"Wizards Must Attack James". But why? Despite James' performance, the Cavs only scored 97 points, slightly below their 97.6 points per game average. Meanwhile, the Wizards, who average 101.7 ppg, only scored 86. The Washington defense was, by Wizards standards, pretty much fine. The offense was absurdly sub-standard.
April 25, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Attack! Attack!:
"Wizards Must Attack James". But why?
Again, I don't think that Matthew has read the article closely. The article's main point is NOT that they need to attack LBJ so that LBJ gets tired and can't score as many points. Instead - the article says exactly what Matthew is saying: the offense was very poor in Game 1 and needs to improve in Game 2, and goes on to say that if they want to improve the offense in Game 2, they should attack LBJ, because he's not a very good defender: "As quick as James is with the ball, he doesn't always move well laterally on defense; and as big as he is, he can be exploited in the low post if isolated one-on-one."
Posted by: Al | Apr 25, 2006 4:41:41 PM
The Wizards took 71 shots in the game. That was the problem with their offense. Frankly it was their defense being dreadful I think given the pace of the game.
Another note is that it's a sad comment on playoff coverage that when you google wizards cavs you come up first.
Posted by: Joel W | Apr 25, 2006 5:08:54 PM
Matthew, I thought you were an OER/DER guy? For the game the Wizards OER was 100, DER was 113. That's pretty poor defense. As Joel says, you're being misled by pace.
Posted by: QuietStorm | Apr 25, 2006 6:09:16 PM
Wizards only shot .408. That's terrrrrrrrrible (to quote Bill Walton). They held the Cavs to .437 - not bad. I didn't see the game, but looks to me like the offense was the problem.
Posted by: Al | Apr 25, 2006 7:02:38 PM
gotta love the game last night. The wizards really found a way to shut down lebron
i love that he admits he couldn't take the 1 on 1 schemes
Posted by: mack | Apr 26, 2006 11:58:16 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.