This topic contains 3 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  minion89 1 year, 10 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #1225053

    jdubs860
    Participant

    I live in the Boston area so I watch a lot of Celtics games. The #1 weakness of the team defensively is they switch on EVERY screen. It only takes one or two screens for the other team’s PG to be guarded by the C’s center. Why don’t teams have the big flare out instead of switching like they used to? Maybe some teams do but I can’t remember the last time I saw that happen. I know the risk is the screener slips and either has a dunk or a guy open at the corner 3, but isn’t that a nearly equal risk on a switch as well? Sometimes I wish the Celtics would give it a try. Especially when Enes Kanter is on the floor.

  • #1225057

    canadabasketballisrising
    Participant

    Because the NBA has changed a lot to position-less basketball. Typically bigs flair on screens only:
    – to stop initial dribble penetration
    -because they can;t possibly guard the player with the ball for more than 2 seconds with a full switch
    This is exactly why players like Andrew Bynum who are big and slow footed can’t survive in the NBA anymore.
    This is the same reason a 15 rpg player (Drummond) had little to no value in the trade market. Crazy to think.

  • #1225088

    Dazzling Dunks and Basketball Bloopers
    Participant

    The nuggets actually do this quite a bit with jokic, and it has worked surprisingly well over the past few seasons. The reason more teams don’t do it more is that it puts the defense at a temporary disadvantage and takes a big defender away from the basket. In order to use the strategy effectively, your rotations have to essentially be perfect and their is just too much chance of something breaking down and leading to open layups or 3s.

  • #1225843

    minion89
    Participant

    I like your post, I hope you have many good posts like this to share to the reader.
    vex 3

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login