MAVS NEWS:

[dirkfansince1998]

Something rational to discuss...thank you.

I think you make an excellent point.  The counter is the overall D (and rebounding and shot blocking) is better.  That makes the question whether overall ability trumps system.  I think Powell HAD to play that way because once someone got into the lane (drop coverage) he was one of the worst defenders in the league (or at least people shot a very high percentage against him).  That won't be the case against McGee and when people miss we will be more likely to get the board.  We won't know how it will work until we know.  But, we are the team that supposedly played McGee off the floor and we still wanted him (and two of our coaches know him very well).

That´s the trade off. Would argue that the Mavs switch-heavy defense allowed less penetration (also less open 3s) but when it happened they had no rim protecton to clean up the mess and struggled to control the defensive board.

Maybe I am just traumatized by the drop defense the Mavs used to play with KP. Recent playoff series certainly wasn´t encouraging. Whenever McGee was on the floor I knew the Mavs would create an open 3 on every single offensive possession. Then again. It´s not like Powell´s playoff run was any better.

I just don´t think that drop defense is the way against the best teams in the league. Too many players that can handle the ball and shoot from 3 to get away with it. If we are looking at the four teams in the CF all of them played switch-heavy schemes.

Doesn´t mean that it is impossible to win with different styles but I think it requires more talent to do it. In the Mavs situation (with limited assets) I would have tried to double down on the things that enabled the WCF run. Used the one available exception to add a player that fits into the scheme.

After the Mavs added a PF/C in a trade another ("dinosaur") big was way down on my personal list of needs. Listening to Nico and looking at the contract they handed out the Mavs didn´t share my concerns.