RealGM

I thought that one of the positives of a Flip Saunders team would be that we would have better defense. We still don't have the high octane offense that we usually do so we can't just win games by beating our opponents. Commentators have repeatedly stressed the importance on the fact that if we played better defense we would win more games. We allow something like 101 points per game (if I remember correctly)... and during the last game we allowed the Suns to blow us out by 30 points.

I want to ask where our defense is. I know that even before the big 3 were injured we've had a historically bad defensive team. Now... the big 3 aren't back to their form yet... and Antwan Jamison and Caron Butler always seem to have close calls with injuries.

Yet I watch other teams and they at least try defensively. I thought the Memphis Grizzleys played well against the Nuggets for the time that I watched. I was just wondering. Are we that bad at defense? The Suns... I thought would really expose us if we didn't have our defense together... and they did. They exposed us on the interior... and they made shots seem like turnovers... and they really exposed us when we took jumpers... they got the rebounds. We didn't stop them... so they just clobbered us. Even bad teams play good defense... so it's like we don't have any or something.

We let the other team beat us on offense. They get the shots they want and our guys aren't there guarding them... it's like there's a lack of space... and there's not much help defense. Sometimes we allow them to just waltz right in there... and we aren't that good at shooting 3s. I don't know... I just wish we could play better D... can someone more knowledgeable with the problem help me on why we stink at D? We can't really just beat other teams anymore right now yet... so we have to play tougher D... and we don't seem to be able to do it for some reason.

Sadly none of our "stars" have ever wanted to play defense. You could argue that Butler has been playing fairly hard on defense this year, but it's sort of too late. We've had the basic core for years and they have never bothered to play defense at any point in their careers, so I don't see the effort level on that side of the ball ever changing.

We're just going to have to get new players if we ever want a team who plays defense, plain and simple. I think that's going to be the same case for our offense, since most of our "stars" are all 1 on 1 players.

We rank 20th in defensive rating. While that's certainly not good, it's not terrible either. We were 19th before the Phoenix debacle. As we get better with Flip's schemes, I hope we can get into the mid teens. I can live with a 17th or so defensive ranking on a team that starts Arenas and Jamison.

Hard to play good (team) defense when DeSuck is your designated defensive ace .

nate33 wrote:We rank 20th in defensive rating. While that's certainly not good, it's not terrible either. We were 19th before the Phoenix debacle. As we get better with Flip's schemes, I hope we can get into the mid teens. I can live with a 17th or so defensive ranking on a team that starts Arenas and Jamison.

I think you answered the OP's question. The Wizards will not be good defensively as a team that starts Arenas and Jamision. I don't think 17th or so would be considered good by any standard. And no team with true championship aspirations should strive to be "not terrible".

To qualify, though, I think you could say that if Arenas (at this point I have no hope for Jamision) could find a balance between exerting himself on defense yet saving sufficient energy to be efficient offensively, then the overall team defense would improve.

As for Jamison, if the team wants to improve defensively, then don't start him. Put him in as 6th man and quite likely the overall team defensive stats rise. It couldn't be worse. And Blatche, with the proper motivation (i.e., consistent minutes) will provide better overall defense.

AlohaWiz wrote:

nate33 wrote:We rank 20th in defensive rating. While that's certainly not good, it's not terrible either. We were 19th before the Phoenix debacle. As we get better with Flip's schemes, I hope we can get into the mid teens. I can live with a 17th or so defensive ranking on a team that starts Arenas and Jamison.

I think you answered the OP's question. The Wizards will not be good defensively as a team that starts Arenas and Jamision. I don't think 17th or so would be considered good by any standard. And no team with true championship aspirations should strive to be "not terrible".

To qualify, though, I think you could say that if Arenas (at this point I have no hope for Jamision) could find a balance between exerting himself on defense yet saving sufficient energy to be efficient offensively, then the overall team defense would improve.

As for Jamison, if the team wants to improve defensively, then don't start him. Put him in as 6th man and quite likely the overall team defensive stats rise. It couldn't be worse. And Blatche, with the proper motivation (i.e., consistent minutes) will provide better overall defense.

How would we improve defensively if we sat Antwan Jamison? I understand he's not been at his best and not been the consistent double double machine since he got injured. He's gotten back most of his game though... and I just don't see where we would be without his rebounding ability. I mean I just don't see how having him not there... helps.

I should add that Jamison would still get plenty of minutes as 6th man behind both Butler and Blatche (assuming Arenas/Miller/Butler/Blatche/Haywood start). Young/Foye back up the guard positions and Blatche/McGee rotate as backups at center (again using the dreaded word "assuming" Flip plays McGee in a moderately regular role).

That leaves Boykins as the change of pace specialist, McGuire as the (relatively) true defensive specialist, Stevenson as the obscenely overly-tattooed specialist, and Oberto as the knee to the groin specialist. Critt and James aren't on the radar at this point as far as I can tell.

I think having 5 years of basically focusing on offense, installing the princeton offense and having a coach that treats defense as an afterthought this team is completely spoiled.

It's a culture where 45 wins is viewed as sucessful and a desireable goal. Where defense is simply hoping players miss shots. It's lack of fundamentals. A lack of attention to the details.

I think Flip is a good coach. But he's also a veteran coach which means development for guys like McGee and Young come at the expense of lesser talented & productive vets that provide more consistency.

I believe he's trying to change the culture, especially defensively and its he's having some success on that end. But the players bad habits they've learned up until this year die hard.

Personally any team that claims Jamison as its leader won't defend. Teammates take a cue from their leader, hinceforth our pitiful defensive reputation. I guess you can say the same about Gil now b/c he's stopped defending as well since the very beginning.

AlohaWiz wrote:I should add that Jamison would still get plenty of minutes as 6th man behind both Butler and Blatche (assuming Arenas/Miller/Butler/Blatche/Haywood start). Young/Foye back up the guard positions and Blatche/McGee rotate as backups at center (again using the dreaded word "assuming" Flip plays McGee in a moderately regular role).

That leaves Boykins as the change of pace specialist, McGuire as the (relatively) true defensive specialist, Stevenson as the obscenely overly-tattooed specialist, and Oberto as the knee to the groin specialist. Critt and James aren't on the radar at this point as far as I can tell.

One thing about bringing Jamison off the bench is that it should inspire Andray again. Andray play has slipped somewhat since Jamison's return and I strongly suspect Blatche is not happy about losing minutes when he was playing so well before. I think he's sulking a bit. He made a snide comment about "just being a role player" after a bad loss where he saw limited minutes. A happy, inspired 7-day Dray makes us alot better up front. I'd argue Blatche's combination of offensive efficiency and defense to begin the season was more effective and impactul than Jamison performance since his return.

Gilfanatic123 wrote:

AlohaWiz wrote:

nate33 wrote:We rank 20th in defensive rating. While that's certainly not good, it's not terrible either. We were 19th before the Phoenix debacle. As we get better with Flip's schemes, I hope we can get into the mid teens. I can live with a 17th or so defensive ranking on a team that starts Arenas and Jamison.

I think you answered the OP's question. The Wizards will not be good defensively as a team that starts Arenas and Jamision. I don't think 17th or so would be considered good by any standard. And no team with true championship aspirations should strive to be "not terrible".

To qualify, though, I think you could say that if Arenas (at this point I have no hope for Jamision) could find a balance between exerting himself on defense yet saving sufficient energy to be efficient offensively, then the overall team defense would improve.

As for Jamison, if the team wants to improve defensively, then don't start him. Put him in as 6th man and quite likely the overall team defensive stats rise. It couldn't be worse. And Blatche, with the proper motivation (i.e., consistent minutes) will provide better overall defense.

How would we improve defensively if we sat Antwan Jamison? I understand he's not been at his best and not been the consistent double double machine since he got injured. He's gotten back most of his game though... and I just don't see where we would be without his rebounding ability. I mean I just don't see how having him not there... helps.

I was typing a follow up to my post, so I just caught this. I don't think the Wiz should sit Jamision, just minimize his defensive liabilities. Jamison is simply not a good defender. He gives more free passes than a manager at a Chuck E. Cheese grand opening. But against 2nd team defenses, he could maximize his offensive prowess while minimizing his defensive problems (keep him on with Blatche and/or Haywood at all times).

I appreciate what Jamison brings, but the team needs to minimize the impact of what he doesn't bring (and what the thread is about): defense.

Dat2U wrote:

AlohaWiz wrote:I should add that Jamison would still get plenty of minutes as 6th man behind both Butler and Blatche (assuming Arenas/Miller/Butler/Blatche/Haywood start). Young/Foye back up the guard positions and Blatche/McGee rotate as backups at center (again using the dreaded word "assuming" Flip plays McGee in a moderately regular role).

That leaves Boykins as the change of pace specialist, McGuire as the (relatively) true defensive specialist, Stevenson as the obscenely overly-tattooed specialist, and Oberto as the knee to the groin specialist. Critt and James aren't on the radar at this point as far as I can tell.

One thing about bringing Jamison off the bench is that it should inspire Andray again. Andray play has slipped somewhat since Jamison's return and I strongly suspect Blatche is not happy about losing minutes when he was playing so well before. I think he's sulking a bit. He made a snide comment about "just being a role player" after a bad loss where he saw limited minutes. A happy, inspired 7-day Dray makes us alot better up front. I'd argue Blatche's combination of offensive efficiency and defense to begin the season was more effective and impactul than Jamison performance since his return.

Totally agree. Blatche needs consistent minutes and seems to play more effectively as a starter. Why fight that? Give the man his starting role and minutes if it helps the team. Some might say he needs to suck it up and earn it, but I say this season isn't getting any shorter. Do what works to win games now.

AlohaWiz, I would agree with you and the others. I think Andray Blatche offers more of a defensive presence. Antwan Jamison is good for rebounding... but... when it comes down to it... like people can go right past him. I guess the problem is that he's a power forward so he's in that paint area... but like someone else needs to be there. Maybe Andray Blatche could help him out a bit with that? Our down low area is open... I mean we saw that with the Phoenix Suns game.

nate33 wrote:We rank 20th in defensive rating. While that's certainly not good, it's not terrible either. We were 19th before the Phoenix debacle. As we get better with Flip's schemes, I hope we can get into the mid teens. I can live with a 17th or so defensive ranking on a team that starts Arenas and Jamison.

I don't care about the numbers or the statistics at this point. I watch the games and I see that we play bad defense throughout an entire quarter. I think you know what I'm talking about. Rankings about defense mean nothing to me at this point-- we're losing games due to sloppy defense... and that's a fact. Yes, maybe if we get used to Flip's schemes things will improve... but I just think we need to play defense the full 48 minutes... I don't think we've been able to do that consistently yet.

Wizards are a bad defensive team because they are comprised of players that either don't take pride in playing good D (e.g., Arenas) or have physical limitations (e.g., Jamison, Miller) which make them bad defenders. And, the few players on this team that do play well defensively are offensive liabilities so its hard to leave them on the court (e.g., Stevenson, McGuire). It is really that simple.

This team is not going to improve defensively until we start drafting/trading for players that can play both ends of the court.

AlohaWiz wrote:

nate33 wrote:We rank 20th in defensive rating. While that's certainly not good, it's not terrible either. We were 19th before the Phoenix debacle. As we get better with Flip's schemes, I hope we can get into the mid teens. I can live with a 17th or so defensive ranking on a team that starts Arenas and Jamison.

I think you answered the OP's question. The Wizards will not be good defensively as a team that starts Arenas and Jamision. I don't think 17th or so would be considered good by any standard. And no team with true championship aspirations should strive to be "not terrible".

To qualify, though, I think you could say that if Arenas (at this point I have no hope for Jamision) could find a balance between exerting himself on defense yet saving sufficient energy to be efficient offensively, then the overall team defense would improve.

As for Jamison, if the team wants to improve defensively, then don't start him. Put him in as 6th man and quite likely the overall team defensive stats rise. It couldn't be worse. And Blatche, with the proper motivation (i.e., consistent minutes) will provide better overall defense.

+1

It's just that simple, AlohaWiz, but Flip won't do it.

I say since Butler's struggled more than Jamison, make Caron the sixth man, move Jamison to SF, and start Andray. Defense still improves.

Dat2U wrote:

AlohaWiz wrote:I should add that Jamison would still get plenty of minutes as 6th man behind both Butler and Blatche (assuming Arenas/Miller/Butler/Blatche/Haywood start). Young/Foye back up the guard positions and Blatche/McGee rotate as backups at center (again using the dreaded word "assuming" Flip plays McGee in a moderately regular role).

That leaves Boykins as the change of pace specialist, McGuire as the (relatively) true defensive specialist, Stevenson as the obscenely overly-tattooed specialist, and Oberto as the knee to the groin specialist. Critt and James aren't on the radar at this point as far as I can tell.

One thing about bringing Jamison off the bench is that it should inspire Andray again. Andray play has slipped somewhat since Jamison's return and I strongly suspect Blatche is not happy about losing minutes when he was playing so well before. I think he's sulking a bit. He made a snide comment about "just being a role player" after a bad loss where he saw limited minutes. A happy, inspired 7-day Dray makes us alot better up front. I'd argue Blatche's combination of offensive efficiency and defense to begin the season was more effective and impactul than Jamison performance since his return.

While I agree that Jamison as our starting PF is one of the reasons we are a poor defensive team, I still don't think Blatche is our answer. First, while Blatche is certainly is a better man defender than Jamison, I actually think Blatche is a poor help defender and a much worse defensive rebounder than Jamison. Second, I don't buy the whole "starting Blatche" will inspire him argument. Maybe for a few games he will be inspired, but I suspect that Blatche will go back to how he is playing now, which lately has been average or below average. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that NBA players will play consistently hard or play consistently well just because they are starting games. If they don't have the heart and motor to play hard when they are not starting and are trying to get more playing time, they usually don't have the heart and motor to play consistently hard and well once the starting job has been handed to them.

We're playing better defense this season but a lot of that is due to having a healthy Haywood in the middle playing the most minutes he's ever seen.

As a side note, we were ranked as high as 12th in defensive efficiency earlier this season (with a decent sample size of games). Then Jamison came back from injury and Boykins was signed. Our defense plummeted. Which is a shame because I actually enjoyed watching a team that could win a game with its defense.

dandridge, when Andray starts that means he's got better players next to him in Haywood and Arenas. Coming off the bench a lot of times Dray's the second best scorer while being the only big to defend. His stats reflect a disjointed offense with other non starters, like Dominic or Foye, out there with him.

I don't think it's always as simple as Blatche plays poorly when he doesn't start.

I would think Butler or Jamison would be far more likely to play well off the bench than Blatche.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:dandridge, when Andray starts that means he's got better players next to him in Haywood and Arenas. Coming off the bench a lot of times Dray's the second best scorer while being the only big to defend. His stats reflect a disjointed offense with other non starters, like Dominic or Foye, out there with him.

I don't think it's always as simple as Blatche plays poorly when he doesn't start.

I would think Butler or Jamison would be far more likely to play well off the bench than Blatche.

CCJ, while Andray has played with the second unit more lately, he has also been on the court with both Arenas and Haywood plenty of times lately and I have not noticed him playing any better or our defense being any better. In fact, what I have noticed is that we get killed on the boards with Dray in any line-up. Personally, I am willing to bet that Dray's decline of play lately is not because he is not starting or playing with Arenas and Haywood, but more because the excitement of starting the season as "the 7 day Dray" is starting to wear off, and Blatche is reverting back to what he really is.

In any event, I'm not going to argue with anyone that Dray is ok at his salary and he certainly is a better man-to-man defender than Jamison. I am just not convinced he is our answer at PF or that we will be appreciable better with him as our starting PF, with either Butler or Jamison coming off the bench. I'm convinced that this team is not going to turn it around with just some rotation changes...this team is not going to turn it around until we have some roster changes.

dandridge 10 wrote:

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:dandridge, when Andray starts that means he's got better players next to him in Haywood and Arenas. Coming off the bench a lot of times Dray's the second best scorer while being the only big to defend. His stats reflect a disjointed offense with other non starters, like Dominic or Foye, out there with him.

I don't think it's always as simple as Blatche plays poorly when he doesn't start.

I would think Butler or Jamison would be far more likely to play well off the bench than Blatche.

CCJ, while Andray has played with the second unit more lately, he has also been on the court with both Arenas and Haywood plenty of times lately and I have not noticed him playing any better or our defense being any better. In fact, what I have noticed is that we get killed on the boards with Dray in any line-up. Personally, I am willing to bet that Dray's decline of play lately is not because he is not starting or playing with Arenas and Haywood, but more because the excitement of starting the season as "the 7 day Dray" is starting to wear off, and Blatche is reverting back to what he really is.

In any event, I'm not going to argue with anyone that Dray is ok at his salary and he certainly is a better man-to-man defender than Jamison. I am just not convinced he is our answer at PF or that we will be appreciable better with him as our starting PF, with either Butler or Jamison coming off the bench. I'm convinced that this team is not going to turn it around with just some rotation changes...this team is not going to turn it around until we have some roster changes.

I'm not sure that Blatche is the long term answer to the starting PF position, but in light of the W-L record at this point , don't you have to try to start making lemonade from lemons? I think, as odd as it may seem, Blatche needs to be the starter. He needs the confidence of being the man. I think his improved play this year stemmed directly from the fact that Jamison wasn't able to start. Maybe I'm wrong (happens all the time), but what's the harm in testing the theory at this point? We sink to an even worse recod? Fine, let's go all in, then and take a shot at the 1st pick

Besides, like Miller points out above, the Wiz defense dropped significantly after Jamison rejoined the starting lineup. Did Blatche starting make a difference in the defense? An argument can be made either way, but the evidence is clear that Jamison won't improve the defense, so it's time to try something else. Of course, I'd keep an eye to the future (trades/draft), but this season isn't over. Like I tell my sons as they learn (and are still learning) to walk, "What do you say when you fall down? Pick yourself up, and never give up."

I'm not a blind optimist, but I firmly believe in trying different approaches until a solution is reached. In fact, I'm probably more of a optimistic pessimist--I hope for the best, but (in the case of the Wiz, especially) plan for the worst.