JTB view of Game 4 and how Woody's defense is ran.

[JTB]

Game 4 was a bad for us but it was alot better than game 3! In game 3 I felt we didnt bring our offense but the defense got better as we got threw the game. In game 4 nobody can say lack of offense cause these guys shot great and johnson is really stepping it up BUT like I said the defence just wasn't there! Delfino had way too many open 3's! and the switching defense wasnt properly played in my opninon. When we switched on defense leaving our bigs to guard there backcourt they ran past our bigs for an easy layup but what should have happen was that there should have been a weakside help cause thats how woody's defense is ran atleast thats what i thought correct me if Im wrong but this is how I think Woody's defense is suppose to be played........................

Woody's Defense:

First off I think we all can agree that Woody's defense is a Switching defense, which is his gameplan. Where if guys run screens on us, we simply just switch instead of trying to fight through the screen. Most teams we play knows that we switch on purpose and usually those teams runs screens for there point guards and shooting guards in order to get our bigs on a guard and try to take advantage. Now knowing that they are going to try to use there pg's and sg's against our big men, I think woody purposely does this switch, its a part of his gameplan with the switching defense! After the switch, which will most likely be a big on a pg or sg, the big men priority is to keep this usually much quicker opponent in front of them and force them to shoot over the big man which would be a tougher shot if contested but if the guard blows past the big man (which will more than likely happen) there should be a weakside help there to either block, contest or just force a bad shot.

So ATL am i right about how woody's defense is suppose to be ran or am I over thinking this?

(If you agree that I am right about how woody's defense is suppose to be ran, you must also agree that we did not properly play it like it suppose to be played. For example I said our bigs are put on guards purposely to force a hard shot and keep them in front of them. but if the guard blows past them which will happen more than likely, a weakside help person should be there either to block or contest the guards shot..............jennings blew past zaza alot and there was no weakside help like in games 1 or 2!)

Edited April 27, 2010 by JTB

[Crank]

We shouldnt be switching every time against this team . They dont have any post players who can create there own shots so you have to allow the big to zone the area and then the guard should run his @ZZ over the top of the screen sure they will get caught a few times and maybe give up a long jumpshot but it takes away the layup and it takes away the easy drive and kick opportunities that the switch creates .

you have to know your opponent and Woody is implementing a defensive style that ignores who we are playing .

You want to force those front line guys to consistently make shots an entire game and then double opportunistically and then on a few occasions GO ZONE . I think the only player to hit a three tonight for the Bucks was Delfino . You go zone and extend it out forcing that ball into the hands of the frontline players and making them do something with it .

You cant do one thing all the time but have to mix it up and evolve Skiles knows woody is reluctant to change and so hes milking it .

[Diesel]

Game 4 was a bad for us but it was alot better than game 3! In game 3 I felt we didnt bring our offense but the defense got better as we got threw the game. In game 4 nobody can say lack of offense cause these guys shot great and johnson is really stepping it up BUT like I said the defence just wasn't there! Delfino had way too many open 3's! and the switching defense wasnt properly played in my opninon. When we switched on defense leaving our bigs to guard there backcourt they ran past our bigs for an easy layup but what should have happen was that there should have been a weakside help cause thats how woody's defense is ran atleast thats what i thought correct me if Im wrong but this is how I think Woody's defense is suppose to be played........................

Woody's Defense:

First off I think we all can agree that Woody's defense is a Switching defense, which is his gameplan. Where if guys run screens on us, we simply just switch instead of trying to fight through the screen. Most teams we play knows that we switch on purpose and usually those teams runs screens for there point guards and shooting guards in order to get our bigs on a guard and try to take advantage. Now knowing that they are going to try to use there pg's and sg's against our big men, I think woody purposely does this switch, its a part of his gameplan with the switching defense! After the switch, which will most likely be a big on a pg or sg, the big men priority is to keep this usually much quicker opponent in front of them and force them to shoot over the big man which would be a tougher shot if contested but if the guard blows past the big man (which will more than likely happen) there should be a weakside help there to either block, contest or just force a bad shot.

So ATL am i right about how woody's defense is suppose to be ran or am I over thinking this?

(If you agree that I am right about how woody's defense is suppose to be ran, you must also agree that we did not properly play it like it suppose to be played. For example I said our bigs are put on guards purposely to force a hard shot and keep them in front of them. but if the guard blows past them which will happen more than likely, a weakside help person should be there either to block or contest the guards shot..............jennings blew past zaza alot and there was no weakside help like in games 1 or 2!)

You're right about the administration of the defense. The problem is that when the weakside help comes (even if it's on time), it leaves one of the forwards or Centers wide open.. and they have exploited us on that too. The point is that we are watching this defense being outcoached. I'm tired of seeing Jennings blow passed Zaza or Horf. I'm tired of seeing Smoove leave his man to help and his man busting a wide open three. I'm tired of seeing Bibby Leave Horfs man to help and GowdZurich hitting a wide open shot. Their ball movement is killing us.. because we are killing us playing this switch. At this point, we can not expect Woody to come up with something new so what we have to do is out effort the well coached team.

And hope for the best.

[ATLNY7]

Why the switching defense period?

[spotatl]

I've said this many times but I love the switching defense late in the shotclock. Under 8 I think its great- then the offense doesn't have time to really exploit the mismatch. But early in the shotclock it gives teams time to choose EXACTLY the matchup they want. Run a quick even weak PnR and set your matchup- then go ahead and exploit it however you want. What I want to see is the Hawks go under the screen early in the clock and let Milwaukee shoot long jumpers- then late in the clock switch.

[Diesel]

Why the switching defense period?

The switching defense allows the defender to be lazy.

Instead of fighting through picks, you just switch.

It also takes advantage of so-called versatility. Meaning, that because we have a team full of 6'7" - 6'9" players, we fit better with a switch.

The problem with the switch is that in a series, like we are seeing, a coach can game plan for the switch and get his fastest guy matchuped against our bigs. There's supposed to be bailouts and help defense but the truth is... when a team has a fast ball handler who can make a good pass to a shooter, we're in trouble. In game 1, Skiles employed the same tactics he has used in games 3 and 4. The thing is that the shots were not falling then. Now the shots are falling.

[JackB1]

The only advantage to the switch is that the man coming off the screen doesn't have an opening at the point the screen is set. The switching man switches off to him.....BUT,

the Bucks are not running screens to get open for perimeter jumpers. They are doing it to get mismatches with their guards and our bigs and it is working to a tee for their favor.

If Woodson was a smart coach he would see that this strategy doesn't work against teams with quick guards that can penetrate. Woodson should have known this ahead of

time and not realized it after 2 straight losses. The easy way to counter what the Bucks are doing is just to stay in a zone and NOT SWITCH a guard with a big. It's frustrating

just watching the game and seeing us being so blatantly outcoached. Even the ESPN announcers have commented over and over how our bigs can't stay with their guards.

[Antmillennium]

The switching defense allows the defender to be lazy.

Instead of fighting through picks, you just switch.

It also takes advantage of so-called versatility. Meaning, that because we have a team full of 6'7" - 6'9" players, we fit better with a switch.

The problem with the switch is that in a series, like we are seeing, a coach can game plan for the switch and get his fastest guy matchuped against our bigs. There's supposed to be bailouts and help defense but the truth is... when a team has a fast ball handler who can make a good pass to a shooter, we're in trouble. In game 1, Skiles employed the same tactics he has used in games 3 and 4. The thing is that the shots were not falling then. Now the shots are falling.

Exactly. This defense allows the defenders to be lazy and Woody is a lazy coach who doesn't like to think. That's a bad combination.

[macdaddy]

Why switch on every single play though? If the offense knows what you are going to do then its easy. Just think if we ran the same offensive play everytime down the court (don't say it) that would be a joke. Why not throw a zone out there for a little bit, a press, then switch. Come on. What a horrible, horrible game. The only reason it was even close is that the Bucks aren't that good. I don't mean that as an insult because they are punking our *ss, but they should have run away with that game.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The switching defense does work. When teams struggle against us, that's all they talk about.

But as Crank pointed out, Milwaukee's guards are quick and can break us down off the dribble. Both Salmons and Jennings can create their own shot by going to the hole or by knocking down long jumpers ( when they get hot ). Even Ridnour can do this. So the defense definitely needs to be adjusted. Or at the very least, give the Bucks multiple looks.

I would definitely like to see the Hawks go zone for a short stretch, just to see how things will shake out. See if their guards can shoot over top of the zone, or make a post player make a play. They could also aggressively double Jennings right off the bat when that pick comes, forcing bigs like Kurt Thomas or whomever to make a play if the ball is passed to them.

Too bad Solo isn't here. Woody would have him up top, leading a half court trap.

We just can't let Jennings dictate whatever the hell he wants to do. We have to make him do what WE want him to do.

[niremetal]

The switching defense does work. When teams struggle against us, that's all they talk about.

Alright, "King of Blog Research." Please tell me the basis for that hyperbole-at-best, total-horsecrap-at-worst statement. Because I would wager that after most games this year where other teams struggled against us, the post-game statements did not say it was because of the switching defense.

Edit: I checked the Yahoo/AP recap for each of the last 10 games (going back to Jan 6 against NJ) where the Hawks won and the other team scored fewer than 90 points. Only one of them (Indiana, March 28) had a statement by a player, coach, or anyone else crediting or even mentioning the switching defense. And please, tell me that I'm narrowing my focus too much or not enough, Mr. King, because I would love the opportunity to further drive home how much that statement is BS.

Edited April 27, 2010 by niremetal

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Why switch on every single play though? If the offense knows what you are going to do then its easy. Just think if we ran the same offensive play everytime down the court (don't say it) that would be a joke. Why not throw a zone out there for a little bit, a press, then switch. Come on. What a horrible, horrible game. The only reason it was even close is that the Bucks aren't that good. I don't mean that as an insult because they are punking our *ss, but they should have run away with that game.

Macdaddy . . . and that's another thing that people need to stop saying. The Bucks are definitely a good team. Just because they don't have Bogut, doesn't mean that they're not good. Salmons and Jennings are 2 guards who can break you down off the dribble or shoot the long jumper. When you have 2 guards who can do that, you at least have a shot in the game, if other people step up. And they've gotten people to do just that.

Without Bogut, this team plays even more to their guards, which has turned out to be a good thing.

I don't believe for one minute that the Bucks are capable of winning a game in Philips, but they definitely play with the type of energy and intensity at home, that we play with. But people need to stop saying that they're not a good team, because they are.

[AHF]

I've said this many times but I love the switching defense late in the shotclock. Under 8 I think its great- then the offense doesn't have time to really exploit the mismatch. But early in the shotclock it gives teams time to choose EXACTLY the matchup they want. Run a quick even weak PnR and set your matchup- then go ahead and exploit it however you want. What I want to see is the Hawks go under the screen early in the clock and let Milwaukee shoot long jumpers- then late in the clock switch.

This makes all the sense in the world to me.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Alright, "King of Blog Research." Please tell me the basis for that hyperbole-at-best, total-horsecrap-at-worst statement. Because I would wager that after most games this year where other teams struggled against us, the post-game statements did not say it was because of the switching defense.

Edit: I checked the Yahoo/AP recap for each of the last 10 games (going back to Jan 6 against NJ) where the Hawks won and the other team scored fewer than 90 points. Only one of them (Indiana, March 28) had a statement by a player, coach, or anyone else crediting or even mentioning the switching defense. And please, tell me that I'm narrowing my focus too much or not enough, Mr. King, because I would love the opportunity to further drive home how much that statement is BS.

LOL @ niremetal . . . how about Scott Skiles HIMSELF talking about the switching defense, before this series started. That was the #1 concern for Milwaukee coming into this series.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/fanblogs/90724584.html

[niremetal]

LOL @ niremetal . . . how about Scott Skiles HIMSELF talking about the switching defense, before this series started. That was the #1 concern for Milwaukee coming into this series.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/fanblogs/90724584.html

So one coach one time saying that the switching defense was something his team should have exploited but didn't = "When teams struggle against us, that's all they talk about."

Don't look now, northcyde - I think the Bucks figured out how to attack the switching defense. So much for the one kinda-sorta example you could cite.

Thank you for confirming that the bolded statement was, in fact, total horsecrap. It's not all they talk about. It's not even what they usually talk about. One example (and one in which the coach hardly praised the switching defense as a strategy) does not equal "all."

I've said this many times but I love the switching defense late in the shotclock. Under 8 I think its great- then the offense doesn't have time to really exploit the mismatch. But early in the shotclock it gives teams time to choose EXACTLY the matchup they want. Run a quick even weak PnR and set your matchup- then go ahead and exploit it however you want. What I want to see is the Hawks go under the screen early in the clock and let Milwaukee shoot long jumpers- then late in the clock switch.

+1

Edited April 27, 2010 by niremetal

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Also . . . when our opponents use code words like "athleticism and length" as bothering them offensively, what do you think they're referring to? Because compared to other frontlines, we're not a big team at all. But our length and athleticism bothers people? It's a reason for that.

When the switching defense is AGGRESSIVELY played, it has caused havoc on offenses this season. But when this team plays passive, the switching defense gets exploited big time. The weak close outs on shooters are definitely a big problem.

This year, the defense has been most vulnerable against PGs who can shoot the deep ball and have the ability to take the ball to the basket. That's why guys like Jennings . . and Stephen Curry . . and Nate Robinson have played really well this year. And all 3 guys had to knock down long jumpers, as well as take the ball to the hole, to beat the defense. Most PGs in this league can do one or the other, but not both.

But like the OP said, the switch defense is predicated on players providing weak side help, and knowing where the shooters are. When it is ran right, the ish definitely works. But to play that defense, you need to give effort on just about every possession.

Having said that . . . Woody does need to give Milwaukee multiple looks on defense.

[AHF]

LOL @ niremetal . . . how about Scott Skiles HIMSELF talking about the switching defense, before this series started. That was the #1 concern for Milwaukee coming into this series.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/fanblogs/90724584.html

Wasn't Skiles also quoted in that same article as saying, “Skin me, Brer Woodson, snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots, and cut off my legs,” said Brer Skiles. “Only please, Brer Woodson, please don’t throw me into the briar patch...er, I mean please don't use that switching defense and only that switching defense against my poor little players!”

[macdaddy]

Macdaddy . . . and that's another thing that people need to stop saying. The Bucks are definitely a good team. Just because they don't have Bogut, doesn't mean that they're not good. Salmons and Jennings are 2 guards who can break you down off the dribble or shoot the long jumper. When you have 2 guards who can do that, you at least have a shot in the game, if other people step up. And they've gotten people to do just that.

Without Bogut, this team plays even more to their guards, which has turned out to be a good thing.

I don't believe for one minute that the Bucks are capable of winning a game in Philips, but they definitely play with the type of energy and intensity at home, that we play with. But people need to stop saying that they're not a good team, because they are.

Well i agree with you. Although I didn't say they weren't good. I said they weren't THAT good. Meaning we are making them look better than they really are. Talent-wise 1-6 I just don't think there SHOULD be a comparison even though they have some great guards.

On the other topic of conversation I'll back up the statement that numerous players have said that its tough playing the switching defense. I"m sure plenty of players LOVE playing against it. Like Tony Parker. But there have been others who have mentioned it. Which is really more believable? 1) that some players have a hard time with scoring it against and have mentioned it in an interview or 2) that it never works and every player in the nba can score at will on it so we just continue to do it and win 53 games in spite of it.