PDA

View Full Version : Mo Williams' Commitment To Defense is B.S.



oldenpolynice
08-15-2008, 06:20 PM
The only thing he should be committing to is a mental hospital with the comments he made. He has been a horrible defender for the Bucks and he can't contain the best point guards in the East. Talk is cheap in my opinion.

http://davissportsdeli.com/wordpress/2008/08/15/mo-williams-commitment-to-defense-is-bs/

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-15-2008, 06:46 PM
The only thing he should be committing to is a mental hospital with the comments he made. He has been a horrible defender for the Bucks and he can't contain the best point guards in the East. Talk is cheap in my opinion.

http://davissportsdeli.com/wordpress/2008/08/15/mo-williams-commitment-to-defense-is-bs/

Maybe being in a new system will improve his defense. Why? Because over in Milwaukee he had almost the worst help defense maybe even the worst.

Cleveland's help defense could easily be in the top 10 in the league maybe even 5. Help defense is a very important thing in the NBA.

Westbrook36
08-15-2008, 06:47 PM
Mo Williams wasnt that bad of a Defender either..

kvrnm
08-15-2008, 06:50 PM
i like how they try to act like it was his fault guys were getting assists on him... pretty stupid article if u ask me

Chronz
08-15-2008, 06:55 PM
He was horrible last year but hes shown the ability to play great defense. But yea last year was absolutely horrible for the Bucks, they were the absolute worst team at defending opposing PG's and while Mo put up damn near All-star numbers, he gave up all-star numbers to his counterpart, and couldnt force any turnovers from opposing PG's. I expect him to do much better in Cleveland but Delonte is still the best option for defending the greater PG's.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-15-2008, 06:56 PM
i like how they try to act like it was his fault guys were getting assists on him... pretty stupid article if u ask me

It's not his fault the Buck's were bad at defense overall, that doesn't help motivate you to play defense nor does it help with help defense.

Jay22Redd
08-15-2008, 07:01 PM
Mo is not a bad defender. Not good but inbetween

HOZ THE KNICK
08-15-2008, 07:08 PM
i don't know what you guys are talking about he is a 1 demensional player........a chucker.

Chronz
08-15-2008, 07:26 PM
Mo is not a bad defender. Not good but inbetween

If he were to have been an average defender the Bucks wouldnt have been the WORST at defending opposing PG's. You can fault the team defense but Mo was the weakest link so he takes responsibility for it. If you need ELITE team defense just to be an average defender then your a horrible defender who makes his team worse defensively.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-15-2008, 08:27 PM
i don't know what you guys are talking about he is a 1 demensional player........a chucker.

Well he does shoot a lot, but he does shoot well with a 48fg% and a 38 3pt%.

_Sn1P3r_
08-15-2008, 11:38 PM
Well he does shoot a lot, but he does shoot well with a 48fg% and a 38 3pt%.

Good point.

*Superman*
08-15-2008, 11:59 PM
What do you want him to say "Yeah I'm just gonna rest on D and save my breath for shooting."?

superkegger
08-16-2008, 12:53 AM
Mo Williams wasnt that bad of a Defender either..


What do you want him to say "Yeah I'm just gonna rest on D and save my breath for shooting."?

No, but the point is, he's not a good defender. This reminds me of last year when Melo said he was going to focus on defense more. You don't just all of the sudden become committed to defense. But then again we're talking about Mo williams like hes a superstar. So either way who gives a ****.

oldenpolynice
08-16-2008, 02:40 AM
i like how they try to act like it was his fault guys were getting assists on him... pretty stupid article if u ask me

It's not just the assists-against that is disappointing. It's also the lack of turnovers that he causes. Many of the players mentioned in the article (Billups, Calderon, Felton, Miller) get those huge assist numbers against Mo while giving up only 1 or 2 turnovers.

That tells me that Mo is not pressuring them like a good defensive point guard should.

The Blue Baller
08-16-2008, 03:32 AM
Beethoven’s music teacher once told him that as a composer, he was hopeless.

Winston Churchill failed the 6th grade.

John Creasy, the English novelist who wrote 564 books, was rejected 753 times before he became established.

Charles Darwin’s father told him he would amount to nothing and would be a disgrace to himself and his family.

Walt Disney was fired by the editor of a newspaper because he, Disney, had "no good ideas".

When Thomas Edison was a boy his teacher told him he was too stupid to learn anything.

Einstein was four-years-old before he spoke. He spoke haltingly until nine years of age. He was advised to drop out of High School. And his teachers told him he would never amount to much.

Henry Ford’s first two automobile businesses failed.

Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard’s early failed products included a lettuce-picking machine and an electric weight-loss machine.

Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team.

Ray Krok failed as a real estate salesperson before discovering the McDonald’s idea.

R.H. Macy failed 7 times before his store in New York caught on.

Isaac Newton failed at running the family farm and did poorly in school.

Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times (but he also hit 714 home runs).

Steven Spielberg dropped out of high school in his sophomore year. He was persuaded to come back and placed in a learning disabled class. He lasted a month.


His history of defending aside, why would you ridicule someone for making a statement of bettering his playing for his team and himself? This guy takes the time to write an entire article about how atrocious Williams's defense is... I wonder if he'd take the same tone if he were to step on the court with him instead of hiding behind his computer? All he's convinced me of is that he's a big enough jerk to turn something positive into something negative.
Surely not a guy I'd want preaching to an elementary school or something of that nature.

oldenpolynice
08-16-2008, 03:55 AM
Beethovenís music teacher once told him that as a composer, he was hopeless.

Winston Churchill failed the 6th grade.

John Creasy, the English novelist who wrote 564 books, was rejected 753 times before he became established.

Charles Darwinís father told him he would amount to nothing and would be a disgrace to himself and his family.

Walt Disney was fired by the editor of a newspaper because he, Disney, had "no good ideas".

When Thomas Edison was a boy his teacher told him he was too stupid to learn anything.

Einstein was four-years-old before he spoke. He spoke haltingly until nine years of age. He was advised to drop out of High School. And his teachers told him he would never amount to much.

Henry Fordís first two automobile businesses failed.

Bill Hewlett and Dave Packardís early failed products included a lettuce-picking machine and an electric weight-loss machine.

Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team.

Ray Krok failed as a real estate salesperson before discovering the McDonaldís idea.

R.H. Macy failed 7 times before his store in New York caught on.

Isaac Newton failed at running the family farm and did poorly in school.

Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times (but he also hit 714 home runs).

Steven Spielberg dropped out of high school in his sophomore year. He was persuaded to come back and placed in a learning disabled class. He lasted a month.


His history of defending aside, why would you ridicule someone for making a statement of bettering his playing for his team and himself? This guy takes the time to write an entire article about how atrocious Williams's defense is... I wonder if he'd take the same tone if he were to step on the court with him instead of hiding behind his computer? All he's convinced me of is that he's a big enough jerk to turn something positive into something negative.
Surely not a guy I'd want preaching to an elementary school or something of that nature.

Mostly because he came out and publicly said that he wasn't trying on defense in Milwaukee. I have this thing about people not trying. You know, like Vince Carter in Toronto? Yeah, I'm not such a big fan of that.

Good examples listed above. But I'm pretty sure those guys were actually trying when they were (originally) failing at their pursuits.

The Blue Baller
08-16-2008, 05:44 AM
Mostly because he came out and publicly said that he wasn't trying on defense in Milwaukee. I have this thing about people not trying. You know, like Vince Carter in Toronto? Yeah, I'm not such a big fan of that.

Good examples listed above. But I'm pretty sure those guys were actually trying when they were (originally) failing at their pursuits.


All that point does is make his argument weaker.

He says in the article that Williams gives up. He then presents all these numbers that opposing point guards are putting up against him. Here are my problems with that.
1. He presents statistics that, as he just established, reflect Williams not trying. If he was indeed not trying, then these statistics are meaningless, as they do not and can not predict how Williams would defend if he were to actually try. If that's the case, then the whole article is garbage.
2. Now, assuming Williams was trying in those games, the author doesn't say what defensive scheme Milwaukee runs, nor how many minutes Williams played in those games, nor how many points those point guards scored as a result of one of his mistakes, nor how those point guards performed against premier defenders, etc. He simply assumes that, because they play the same position, the stats the opposing PGs rack up are directly accountable to him and him only. This only tells me he can look at a box score, not that he can analyze a player's defensive skills. Thus, his article is garbage.
3. He has no interest in opposing viewpoints, and no desire to argue/debate the topic. You, and everyone else here, are standing up and fighting to defend your opinion. He's sucker-punching. Big difference IMO.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-16-2008, 08:19 AM
All that point does is make his argument weaker.

He says in the article that Williams gives up. He then presents all these numbers that opposing point guards are putting up against him. Here are my problems with that.
1. He presents statistics that, as he just established, reflect Williams not trying. If he was indeed not trying, then these statistics are meaningless, as they do not and can not predict how Williams would defend if he were to actually try. If that's the case, then the whole article is garbage.
2. Now, assuming Williams was trying in those games, the author doesn't say what defensive scheme Milwaukee runs, nor how many minutes Williams played in those games, nor how many points those point guards scored as a result of one of his mistakes, nor how those point guards performed against premier defenders, etc. He simply assumes that, because they play the same position, the stats the opposing PGs rack up are directly accountable to him and him only. This only tells me he can look at a box score, not that he can analyze a player's defensive skills. Thus, his article is garbage.
3. He has no interest in opposing viewpoints, and no desire to argue/debate the topic. You, and everyone else here, are standing up and fighting to defend your opinion. He's sucker-punching. Big difference IMO.

Good points, but I still think it was the team in general instead of him. It's not easy to play good defense when everyone around is terrible at it.

J-Relo
08-16-2008, 08:38 AM
He said by himself that he wasn't as good defesively as he can be...

SwaggaIke
08-16-2008, 12:57 PM
Mo used to lock up at Alabama. But anyway, a good defensive team can turn any player that gives effort into a good defender. Ray Allen ring a bell? The Cavs are one of the best defensive teams in the game. Mo wants to win and he'll play D. Too many sour Bucks fans running around. Like Mo was the only player NOT defending for them.

infamous
08-16-2008, 01:14 PM
We should see if he will improve with the cavs, he haven't played with the cavs yet. Give his D a chance.

oldenpolynice
08-16-2008, 03:58 PM
All that point does is make his argument weaker.

He says in the article that Williams gives up. He then presents all these numbers that opposing point guards are putting up against him. Here are my problems with that.
1. He presents statistics that, as he just established, reflect Williams not trying. If he was indeed not trying, then these statistics are meaningless, as they do not and can not predict how Williams would defend if he were to actually try. If that's the case, then the whole article is garbage.
2. Now, assuming Williams was trying in those games, the author doesn't say what defensive scheme Milwaukee runs, nor how many minutes Williams played in those games, nor how many points those point guards scored as a result of one of his mistakes, nor how those point guards performed against premier defenders, etc. He simply assumes that, because they play the same position, the stats the opposing PGs rack up are directly accountable to him and him only. This only tells me he can look at a box score, not that he can analyze a player's defensive skills. Thus, his article is garbage.
3. He has no interest in opposing viewpoints, and no desire to argue/debate the topic. You, and everyone else here, are standing up and fighting to defend your opinion. He's sucker-punching. Big difference IMO.

What are you doing? Presenting to an audience or something? I'm here on the board. If you want to address me, address me.

In regard to your point about depth of argument, I could have certainly gone into more depth about the particulars of the stats mentioned. For instance, Billups improved upon his season average by 7.3 points and 2.2 assists when he faced Williams (not mention the fact that he improved his assist-to-turnover ratio to 5.4:1 against Williams, versus 3.2:1 on average for the season). But, from my experience, the average sports reader doesn't want 1,000 words worth of stats. That's why the article is presented as is.

And I'm certainly not sucker-punching. You are, after all, the one who called into question my ability to speak to kids. Which is a bit ridiculous considering you presume to know me after having read one article of my work.

In the end though, I'm glad to be challenged about my work. It's actually kind of flattering that you took the time to craft this lengthy dissertation. It means you read the piece and thought about it critically. In other words, to you, my piece is thought-provoking.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-16-2008, 04:18 PM
Mo used to lock up at Alabama. But anyway, a good defensive team can turn any player that gives effort into a good defender. Ray Allen ring a bell? The Cavs are one of the best defensive teams in the game. Mo wants to win and he'll play D. Too many sour Bucks fans running around. Like Mo was the only player NOT defending for them.

Exactly well said.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-16-2008, 04:19 PM
What are you doing? Presenting to an audience or something? I'm here on the board. If you want to address me, address me.

In regard to your point about depth of argument, I could have certainly gone into more depth about the particulars of the stats mentioned. For instance, Billups improved upon his season average by 7.3 points and 2.2 assists when he faced Williams (not mention the fact that he improved his assist-to-turnover ratio to 5.4:1 against Williams, versus 3.2:1 on average for the season). But, from my experience, the average sports reader doesn't want 1,000 words worth of stats. That's why the article is presented as is.

And I'm certainly not sucker-punching. You are, after all, the one who called into question my ability to speak to kids. Which is a bit ridiculous considering you presume to know me after having read one article of my work.

In the end though, I'm glad to be challenged about my work. It's actually kind of flattering that you took the time to craft this lengthy dissertation. It means you read the piece and thought about it critically. In other words, to you, my piece is thought-provoking.

Your the one agreeing on something that is not impossible, and that's pretty ignorant on your part.

23LBJCleBrowns
08-16-2008, 06:47 PM
well he is gonna be playin wit lebron so, he wants to TRY his hardest

oldenpolynice
08-16-2008, 06:55 PM
Your the one agreeing on something that is not impossible, and that's pretty ignorant on your part.

Ok. When Mo Williams becomes a good defender you are welcome to say "I told you so". Until then, I'll go with past performance (which dictates that he is below-average defensively).

Storch
08-16-2008, 09:18 PM
thats okay, cavs need offense more than defense at this point.

hgtiger32
08-16-2008, 09:45 PM
when mo scores...he's not thinking defense...he's thinking of what to do on offense and where to shoot...i loved mo...kinda sad that he was traded..but just because he says it doesn't mean it's going to happen 1-2-3....he's gonna have to work hard and work his ***** off...i wish mo the best of luck tho....especially since he's with LeBron till 2010 when LeBron goes to NY or Europe and Mo Williams will go back to ONLY OFFENSE...sorry cavs fans

23LBJCleBrowns
08-17-2008, 12:14 AM
Lebrons Not Leaving!! Quote Me On That! Mo And Lebron Are Gonna Be Great Together And Mo Is Gonna Work On His Defense Just For Lebron!

superkegger
08-17-2008, 12:43 AM
Beethovenís music teacher once told him that as a composer, he was hopeless.

Winston Churchill failed the 6th grade.

John Creasy, the English novelist who wrote 564 books, was rejected 753 times before he became established.

Charles Darwinís father told him he would amount to nothing and would be a disgrace to himself and his family.

Walt Disney was fired by the editor of a newspaper because he, Disney, had "no good ideas".

When Thomas Edison was a boy his teacher told him he was too stupid to learn anything.

Einstein was four-years-old before he spoke. He spoke haltingly until nine years of age. He was advised to drop out of High School. And his teachers told him he would never amount to much.

Henry Fordís first two automobile businesses failed.

Bill Hewlett and Dave Packardís early failed products included a lettuce-picking machine and an electric weight-loss machine.

Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team.

Ray Krok failed as a real estate salesperson before discovering the McDonaldís idea.

R.H. Macy failed 7 times before his store in New York caught on.

Isaac Newton failed at running the family farm and did poorly in school.

Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times (but he also hit 714 home runs).

Steven Spielberg dropped out of high school in his sophomore year. He was persuaded to come back and placed in a learning disabled class. He lasted a month.


His history of defending aside, why would you ridicule someone for making a statement of bettering his playing for his team and himself? This guy takes the time to write an entire article about how atrocious Williams's defense is... I wonder if he'd take the same tone if he were to step on the court with him instead of hiding behind his computer? All he's convinced me of is that he's a big enough jerk to turn something positive into something negative.
Surely not a guy I'd want preaching to an elementary school or something of that nature.

Great examples of people failing. People can come back from failures in the past. But you're kidding yourself if mo williams playing defense fits in anywhere on that list. The people on that list are great people from history who accomplished great things. Mo Williams is an average NBA point guard. Probably borderline top half in the league. So great, examples, but they have no real relevancy to this conversation.


Mostly because he came out and publicly said that he wasn't trying on defense in Milwaukee. I have this thing about people not trying. You know, like Vince Carter in Toronto? Yeah, I'm not such a big fan of that.

Good examples listed above. But I'm pretty sure those guys were actually trying when they were (originally) failing at their pursuits.

Exactly. Mo Williams came out publicly and said he wasn't trying. Even though he was getting paid millions. The article bashes him for it, because when you get paid millions of dollars to play the game right, and you then say you didn't try, you deserved to get bashed for it.

Whether or not Mo Williams plays well defensively doesn't really matter to me. The point is, Mo hasn't in the past, for whatever reason, and when you openly admit that, you're going to get criticized for it. And as a professional you should get criticized for it.

CHief_0_o_Wahoo
08-17-2008, 01:15 AM
Ok. When Mo Williams becomes a good defender you are welcome to say "I told you so". Until then, I'll go with past performance (which dictates that he is below-average defensively).

I don't have to say: "told you so" like a little kid.

What you are saying is a athletic NBA basketball player can't play defense, "It's impossible". That's ignorant on your part.

oldenpolynice
08-17-2008, 04:13 AM
I don't have to say: "told you so" like a little kid.

What you are saying is a athletic NBA basketball player can't play defense, "It's impossible". That's ignorant on your part.

I didn't say it was impossible. It's not impossible.

What I'm saying is that based on past performance he hasn't been a good defender. Also, he came out with that statement saying he hasn't tried in the past. Which is ridiculous because he's getting paid a lot of money (respective to the average person in America).

He needs to prove that he can play good defense before I believe it. Words mean nothing if he doesn't follow through with action. That's what I'm saying.

divine7
08-17-2008, 04:30 AM
When you say the Bucks were bad defensively... it all started with PG from the other team. We couldn't stop the ball nor could we contest the shots. This year when you see better defense from the bucks PG's then from the Cavs, you will realise that yes team defense is a big deal, but the individuals are important pieces of that puzzle.

The Blue Baller
08-17-2008, 05:12 PM
[QUOTE=superkegger;6313947]Great examples of people failing. People can come back from failures in the past. But you're kidding yourself if mo williams playing defense fits in anywhere on that list. The people on that list are great people from history who accomplished great things. Mo Williams is an average NBA point guard. Probably borderline top half in the league. So great, examples, but they have no real relevancy to this conversation.


You're missing the point of it-- at that time, they were not great people at anything. They were failures who no one believed in. It's supposed to prove the point that you shouldn't rule out someone's abilities based on past performance, because with hard work and persistence, they can accomplish what everyone else would initially scoff at.

It's fine though. Don't believe in the guy. However, let me give you a recent example of a similar situation.
Randy Moss says he plays/tries when he wants to. He goes to Oakland, has a couple of bad seasons, doesn't try, everyone discredits him and calls him washed up. He goes to New England and sets the single season touchdown reception record.
I'm not saying the Cavs are the NBA version of the Patriots, or that Mo Williams is going to set the single season record for steals or whatever, but people who were ragging on Moss are still trying to get their feet out of their mouths...

superkegger
08-17-2008, 08:17 PM
It's fine though. Don't believe in the guy. However, let me give you a recent example of a similar situation.
Randy Moss says he plays/tries when he wants to. He goes to Oakland, has a couple of bad seasons, doesn't try, everyone discredits him and calls him washed up. He goes to New England and sets the single season touchdown reception record.
I'm not saying the Cavs are the NBA version of the Patriots, or that Mo Williams is going to set the single season record for steals or whatever, but people who were ragging on Moss are still trying to get their feet out of their mouths...

I know you're not saying that Mo will be the best defender or anything. But again, the example doesn't relate. Randy Moss used to be, before joining the pats, one of, if not the best reciever in the game. He was elite and came back to that status. Mo williams has never shown he is a good defender in the NBA, never has been elite. It's one thing for an elite guy to take a status hit, and then come back from it, but its a whole nother thing for an average to a bit above average nba point guard who never has shown he's a good defender to all of the sudden become one.

oldenpolynice
08-18-2008, 01:40 PM
I know you're not saying that Mo will be the best defender or anything. But again, the example doesn't relate. Randy Moss used to be, before joining the pats, one of, if not the best reciever in the game. He was elite and came back to that status. Mo williams has never shown he is a good defender in the NBA, never has been elite. It's one thing for an elite guy to take a status hit, and then come back from it, but its a whole nother thing for an average to a bit above average nba point guard who never has shown he's a good defender to all of the sudden become one.

Co-sign.