A defensive PF is not necessary?
Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,465
- And1: 2,323
- Joined: Apr 01, 2013
-
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
Funny how the PF position has evolved over the years. A decade ago, the C needed to be the rim protector because there wasn't any real offensive minded centers besides Shaq.
No specific position needs to be a defensive quantity. The team has to be good defensively overall- not just a specific player. If Drummond can be coached into a good defensive C, he's athletic enough to cover up a lot of mistakes or weaknesses.
Drummond just couldn't cover up EVERYBODY'S mistakes last season. Not that he's currently a great defender, but he isn't as bad as he appeared at times.
No specific position needs to be a defensive quantity. The team has to be good defensively overall- not just a specific player. If Drummond can be coached into a good defensive C, he's athletic enough to cover up a lot of mistakes or weaknesses.
Drummond just couldn't cover up EVERYBODY'S mistakes last season. Not that he's currently a great defender, but he isn't as bad as he appeared at times.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,857
- And1: 2,460
- Joined: Sep 28, 2012
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
epheisey wrote:sc8581 wrote:epheisey wrote:
So doing something different than the rest of the league makes it incorrect?
At some point couldn't taking a risk and doing it different provide a huge benefit over the rest of the league? If Monroe in a system designed by SVG can be decent defensively, couldn't having two almost 7 footers be a huge advantage over the rest of the league?
At one point, a team started playing a "stretch 4" before everyone else, and it's now caught on. Why can't this be the team to swing that back in the other direction of dominating the paint with two towering bigs?
Having one starting big that can shoot well is not some new thing, it's been that way for at least 25-30 years. Monroe is just one of those guys that can't even be a decent defender at the 4, a better system won't change that.
And why won't he ever be a decent defender? Because you say so? Sorry but David Lee and the Warriors were a top 5 defensive team.
*waits for the "David Lee is a waaaaaay better defender than Monroe is" post*
Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,443
- And1: 409
- Joined: Jul 23, 2010
-
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
sc8581 wrote:David Lee has faster feet, plus Iggy and Bogut are beasts.
Iggy was an incredibly overrated defender last year. An assistant coach from GS even said that he thought Klay Thompson was a better defender than Iggy at this point. But regardless, the Pistons have Drummond and KCP.
So faster feet is what it comes down to for Monroe?

Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,876
- And1: 766
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
epheisey wrote:sc8581 wrote:David Lee has faster feet, plus Iggy and Bogut are beasts.
Iggy was an incredibly overrated defender last year. An assistant coach from GS even said that he thought Klay Thompson was a better defender than Iggy at this point. But regardless, the Pistons have Drummond and KCP.
So faster feet is what it comes down to for Monroe?
Drummond and KCP both have a long way to go to get to where the aforementioned are.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,443
- And1: 409
- Joined: Jul 23, 2010
-
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
sc8581 wrote:epheisey wrote:sc8581 wrote:David Lee has faster feet, plus Iggy and Bogut are beasts.
Iggy was an incredibly overrated defender last year. An assistant coach from GS even said that he thought Klay Thompson was a better defender than Iggy at this point. But regardless, the Pistons have Drummond and KCP.
So faster feet is what it comes down to for Monroe?
Drummond and KCP both have a long way to go to get to where the aforementioned are.
Agreed. But if they don't make it close to those two guys, this team is screwed regardless.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
- laploutocratie
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,940
- And1: 12,275
- Joined: Aug 16, 2014
-
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
Winning starts with defense, and rim protectors are usually the 4 & 5 positions. Josh Smith and Dre are excellent defenders. Monroe should be the odd man out. Give Josh Smith some love he's actually very adept at defense.
☘ x XVII
6ixth_Man wrote:When I die, I want the Raptors to lower me into my grave, so they can let me down one last time
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,443
- And1: 409
- Joined: Jul 23, 2010
-
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
laploutocratie wrote:Winning starts with defense, and rim protectors are usually the 4 & 5 positions. Josh Smith and Dre are excellent defenders. Monroe should be the odd man out. Give Josh Smith some love he's actually very adept at defense.
No one has ever doubted his defense. It's his brain that's a problem.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,876
- And1: 766
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
epheisey wrote:sc8581 wrote:epheisey wrote:
Iggy was an incredibly overrated defender last year. An assistant coach from GS even said that he thought Klay Thompson was a better defender than Iggy at this point. But regardless, the Pistons have Drummond and KCP.
So faster feet is what it comes down to for Monroe?
Drummond and KCP both have a long way to go to get to where the aforementioned are.
Agreed. But if they don't make it close to those two guys, this team is screwed regardless.
Not necessarily, just have to get contributions from everyone
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 16,113
- And1: 3,441
- Joined: Apr 19, 2010
- Location: Michigan
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
Well according to this we should be an elite defense with Smith and Drummond protecting the rim and KCP ball hawking on the perimeter. I think this article is oversimplifying things. I think the biggest factor is defensive schemes not individual defenders (although they play an important role as well). One thing I know for sure is that Jennings was our biggest problem defensively last year. I just can't bare watching opposing PGs blow past Jennings and get into the paint at will. That is half the reason I want us to do a Bledsoe for Monroe deal. I would be extremely optimistic of our defense with a core of Bledsoe, KCP, Smith, Dre and, most importantly, SVG running the show.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
- mercury
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,407
- And1: 679
- Joined: Jul 22, 2003
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
I still dream of somehow parlaying Monroe + assets into Ibaka... I'll wake up sooner or later.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,876
- And1: 766
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
DetroitPistons wrote:Well according to this we should be an elite defense with Smith and Drummond protecting the rim and KCP ball hawking on the perimeter. I think this article is oversimplifying things. I think the biggest factor is defensive schemes not individual defenders (although they play an important role as well). One thing I know for sure is that Jennings was our biggest problem defensively last year. I just can't bare watching opposing PGs blow past Jennings and get into the paint at will. That is half the reason I want us to do a Bledsoe for Monroe deal. I would be extremely optimistic of our defense with a core of Bledsoe, KCP, Smith, Dre and, most importantly, SVG running the show.
I agree but we would need a really good and efficient scorer at the 3 to really compete at some point.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 16,113
- And1: 3,441
- Joined: Apr 19, 2010
- Location: Michigan
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
sc8581 wrote:DetroitPistons wrote:Well according to this we should be an elite defense with Smith and Drummond protecting the rim and KCP ball hawking on the perimeter. I think this article is oversimplifying things. I think the biggest factor is defensive schemes not individual defenders (although they play an important role as well). One thing I know for sure is that Jennings was our biggest problem defensively last year. I just can't bare watching opposing PGs blow past Jennings and get into the paint at will. That is half the reason I want us to do a Bledsoe for Monroe deal. I would be extremely optimistic of our defense with a core of Bledsoe, KCP, Smith, Dre and, most importantly, SVG running the show.
I agree but we would need a really good and efficient scorer at the 3 to really compete at some point.
Yeah I agree. I think we would need a go-to scorer at the 3 and continued development of KCP/Dre/Bledsoe to be a contender. Even if its a Rudy Gay type or something like that.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
- laploutocratie
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,940
- And1: 12,275
- Joined: Aug 16, 2014
-
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
epheisey wrote:laploutocratie wrote:Winning starts with defense, and rim protectors are usually the 4 & 5 positions. Josh Smith and Dre are excellent defenders. Monroe should be the odd man out. Give Josh Smith some love he's actually very adept at defense.
No one has ever doubted his defense. It's his brain that's a problem.
I doubt that will be a problem. Smith kept his shot selection in check before coming to Detroit and I'm sure SVG's presence will again rectify his problem.
☘ x XVII
6ixth_Man wrote:When I die, I want the Raptors to lower me into my grave, so they can let me down one last time
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,876
- And1: 766
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
laploutocratie wrote:epheisey wrote:laploutocratie wrote:Winning starts with defense, and rim protectors are usually the 4 & 5 positions. Josh Smith and Dre are excellent defenders. Monroe should be the odd man out. Give Josh Smith some love he's actually very adept at defense.
No one has ever doubted his defense. It's his brain that's a problem.
I doubt that will be a problem. Smith kept his shot selection in check before coming to Detroit and I'm sure SVG's presence will again rectify his problem.
I wouldn't say he kept it in check but clearly it wasn't as bad as last season.
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,619
- And1: 1,101
- Joined: Dec 27, 2012
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
sc8581 wrote:vic wrote:Thanks for posting this, I've been saying this all year: as long as you have 3 plus defenders, one in the paint, one on the wing, and one of the guards, you can have a great defense (provided your coach is average not clueless).
Monroe's efficiency on offense is going to make this a great team as long as Drummond, kcP, and Dinwiddies defensive abilities are allowed to develop.
Monroe isn't efficient on offense, your post is a bunch of nonsense all around.
Gee ok I guess I'll take your word for it... Lol
You need 2-way wings, 2-way shooting bigs, and you can't allow low iq players on the court. Assist/turnover ratio is crucial. Shooting point guards are icing on the cake IF they are plus defenders.
Weaver & Casey, govern yourselves accordingly!
Weaver & Casey, govern yourselves accordingly!
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,876
- And1: 766
- Joined: Jul 22, 2013
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
vic wrote:sc8581 wrote:vic wrote:Thanks for posting this, I've been saying this all year: as long as you have 3 plus defenders, one in the paint, one on the wing, and one of the guards, you can have a great defense (provided your coach is average not clueless).
Monroe's efficiency on offense is going to make this a great team as long as Drummond, kcP, and Dinwiddies defensive abilities are allowed to develop.
Monroe isn't efficient on offense, your post is a bunch of nonsense all around.
Gee ok I guess I'll take your word for it... Lol
Monroe isn't efficient if that's what your problem is with my post. Your other comment about needing 3 plus defenders doesn't even make sense, "one on the wing and one of the guards", do you know what wings are?
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
- pistontr
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,010
- And1: 275
- Joined: Mar 10, 2012
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
drummond is not a good rim protector and monroe is not a shooter like bozer, west, lee, duncanan mcroberts. so
Sorry for my poor english
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
-
- Forum Mod - Pistons
- Posts: 41,183
- And1: 4,635
- Joined: Sep 05, 2004
Re: A defensive PF is not necessary?
I care about defense too... But I care more about his inability to make a 12 footer. He could easily push himself into 20/10 (or maybe 20/9 with Drummond) territory and that would make me a happy camper.