Long Term Plan? (merged threads)

[Silvie Lysandra]

The problem with that is that Cleveland arguably has the best defense in the NBA, and well, tell me a really good individual defender on that team? Their best 1 on 1 defender is LeBron (who is above-average). They were playing good defense with Drew Gooden and Donny Marshall for goshsakes. Yes, effort can go a long way in rectifying bad individual defense, but these guys didn't suddenly become Haywood level post-defenders because of effort.

Granted, I don't think they have truly, horrendously BAD defenders like we have (Jamison, Etan, Songalia, Pecherov, Daniels, I'm looking at you) as well as potentially good defenders with bad habits (Hi Gilbert!)

And the fact is, we have truly, horrendously bad defenders. If you had to make a top 20 list of "Worst Defensive Players In The NBA", you'd find nearly our entire bench on it, plus Jamison. Could a Mike Brown or Tom T turn that into a passable defense? Maybe. Into an elite defense? No.

That's where WizarDynasty's ideas about getting long, tall, laterally quick athletes comes in. Personnel wise, you build a team that is as difficult to exploit defensively as possible. You reduce mismatches, you make sure every player on the court is at least a decent defender at their position, and you limit the need to double-team.

I agree with the central thrust of his criticism in regards to how the team was assembled - instead of surrouding Arenas with solid defensive talent, he went out and got Jamison (horrible defender), and Butler (tries hard but doesn't match up well physically). In terms of D, Stevenson was a stop-gap, Etan sucks, Songalia sucks (though he tries hard too), Pech sucks, Daniels sucks. Blatche has potential, Young is improving, McGee looks great.

On a fundamental level, Eddie's "protect the paint" strategy is an attempt to cover up the awful mismatches our team has against opposing offensive players. A focus on perimeter D probably would have worked better (because Haywood controls the paint defensively by himself - he's that good) but if you had better defenders againts dribble penetration, would EJ have felt the need to adopt it? I doubt it. A better defensive scheme might garner some improvement, but we'd never be better than say, the #16th best team in the league on D with the personnel we've had for 5 years. You need the players. And the thing is, you need to be good at both D and O to win a ring.

Assuming that length + lateral quickness + decent bball IQ actually DOES = good defense, have there been really good defensive teams with really terrible defensive players (not just mediocre ones) like the ones we have? Or that have a player who are not so good matchups with anyone defensively (Jamison, Butler, our bench)

In the final analysis, the obvious answer is "both" - good individual defenders + good scheme = good defense. It's pretty simple, but it's probably the best answer.

[WizarDynasty]

The problem with that is that Cleveland arguably has the best defense in the NBA, and well, tell me a really good individual defender on that team? Their best 1 on 1 defender is LeBron (who is above-average). They were playing good defense with Drew Gooden and Donny Marshall for goshsakes. Yes, effort can go a long way in rectifying bad individual defense, but these guys didn't suddenly become Haywood level post-defenders because of effort.

Granted, I don't think they have truly, horrendously BAD defenders like we have (Jamison, Etan, Songalia, Pecherov, Daniels, I'm looking at you) as well as potentially good defenders with bad habits (Hi Gilbert!)

And the fact is, we have truly, horrendously bad defenders. If you had to make a top 20 list of "Worst Defensive Players In The NBA", you'd find nearly our entire bench on it, plus Jamison. Could a Mike Brown or Tom T turn that into a passable defense? Maybe. Into an elite defense? No.

That's where WizarDynasty's ideas about getting long, tall, laterally quick athletes comes in. Personnel wise, you build a team that is as difficult to exploit defensively as possible. You reduce mismatches, you make sure every player on the court is at least a decent defender at their position, and you limit the need to double-team.

I agree with the central thrust of his criticism in regards to how the team was assembled - instead of surrouding Arenas with solid defensive talent, he went out and got Jamison (horrible defender), and Butler (tries hard but doesn't match up well physically). In terms of D, Stevenson was a stop-gap, Etan sucks, Songalia sucks (though he tries hard too), Pech sucks, Daniels sucks. Blatche has potential, Young is improving, McGee looks great.

On a fundamental level, Eddie's "protect the paint" strategy is an attempt to cover up the awful mismatches our team has against opposing offensive players. A focus on perimeter D probably would have worked better (because Haywood controls the paint defensively by himself - he's that good) but if you had better defenders againts dribble penetration, would EJ have felt the need to adopt it? I doubt it. A better defensive scheme might garner some improvement, but we'd never be better than say, the #16th best team in the league on D with the personnel we've had for 5 years. You need the players. And the thing is, you need to be good at both D and O to win a ring.

Assuming that length + lateral quickness + decent bball IQ actually DOES = good defense, have there been really good defensive teams with really terrible defensive players (not just mediocre ones) like the ones we have? Or that have a player who are not so good matchups with anyone defensively (Jamison, Butler, our bench)

In the final analysis, the obvious answer is "both" - good individual defenders + good scheme = good defense. It's pretty simple, but it's probably the best answer.

couldnt' have said it better. Delonte West is an elite perimeter defender--matched up against pgs--including gilbert, and ilaguaskas is an excellent post defensive big man, lebron..like you said above average. That's at least three players that are above average on defense. Grunfeld there was a point where we could have secured delonte west but i honestly don't think grunfeld could distinguish why delonte west is better at guarding a pg versus deshaun guarding a sg. i honestly think grunfeld thought that getting deshaun was on the same level as cavs getting delonte west. Grunfeld, thinking he was getting a bargain, completely ignored deshauns poor wingspan for a shooting guard...yet he brought deshaun in to be our defensive stopper. At least clevelands gm understand that delonte west had a superior wingspan for a pg..and that he could shut down point guards and get blocked shots. The leader of this organization, grunfeld...just seems oblivous to tehse "seemingly trivial" details.
we have one close to elite defender in haywood....two slightly below average defenders...and then teh rest garbage. We had a close to elite defender off the bench in jeffries but grunfeld..like i said before felt that AD could do more for this team long term wise than jeffries at the same price.

[doclinkin]

I might agree with wiz'nasty's screeds, or not-- but it's hard to tell since I can't read the damned things:

It goes like this.... ellipses...that means three dots at the end of a sentence....are not a pause button to keep your fingers in action while you're thinking of your next phrase....they connote an unfinished thought.... Truth is if you nodded off in the middle of a sentence that often, guaranteed you musta been jabbing that brown pakistani product directly to your cardiovastublar system....heroine that is.... Here's the other problem... my eyes go all squirrely looking at huge honking blocks of text.... now betta believe it, I can jibba jabba with the best of them..... I'm pretty sure half my diatribes go unread because frankly who wants to bother.... but hell that's why I'll try to salt 'em with a few nuggets of brilliance towards the end, to reward the desperate squirrel who perseveres to dig all the way through to the end and gnaw and gnaw to understand the sense of the text... delicious salty nuggets.... like this....the average heartbeat of an athleete at rest is equivalent to that of a sleepwalking horse... with it's eyes open......mmmmnn...salty nugget...but without the airpocket of a text break.... that which occurs when you doubletap on the enter key at the end of a collection of related thought before you intorduce another set of related concepts and develop the argument.... well without that break many an idea of cracking-smart thinkery will quietly asphyxiate, crushed to death under the virtual weight of eight liquid tonnes of digital text....and even the intrepid deep diving cousteau exploring the florid coral reef of your particular anthropometric dementia, your obsessive cataloging of the widths and heft of various athletes' body parts, as OCD thorough and frankly interestingly creepy as it may be, well even the boldest aquanaut and cataloger of sports neuroses will surely lose his breath swimming through the deep deep weeds of this Marianas trench of goofy nonsense. I mean hell I'm a long time proponent of the 'bigga versus smalla' concept in re: defensive efficiency, ditto an innate athleticsim, so while I could argue the merits of a defensive propensity, that a ball hawking situational IQ is as important in many cases as is a stretch-to-height ratio, still good gawds man, this far into a paragraph who the hell would ever find it and be willing to agree or disagree?... especially after they've already nodded off in chickenheaded sympathy to the twitching heavylidded geeking horse-addict mumbling pause implied by so many dots...so many dots... so many ellipses...I gets cagey you see, antic like... what happens is.... if I cared at all enough to read past a sentence why surely I'd morph into a methaddicted grammar-evangelist and commit atrocities in the name of the divine and Holy Word, commit a crusade on the benighted and blighted butchery of the base abuse of simple innocent syntax helpless against the holocaust of atrocities heaped thereupon....but instead I forbear and spend long minutes scrolling, not quite interested enough to stop when my speed-reading wordsifting faculties seines a particularly curious phrase from the murky soup...this is not our selected depth captain we see the unknown deeper in and these are dangerous currents to pause in you may grow loopy from hypoxia later if you spend even a fruitless minute with the stun-stupid groupers who gape and gawp at this level there is little of scientific interest to serve us here...just saying man, I personally can't read this shxnt and I'm deeply glad I'm no dyslexic since this would be a hopeless task no matter the font size selected as default because hey it may be my personal failing but it seems to me language shouldn't be a complete impediment to communication and this this particular formatting of your thoughts doesn't do ya any favors when it comes to actually conveying your message....though it might if you called everybody stupid who who disagrees with you.. because that always helps...ask the guy in the back of the bus with the newspaper stuffed in his pants, talking 'bout pronation versus supination and forces of lateral sheer with regard to reaction speed and the optimal foot to shoulder width ratio of the proper squat in defensive stance, he'll tell ya buddy, they don't listen they's just philistines and nicompoops, a prophet is never respected in his homeland...just ask scabs. EDITED to add....and....also....and ...

[Benjammin]

^^^^

HOF post. Thanks for putting a smile on my face Doc.

[Halcyon]

That might be the best post in the history of the internet.

[BruceO]

You guys can criticize his idea but please please analyze what is being said. Theres a reason we are losing. The record speaks for itself. What is the difference in makeup between ourselves and championship teams? what is the difference in makeup between ourselves and upcoming teams? what is the difference in makeup between ourselves and playoff teams we might face? What are the differences in makeup between us the posters and the players?
Now the height, lateral speed, hops, strength, wing span are all advantages. It takes skill to utilize these advantages. Point Blank when I play against a player whose shorter or won't be able to block my shot I shoot over him. If he's too slow I go around him. If he has no cardio I run him around the court till tired. If he's weaker than I am I post him up. Or push him around and repeat it over and over again. Theres no reason he can stop me If i have the skill and the will. If you can't jump high enough or reach high enough to block me there is no stopping what I am trying to do if superior in a way.
We suck at D. Why is this? Whats being exploited? Is it our scheme thats bad? This question has to be asked. So lets look at personnel without any Homer vision and see how they've done on matchups.

Dwight Howard vs our centers.
Our young guys are not strong enough, they were abused over and over with Dwight using his strength over them. They are picking up fouls left and right that are ticky tacky and don't know how to challenge shots without fouling. This is part of the reason I wanted Eddie gone. Not because of the strength reason but because these young guys are not being taught anything inhouse. They have to go to special camps to learn big man skills. Why aren't they being taught. Why no big man coach like the ones invested in by Orlando and LA for their young big man. Those young guys are flourishing

PF:
How would we respond if faced with one of these PF's:
Garnett, Rasheed, Tim Duncan, Gasol, Bosh, Amare.
True those are the elite PF's but thats who we will face in the NBA finals. One of those guys will be there.
Garnett vs Jamison
Garnett has a height, reach, speed, size advantage. Jamison will lack the tools to stop him. You can't expect him to stop Garnett the same way you can't expect Songaila to stop a true center as shown in small ball.
The rest of those elite power forwards have more of the same advantages. It will be difficult for Jamison to make these guys contribute offensively less than they normally would. It's the reason they are elite. They have the tools and they are able to use them against Jamison.
These PF's also contribute to their team defenses giving much needed size down the middle. All these guys can defend C's and PF's incase of switches and have indeed played the C spot.

So when faced with these mismatches Haywood has to guard them. Who guards the paint if they space Haywood away from it? Whats Jamison doing on the C's of these respective teams?

If Jamison defends the PF then he will require help when posted up. Hence the double teams then the quick kick outs to open men and the three point barrages. So who will jamison defend if no the PF who creates a mismatch against him? IF our C defends him then who defends the C?

This is why I feel we are kidding ourselves with him at that position. Although jamison has been a good enough player to contribute in rebounds and scoring. But those mismatches can't be helped. Why develop a complicated scheme to make up for it when we can get personnel that help.
This is why I wanted Gasol when there were rumors of his impending move. I thought give them Jamison please. He is expiring. Maybe he can come back after expiring. But this didn't matter.

SF:
Hedo vs Caron with Pietrus at SG
Lebron vs Caron with Pavlovic and Delonte West at SG
Pierce Vs caron with Ray Allen at Sg
Tayshawn vs Caron with Hamilton at SG
Marion vs Caron with Wade at SG

The common thing that these guys have is they are all longer than Caron. Go back to Wizardynasty and ask yourself if the observations about who wins defensively and offensively is consistent with the history of their matchups.
Caron might be able to defend Hedo. But theres times he cannot due to Hedos height. Remeber the game last year Hedo abused us and no one was a good matchup for him. Deshawn is too short, caron as well. Jamison is his size but too slow. Only one who stopped him was Dmac. Who incidentally is the only one who could stop Stephen jackson as well. Good three point shooting SF's have a field day against Caron. Look what Q rich did.
I've said Caron cant defend Lebron. we had to get Ruffin to defend him that one playoff and dude walked right to the basket and beat us. We now get Deshawn to defend him. Put yourself in Lebrons place. You are facing Wizards and they put a defender whos 3 inches shorter, 40 pounds lighter and not as strong as you are. How can he stop you from scoring, rebounding or passing? Also you can rest defensively cause this guys a jump shooter whos drives to rim are ugly. Don't even know why they foul someone who will miss at the rim. Then all the teams are doing is getting another player to defend Caron. Orlando is getting Pietrus, Cleveland got Pavlovic.
Keep going and looking at the other matchups as well. Whats happening is IF the SF is unable to defend Caron on these teams they have a SG who's able to. The SF then coasts defending Deshawn who's not a threat to score. So the only way to stop this from continually happening is either get a SG who will make the SF unable to defend him. Or get a larger SF so the SG is unable to defend him and the SF has to.

So this is the reason why I've been advocating getting a larger SF. Perhaps in tandem with Caron. It's also the reason I want Nick to develop. For carons sake.

The SG position I've touched on from the SF's persepctive. I think the SG has to be able to contribute towards the Sf's success. Deshawn cant create his own offense, can't penetrate effectively and is generally off the mark. Also the defensive switch situation happens. The better defensive guard would traditionally guard gil and put pressure on him. Rondo, Eric snow, Delonte, Larry Hughes etc. Meanwhile the weaker guard defender would defend Deshawn. Again no liability here because its not like he will go off. This cause gil to struggle. Get a SG who will put pressure on offenses if the PG guards him.

PG:
I like what gil brings to the table. He is able to do alot, penetrate, create own offense, shoot with range, pass. Block shots and excite franchise. His weaknesses are his ability to prevent being beat off the dribble. Also to find a way to help team when he's streaky. He's the only PG on roster thats able to do that. The rest are too small, too old or not skilled enough. Also all bad defenders

So these are fundamental changes that need to change to our personnel. It's something that coaching won't take away. It's why we are 2-11. Moves have to be made. Continuity won't help us solve this unless the young guys come in to plug these holes. It's why the young guys are doing better than vets.

So on roster unneeded pieces are AD, Juan, Dee, Deshawn, Etan, and perhaps to a lesser scale Songaila, Dominic and Pech.
Better replacements I'd target would be off the top of my head who are also young and are moveable pieces are:
1)Jarret jack once his trade restriction is over. Is good defensively. Stopped Gil the night he said he'd drop 50 to 4 points. Is cheaper and better than AD.
2)Travis Outlaw. getting him will enable us to play Caron at the 2 at times. He's clutch and very good sixth man.I've liked him, Marvin Williams, Granger, Thad Young and Al Thornton.
He might be available immediately. Wiretap mentions his being dangled for Mike conley. But what will memphis do with him considering they have Rudy Gay? And what will we do with Dominic?
I was fidgeting with the trade machine and offered

portland: incoming players Mike Conley, Dominic Mcguire (young point guard, Good defensive SF)
outgoing : Travis outlaw

Washington: Incoming players travis outlaw, marko jaric, Darko Milicic
outgoing: Etan Thomas, DeShawn Stevenson, Dominic McGuire, Antonio Daniels

Memphis: incoming players, Etan Thomas, Antonio Daniels, Deshawn Stevenson.
Outgoing Players: Mike Conley, Marko Jaric, Darko Milicic.

1.Portland gets the point guard they want, and get a replacement for Outlaws role
2.Washington gets outlaw, a big PG/SG/SF in jaric who isn't part of Memphis plans or rotation and Darko who has tools not to be victimized in the post plus youth. And is good replacement for Etan. Good backup for either the PF or C spot.
3. Memphis gets three vets of questionable ability who have been starters for a second year player in a pg rotation thats deep, a n underused player in Jaric who is at the end of the bench and Darko isn't at his full potential.

IF (a) this trade gets done and (b) we lose enough to get lucky and get Blake Griffin our lineup would be this next year
Haywood, McGee, Milicic, Pecherov
Jamison,Blake Griffin, Blatche, Songaila
Caron, Travis outlaw
Nick Young (perhaps caron)
Gilbert, Marko Jaric (preferably Jarret jack)

McGee and blatche get more time to develop and chances to play to their strengths.
The thing that bothers me still Is i can't speak for Markos potential performance. If he does well he could spell at the 1 through the three. Defensively I also question his ability. I'd rather find a way to acquire jarret jack. Also other potential under performers can be Milicic, Pecherov, Blatche, Travis outlaw and songaila. They've all shown enough to be considered good. There will be depth but will there be impact.
travis outlaw would have to take pressure off caron both as a backup and in tandem. Options will have to be explored here to allow Caron and Gilbert to breath. Ths will fall in the responsibilities of their backups. A worthy defender for Small forwards would have to be acquired or developed. My prototype is Battier.
The good news is we have young developing players in McGee, Milicic, Pecherov, Blake Griffin, Blatche, Outlaw, Nick young, Jarret jack. And solid players Jamison, Haywood, Caron and Gilbert. We would be competitive now and in the future. We'd be more fundamentally built and all the players would be young and on a cheap contract. I prefer young players, they are cheaper, improve faster and easily moveable. They also develop more on job experience if acquired early

It's just my two cents. Please look at our players position by position as they are currently made up
and imagine you got one of the championship caliber teams and were coaching against us. Or were a player with measurable tools thats better than our current players. Can you beat us?
Currently the odds say 11 times out of 13 even an ordinary team would beat us.

[doclinkin]

You guys can criticize his idea but please please analyze what is being said.

Eh. No point considering it's the same thing I've been saying for years, only with a few more dots and a little less sense, from the angle I'm squinting at it. I'd differ a little that aptitude for defense is as important as capacity. Physiology informs defense, but within a reasonable range may not limit it. There are average or undersized guys who are excellent defenders for their position. Kenyon Martin at PF in New Jersey, Raja Bell when he switches to the SF, Shawn Marion defending Dirk. But yes, when you have length and athleticism and of course bowleggedness you don't have to outwork or outhustle the opponent, you can shave the %'s with decent fundamentals and a good scheme. Otherwise no matter how good you look on D coming out of training camp you'll exhaust yourself mid-year trying to make up your shortfalls with energy and gumption. Tough to sustain. That's been the Wiz' pattern for a while.

One reason I'd given praise to Coach EJ was his ability to find a way to win with tweeners and players previously assessed as a poor fit for their position-- and despite consistently losing his better defenders (yes, fine, okay, Brendan excepted, a notable blindspot, but there was a hustle issue early on that clouded his later judgment). And with multiple players at the same position, often on court at the same time. (Consider that at one point we had SF's Caron, Tawn, Jefffries in the starting line, with Jarvis as a back-up). But he found utility for them and even briefly excelled, when all were healthy, to the point where defense proved nearly irrelevant because the opponents couldn't stop us either.

Now? Look I said in the Atlanta chat but I'll repeat. Ernie's philosophy as a GM was laid out plain when he was hired. He said you start with a coach, and commit to their game plan. Whatever style or method it is, that's fine, there are dozens of different systems and many ways to win. But no matter what, you have to commit %100 to that method. You get the coach the players he needs to run his system, then give it some time to gel. 3 years or thereabouts. Then you re-assess, is it working? If not, how much is the coaches fault, and how much is your fault as GM. Did you get him the players he needed?

Wiz'nasty knocks Ernie, but lacks that bit of context. It's admittedly tricky to get the players Eddie needed to run the system he was committed to. For the Princeton to run well you want most of the following: passers at every position; a smart center; at least one Big with range, or a face-up game plus good passing; slashing threats at other positions. The concept is that the attack can come from any position, thus it's tough to guard.

Problem is, face-up Bigs with range and NBA athleticism aren't easy to come by. And the one guy (singular) who can also defend and pass got traded to the Celtics. These players are allstars. Not easily obtained unless you're a former teammate of another GM. You find dozens of these Princeton-type teams overseas running the system, but they don't have as many huge quick-twitch ath-elites over there, tend to have better fundamentals at all positions (passing and shooting specifically), and they allow a tougher hacking handchecking defense to slow the attackers.

So we have a roster built towards an offensive system (Caron as a forward who passes, Tawn as a pseudo-Big who can shoot, Gil as a big Point who can slash and stretch defenses) since that was the Coach's strength-- but with a few unfinished projects selected because of their potential to develop within the complex scheme. Guys like Haywood were poor fits for the offensive system, but indispensible at the other end, so you made do with a shrunken playbook, or played the Euroguy out of position when you wanted the highpost sets. But like many unfinished projects it's in an akward phase personnell-wise. Interesting young players with talent who don't quite have the game smarts to quickly pick up and excel within the complex system, and in the NBA inevitably, not enough time to develop 'em and let 'em gel. Due to injury more than anything, there was enough time for sure.

Point being after this season, while we massage the odds and pick up ping pong balls, we'll have a new coach and likely a new system. Other quality Princeton coaches aren't going anywhere: Rick Adelman is doing well in Houston, David Blatt is locked into a Russian contract, JTIII is too early into his tenure at the legacy position at Gtown. So in all probability we'll see significant changes to fit a new system after the season whenever the new coach is hired.

The raw parts are interesting, should be an attractive job. From the standard NBA viewpoint, playing in their true positions:

PG -- Combo Guard, toughest cover in the league when healthy.
SG -- Long young offensive prodigy.
SF -- 2 high Quality veterans: either undersized but scrappy multi-tool ballers, or tall 20/10 threat with some obvious but predictable defensive shortcomings. Plus a young hustlef*#k still learning his NBA chops, but athletic raw talent rebounder with a good eye for a pass. Future glue guy.
PF -- more question marks than solutions. Interesting unpolished talent. Projects.
C -- Top quality defensive Center. And an elite superbig athlete with champion pedigree. Rarer than a true point guard.

Plus a high draft pick. Some occasionally useful role-player vets.

Okay, there's limited cap room, and a budget-conscious owner, but there are expirings coming due at the right time. There's potential for trades. And young talent tends to mature eventually. There are raw ingredients for a team here. All depends on the system you want to run.

Problems:
1. No true team-first point guard to help young players improve and find their spots. Gil makes good players better, but doesn't make bad players good. (Other than DeShawn).
2. No dominant low-post offensive threat with a go-to move. (JVMcG with a dunk maybe, but see 'no PG' above' unless Gil has matured).
3. One reliable outside gunner (Gil) but he can't drive and kick to himself.
4. No true outside lockdown defender.
5. Few slashing attackers to take advantage of the handcheck emphasis.
6. No man-on rebounders able to seal and defend in the paint while collecting the ball. Jamison rebounds well in open space and by anticipation, not by brute force or dirty tricks. Haywood rebounds poorly due to hands of oak -- wont be improved by wrist surgery.

And a few bad habits exist in fundamentals, but those can be changed. Unless teh players in question are incorrible idjits.

Meanwhile we get to play out the string of a rough year, and keep an interested eye on the NCAA's. By year's end with Gil back (pray, knock wood) and Haywood healthy (beg for mercy) we can go on a short run to audition for quality coaches. Play spoiler. Then coach, lotto, and all that comes after. We're in a good spot, we get Gil and Wood back, I'm not worried long term. But hey sometimes a little rain falls.

[BruceO]

I've also wondered if the system we have selected is also responsible for our woes with personnel.
1. Because it's up-tempo I wonder if our perimeters are more prone to knee injuries and injuries from overuse like Hayes, Gil, Caron etc
2. It's made us have a more difficult time building a roster because the skill positions are rarer, less interchangeable and come at a higher cost.
3. Because of the integration of the system players one or two players fall of and the entire system collapses.
Either way our personnel is getting abused and knew type players need to be brought in. Unfortunately those knew type players might not be able to fit coach jordans system hence a new coach will probably be brought in later on to match the moves we are able to make.
It's perfectly fine for Coach Tapscott to coach the same way as Eddie Jordan since we do indeed have the same roster that is likely to be utilized and exploited in the same way. I think he's a stop gap and isn't coming at an extra cost. Also I think it's important not to keep Eddie Jordan here much longer than he needs to be with struggling to win games. It's better to let him go to seek places where his talent won't go to waste trying to salvage a season. It's also important to send the clear message that a) losing that much is unacceptable and comes at a cost b) Send the fans and the league a clear message that we are moving to a new direction

[nate33]

Problem is, face-up Bigs with range and NBA athleticism aren't easy to come by. And the one guy (singular) who can also defend and pass got traded to the Celtics. These players are allstars. Not easily obtained unless you're a former teammate of another GM. You find dozens of these Princeton-type teams overseas running the system, but they don't have as many huge quick-twitch ath-elites over there, tend to have better fundamentals at all positions (passing and shooting specifically), and they allow a tougher hacking handchecking defense to slow the attackers.

So we have a roster built towards an offensive system (Caron as a forward who passes, Tawn as a pseudo-Big who can shoot, Gil as a big Point who can slash and stretch defenses) since that was the Coach's strength-- but with a few unfinished projects selected because of their potential to develop within the complex scheme. Guys like Haywood were poor fits for the offensive system, but indispensible at the other end, so you made do with a shrunken playbook, or played the Euroguy out of position when you wanted the highpost sets. But like many unfinished projects it's in an akward phase personnell-wise. Interesting young players with talent who don't quite have the game smarts to quickly pick up and excel within the complex system, and in the NBA inevitably, not enough time to develop 'em and let 'em gel. Due to injury more than anything, there was enough time for sure.

This was a point I was going to make yesterday but the wife gave me a honey-do list before I completed my post. Fortunately, doc made the point more eloquently than I ever could have, as usual.

The problem with the Princeton System is that it's damn near impossible to find big men capable of running it while also being good defenders. You need all star players at every position. That's not a reasonable expectation. This is why I think it's for the best that EJ got fired. The Princeton Offense just doesn't win in the NBA. Even a team like the 2004 Sacramento Kings, who ran the Princeton Offense better than anybody, ultimately failed to win a championship due to poor defense. And they had three big men who were gifted passers and fairly good defenders (Vlade, Webber and Miller).

I also have some disagreements with the WizarDynasty theory that you must be extremely long in order to play defense in the NBA. While nobody disagrees with the notion that length helps in defense, it's not a prerequisite. Most elite defenders are fairly long, but there are plenty of good defenders who don't have unusual length: Raja Bell, Shane Battier, Charles Oakley, Devin Harris and Kirk Hinrich come to mind.

You can also put together a good team defense without that many gifted defenders. San Antonio is the best defensive team of the decade with only two good defenders: Duncan and Bowen. Duncan isn't that much better than Haywood defensively, so the difference between the Spurs and the Wizards is the difference between Bowen and Jamison. Yeah, that's a big difference, but it shouldn't be the only difference between the absolute best defense in the league for a decade and the absolute worst. Clearly, scheme and discipline play a role.

Likewise, the 06/07 Bulls defense under Scott Skiles was the best defense in the league and they did it with a bunch of young undersized swingmen with limited athleticism: Gordon, Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni, P.J. Brown and a decrepit Ben Wallace. Who is long and athletic among that group? I'll give you Deng but that's it. And if you want to credit the over-the-hill Ben Wallace for their defense, I'll remind you that the 07/08 Bulls had the 2nd ranked defense with Drew Gooden and Joe Smith replacing Wallace and Brown.

[daSwami]

I also have some disagreements with the WizarDynasty theory that you must be extremely long in order to play defense in the NBA. While nobody disagrees with the notion that length helps in defense, it's not a prerequisite. Most elite defenders are fairly long, but there are plenty of good defenders who don't have unusual length: Raja Bell, Shane Battier, Charles Oakley, Devin Harris and Kirk Hinrich come to mind.

You can also put together a good team defense without that many gifted defenders. San Antonio is the best defensive team of the decade with only two good defenders: Duncan and Bowen. Duncan isn't that much better than Haywood defensively, so the difference between the Spurs and the Wizards is the difference between Bowen and Jamison. Yeah, that's a big difference, but it shouldn't be the only difference between the absolute best defense in the league for a decade and the absolute worst. Clearly, scheme and discipline play a role.

Likewise, the 06/07 Bulls defense under Scott Skiles was the best defense in the league and they did it with a bunch of young undersized swingmen with limited athleticism: Gordon, Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni, P.J. Brown and a decrepit Ben Wallace. Who is long and athletic among that group? I'll give you Deng but that's it. And if you want to credit the over-the-hill Ben Wallace for their defense, I'll remind you that the 07/08 Bulls had the 2nd ranked defense with Drew Gooden and Joe Smith replacing Wallace and Brown.

This, to me, is the crux of what this discussion should be about. How is it that those Bulls were able to play such effective team defense despite their not having a bow leg among them? What were they doing that was so different from the Wizards? And what would the Wizards have to sacrifice to play defense more like the Bulls? For one, they would probably have to abandon their obsession with creating transition scoring opportunities.

EJ's post-game interviews belied this obsession (perhaps remnants of his early 80s stint with the Lakers). Fast-break scoring opportunities were something EJ seemed to rely on, strategically, to gain an advantage over the other team. His philosophy seemed to be that the team who scores the most fast-break points, wins, which might be true (technically). But at what cost? How many points do you give up when half of your team has one eye on its own basket in eager anticipation of getting a break-away scoring opportunity. It just seems to me like a recipe for unfocused defense

Wizdynasty's argument that people who are blessed to be bigger and faster than average are more likely to be better basketball players is hard to argue with. In fact, it's an observation most 2nd graders could make (only much more succinctly).

[ZonkertheBrainless]

NBA players really don't try all that hard on defense. Get a guy like Skiles in their ear and they'll play hard for a season for two. Being long and athletic lets you play good defense even if you're lazy (blatche e.g.). But Artest isn't long. In the back court it's better to be quick and smart. If you're short it helps to be crazy strong too. But you don't need length, you need brains. Look at Gil. STUPIDEST DEFENDER EVER. Defense is all about anticipating where the ball is going to go and getting there first. That's 90% in your head. And that's why defense can be taught to lousy defenders. Our defenders are slow and stupid. Yell the stupid out of their heads and they'd be decent.

Plus OH SHOCKER McGEE IS NOT AS STRONG AS DWIGHT HOWARD! OMIGOD GIVE THAT GUY A NOBEL PRIZE! NOBODY ELSE NOTICED THAT! McGee will be fine after a summer working out. It's just that there's a real big difference between someone who is in the game for 30 minutes because he doesn't pick up that ONE STUPID FOUL in the first quarter and someone who makes a stupid foul early in the first, offense goes after him repeatedly til he gets another and is gone after four minutes, comes back in with 6 minutes left in the second, picks up a foul then, goes to the bench, starts the third and plays 2 minutes before picking up his fourth... etc. etc. Picking up that first foul is the difference between McGee being an effective 18 and 10 player and McGee picking up a dozen donuts on his state sheet.

That is all between the ears. There is nothing wrong with this team that playing SMARTER won't fix.

[WizarDynasty]

I also have some disagreements with the WizarDynasty theory that you must be extremely long in order to play defense in the NBA. While nobody disagrees with the notion that length helps in defense, it's not a prerequisite. Most elite defenders are fairly long, but there are plenty of good defenders who don't have unusual length: Raja Bell, Shane Battier, Charles Oakley, Devin Harris and Kirk Hinrich come to mind.

You can also put together a good team defense without that many gifted defenders. San Antonio is the best defensive team of the decade with only two good defenders: Duncan and Bowen. Duncan isn't that much better than Haywood defensively, so the difference between the Spurs and the Wizards is the difference between Bowen and Jamison. Yeah, that's a big difference, but it shouldn't be the only difference between the absolute best defense in the league for a decade and the absolute worst. Clearly, scheme and discipline play a role.

Likewise, the 06/07 Bulls defense under Scott Skiles was the best defense in the league and they did it with a bunch of young undersized swingmen with limited athleticism: Gordon, Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni, P.J. Brown and a decrepit Ben Wallace. Who is long and athletic among that group? I'll give you Deng but that's it. And if you want to credit the over-the-hill Ben Wallace for their defense, I'll remind you that the 07/08 Bulls had the 2nd ranked defense with Drew Gooden and Joe Smith replacing Wallace and Brown.

This, to me, is the crux of what this discussion should be about. How is it that those Bulls were able to play such effective team defense despite their not having a bow leg among them? What were they doing that was so different from the Wizards? And what would the Wizards have to sacrifice to play defense more like the Bulls? For one, they would probably have to abandon their obsession with creating transition scoring opportunities.

EJ's post-game interviews belied this obsession (perhaps remnants of his early 80s stint with the Lakers). Fast-break scoring opportunities were something EJ seemed to rely on, strategically, to gain an advantage over the other team. His philosophy seemed to be that the team who scores the most fast-break points, wins, which might be true (technically). But at what cost? How many points do you give up when half of your team has one eye on its own basket in eager anticipation of getting a break-away scoring opportunity. It just seems to me like a recipe for unfocused defense

Wizdynasty's argument that people who are blessed to be bigger and faster than average are more likely to be better basketball players is hard to argue with. In fact, it's an observation most 2nd graders could make (only much more succinctly).

Your argument that bulls perimeter defense is weak. What parameter are you using to make the statement that bulls "perimeter defense was the second best in league". SEcondly, apparently second graders have a one leg up on you because you seem to show a lack of understand between the concept of fast versus..lateral acceleration. The time it takes to go from zero to sixty is acceleration. Second graders don't understand that concept and apparently that was topic that a challenge for you. I don't think second graders would understand the difference between big--shaq is 380lbs...and having a superior wingspan--aka tayshaun prince..one of the skinniest players in the league. When you demonstrate an appreciation for those difference, then i think you can move forward with your thinking and advance the conversation. Just because the bulls slowed the game down doesn't mean they had great defense. And to think that haywood is on the same level as tim duncan is laughable at best and to even think that you could measure the difference between Bower...and elite defender and Jamison or caron butler--is just laughable.

You can also put together a good team defense without that many gifted defenders.

The discussion right now is perimeter defense...at least that what my arguments have referenced and then for you to say than San Antonio only had "two good defenders"..wow. Duncan during is championship days..was an elite defender at his position..that's way better than good. Bowen was an elite defender at the s/f that is better than good. there is huge difference between an elite defender and a good defender. When you have two players who are teh best in their league at defense on the same team. I let you go back and fix your logic..by saying the spurs had two players who were the best defensive players at their two position and that all you need is two players who are best defenders at their position in order to build a good team defense.
Haywood is not close to being the best defensive center in the league and duncan was the best defensive center in the league and the wizards dont have anyone close to being the best defensive players in the league at their respective position..San antonio had 2.

To call the bulls the best defensive team or top defensive team in the league when they haven't made it out the second round the playoffs tells me you are using poor criteria selecting them as an example. And again, the bulls have never made it out the second round of the playoffs so their team defense relative to best teams in the eastern conference really is not that GOOD.
We are trying to improve the wizard defense to compete for a championship which means, creating a good enough defense to get out of the second round. Chicago has not done this since jordan...a very long time ago.
I would consider your argument for San Antonio since they did win a championship...but then you completely ignore the fact that they had two of the best defenders in the Entire league..at their respective positions..one perimeter and one post. Yes they did have a good team defense, but making the statement that they only have good defenders versus having two of the best defenders in the entire league...automatically dismisses your argument that you can build a playoff caliber defense without having

You can also put together a good team defense without that many gifted defenders

So again having two of the best defensive players at their respective positions for an entire decade...is the part that wizards have never had. Haywood has never been on the status of Duncan defensively. The term I think people use is Homerism. We know haywood is good...but he hasn't shut down Shaq or anyone ilgauskas in the playoffs--and he hasn't been gone to allstar team. WE know he has the potential. Duncan actually has the rings and western conference championships to prove it.
my quote is...you are not going to build a defense capable of making it out of the second round without having elite defenders. Ej was not going to trasnform this non defensively talented grunfeld assembled roster into a playoff defense capable of beating the top 4 teams in the eastern conference (and haywood was MJ's roster). When you show me the matchups that allow for this in a seven game series..then you should be nominated realgm wizard poster of the month. I highly doubt that is going to happen.


4--Main Ideas...#1Remember Eastern top playoff teams..#2 top 4 teams in eastern conference last year..#3 playoff defensive matchups that gives us the overall advantage against these teams...#4poorly constructed Grunfeld Roster. #5-Not one elite defender on the roster
Destination=championship==not another second round exit

[nate33]

Your argument that bulls perimeter defense is weak. What parameter are you using to make the statement that bulls "perimeter defense was the second best in league".

Sorry to blow a hole in your argument with facts, but the Bulls had the #1 ranked defense in 2006/07 as measured by points allowed per possession. They had the #2 ranked defense using the same metric in 2007/08. If you have a better method of measuring defensive efficiency, I'm all ears.

[doclinkin]

This, to me, is the crux of what this discussion should be about. How is it that those Bulls were able to play such effective team defense despite their not having a bow leg among them? What were they doing that was so different from the Wizards? And what would the Wizards have to sacrifice to play defense more like the Bulls? For one, they would probably have to abandon their obsession with creating transition scoring opportunities.

EJ's post-game interviews belied this obsession (perhaps remnants of his early 80s stint with the Lakers). Fast-break scoring opportunities were something EJ seemed to rely on, strategically, to gain an advantage over the other team. His philosophy seemed to be that the team who scores the most fast-break points, wins, which might be true (technically). But at what cost? How many points do you give up when half of your team has one eye on its own basket in eager anticipation of getting a break-away scoring opportunity. It just seems to me like a recipe for unfocused defense

Wizdynasty's argument that people who are blessed to be bigger and faster than average are more likely to be better basketball players is hard to argue with. In fact, it's an observation most 2nd graders could make (only much more succinctly).

I wouldn't blame the interest in transition offense. I've heard EJ in radio interviews acknowledging that it's a betrayal of sound defensive principles to gamble for steals, but you do have to take advantage of your player's best skills and try to find a way to make them work, Gilbert, Larry, and Caron all have far better natural anticipation and reaction speed with their hands than they do with their feet. To scratch that skill out of the playbook suggests only that you should have selected a different player.

And that's I think some reason why Chicago (for instance) excelled defensively. They drafted and traded for players with a natural defensive aptitude and interest. Couldn't score to save their life, except Ben Gordan, and they sat him on the bench because they didn't cotton to his inability to play defense.

But for all that Chicago played well defensively, they ain't win no championship did they. The Wizards don't have to have Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen, they just have to be better defensively. Not the best, just better. The hardest thing to do in the league is score. If you do it well you hit half your shots inside, one third of your shots outside, occasionally force a FT. The Wiz are aces in that department. We just need a slight upgrade in D, and most of all, good health.

Here's all you need for solid defense:

--One lockdown outside man-defender able to guard the opponent's best outside attacker, make it hard to pass to him, and make him work a little bit to take the outside shot, strong enough to battle through picks.
--One intimidating Big to deter drives into the paint, strong enough to hold his own against the few real cement truck bangers inside.
--One tough off-ball rebounder with good defensive principles who works well with the Big and cover behind them if they step out to challenge.

That's it. If you have that you can cover anybody, even if you have other players on the floor who are terrible defenders. Your perimeter guy stalls their first option and allows your peripheral defenders more time to recover if their man gets open; your interior defender makes them pull-up for a J instead of driving into the paint. Your boardsman collects the miss to prevent teams from surviving low FG% with second chance buckets. Everybody else just needs to keep their hands up, legs bent feet active and to call for help when they're beat.

Now Its nice to have a ball-pressure point guard to stall the offensive attack and allow your Bigs time to get in position. It's nice to have quick hands in the passing lanes to create instant uptempo offense. It's fine to have long zone-capable defenders who can shade the no man's land of the midrange jumper as well. It's great if your off-ball boardsman is also meanspirited and intimidating, a shot blocking mistake eraser or a dirty tricks fight starter who initiates but doesn't retaliate, forcing techs and fouls on opponent, getting in their heads and comfort zone. It's a fine thing if your perimeter players can also collect rebounds and long bounces. It's great if any of your principal defenders have two or more of these skills. But all you need is: one perimeter guy, one big, and some rebounding.

And smarts. fundamentals, communication. And an eye for mismatches. You know, Coaching. Sure.

But as far as length is concerned, the Wiz currently have the longest team in the league, for all the good it does us. Longest wingspan, tallest reach. Top 5 anyway in each category.

What we lack most is health (Brendan), then smarts (experience or instinct, fundamentals/coaching), then upgrades at perimeter lockdown guy. Then next priority would be an upgrade at the underboardsman, though you'd have to make the +/- difference for Jamison's 20/10 regularity to be able to bump him to the bench as a 6-man. And thats' the real crux of the dilemma. Because when the offense is working and we have our best guys playing, defense be damned we're really tough to stop.

[WizarDynasty]

Your argument that bulls perimeter defense is weak. What parameter are you using to make the statement that bulls "perimeter defense was the second best in league".

Sorry to blow a hole in your argument with facts, but the Bulls had the #1 ranked defense in 2006/07 as measured by points allowed per possession. They had the #2 ranked defense using the same metric in 2007/08. If you have a better method of measuring defensive efficiency, I'm all ears.

Ok nate, sorry give you facts but i will give you the link to go to espn.com stats and look at hollinger ranking for defensive efficiency. That should provide enought statistical evidence to sink your ship regarding Bulls points allowed per game.
the term is called hollinger team defensive efficiency just to restate and bulls. if the bulls scored the league average points per game...then your argument makes sense. The bulls scored well below the average points per game. So hopefully, from this point forward you won't blindly look at points allowed per game and assume that stands for how good a team is defensively without not looking how many points they score per game versus the league average. If they score well above the league average...keeping a high "pace" and still keep teams well below the league average...then your argument makes sense. that stats on espn.com say otherwise about your argument. AGain, you can't create a championship defense without at least two elite defenders...meaning top 3 defenders for their position.
NBA: Defensive Efficiency
RNK Team Pace Ast TOR ORR DRR RR Eff FG% TS% Off EffDef Eff
1 Boston 94.2 14.7 26.6 26.0 75.1 51.6 50.1 55.3 103.9 94.9
2 L.A. Lakers 98.5 15.2 21.3 31.0 74.7 53.0 50.2 54.4 109.1 95.2
3 Orlando 96.1 12.6 24.4 24.1 74.3 49.6 50.2 54.8 104.6 96.7
4 Houston 92.2 13.6 22.6 25.3 76.0 51.0 46.9 52.4 101.9 97.1
5 Cleveland 93.1 15.1 22.2 30.4 73.5 53.3 52.4 56.9 111.8 99.1
6 Philadelphia 95.0 13.5 25.8 33.2 74.6 53.6 46.1 50.0 98.3 99.3
7 Denver 97.4 15.3 26.2 25.7 72.0 49.8 48.6 54.7 102.7 99.9
8 Dallas 96.0 14.4 22.7 27.0 73.3 50.9 47.8 52.5 102.8 100.4
9 Indiana 97.9 14.7 25.6 26.5 74.8 50.9 48.8 52.7 100.6 100.6
10 Charlotte 90.1 12.6 27.1 27.1 71.5 48.8 46.4 51.6 97.5 102.1
11 Milwaukee 94.3 13.8 26.0 30.3 76.9 52.7 46.0 51.0 98.6 102.2
12 San Antonio 89.4 15.7 22.7 20.8 77.5 49.2 51.1 54.5 103.6 102.3
13 Miami 93.4 14.9 20.8 24.7 69.8 46.7 49.5 53.3 104.8 102.3
14 Utah 93.2 17.1 25.4 31.5 72.0 52.2 51.2 55.5 107.3 103.3
15 Chicago 98.0 12.9 24.8 28.4 71.0 49.2 46.2 51.4 99.5 103.4

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics

Haywood is an above average center but he is definitely not top five defensive center in league. alot of homerism going on here. Haywood is an above average defensive center and is MVP candidate for the wizards but compared to rest of nba...he is only above AVERAGE..and definitely not allstar or close to it yet. Average post game. Haywood has improved tremendously but there at least 13 centers who outperformed him last year. He is the top 14-18 center in the league. For player who actually played center last year you have. Defensively 10-15
1. Stoudemire, 2. Camby 3. Duncan 4. Gasol 5. Ming 6. D. Howard 7. A Horford 8. C. Kaman 9. C.Bosh 10. Andrew Bynum 11. A. Bogut 12. Dalembert 12.R Wallace 14. Ilgauskas 14Joel Pryzbilla--better(16.lemarcus Adridge, 17. Biedris 18. Perkins,19 A.Jefferson, 20= B. Haywood---there are 30 teams which makes haywood a middle of the back all aroudn center.
As far defense goes...he is better than A. Bogut, A. Horford, and maybe Dalembert. Yes Chris Bosh did play alot of center last year and so did Stoudemire and Horford, and Wallace.

Adn wizards have the shortest length in the league from starting positions 1-4. Mcgee--really long--Blatche doesn't start-nick young doesn't start.

[WizarDynasty]

But as far as length is concerned, the Wiz currently have the longest team in the league, for all the good it does us. Longest wingspan, tallest reach. Top 5 anyway in each category.

you gotta be kidding...our starters this year have the longest wingspan in the league and tallest reach at each of the five positions..pg,sg,sf,pf, Center..lol..wow? where did you get that info from?
Adn we also have players with the slowest footspeet for positions 1-5...i don't think there is away to prove except to watch everyone get beat off the dribble each play. But the wingspan is something you can measure. I highly doubt our starters..(there are only 3 long players on this team and they are all bench players--nick young, mcgee, and blatche.)

dee brown, d.s.,caron, jamision--all are very short (not long) based on past top playoff players at their respective positions.

[daSwami]

Could someone please point my 2nd grade brain to the IGNORE button?

[Benjammin]

Click the person's name. You will then be given the option of adding them as a friend or foe. Add them as a foe if you don't want to see their posts.

[nate33]

Your argument that bulls perimeter defense is weak. What parameter are you using to make the statement that bulls "perimeter defense was the second best in league".

Sorry to blow a hole in your argument with facts, but the Bulls had the #1 ranked defense in 2006/07 as measured by points allowed per possession. They had the #2 ranked defense using the same metric in 2007/08. If you have a better method of measuring defensive efficiency, I'm all ears.

Ok nate, sorry give you facts but i will give you the link to go to espn.com stats and look at hollinger ranking for defensive efficiency. That should provide enought statistical evidence to sink your ship regarding Bulls points allowed per game.
the term is called hollinger team defensive efficiency just to restate and bulls. if the bulls scored the league average points per game...then your argument makes sense. The bulls scored well below the average points per game. So hopefully, from this point forward you won't blindly look at points allowed per game and assume that stands for how good a team is defensively without not looking how many points they score per game versus the league average. If they score well above the league average...keeping a high "pace" and still keep teams well below the league average...then your argument makes sense. that stats on espn.com say otherwise about your argument. AGain, you can't create a championship defense without at least two elite defenders...meaning top 3 defenders for their position.
NBA: Defensive Efficiency
RNK Team Pace Ast TOR ORR DRR RR Eff FG% TS% Off EffDef Eff
1 Boston 94.2 14.7 26.6 26.0 75.1 51.6 50.1 55.3 103.9 94.9
2 L.A. Lakers 98.5 15.2 21.3 31.0 74.7 53.0 50.2 54.4 109.1 95.2
3 Orlando 96.1 12.6 24.4 24.1 74.3 49.6 50.2 54.8 104.6 96.7
4 Houston 92.2 13.6 22.6 25.3 76.0 51.0 46.9 52.4 101.9 97.1
5 Cleveland 93.1 15.1 22.2 30.4 73.5 53.3 52.4 56.9 111.8 99.1
6 Philadelphia 95.0 13.5 25.8 33.2 74.6 53.6 46.1 50.0 98.3 99.3
7 Denver 97.4 15.3 26.2 25.7 72.0 49.8 48.6 54.7 102.7 99.9
8 Dallas 96.0 14.4 22.7 27.0 73.3 50.9 47.8 52.5 102.8 100.4
9 Indiana 97.9 14.7 25.6 26.5 74.8 50.9 48.8 52.7 100.6 100.6
10 Charlotte 90.1 12.6 27.1 27.1 71.5 48.8 46.4 51.6 97.5 102.1
11 Milwaukee 94.3 13.8 26.0 30.3 76.9 52.7 46.0 51.0 98.6 102.2
12 San Antonio 89.4 15.7 22.7 20.8 77.5 49.2 51.1 54.5 103.6 102.3
13 Miami 93.4 14.9 20.8 24.7 69.8 46.7 49.5 53.3 104.8 102.3
14 Utah 93.2 17.1 25.4 31.5 72.0 52.2 51.2 55.5 107.3 103.3
15 Chicago 98.0 12.9 24.8 28.4 71.0 49.2 46.2 51.4 99.5 103.4

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics

Haywood is an above average center but he is definitely not top five defensive center in league. alot of homerism going on here. Haywood is an above average defensive center and is MVP candidate for the wizards but compared to rest of nba...he is only above AVERAGE..and definitely not allstar or close to it yet. Average post game. Haywood has improved tremendously but there at least centers who outperformed him last year. He is the top 10-15 center in the league. For player who actually played center last year you have.
1. Stoudemire, 2. Camby 3. Duncan 4. Gasol 5. Ming 6. D. Howard 7. A Horford 8. C. Kaman 9. C.Bosh 10. A. Bogut 11. Dalembert 12. Wallace 13. Ilgauskas 14.Joel Pryzbilla--better(lemarcus Adridge, Perkins, A.Jefferson, Andris Biedris) B. Haywood---there are 30 teams which makes haywood a middle of the back all aroudn center.
As far defense goes...he is better than A. Bogut, A. Horford, and maybe Dalembert. Yes Chris Bosh did play alot of center last year and so did Stoudemire and Horford, and Wallace.

Sorry bud, wrong again. Those are 08/09 numbers. I'm talking about the Bulls in 06/07 and 07/08 under Skiles.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2007.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2008.html

[doclinkin]

But as far as length is concerned, the Wiz currently have the longest team in the league, for all the good it does us. Longest wingspan, tallest reach. Top 5 anyway in each category.

you gotta be kidding...our starters this year have the longest wingspan in the league and tallest reach at each of the five positions..pg,sg,sf,pf, Center..lol..wow? where did you get that info from?

I'll type really slowly so you can understand... our team is the tallest, longest team in the league... not the starters...the entire team.... Here's one source....

APBRMetrics

Please, spend a long time on this site asking questions. These are folks who actually measure basketball efficiency, I'm sure they'll love you to pester them with questions and bizarre hypotheses.

Now this is a team that replaced Mason with Juan Dixon and Dee Brown, so clearly we lost size there, but we also added the kid with the largest wingspan and 2nd longest standing reach in the league. So the DRE calculation indicates we're top five. Geddit?

Now the fact that you make a distinction between our starters and our bench sorta neuters your size argument. Because for all that they are shorter players our starters tend to be better, even in most cases defensively. Jamison is often crushed on here for his defense, but last year his defensive +/- was top 20 in the league, and tops on our team. Even though he's shorter than his back-ups.

Defense is a combination of size plus smarts. You can argue yourself into a corner over this if you want, but you'll still be wrong to suggest it is only one or the other. When your strongest argument is a stubborn refusal to admit fact, it's tough to win a debate on who's the most stupider.