talent, you're basically talking about four players -- Jefferson, Love, Sessions and Flynn. Brewer is a role player at best and I haven't seen anything from any of the other guys to get my blood pumping.

5) What happens to Sessions? He gets no playing time. We are undercutting his trade value. He should be one of our most important talents and he mostly justs sits and when he plays, he's confused.

He's getting 21 minutes a game.

Worm Guts wrote:

5) What happens to Sessions? He gets no playing time. We are undercutting his trade value. He should be one of our most important talents and he mostly justs sits and when he plays, he's confused.

He's getting 21 minutes a game.

He is one of the 4 best players on this team. He should be getting closer to 35 minutes a game and playing the triangle completely under cuts his stats and trade value.

Sessions last year:

min 27
Pts 12.4
asst 5.7
TO 1.9
Stl 1.1

This year:

min 21
pts 5.8
asst 2.4
TO 1.9
Stl 0.5

I'm failing to see the name calling in my post. I just seriously see you as being way too knee-jerk and over-reacting to EVERYTHING. You spend all day flipping out all over this forum.

I get the impression that the Wolves failing would make you happy. You're picking a nice spot on the fence where you can bash the Wolves and say, "I told you so" if something doesn't work, but still able to cheer them on if it does. I've seen many on the Knicks board complain about their fans that do that. I never got it until now. You sure you didn't come over from rubechat? I see a lot of that over there.

And ESPN's own rankings are admittedly garbage. They flat out said, "we don't know."

Well, to call a spade a spade. The Team D has been pretty bad minus a few stretches. Constantly see players losing their man and looking lost on rotations (Sorry, Flynn has been quite bad here, granted a rookie and learning, but basic basketball, know where your player is, he loses him and not even had to rotate to help a few times).

As a coach, watching the defense is the hardest part. I can understand the struggles on Offense and just missing jumpers, but defensive rotations, keeping the man in front of you or in eyesight, that shouldn't have to be re-taught to any great degree at this level.

I expected more defensively as well I guess.


EDIT: Additionally, the transition D is worse due to lack of ability to run our new offense. Bad/contested shots and turnovers can easily make transition D look worse than it may be. Not saying the D doesn't need work, but that it is compounded by inability to execute on offense.

john2jer wrote:I'm failing to see the name calling in my post. I just seriously see you as being way too knee-jerk and over-reacting to EVERYTHING. You spend all day flipping out all over this forum.

I get the impression that the Wolves failing would make you happy. You're picking a nice spot on the fence where you can bash the Wolves and say, "I told you so" if something doesn't work, but still able to cheer them on if it does. I've seen many on the Knicks board complain about their fans that do that. I never got it until now. You sure you didn't come over from rubechat? I see a lot of that over there.

And ESPN's own rankings are admittedly garbage. They flat out said, "we don't know."

As for sitting on fences, I'm one of the few who doesn't do that.... I've told you exactly what I believe and why. I think lots of people on this site want to be "junior basketball analysts" with their own blogs. I just like posting. I have nothing to lose and call it, like I see it.

The ESPN guys said "we don't know" and then listed some reasons for ranking the wolves so low. The two biggest being ownership and coaching. They didn't say it, but knowing how highly they think of Sessions, I'm sure his under use also affected their view of the team. [again coaching] They still don't know if Kahn was smart or dumb for taking 2 point guards with #5 & #6. [That depends on their trade value.]

I want the wolves to succeed. But when I look at Rambis is doing, I'm not impressed. I think he chose an offense he "liked" rather than one that would the make the talent on his team better. Unless the plan is to trade Jefferson and all of our PG talent the Triangle is a poor fit. And if he is planning to trade those guys, running the triangle is still stupid. It undercuts our players trade value and you're not teaching the guys [except for Love] who will eventually be here playing this system anyway.

As for transition defense, all it takes is some athleticism and hustle - get back and set up the defense. We have some of the former - thats what Kahn was bringing in young athletic players for .... and as for the latter, hustle is partly coaching again.

And actually, the Wolves are giving up 1 less point per 100 possessions so far this year compared to last year, even after last night's mess of a game. Oh, and it's game 8.

Let's continue to flip out because the Wolves could be 2-6, or hey, if the stars aligned, 3-5. They're playing a lot of guys who shouldn't be NBA starters(or even regular rotation players), which means that they're slightly worse than they were last year.

I do like the guy who wallpapers the forum with posts, generally repeating the same tired "points" over and over, (when they're not "news articles" that are a week old) accusing other people of acting like this is their personal blog. Bravo.

Devilzsidewalk wrote:Frighteningly, I'd take Iverson on this team in a heartbeat. It'd be a massive improvement. Let him play 42 minutes a game too to make him happy, that'd be just fine with me. I just want to have a guy on the team that doesn't need to stare at his defender for 9 seconds before he can decide what to do because he's thinking "will this work? no. Would this work? no. Maybe this? no"

Not that he'd make the team any better, but he'd average 20 ppg. On 32% shooting.

Esohny wrote:Let's continue to flip out because the Wolves could be 2-6, or hey, if the stars aligned, 3-5. They're playing a lot of guys who shouldn't be NBA starters(or even regular rotation players), which means that they're slightly worse than they were last year.

I do like the guy who wallpapers the forum with posts, generally repeating the same tired "points" over and over, (when they're not "news articles" that are a week old) accusing other people of acting like this is their personal blog. Bravo.

I honestly couldn't care less what their record is.....what I care about:

1) are we utilizing our talent well? -- NO

2) are we developing our young players? -- some of them, but not Sessions.

3) is the team showing improvement? -- NO

4) are we enhancing the trade value of our best assets -- NO

4) are the actions of the coaching staff helping our team to improve in the long run? -- More NO than yes.

TrentTuckerForever wrote:

Devilzsidewalk wrote:Frighteningly, I'd take Iverson on this team in a heartbeat. It'd be a massive improvement. Let him play 42 minutes a game too to make him happy, that'd be just fine with me. I just want to have a guy on the team that doesn't need to stare at his defender for 9 seconds before he can decide what to do because he's thinking "will this work? no. Would this work? no. Maybe this? no"

Not that he'd make the team any better, but he'd average 20 ppg. On 32% shooting.

he was around .45 w/ Denver, .416 w/ Detroit, .577 so far this season, I think if he played regular, I'd expect around 42-45 because he's gonna have other options on offense w/ Big Al, Love, and little Jonny flynn. I can live with that.