Are the Mavs Tainting the NBA?

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

So, the Heat are hated for tainting the NBA by stacking this great unbeatable team in the minds of there haters. They will also talk about the way Lebron did the decision. Lebron and the Heat are simply bad guys that are going about winning the wrong way and ruining there legacies and tainting the NBA but what about the Mavs?

No NBA team in my lifetime has used the zone as much as the Mavs because honestly they can't get enough stops to win against the level of competition that they are currently playing without playing zone. So, what do you think about this is it good for the NBA? Does it taint the championship if the Mavs win it? Zone defense was not legal during the Jordan, Bird, Magic days. Actually, zones were not completely legal in the NBA until 2001-02.

http://www.nba.com/a...es_history.html

Personally, I am not totally against zone because when I started playing organized ball on my 6th grade Pee Wee team that's when I started learning zone. So, since 11 years old I was learning about zones, and I think it is pretty much the same for most of these professional athletes. On the other hand, that does not take away from the fact that the true greats were not allowed to use this defense which can be lazy, gimmicky, and simply used because you can't play defense well enough to beat your competition without it. Yes it is currently legal so the Mavs are not breaking the rules, but this is not what Bird, Magic, and Jordan used. This is not what Russel used when he was winning 10 and this is also not what Phil Jackson who is ridiculed for winning with better talent every used, even though he could have from 2001-02 until now.

IMO, I do look at the Mavs as a weaker opponent win or lose this championship due to them not being able to get enough stops to win without using the zone.

Edited June 8, 2011 by TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA

[AHF]

I think the offense of the early 90s with 4 guys stacked on one side of the court while the star went one on one with the remaining defender was more gimmicky than zone D. Zone D can be beaten and abused by a disciplined opponent.

[99PROBL3MS]

I don't enjoy watching the Mavs play at all. They flop everyone down the court. That just isn't my style. A bunch of euro-style floppers.

[ATLJA316]

The Heat's starting 5 are more athletic, and at the end of the day - the Mavs are doing what it takes to score more points than them.

Their use of zone is what's allowing them to do it.

So no, they're doing what it takes to win a title against an opponent the likes of which the NBA has never seen.

[Guest]

Dallas is the only team in the NBA that has consistently and effectively use a Zone. To say they are a weaker opponent because they use a Zone is silly. If Miami had better shooters the Zone wouldn't be effective. Teams use what they have to their advantage to win games because at the end of the day like Herm Edwards said "you play to win the game" regardless of strategy.

[NJHAWK]

So, the Heat are hated for tainting the NBA by stacking this great unbeatable team in the minds of there haters. They will also talk about the way Lebron did the decision. Lebron and the Heat are simply bad guys that are going about winning the wrong way and ruining there legacies and tainting the NBA but what about the Mavs?

No NBA team in my lifetime has used the zone as much as the Mavs because honestly they can't get enough stops to win against the level of competition that they are currently playing without playing zone. So, what do you think about this is it good for the NBA? Does it taint the championship if the Mavs win it? Zone defense was not legal during the Jordan, Bird, Magic days. Actually, zones were not completely legal in the NBA until 2001-02.

http://www.nba.com/a...es_history.html

Personally, I am not totally against zone because when I started playing organized ball on my 6th grade Pee Wee team that's when I started learning zone. So, since 11 years old I was learning about zones, and I think it is pretty much the same for most of these professional athletes. On the other hand, that does not take away from the fact that the true greats were not allowed to use this defense which can be lazy, gimmicky, and simply used because you can't play defense well enough to beat your competition without it. Yes it is currently legal so the Mavs are not breaking the rules, but this is not what Bird, Magic, and Jordan used. This is not what Russel used when he was winning 10 and this is also not what Phil Jackson who is ridiculed for winning with better talent every used, even though he could have from 2001-02 until now.

IMO, I do look at the Mavs as a weaker opponent win or lose this championship due to them not being able to get enough stops to win without using the zone.

Could Jordan Bird and Magic carry the ball on almost every dribble then take 4 steps to the basket while running over a defender to make a basket, then make some stupid face and have espn call them the king ? Dallas tainting the nba, lol seriously. Did Larry ever hold up the start of the game to have his birthday hat and cake with his teamates and do dances on the sideline while up 20 but vanish in big games that are close?

Edited June 8, 2011 by NJHAWK

[AHawks89]

If it was legal back then, they would be using it too.

[Alex]

Tainting the NBA because of a zone defense. LMFAO dude. The referees are the ones tainting it with their continued blown and absurd calls. Not too mention the lottery being fixed.

The Mavericks play to their strengths and it works for them. Why would you not use something that works for your team?

[ag82]

They are playing well wtithin the rules of the game. Tainting the game is more like holding your face like a soccer player when you weren't even touched.

[Atlantaholic]

What's wrong with playing zone? I don't get this post, you play zone defense in middle school, high school, college, europe, asia, africa... pretty much in every single format of basketball in the entire world. Who cares if it wasn't used before in the NBA, the three point line wasn't used either, but implementing it has increased the amount of strategy involved in the game, just like zone defense has. I don't get how it is a gimmick either... what is the gimmick exactly? When you play zone defense you still have to play defense. If you want to play zone effectively the amount of effort required is not going to be significantly less than a good man defense. If a team is playing a lazy zone any offensive team worth anything is going to shred it to pieces. What cheapened the game were the old illegal defense rules, which were not even enforced half the time. Zone defense is a legit strategy, just like man to man it has its pros and cons.

[AHawks89]

Dude must be a secret Miami fan.

[Diesel]

The game needs more options than less options. More options increase the number of possibilities. Had they had the zone earlier, the Hawks would have probably won a title. But we had less options. I just can't see us not succeeding having Mookie and Deke and a Zone defense. A zone defense would have made Corbin more valuable.

At the same time, a zone defense makes coaches have to coach better. You can't coach against a zone if all you ever call for a play is IsoBron or IsoWade. It makes you develop plays... or trust somebody to shoot over the top.

Therefore, Zones are actually good.

Zones will make isoball obsolete and that's a good thing.

The beauty in basketball (for me) is not a guy going one on one, it's great team play. A team that can really implement a pick and roll is a beauty to behold. Therefore, the zone helps.

[Dragitoff]

Teams that can move the ball and shoot well from outside will destroy the zone. That's why Atlanta has had it's trouble with it in the past and that's why Miami is now. I've got no problem with it. Heck, I've got no problem with any strategy that keeps the Heat from winning a championship (as long as it's legal). I want to see LeBron walk off the floor again this postseason refusing to shake the Mavs' player's hands.

[coachx]

You have to shoot a team out of a zone.

The Heat have to shoot better. Lebron lost all confidence in his shot vs. that zone. Marion is a tank in himself. His is one of the few SFs who can get physical with Lebron.

Edited June 8, 2011 by coachx

[coachx]

IMO, I do look at the Mavs as a weaker opponent win or lose this championship due to them not being able to get enough stops to win without using the zone.

Whatever team wins a 7 game series is the better team. If Dallas finds a way to win 4 games without homecourt advantage then they cannot be the weaker opponent if you choose to live in reality. I'll let reality dictate who the weaker opponent is rather then preconceived perceptions.

Basketball is not about 1 on 1 play. You have to credit to schemes designed to stop certain players strengths.

A basic jumpshot is worth just as much as a dunk. You must shoot to stop the zone scheme. If Wade and James can't shoot well enough to do that in I say they would obviously be the weaker basketball team if they allow a zone defense to get the better of them.

Edited June 8, 2011 by coachx

[MaceCase]

The zone has a negative connotation because it's not "manly". A player supposedly should get down in a stance and give his all D'ing up his man and take pride in it win or lose........then you realize that there's no hand checking allowed and players are rewarded on offense for cocking their head back and yelling if you even touch them or flailing wildly and falling to the ground after a jumper if you are in their vicinity.

[Guest]

That's like saying teams that don't play man to man defense but play zone or cover 2 in the NFL is tainting the game...smh

Edited June 8, 2011 by jaybird

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

That's like saying teams that don't play man to man defense but play zone or cover 2 in the NFL is tainting the game...smh

Not even in the same ballpark. The zone defense in football has never been illegal from my knowledge.

[niremetal]

Not even in the same ballpark. The zone defense in football has never been illegal from my knowledge.

Alcohol was illegal once. Life is better and more interesting now that it's allowed again.

[TRUEINTELLECTPLAYA]

Alcohol was illegal once. Life is better and more interesting now that it's allowed again.

Not even in the same ballpark. So was cocaine and marijuana. I say life would be better with both of them legal as opposed to alcohol since alcohol is the one that has never been used for medical reasons and does more reported damage to the body than marijuana.