Maybe I'm Not Loooking At The Same Team Here...

by Pryme on Oct 13, 2009 12:03 PM EDT Comment 6 comments

I have to admit, I like to read Charley Rosen's work as he occasionally has some good insights. But his latest assessment of the Wizards has me scratching my head:

Washington Wizards

Strengths: Gilbert Arenas' genius for scoring.

The steady point-making skills of Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison.

Mike Miller is a spot shooter deluxe.

Randy Foye is a solid all-around performer on offense.

In Nick Young, a blossoming star.

The continued potential of Andray Blatche.

Flip Saunder's zone defenses that look like man-to-man alignments, as well as his multiple offenses.

Weaknesses: Arenas, Butler, Miller, Foye, Young and Blatche all need lots of ball time to be effective.

Not enough defense.

Not enough willing role players.

Brendan Haywood and Blatche are career underachievers.

I'm pretty much on board with his take on the team's strengths, even though I'm surprised that Haywood isn't mentioned at all (it's universally known that his absence last season contributed to the 19-win season).

As for the weaknesses, his analysis just comes off as, well, lazy. "Scorers need the ball?" Really? How unique an issue for a basketball team! Then there's the "defense" comment, as if the franchise hasn't heard this the 90's. Calling Blatche and underachiever is arguable, but Haywood? How so?

But the thing that gets me is Rosen's comment of the team "not [having] enough willing role players." So does this mean the team has role players who don't want to be role players? How does this explain Oberto, or McGuire or Stevenson? Team-decimating injuries aside, those guys have done nothing but "play roles." Oberto is set to be the front-court muscle. McGuire is the defensive stopper. Stevenson is also a defensive player who can hit an open-shot.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I haven't read anything hinting that these guys (or any guys on the roster, for that matter) has any objection to playing a role (we've all seen how Arenas has adapted to being more of a PG).

But this type of "analysis" tells another story: that the Wizards are not just fighting against 29 other teams, but against the public perception that a few new players, a new coach and a return of their star player does not equate to post-season success. While I don't see them as world-beaters yet, I know this squad is bringing more to the table than, "We'll just outscore them, then we'll win!"

Poll

Which or Rosen's Weaknesses Does You Agree With?

Not Enough Basketballs To Go Around

8 votes

Defense

57 votes

"Not enough willing role players"

1 votes

Haywood/Blatche are underachievers

6 votes

72 votes | Poll has closed

This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think the "not having enough role players" comment

Goes hand-in-hand with the “too many guys who play best when they have the ball” comment, which I think has some merit.

The only one that really jumps out at me is calling Haywood an underachiever. Otherwise, I didn’t think he was that far off.

He forgot to mention the lack of interior strength, which is a much better thing to put than “not having enough role players.”

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Oct 13, 2009 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It still irks me

to me, it comes off more being a “they’re too selfish” comment more than a “they’re only effective with the ball” comment. I was under the impression that a glut of role players being thrust into the starting lineup was one of many factors leading to last season’s 19 wins.

Like I said, maybe I’m looking at this the wrong way.

by Pryme on Oct 13, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, you obviously need a mix

I mean, Arenas, Miller and Foye were not playing last year.

The other thing is, to view this in a “selfish/unselfish” paradigm is a mistake to me. I prefer high-usage/low-usage. Logically, it seems to me you want a mix between the two, and right now, relative to their positions, Arenas, Butler, Foye, Young and Blatche are all very high-usage players. (Miller’s different only because he stopped shooting last year). So was Jamison. We’re now talking about potentially starting four players who use a lot of posessions relative to the average amount for their position, with two more coming off the bench. Put it that way, it’s a lot of balls to fill.

Of course, it’s important to note that a) these high-usage guys were often high-usage guys by circumstance (in particular Foye and Butler), not because they have a gunners mentality, and b) high-usage refers to how many shots they take, not how much time it takes for them to create their shot off the dribble (which makes you look at Miller, Jamison and the new Nick Young in a different light from Foye, Arenas and the old Nick Young).

Regardless, it’s a somewhat fair criticism at this point. It might not be when the season kicks off, but it is now.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Oct 13, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Defense is a problem until proven otherwise

But I believe it will get better. I don’t get how a lot of these analysts have amnesia about Haywood’s season two years ago.

"Would you like to shoot me now or wait till you get home." --- Daffy Duck

by George Templeton on Oct 14, 2009 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

role players

Oberto, or McGuire or Stevenson can’t be role players if they don’t play. they are 10, 11, 12 in the rotation unless one of the guys below falls out. we need haywood, butler, miller or foye to fill the roles of banger, defensive stopper, spot up shooter

haywood
jamison
butler
miller
arenas
foye
blatche
young
mcgee

by jayson on Oct 16, 2009 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs