Official Countdown to Firing"NoLowPostOffense"Grunfeld

[nate33]

A good offense can leverage two quality offensive players into a good offensive team.

Look at Portland. They have Roy and Aldridge to carry the offensive load yet they are the 2nd ranked offensive team in the league. Oden and Batum are complete non-factors on offense.

Look at Detroit. They have Rip Hamilton and Billups as good offensive players (Rasheed in only good when he wants to be, statisitically, he's a pretty inefficient offensive player) and surround them with a bunch of guys who are primarily defenders, yet they get it done on offense.

I can go on. The same applies for New Orleans, Cleveland and New Jersey, for example.

There's no reason that a team with two all-star caliber offensive players like Butler and Jamison and a few decent role playing offensive players like Dixon, Daniels, Young and Blatche should rank as the 19th best offensive team in the league.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the success of the Wizards' offense in the past has much less to do with the system and coaching, and much more to do with the players. Offensively, Arenas is a top 5 player. Offensively, Jamison is a top 15-20 player. Offensively, Butler is a top 30 player. Haywood is a capable offensive role player and an elite offensive rebounder. How can you not be successful with that kind of offensive talent?

[jholmbe1]

I'll give Ernie next year and if we still underachieve then I will call for his head. We need to give him a year with his own coach, whoever that might be. Also, a 100% Gil and Haywood and improved youngsters and Blake Griffin might have us all saying what a genius EG is next year.

Fixed.


Actually, I agree that Ernie has done fairly well overall in acquiring talent. Dat is right that you can't have a roster full of MLE-type players, that's the definition of mediocrity. But you also can't have 3 Max players and 12 Minimum salary types. You need some of those in between guys, just not one every year.

Another thing that's not brought up too often in evaluating Grunfeld is the way he has retained guys - and the moves he didn't make. Re-signing Haywood at a very reasonable rate was a great move that I hope he repeats in a year or two for another 3-4 seasons. Giving Butler his contract before his first game as a Wizard was pretty roundly criticized here, but looks pretty good in hindsight. And perhaps most importantly, not panicking and trading Haywood last year was the best move he (n)ever made.

With 20/20 hindsight, here's what I would have done differently (only based on what we do know, not speculations):

* Told Abe NO WAY on matching Etan's offer sheet. (Yes, I do believe Abe made that call).
* Drafted Lowry instead of Pech.
* Drafted Rudy Fernandez instead of Nick Young.
* Maybe drafted Chalmers instead of McGee (was my choice going into the draft last year) - but obviously not if they had Lowry on the team.

Sure, I would have liked to have given one less year to Daniels and Songaila, or paid less to those two and Stevenson, but that's the point of negotiations - maybe that's what it took to get the deals done. And for the complaining about these guys eating cap room, remember that only AD is making MLE money, the other two are less. (Etan's the real culprit here.)

I actually think the DS signing was (and could be again) a good one. He's horrendous this year, but then it IS a 4-19 team. I'll at least see what he does when he's healthy and playing the role he was brought in to do before completely blasting him. He played that role reasonably well for the past two seasons, so he may be able to do it again.

Of course, it would have been really nice if Ernie had been able to come on board before the draft in 2003. If he had been in place to hire his own coach and draft/trade accordingly, things might have looked very different over the past 5 years. And not just that one draft class (though we might have taken Boozer, Prince, West, Pietrus, Collison, Korver - you get the idea), but the fact that every decision from that point forward was based on fitting EJ's System. But that truly is ancient history...

And finally, for those lamenting the Jamison signing, at some point you have to take Gil at his word and figure he meant it when he said he wouldn't re-sign without AJ here. So if you're OK with a team with no AJ and no Arenas, then fine - but the "replacement" might have been guys like Brand (unlikely even if we had the cap space) or Maggette - again, right back into Mediocrity Central.

I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, I wish we had drafted Millsap and not Lowry over Pecherov. Millsap has been given starter minutes with Boozer out with an injury and has been a beast (13 double doubles in a row and counting). I'm sure he's given Utah plenty of reason to think if resigning Boozer is necessary.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/417 ... K4Pyp5PaB4

[ZonkertheBrainless]

Well, let's see. The Gil signing was good. The Etan signing was bad. But on net the overall outcome there is good for the team.

The AD signing was par. The Jamison signing was par. I don't think his defense is as bad as people say, as long as you don't ask him to do what he can't, like run out on three point shooters on the perimeter (like, duh?). The Songaila signing was a bogey, and the DS signing, when you could have just had Roger Mason instead, was a double bogey.

The blatche pick was par -- he is a decent backup 4, which is about what you'd reasonably expect from where he was picked. The Pecherov pick was a double bogey. The McGuire pick was a birdie -- you don't normally expect to get a regular rotation player in the second round. The McGee pick may be an eagle, depending on how he develops. He could be a starting center, picked at the late teens. That's awesome. We already have a starting center in BH, but still... Getting Crittendon for JCN and AD is a birdie, imo. We'll see how that works out.

EG is not Tiger Woods. Who is? But he's doing a pretty decent job. He's not the problem with this organization. EG really needs to be evaluated on the coach he brings in next season. If that coach can teach this team to play decent defense while maintaining offensive efficiency, EG is a genius. If he brings in Wes Unseld Jr. and he sucks, EG should go.

[LyricalRico]

The more I think about it, the more I think that the success of the Wizards' offense in the past has much less to do with the system and coaching, and much more to do with the players. Offensively, Arenas is a top 5 player. Offensively, Jamison is a top 15-20 player. Offensively, Butler is a top 30 player. Haywood is a capable offensive role player and an elite offensive rebounder. How can you not be successful with that kind of offensive talent?

[nate33]

The blatche pick was par -- he is a decent backup 4, which is about what you'd reasonably expect from where he was picked.

The Blatche pick was not merely "par", it was a great pick. You don't reasonably expect a decent backup 4 in the middle of the second round. You reasonably expect that the guy won't last past his rookie contract and will probably end up playing someplace in Europe.

Instead, we have a 22-year-old 7-footer who may be inconsistent, but is already a serviceable starting-caliber player (at the two most difficult positions to fill) when playing well, or quality reserve otherwise. Blatche may be frustrating because he isn't living up to his potential, but he's still a solid player who posts a PER around 16 while playing good D (except when fouling guards who dribble-penetrate).

[fishercob]

A good offense can leverage two quality offensive players into a good offensive team.

Look at Portland. They have Roy and Aldridge to carry the offensive load yet they are the 2nd ranked offensive team in the league. Oden and Batum are complete non-factors on offense.

Look at Detroit. They have Rip Hamilton and Billups as good offensive players (Rasheed in only good when he wants to be, statisitically, he's a pretty inefficient offensive player) and surround them with a bunch of guys who are primarily defenders, yet they get it done on offense.

I can go on. The same applies for New Orleans, Cleveland and New Jersey, for example.

There's no reason that a team with two all-star caliber offensive players like Butler and Jamison and a few decent role playing offensive players like Dixon, Daniels, Young and Blatche should rank as the 19th best offensive team in the league.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the success of the Wizards' offense in the past has much less to do with the system and coaching, and much more to do with the players. Offensively, Arenas is a top 5 player. Offensively, Jamison is a top 15-20 player. Offensively, Butler is a top 30 player. Haywood is a capable offensive role player and an elite offensive rebounder. How can you not be successful with that kind of offensive talent?

You are right in that it's about the players. But take Arenas out of the mix and the performance of all the other players -- and the overall offense -- suffers immensely. That's what makes last year's offensive competence all the more commendable. The starting back court was the same AD who just got shipped out of town and the same amazingly DeSucky feel my face guy.

Yes, CLeveland and New Orleans have good offenses. They have the best player and best point guard in the world respectively. Detoit at their peak had four capable to very good offensive players and a guy in B. Wallace who was a monster on the offensive boards. But they were able to win without an elite offense because they played such good defense.

We're missing the forest for the trees here (or whatever that expression is). If you're trying to fix the Wizards, focusing on the offensive schemes is a waste of time. And once (if?) Arenas returns to form, focusing on the offensive personnel is a waste of time. It will be good enough. Fixing these Wizards is about bettering the defensive personnel and defensive coaching.

[W. Unseld]

It comes back to the simple fact that the NBA is a players league. The team with the better players generally win. Did Riley lose his coaching mojo when Wade got hurt and Shaq broke down? Of course not -- he lost all his talent.

Try telling that to Steve Nash. I do agree w/your point on defense.

[fishercob]

It comes back to the simple fact that the NBA is a players league. The team with the better players generally win. Did Riley lose his coaching mojo when Wade got hurt and Shaq broke down? Of course not -- he lost all his talent.

Try telling that to Steve Nash. I do agree w/your point on defense.

Nash will agree with me. He'll tell me that his coach left when his crappy GM traded Marion for Shaq, making life a lot harder for Nash, Amare, etc to do what they do well.

[dandridge 10]

Nate, I'm surprised. Doesn't the Wiz's record of offensive efficiency under EJ speak for itself? Yeah, the offense works much better with Gilbert than AD. It worked better in Sacramento because they had better players. It worked worse in New Jersey because they had worse players. The Wiz havent been any less than what they could be because of their offensive sets. Do you really think if you put these players in the triangle, flex, motion, 4 corners, etc., the results would be any different?

It comes back to the simple fact that the NBA is a players league. The team with the better players generally win. Did Riley lose his coaching mojo when Wade got hurt and Shaq broke down? Of course not -- he lost all his talent.

The offense is not what needs fixing on this team. If Tommy Tibbs becomes our HC next year, I would have no problem with him keeping the offense and turning it over to a qualified offensive assistant. Maybe EJ will be available

I agree wholeheartedly. Talent is what wins games in the NBA, not coaching. Doc Rivers didn't become a great coach overnight because of his skill, he became great over night because the Celtics added Garnett and Allen, and picked up a quality PG in Rondo.

[WizarDynasty]

i don't know, i think almost every championship team has had at least two players on the starting roster who were above average man to man defenders and these two same players were also above average offensively. This gives you the flexibility to go after role players. Ernie went after role players before getting the the two most important pieces to win against the the top 8 teams in the league which is why he should be fired. Without having at least two starting player who are above average on both sides...it become exponentially more difficult to adapt to changes in strategy against the top 8 teams in the league. I think if you look at the last ten years of championship teams, you will find at least two starting players who are both above average man to man defenders and above average offensively scoring for their position.
Above average man to man defender..(usually hold the player he is guarding below their season average scoring). Ernie doesn't make trades for these type of players. He gave up the overall number for lottery pick to acquire jamison and you would think you sacrifice a high lottery pick for an older player who was at least above average on both sides of the ball. We need leadership that recognizes instead of continuously bringing in below average man to man defenders from free agency.

This team was horribly designed from the start and is the reason Ernie should be fired. Our leader used our years of suffering to purchase a ton of carmelo anthony clones...they can shoot the ball...but don't have the defensive man to man talent to stop the guy they are suppose to keep from scoring his season average in a playoff game. These players have talent shooting bows and arrows from afar but when they are attacked at close quarters don't have the talent to defend using a sword.
The cornerstone of all elite teams that get to the championship is a player that can is above average on both sides of the ball. The fact that ernie felt he could take the wizards to a championships without having one player in the starting roster with this attribute is the reason he should be fired.
the fact that he couldn't go into history and recognize that relationship..and thought he could create a purely offensive championship system with no balance. AGain..selling our 4th overall pick for an old bench player who wasn't above average both offensively and defensively is horrendous.
It his poor judgement to think that arenas was an average man to man to defender, his poor judgement to think that jamison..a bench player on two teams was an average man to man defender, or caron butler..a bench player on the lakers was an average man to man defender. These are the longterm decisions grunfeld made using the wizards hard earned assets from years of losing and cap cost of the jordan years. He had the resources to make a trade for a player that was above average on offense and defense and failed to do so because of his flawed offensive philosophy and now we see the longterm consequences of selecting grunfeld as our leader. He built the Bucs around Michael Redd..and poor man to man defender and they wind up paying over half their capspace to a player who is still a below average man to man defender.
The point is, you build a team around a player that is above average on both sides of the ball. Ernie doesn't recognize this most important element for a championship team and has lead the wizards and their fans out into the desert with horses instead of camels. Based on what i see from the draft, there are no franchise players that are above average man to man defenders and also above average offensive players. No teams gives these players up and Grunfeld has shown that he lacks the GM skills to acquire players in free agency with this ability..which is what a great GM like West..and Ainge did. WE need a GM with these type a skillz..not a third tier GM that Grunfeld has demonstrated to be.

[nate33]

The Wizards HAVE talent - at least on the offensive end. Antawn Jamison is one of the best scoring big men in the league. He is averaging 21 points with a TS% above 55%. Butler is one of the best scoring SF's in the league. Lebron and Melo are better. Who else?

I readily admit that both guys leave something to be desired on defense, but on offense, they're elite players. There's no reason for a team with two elite offensive threats to rank 19th on offense.

[fishercob]

The Wizards HAVE talent - at least on the offensive end. Antawn Jamison is one of the best scoring big men in the league. He is averaging 21 points with a TS% above 55%. Butler is one of the best scoring SF's in the league. Lebron and Melo are better. Who else?

I readily admit that both guys leave something to be desired on defense, but on offense, they're elite players. There's no reason for a team with two elite offensive threats to rank 19th on offense.

Sure there is! It's called the worst back court in the history of civilization. The Wizards guards, on balance, cant penetrate, cant finish at the basket, can't pass, and can't shoot.

Arenas can do all of those things extremely well. Add him back into the mix (healthy) and everything changes.

Dixon, god love him, is a bad NBA player. He'll have his moments, but over the long haul, he's going to lose you a lot more games than he'll win.

Mike James had an amazingly sucky thread before he was even here.

Deshawn's struggles have been well documented.

Young has a lot of talent and may yet develop, but he's clearly not there (and I've always been with Dat on him -- I dont think he's a championship level player between the ears).

The Wizards forwards are very good. Their guards are historically putrid. That their offense is only 19th is a minor miracle.

[LyricalRico]

The Wizards HAVE talent - at least on the offensive end. Antawn Jamison is one of the best scoring big men in the league. He is averaging 21 points with a TS% above 55%. Butler is one of the best scoring SF's in the league. Lebron and Melo are better. Who else?

I readily admit that both guys leave something to be desired on defense, but on offense, they're elite players. There's no reason for a team with two elite offensive threats to rank 19th on offense.

I think that some are taking nate's argument out of context. He's not saying fix the offense instead of fixing the defense. He's also not saying that the Wizards should be leading the league in scoring. What I hear him saying is that Eddie Jordan isn't such a good offensive coach after all.

As bad as this season has gone, this team should be better offensively than it is. They go through far too many scoring droughts and don't get enough easy shots. Those are the things that an offensive system should be able to prevent. But the system this team is running - the same system that EJ installed - isn't doing that.

Now, getting Arenas back healthy will likely turn that around. But that just goes to further prove the point that this team's offensive success has everything to do with guys with one-of-a-kind talents and not the "weave and heave" that continues to get so much praise around here and in the media.

For years I've been saying that the Wizards didn't have an offensive system because all I saw was 3 guys taking turns going 1-on-1. Kev (TSW) would constantly correct me and explain that there was a system and the system was designed to put the Big Three in favorable 1-on-1 situations. But I still don't consider that to be any kind of genius on EJ's part. If your system can't succeed unless you have at least 3 All-Stars on the floor at one time who can each get their own shot at will - you are not an offensive genius.

IMO that is nate's point.

[W. Unseld]

It comes back to the simple fact that the NBA is a players league. The team with the better players generally win. Did Riley lose his coaching mojo when Wade got hurt and Shaq broke down? Of course not -- he lost all his talent.

Try telling that to Steve Nash. I do agree w/your point on defense.

Nash will agree with me. He'll tell me that his coach left when his crappy GM traded Marion for Shaq, making life a lot harder for Nash, Amare, etc to do what they do well.

You really don't think Nash thinks Mike D made a difference? Even Kobe seems to think so.

[fishercob]

No, I'm agreeing with you that the D'Antoni-Porter change has been a big downgrade. But Nash would concede that D'Antoni walked once Kerr tied his hands with the Shaq-Marion trade.

[W. Unseld]

No, I'm agreeing with you that the D'Antoni-Porter change has been a big downgrade. But Nash would concede that D'Antoni walked once Kerr tied his hands with the Shaq-Marion trade.

True.

[DCZards]

As bad as this season has gone, this team should be better offensively than it is. They go through far too many scoring droughts and don't get enough easy shots. Those are the things that an offensive system should be able to prevent. But the system this team is running - the same system that EJ installed - isn't doing that.
For years I've been saying that the Wizards didn't have an offensive system because all I saw was 3 guys taking turns going 1-on-1. Kev (TSW) would constantly correct me and explain that there was a system and the system was designed to put the Big Three in favorable 1-on-1 situations. But I still don't consider that to be any kind of genius on EJ's part. If your system can't succeed unless you have at least 3 All-Stars on the floor at one time who can each get their own shot at will - you are not an offensive genius.

IMO that is nate's point.

Let's see: CB played 36 minutes against Detroit and took only 4 shots. That would have never happened with EJ at the helm. And Nick Young has been in an offensive funk for the past month. Under EJ during the first month of the season, Nick was on a trajectory to take DS's starting job by now. And that kid McGee, who everyone wanted to see get more minutes. Well, he got a whole lot more love than he's getting from Tapscott.

And where's Etan? Yeah, he might be overpaid and undersized but he's a battler. The Zards are getting killed on the boards just about every night and Etan hardly gets off the bench. What's up with that?

Actually, you may be on to something, lyrical, maybe it was not EJ's coaching or offense that kept his often-depleted Wizard squads afloat---maybe it was his leadership during the tough times, like being without Arenas AND Butler.

Then again, maybe we all should revisit Kev's arguments about the efficiency of the Zards offense...with EJ as head coach. With EJ we lost some heartbreaking road games earlier this season to Milwaukee, Atlanta, etc.---now we just get blown away in the fourth quarter at home by a sorry ass Indiana team. Oh well. I guess that works for those of you who believe in "tanking."

[LyricalRico]

^ Disagree with me all you want, DCZards. I can take that. But using my arguments to support EJ is hitting below the belt.

[nate33]

For years I've been saying that the Wizards didn't have an offensive system because all I saw was 3 guys taking turns going 1-on-1. Kev (TSW) would constantly correct me and explain that there was a system and the system was designed to put the Big Three in favorable 1-on-1 situations. But I still don't consider that to be any kind of genius on EJ's part. If your system can't succeed unless you have at least 3 All-Stars on the floor at one time who can each get their own shot at will - you are not an offensive genius.

IMO that is nate's point.

Yes, that is precisely my point. In the past, I have generally agreed with TSW's standpoint that there was more going on with this offense. And it was hard to argue with the resuts as the offense was quite efficient when Arenas, Butler (or Hughes) and Jamison were healthy. But something always nagged at me. Looking at the numbers closely, now I see why.

Two years ago, the offense quickly went from great to horrible whenever Arenas wasn't in the game. The team averaged 112.9 points per 100 possessions when Arenas was on the court, and 99.8 when he was off. That's a ridiculous disparity. To put it into context, the 30th best offense scored 104.2 points per 100 possessions that year. I'm sorry, we shouldn't have been the worst offense in the league by a country mile when Arenas sat, not when we had two all-star caliber offensive players still on the court and a quality backup PG.

In 2007/08, we had the 12th ranked offense. I'll give EJ credit there. I think 12th is about reasonable for a team with Jamison, Butler and no Arenas. It's not enough to call EJ an offensive genius, but it's not bad either.

This year, we rank 19th. Just for giggles, I ran a screen of NBA players averaging 18 or more points per game and ranked them by offensive rating. Jamison is the 9th best offensive player in the league. Butler is 21st. Besides us, only LA, New Orleans, New Jersey and Dallas have 2 players ranked in the top 21. Those teams rank 3rd, 5th, 8th and 15th respectively.

In EJ's defense, I'll say this. EJ at least knew how to run his offense well. I think he did a good job of making subtle adjustments in the game plan to keep us competitive. I get the feeling that Tanksscott and Wes Jr. don't really grasp all the nuances of the offense. That's why we have steadily regressed in our execution since EJ left. Other teams are making adjustments and our coaching staff can't adjust to their adjustments.

It's another reason to scrap the Princeton Offense and go back to basics.

[fishercob]

Nate:

1) Our guards are fantastically bad w/o Gil
2) Princeton offense and "back to basics" are not mutually exclusive