D-E-F-E-N-S-E!!!

[Max Power]

The shots weren't falling - that happens. But last year the Mavs would have been blown out by 30 points in this same situation. But our defense was the reason the Mavs were able to stay in the game and had a legitimate chance to win the game. If we had gotten hot for just a couple of minutes late in the game then we would have won.

I don't like losing but I like what I saw tonight.

[mavsfanforever]

Originally posted by: Max Power
The shots weren't falling - that happens. But last year the Mavs would have been blown out by 30 points in this same situation. But our defense was the reason the Mavs were able to stay in the game and had a legitimate chance to win the game. If we had gotten hot for just a couple of minutes late in the game then we would have won.

I don't like losing but I like what I saw tonight.

Max,

You summed up my feelings and thougts. Actually I said this in another thread but I will say it again: I am not worried even if mavs lose 5 in a row the next few games.

[Drbio]

I think many of us agree. The defense looks pretty good. On offense though, I could not believe that we missed so many easy shots over the last two games.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I think many of us agree. The defense looks pretty good. On offense though, I could not believe that we missed so many easy shots over the last two games.

I thought you were going to say "over the last two seasons" and it would have been true.

[EricaLubarsky]

What's this about defense? Tonight we were horrible defensively. Orlando just sucked. Let's not introduce it after the fact.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
What's this about defense? Tonight we were horrible defensively. Orlando just sucked.

We aren't a good defensive team and we won't ever be a good defensive team.

However the defense DID play well enough to keep us in this game. Last year we would not have had a chance - it would have been a blowout.

[EricaLubarsky]

did you watch the game? We might have been better this year so far, but this most recent game was at least as bad as any game last year. We can't pat ourself on the back for the last game.

[sike]

:Max Power
We aren't a good defensive team and we won't ever be a good defensive team.

this year's team will be and thus far has been a good defensive team. Holding opponents to under 42% is good D. Now if you mean they will not have one of the five lowest points allowed stats I will certainly agree...

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: Max Power

We aren't a good defensive team and we won't ever be a good defensive team.

However the defense DID play well enough to keep us in this game. Last year we would not have had a chance - it would have been a blowout.

MP, what prevents us from becoming a good defensive team? What are we missing?

[Male30Dan]

I don't want to side any which way, but I must admit, there were a WHOLE LOT of layups tonight and they weren't from the good guys...

[Male30Dan]

rowwwrrrr

[Nash13]

Erica, if our defense didn't keep up in the game, what did? Our Offense???

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: Nash13
Erica, if our defense didn't keep up in the game, what did? Our Offense???

Umm, I specifically said it Nash. If you want to jump into an argument, bring something to it and read the background first.

Orlando missed open shots. Garrity missed all three of his open three-pointers. Most teams will punish us for our poor defensive showing. We honestly got lucky. Attributing the fact that we didnt lose by 25 to our lack-luster defense is absolutely ridiculous.

We are in general an improved defensive team but our defense was very poor tonight. You cannot give our guys credit for stopping Orlando when they got that many uncontested shots.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

Umm, I specifically said it Nash. If you want to jump into an argument, bring something to it and read the background first.

You keep editing your posts so often it is tough to keep up with what you are saying.

[EricaLubarsky]

You keep editing your posts so often it is tough to keep up with what you are saying.

If that is your best argument, and you honestly think that actually watching the game tape doesnt matter, then there is nothing else I can say, Max.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

If that is your best argument, and you honestly think that actually watching the game tape doesnt matter, then there is nothing else I can say, Max.

It >IS< hard to get a handle on your opinion when you change it. It isn't my best argument, it is merely an observation. You >HAVE< edited many of your posts in this thread so your original opinion is lost to the wind. Who knows if your current opinion will be the one that hangs around until tomorrow.

And why would I care if you watch the game tape? You will see what you want to see. Others of us have seen something else. Eh, that's life.

[Nash13]

Orlando missed open shots. Garrity missed all three of his open three-pointers. Most teams will punish us for our poor defensive showing. We honestly got lucky. Attributing the fact that we didnt lose by 25 to our lack-luster defense is absolutely ridiculous.

First of all, Garrity didn't play much if at all in the second half when we were still in the game, as opposed when he got minutes and we were already down by a lot. Also, the Mavs had a wide open shot or two themselves. Just because you're open isn't an automatic point.

We are in general an improved defensive team but our defense was very poor tonight. You cannot give our guys credit for stopping Orlando when they got that many uncontested shots.

How can you say that when we held them to 94pts, which is around our normal average, and under 42%, which is right around our average. The fact is our own poor shooting and inability to move the ball lost us the game.

[EricaLubarsky]

I'm not arguing that we are a poor defensive team, or that poor defense lost us the game. In fact I'm arguing that our poor defense should have made for a blowout game and that we got lucky. I agree that we were fatigued tonight. I agree that we executed poorly on both sides of the ball and that if we had made our open shots the game would have been a lot closer and the outcome could have been different.

[Nash13]

I'm not arguing that we are a poor defensive team, or that poor defense lost us the game. In fact I'm arguing that our poor defense should have made for a blowout game and that we got lucky.

You just contradicted yourself. In your first sentence, you say our defense didn't lose the game, but in your second sentence, you said it did.

I agree that we executed poorly on both sides of the ball and that if we had made our open shots the game would have been a lot closer and the outcome could have been different.

So you agree with me?

[EricaLubarsky]

You just contradicted yourself. In your first sentence, you say our defense didn't lose the game, but in your second sentence, you said it did.

not if you actually gave something I wrote some thought. I said that poor execution lost the game and poor defense should have made it a blowout. But we got lucky and it didnt.

So you agree with me?

since it isnt important to my argument and since I've said it in other threads already, yes. I agree with you that shooting and execution lost the game for us. That wasnt really the argument on the table, so yeah. That's right. I'm only arguing with Max's baseless idea that our sharp defense kept us in contention for the win.

[Dirkenstien]

The Mavericks defense has seemed to have improved from last season due to the fact that in the five games we have played, no opposing team has scored over 100 ppg or shot for better than 42% HOWEVER when looking at what the teams we have played have accomplished thus far in the season it can be concluded that the Mavericks haven't necessarily made a statement by holding any team significantly below their average ppg or shooting percentage

For example:
Orlando: 40.6% 94.3 ppg ...shot 41.7% against us while scoring 94 points
Sacramento: 39.7% 94.7ppg ... shot 41% against us while scoring 91 points
Memphis: 38.4% 86.7ppg .... shot 37.6% against us while scoring 88 points
Goldenstate: 37.2% 84.8ppg ....shot 38.3% against us while scoring 98 points

As you can see all teams are averaging less than 42% on shooting and under 100ppg.

So when will we see how our "new" defense holds up against a team with a respectful shooting percentage and ppg average?

My answer would be to advise you to tune into TNT on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. when we face the Miami Heat who are currently averaging 103.3 ppg and shooting a solid 51%

To hold the Heat under 100 points and under 42% on field goals would be quite an accomplishment.

Are we up to the challenge?

[sike]

great post, enstien, we will have to wait and see.

though I'd bet if you wanted to look up last year's stats, the 03-04 Mavs's opponents scored and shot above their averages when palying the Mavs.

[FreshJive]

The only time the defense was any good last night was when Bradley anchored the zone, but we've had that option for years now. Anytime you use the zone on Francis you're defense is going to be effective. Otherwise our points got burned last night.

[EricaLubarsky]

But all you've done is spray negativity in this thread like a dog marking its territory.

I find that a little offensive since you said

"Maybe I don't have YOUR basketball IQ [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]" as if I dont have the basketball IQ to understand the game I was watching.
"Who knows if your current opinion will be the one that hangs around until tomorrow" as if I was flip-flopping. What a deceptive move! You knew exactly how I was editing my posts. Exactly, and you always had the option to quote. To imply that I was doing anything more than being annoying is beyond any standards of debate.

I can hardly see how I am the real pessimist here. I have only questioned the EFFECTIVENESS of a defense that allowed for many open shots and that the franchise admitted to. You have still failed to address any of those concerns legitimately. You play the "interpretation card", and do so questioning my intelligence on my interpretation, and then when you fail to explain why we allowed for a layup and dunk drill, you move on to the argument that the Mavs tried their hardest.

I agree that they tried hard. I agree that they are generally a better team. I just see nothing in your argument except for stats that seem to point to any understanding of what actually happened in the game. We failed to roll on defense, we failed to get back on defense, we failed to contest shots. Those aren't matters for interpretation, Max. You know better than to say they are. When you get challenged on the exact contents of the game you jump to stats, but ignore what really happened in the game. The fact is that the stats looked good defensively. The Mavs in the game did not.

Many posters have already posted that they noticed the same things. and

Stackhouse, "They got so many easy baskets in transition....I just think that we just needed a little bit more effort."

Daniels, "We just got to get back in transition and take away some of those easy baskets they were getting. We just have to be able to setup our defense. "

Don Nelson, "We had to go to our zone, since we weren't getting much done."

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky

I find that a little offensive since you said

"Maybe I don't have YOUR basketball IQ [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]" as if I dont have the basketball IQ to understand the game I was watching.
"Who knows if your current opinion will be the one that hangs around until tomorrow" as if I was flip-flopping. What a deceptive move! You knew exactly how I was editing my posts. Exactly, and you always had the option to quote. To imply that I was doing anything more than being annoying is beyond any standards of debate.

I found it a little offensive that you asked me in a snippy way if I had watched the game. And after I had posted that I had indeed watched the game then you accused me of "fast forwarding" the game. So you are the one that started with the negativity missy. Excuse me for responding in kind.

And as for the quoting feature - you changed one of your posts WHILE I WAS QUOTING IT. My quote didn't come up right because you had already changed your post. That makes it difficult because you can always say "I didn't say that" because since the original post had been changed then there isn't any record of your actual comments. You CAN change the wording in a quote - it doesn't have to be same as what was originally posted.

[Ninkobei]

I think Erica just went Socratic on you guys(max, nash). No point arguing against that...

[TwoDeep3]

While I truly don't want to become enbroiled in this argument, I will post a quote by Mike Fisher on the Golden State game.

Dallas did not make its comeback with offense; after all, the club managed to shoot just 38 percent. No, the Mavs came back because of defense.

This sums up the game with the Magic as well.

Surely something can be made out of the Orlando misses.

But the comeback that fell short was ignited on the defensive end of the floor.

The zone clearly changed the face of the game. And had Dallas not been involved in an OT game on get-away day, one has to wonder if that defeat might have been a victory.

Which is at polar opposition to last year's team and results if in the same situation.

They would have folded tents and the loss would have been huge.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting this is a defensive juggernaut.

But clearly this team plays better defense. It only takes watching the court and seeing teams wear out on the final stanza.

Maybe it's because we have such depth and can keep coming with the pressure in full court.

But last night's lay-up drill by the Magic had more to do with tired legs than it did with poor defense.

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

By the way, before the Great Unwashed comments. They did get a center. That should answer your question.

[Cybertx]

Ok. Defense is better and i think everyone agrees on that, but these last 2 games the defense has been bad, if we play this defense against a good team (SA, Minn, Utah, suns, etc.) they will kill us. in these 2 last game our defense hasn't been that well, we didn't stop them they failed to make the shots.

If you really think that mavs are in the same level than GS or Orlando then we are in the bottom of the west.

I agree with EL that last night wasn't a good defensive game for the mavs and in the offense was worse.

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: Cybertx
Ok. Defense is better and i think everyone agrees on that, but these last 2 games the defense has been bad, if we play this defense against a good team (SA, Minn, Utah, suns, etc.) they will kill us. in these 2 last game our defense hasn't been that well, we didn't stop them they failed to make the shots.

If you really think that mavs are in the same level than GS or Orlando then we are in the bottom of the west.

I agree with EL that last night wasn't a good defensive game for the mavs and in the offense was worse.

The defense against Golden State started out as bad, but they really shut them down in fhe second half.

The defense against Orlando was average as a whole. To be specific, transition defense was horrible, zone defense was effective for a stretch, but ultimately defense is about energy and hustle, and when tired legs prevailed the defense went south.

This team is far from being where they need to be, but they have already shown that they are capable of being a good defensive team. Unlike in year's passed, where they have to scratch and claw just to be average.

[Cybertx]

are you serious they didn't shut down them, GS fail to score that's diferent an nothing new GS always suck the second half against any team.

[Cybertx]

GS had 27 shots missed in the third quarter that's not defense of the mavs that's really bad offense of the warriors

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: Cybertx
GS had 27 shots missed in the third quarter that's not defense of the mavs that's really bad offense of the warriors

I believe the bad offense was a result of the good defense. They only had one point guard that night. The same point guard who had to chase Jason Terry and Devin Harris around. The same point guard who did most of their scoring in the first half. The same point guard who had to fight through the defense just to get the ball.

The point is the defense wore down that Golden State team. I'm not saying that the defense was perfect. I'm just saying that solid defense was played by Dallas for 2/3rds of that game.

You're right it might not have been enough to beat an elite team, but overall the defensive effort was not bad.

[Cybertx]

Fisher is old and a bench player and of course he got tired but that's normal no matter against who you play and i don't think defense wore down fisher or GS mostly offense wore GS down they got twice the offensive and defensive reb. in the first half that mavs did.
They played better the first half and return to the warriors level in the second.

And yes we were lucky that they only had one PG.

But that's my point mavs are superior to GS in everything we shouldn't feel lucky because fisher got tired this was supossed to be a blowout utah did that to them are we worse than utah.

C'mon we are talking about warrior and magic we are not talking about minnesota or SA, you know warrios 0-4, lottery team, avg shot. 39% all games under 100 points.

[kingrex]

Originally posted by: Cybertx
Fisher is old and a bench player and of course he got tired but that's normal no matter against who you play and i don't think defense wore down fisher or GS mostly offense wore GS down they got twice the offensive and defensive reb. in the first half that mavs did.
They played better the first half and return to the warriors level in the second.

And yes we were lucky that they only had one PG.

But that's my point mavs are superior to GS in everything we shouldn't feel lucky because fisher got tired this was supossed to be a blowout utah did that to them are we worse than utah.

C'mon we are talking about warrior and magic we are not talking about minnesota or SA, you know warrios 0-4, lottery team, avg shot. 39% all games under 100 points.

If your point is that the Mavs defense is not where it needs to be, then I agree. But, I don't agree that the defensive effort against Golden State in 2nd half was bad.

I do realize that it was the Warriors, so I'm not going to declare the Mavs as world beaters just from that game, but I do believe that the defense in the 2nd half is where this team should be headed. Therefore, I would never characterize what they did as "bad defense".

[Cybertx]

You don get it, the third quarter was almost the same that the second quarter almost same amount of shots that GS was allowed almost same amount of rebounds the diference was that fisher was tired or whatever but the shots weren't made that was the main diference and that mavs missed less and henderson and howard.

I think we want or defense like the the first 2 games or like the fourth quarter against GS, but if you played 3 quarters at bad level then that game game was bad in the defensive area and that's the reason why it went to OT.

GS didn't something diferent than any other game it was the mavs who did.

[Nash13]

I think Erica just went Socratic on you guys(max, nash). No point arguing against that...

Um........great post. If you read the thread, you'd realized that she agrees with me. Also, Max even pointed out that our defense as a whole wasn't good, but it kept us in the game at the end.