Surely there is concensus that "modern" defenses have more freedom right?

[Akhenaten]

This should be the one thing everyone can agree on, defenses today have much less constraints, hence they are much more dynamic and unpredictable.

It's basketball, there is no "advanced" defensive tactics, it's not quantum physics. What today's defenses have is freedom. They are ALLOWED to be much more dynamic than in the past. Being allowed to double off the ball and being allowed to play "in between" committing to helping or staying home enables the defense to much easily and greatly impact spacing, rhythm and time.

So that it is much easier for defenders to help and recover, rotations are much shorter because the help can come from a shorter distance. 1 on 1 defense is harder to play but team defense is much easier, and I'm certain EVERYONE would agree that team > individual.

Certainly it's easier to affect a team's offensive efficiency as is evident in the numbers (speaking specifically about offensive efficiency in the 80's and 90's vs today) however that is not the where the biggest impact is made.

The biggest impact is on time and opportunity. It takes more time to get open shots and more time to get the ball to your most proficient offensive player. The effect is exponentially
more pronounced for offensive player's who rely on low post play to be dominant scorers.

Because the defender is allowed to play freely between ball and man, the defender is allowed to sag all the way back to the post player to discourage the entry pass and still be able to recover. On top of that weakside defenders can also sink down and play defense on a post player who doesn't even have the ball.

So the angles for the entry pass are more acute, so a post player has to start his offense one or two more steps farther than where is is most effective. Added to this if he does get the ball he has less time to operate.

So, previously his avg catching point would be say 3-6 ft from thee basket, now its 6-9 ft. Where he had an average of 10-14 seconds to go to work, now he has 8-11 secs. So the amount of opportunities inarguably decrease in this era, the amount of FGA inarguably decrease also, markedly decrease at that.

You would literally have to FORCE feed a low postplayer every possession for him to avg 20 FGA. Just being able to get the ball in his hands to begin with is MUCH more difficult.

This is why ppp is irrelevant, cause bigs these days much more seldomly touch the ball in positions where they can attack.

80's/90's = 50 touches, 20 FGA on avg
00's-??= 25 touches, 10 FGA

then when an offensive player DOES get the ball in prime position with time to work, the much more dynamic and amorphous help defense makes READS much more difficult. Is a guy helping is he staying? do i dropstep baseline or go middle? Do I pass to back to the entry passer or skip it across the court because the defense it tilted to my side.


Many more decisions to make, far less time to make them. I dont see how ANYONE disagrees with this, this is fundamental FACTS.

[andgar923]

naw.... too easy.

3ball take it away!

[LAZERUSS]

The NBA is currently shooting an eFG% of .495.

11 teams currently have an eFG% of .500+.

Nine teams have a 2pt FG% of .500+.

The Orlando Magic, who are 24-53, have an eFG% of .495 (which is the league average.)

You can go right down the list. Defense is NOT being played better today. In fact, it is as BAD as it has EVER been.

Sure, scoring is down from the 80's. BUT, so are fast-breaks. In fact, aside from the Warriors and Clippers, the entire league has eschewed the fast break offense. Coach's prefer to play close to the vest, and run the shot-clock down...often passing up easy shots in the process.

Furthermore, true POST-UP CENTERS are a rarity. Why? Because ESPN shows highlights of big men making 3's. You want an example...how about a kid by the name of Thon Maker. Seven-foot high school sensation. Instead of dominating his peers in the post, he is dancing around the 20 ft area, and shooting 3's. HOWEVER, he is simply AWFUL at it. Don't let his highlights fool you. He made 28% of his High School 3's last season, and overall, shot less than 50% from the field. Just a disgusting mis-use of talent.

And are you seriously going to tell us that a PRIME Shaq, or a PRIME Chamberlain, or a PRIME Kareem were not being SWARMED? I can show you footage where they are completely surrounded, and often without the ball.

A prime Bill Walton was considered one of the best defensive centers of his era. Watch this footage against Kareem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHM...os=YqP06ya0k4w


Bill Russell is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w


Demarcus Cousins is primarily a post-up center, albeit with near 20 ft range, and he is currently averaging 24 ppg in 34 mpg. Give him 40 mpg, and he would be nearly putting up Shaq's 30 ppg in 40 mpg in 2000.


If anything, the floor is much more spread now because of the 3pt shot. A true post-up center has MORE room to work with.

[Akhenaten]

The NBA is currently shooting an eFG% of .495.

11 teams currently have an eFG% of .500+.

Nine teams have a 2pt FG% of .500+.

The Orlando Magic, who are 24-53, have an eFG% of .495 (which is the league average.)

Where are you getting the efg % numbers from? What is the efg% for the league overall and what how do they juxtapose vs previous eras (particularly 80's and 90's?)?

Cherrypicking 11 teams (which accounts for about 34% of the league) is inadequate to refuting anything I typed in the OP, especially given the breadth of my assertions.

Where is the comparative efg% for 80's, 90's teams? How can you so assuredly say that defense is worse now given those numbers and not post the numbers for when defenses were supposedly more effective?

I know this for a FACT, team FG% and FGA have significantly decreased 2000 onward compared to the 80's/90's. I will actually post the numbers, I will compare LEAGUE FG% and FGA for 1980-91 vs 2004-2015..15 years.

1980: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 108 ppg
2004: 44% FG, 79 FGA per game, 93 ppg

1981: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2005: 45% FG, 80 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1982: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2006: 45% FG, 79 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1983: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2007: 46% FG, 80 FGA per game, 99 ppg

1984: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 111 ppg
2008: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1985: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2009: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1986: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2010: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1987: 48% Fg, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2011: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 pg

1988: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2012: 45% FG, 81 FGA per game, 96 ppg

1989: 48% FG, 87 FGA per game, 107 ppg
2013: 45% FG, 82 FGA per game, 98 ppg

1990: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 106 ppg
2014: 45% FG, 83 FGA per game, 101 ppg

1991: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 105 ppg
2015: 45% FG, 78 FGA per game, 100 ppg

You can go right down the list. Defense is NOT being played better today. In fact, it is as BAD as it has EVER been.

Go right on down what list? You never posted one, if there is a list of info that underscores that defense of the 80's/90's > today please post or link me to it.

Also I would never say defenses of today are better or worse because i try my best to keep my OPINION out of debates. People get naturally defensive when you use the word better and instinctively tout the era or players that the are biased towards.

The discrepancy in the numbers are HUGE, and the numbers state unequivocally that teams/players today are limited to less shot attempts and decreased efficiency than teams/players of yesteryear. That cannot be disputed, saying one era's D is better than the other however can be debated ad infinitum.

[

Sure, scoring is down from the 80's. BUT, so are fast-breaks.

You say that so dismissively like its just an afterthough, scoring isnt "down" from the eighties as you dryly put it, it is SIGNIFICANTLY, DRAMATICALLY, SEISMICALLY down.

In fact, aside from the Warriors and Clippers, the entire league has eschewed the fast break offense. Coach's prefer to play close to the vest, and run the shot-clock down...often passing up easy shots in the process.

Ok, this is most common argument for people who try to explain the collosal gulf in scoring and pace in past eras compared to now. The only problem with this argument is that pace has STEADILY decreased through EVERY decade of NBA basketball.

So the argument goes "well 80's coaches prioritized the fast breaks and players were much more decisive". So ostensibly teams of this era could simply place emphasis on running and voila! teams magically could start putting up 87-90 FGA like they did in the 80's.

Only problem with that argument is it's completely fallacious and not based in logic AT ALL. Teams stressed running in 80's yet compared to the 70's they played at a tortoise pace and compared to the 60's they play as a snail's pace.

60's = 100-104 FGA per game
70's = 96-99 FGA per game
80's = 87-89 FGA per game
90's = 83-87 FGA per game
00's on = 78-82 FGA per game

So, if all modern days coaches need to do in order to play at an 80's pace is simply change their philosophy and approach, then surely 80's teams could have played at a 60's pace simply by changing philosophy and "not playing close to the vest".

What's more plausible an explanation for STEADY, decade by decade incremental decreases in pace?

Coaches/players timidity and over-cautiousness or defense (particularly transition defense) become more of a priority?

There are plenty teams that have both the personnel and philosophy to want to play as fast as possible and no matter WHAT they will never come close to playing at an 80's Nuggets pace. Let's not even speak of the 70's or 60's, no way are you getting a 105 shots a game unless you SIGNIFICANTLY compromise your transition defense, floor balance, and offensive efficiency.

The league avg 105 FGA per game on 41% FG in 60-61. Just 10 years later it was down to 98 FGA per game on 45%.

Did people just stop running and start playing cautious? Or did the basketball minds just evolve and realize just running down the court as fast as possible and taking whatever shot was just not smart?

and if they played that way against teams that used actual intricate strategy that that style would be annihilated?

And are you seriously going to tell us that a PRIME Shaq, or a PRIME Chamberlain, or a PRIME Kareem were not being SWARMED? I can show you footage where they are completely surrounded, and often without the ball.

Sure they were, but not with nearly the frequency and consistency that a post player of today is. Moreover it was MUCH easier to read WHEN and WHERE the swarm was coming from AND they had much more time in which to make their decisions.

Where and when the help came was MUCH more predictable and it took longer for the help to get there...that's a FACT.

A prime Bill Walton was considered one of the best defensive centers of his era. Watch this footage against Kareem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHM...os=YqP06ya0k4w


Bill Russell is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w

How is this germane to any of the VERY specific points I have made?

Demarcus Cousins is primarily a post-up center

yes, but he shots WAY more jumpshots than bigs of the previous eras, the avg distance of his FGA are much farther away from the basket than post players of the 80's/90's consequently he shoots in the mid to high 40's from the field UNDERSCORES MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT PERFECTLY.

albeit with near 20 ft range, and he is currently averaging 24 ppg in 34 mpg. Give him 40 mpg, and he would be nearly putting up Shaq's 30 ppg in 40 mpg in 2000.

Perhaps, but it would take him way more shot attempts and he would shoot 10-20 % worse from the field than 30 ppg Shaq.

If anything, the floor is much more spread now because of the 3pt shot. A true post-up center has MORE room to work with.

You just dont get it and probably will never get it, the 3 point shot serves to alleviate some of the spacing issue but in COMPARISON to the restrictive defensive rules of the past!? not even close.

You do understand (I know you either wont or will pretend not to because of stubborness and wanting to be right, even though you're as wrong as two left shoes. i will post this for the erudition of those who are willing learners anyway) that being able to "tilt the floor" can pretty much nullify whatever space a 3 pint shooter creates for a big.

All the other team has to do is bring the help from 2-3 passes away, MORE importantly that help DOES NOT HAVE TO COME ALL THE WAY!

So, I can bring a defender from the opposite corner 3/4's to all the way to either discourage a baseline move or just to disrupt or give the impression that i'm going to flood the baseline THEN recover, and then bring I can bring my top side defender down to the free throwline to impact the move to the middle BUT NOT BRING HIM SO FAR THAT HE CANT IF THE BIG PASSES OUT!

The rules make it so much easier to BOTH HELP AND RECOVER!
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

[3ball]

Restriction #1: today's defenders cannot paint-camp.

Restriction #2: today's defenders cannot be physical.

Restriction #3: today's defenders cannot hand-check.

Restriction #4: most importantly, today's defenders must defend spacing and extend their defense out to the 3-point line (it's physics - today's defenders must guard a larger surface area due to 3-pointers).

otoh, previous eras did not have ANY of these restrictions..

i'll be back later to elaborate.

[Akhenaten]

i'll be back later to elaborate.

No point, i ended this last reply, thanks for playing though.

[AirBourne92]

The NBA is currently shooting an eFG% of .495.

11 teams currently have an eFG% of .500+.

Nine teams have a 2pt FG% of .500+.

The Orlando Magic, who are 24-53, have an eFG% of .495 (which is the league average.)

You can go right down the list. Defense is NOT being played better today. In fact, it is as BAD as it has EVER been.

Sure, scoring is down from the 80's. BUT, so are fast-breaks. In fact, aside from the Warriors and Clippers, the entire league has eschewed the fast break offense. Coach's prefer to play close to the vest, and run the shot-clock down...often passing up easy shots in the process.

Furthermore, true POST-UP CENTERS are a rarity. Why? Because ESPN shows highlights of big men making 3's. You want an example...how about a kid by the name of Thon Maker. Seven-foot high school sensation. Instead of dominating his peers in the post, he is dancing around the 20 ft area, and shooting 3's. HOWEVER, he is simply AWFUL at it. Don't let his highlights fool you. He made 28% of his High School 3's last season, and overall, shot less than 50% from the field. Just a disgusting mis-use of talent.

And are you seriously going to tell us that a PRIME Shaq, or a PRIME Chamberlain, or a PRIME Kareem were not being SWARMED? I can show you footage where they are completely surrounded, and often without the ball.

A prime Bill Walton was considered one of the best defensive centers of his era. Watch this footage against Kareem...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coHM...os=YqP06ya0k4w


Bill Russell is widely regarded as the greatest defensive center of all-time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w


Demarcus Cousins is primarily a post-up center, albeit with near 20 ft range, and he is currently averaging 24 ppg in 34 mpg. Give him 40 mpg, and he would be nearly putting up Shaq's 30 ppg in 40 mpg in 2000.


If anything, the floor is much more spread now because of the 3pt shot. A true post-up center has MORE room to work with.

skill wise shooting and scoring has improved as well

defense is no doubt better

any professional coach will tell you this

[3ball]

A lot of people forget that if any player from today's game (let's say steph curry) were transported back to 1985, none of his teammates would be spreading the floor for him - so he'd face the same no-spacing and congested paints that everyone else did back then... And it would be night-and-day more physical.. Good thing curry isn't injury-prone.. oh wait.. .. love curry tho

Today's defenses like to hang their hat on shading and floods that happen outside the paint - but these partial zones weren't needed nearly as much in previous eras when there is no spacing and paint-camping was legal.. However, today's game has spacing and bans paint-camping, so the shading/flooding merely provides a bandaid so defensive effectiveness doesn't fall off a cliff in comparison to previous eras.. It should be mentioned that shading is easy to beat for perimeter ballhandlers, who get to face bigs on the perimeter instead of in the paint.

Btw, with no spacing in previous eras, defenders were in MUCH closer proximity, so shading and flooding happened quite naturally, as well as overtly - with the invariably slower bigs coming away from the rim to shade in the ballhandler's wheelhouse (the perimeter), previous era ballhandlers took advantage the same way ballhandlers do today.

[3ball]

defense is no doubt better

any professional coach will tell you this

ok - let's get this straight - we know that today's game now has spacing.. we know that paint-camping has been banned along with physicality and hand-checking.

if there was no extra defensive strategy to handle these extra burdens, then it would be far easier to score today than previous eras.

fortunately, coaches came up with extra strategy to offset these things - but don't mistake the extra strategy for defenses being "better".. the extra strategy merely ensures that it's just as hard to score today as it was in previous eras when there weren't these extra burdens on the defense.

that's why league-wide offensive rating (ORtg) has remained between 106-108 for the last 30 years - defenses adjust to employ the best strategy given the rules and playing style.. actually pace, scoring and league-wide ORtg was lower in the mid-90's thru mid-2000's.

get it?

Daryl Morey does - he says today's defensive strategy is "a natural evolution of the rule changes":

http://www.quotetimes.com/people/51429/daryl-morey

[LAZERUSS]

Where are you getting the efg % numbers from? What is the efg% for the league overall and what how do they juxtapose vs previous eras (particularly 80's and 90's?)?

Cherrypicking 11 teams (which accounts for about 34% of the league) is inadequate to refuting anything I typed in the OP, especially given the breadth of my assertions.

Where is the comparative efg% for 80's, 90's teams? How can you so assuredly say that defense is worse now given those numbers and not post the numbers for when defenses were supposedly more effective?

I know this for a FACT, team FG% and FGA have significantly decreased 2000 onward compared to the 80's/90's. I will actually post the numbers, I will compare LEAGUE FG% and FGA for 1980-91 vs 2004-2015..15 years.

1980: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 108 ppg
2004: 44% FG, 79 FGA per game, 93 ppg

1981: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2005: 45% FG, 80 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1982: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2006: 45% FG, 79 FGA per game, 97 ppg

1983: 49% FG, 88 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2007: 46% FG, 80 FGA per game, 99 ppg

1984: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 111 ppg
2008: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1985: 49% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2009: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1986: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2010: 46% FG, 82 FGA per game, 100 ppg

1987: 48% Fg, 89 FGA per game, 110 ppg
2011: 46% FG, 81 FGA per game, 100 pg

1988: 48% FG, 89 FGA per game, 109 ppg
2012: 45% FG, 81 FGA per game, 96 ppg

1989: 48% FG, 87 FGA per game, 107 ppg
2013: 45% FG, 82 FGA per game, 98 ppg

1990: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 106 ppg
2014: 45% FG, 83 FGA per game, 101 ppg

1991: 47% FG, 87 FGA per game, 105 ppg
2015: 45% FG, 78 FGA per game, 100 ppg

Ahhh...the "let's pull the wool over the uneducated's eyes" theory...

1980: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.486
1981: 2pt%=.491, eFG%=.489
1982: 2pt%=.497, eFG%=.495
1983: 2pt%=.492, eFG%=.488
1984: 2pt%=.499, eFG%=.495
1985: 2pt%=.499, eFG%=.496
1986: 2pt%=.495, eFG%=.493
1987: 2pt%=.490, eFG%=.488
1988: 2pt%=.490, eFG%=.489
1989: 2pt%=.490, eFG%=.489
1990: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.489
1991: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.487
1992: 2pt%=.486, eFG%=.487
1993: 2pt%=.489, eFG%=.491
1994: 2pt%=.483, eFG%=.485
1995: 2pt%=.491, eFG%=.500
1996: 2pt%=.486, eFG%=.499
1997: 2pt%=.480, eFG%=.493
1998: 2pt%=.470, eFG%=.478
1999: 2pt%=.457, eFG%=.466 (strike year...condensed schedule)
2000: 2pt%=.468, eFG%=.478
2001: 2pt%=.461, eFG%=.473
2002: 2pt%=.465, eFG%=.477
2003: 2pt%=.463, eFG%=.474
2004: 2pt%=.460, eFG%=.471
2005: 2pt%=.470, eFG%=.482
2006: 2pt%=.478, eFG%=.490
2007: 2pt%=.485, eFG%=.496
2008: 2pt%=.484, eFG%=.497
2009: 2pt%=.485, eFG%=.500
2010: 2pt%=.492, eFG%=.501
2011: 2pt%=.487, eFG%=.498
2012: 2pt%=.477, eFG%=.487 (strike year...condensed schedule)
2013: 2pt%=.483, eFG%=.496
2014: 2pt%=.488, eFG%=.501
2015: 2pt%=.485, eFG%=.496

In 1980 the NBA shot a 2pt% of .488, and an eFG% of .486.
This year the NBA is shooting a 2pt% of .485, and an eFG% of .496.

You tell me the difference...

Again...Defense TODAY, is as BAD as it has EVER BEEN.


Now, Shaq's numbers from '94 thru '03 varied little. In 1994 he averaged 29.3 ppg on a .599 FG%. In 2000 he averaged 29.7 ppg on a .574 FG%. Even as late as 2003 he averaged 27.5 ppg on a .574 FG%. Even in 2004, when he started a severe decline, he still averaged 21.5 ppg on a .584 FG%, and the next year, his last dominant one, he was at 22.9 ppg on a career high .601 FG%. Basically, while overall defenses were at their PEAKs from 1998 to 2004, Shaq's numbers were as dominant as ever.

[andgar923]

It's only a consensus amongst idiots.

Do I have to flood the board with tons of video links to prove the point.

Today's defense/defenders are CRIPPLED, starting with their inability to use any physical touch that may impede an offensive player- no camping in the lane (3 seconds rule) which opens up the lane for players.

Say the word and I'll umleash a f*ckin nuclear onslaught of videos cremating this silly and ass backwards delusion.

[LAZERUSS]

Now, watch a typical basketball game in the 80's...teams FLYING down the court. THAT is why teams were averaging 110 ppg in that decade. Half-court DEFENSES were no worse than today.

Why don't teams run more today? COACHING. Teams RUN the CLOCK down, AND, they often pass up BETTER shots in doing so.

Hell, the Warriors are averaging 110 ppg this year...AND, are 63-14. Why doesn't EVERY team play at that pace?

[andgar923]

Now, watch a typical basketball game in the 80's...teams FLYING down the court. THAT is why teams were averaging 110 ppg in that decade. Half-court DEFENSES were no worse than today.

Why don't teams run more today? COACHING. Teams RUN the CLOCK down, AND, they often pass up BETTER shots in doing so.

Hell, the Warriors are averaging 110 ppg this year...AND, are 63-14. Why doesn't EVERY team play at that pace?

I'd have to disagree with you to a degree.

MJ ruined the game.

People wanted to be like mike but for all the wrong reasons. Players became more ball dominant and rules changed traditional roles. So less ball movement, less player movement, slower pace, etc etc.

[Showtime80']

Finally someone else mentions the I wanna be like Mike syndrome that has had an undeniable effect on the modern player's IQ and basic fundamentals. Athleticism was put before basic skills and has been for the worse.

All I hear is that the modern game is full of unselfishness and teamwork well the 1980's was probably the most unselfish era in basketball history! Take a look at the championship winning rosters of that decade and the great players that were present and wrap your head around the fact that NONE of those teams had a player averaging more than 26 ppg! The top scorers ranged around 21 to 24 ppg. Compare that to 1991 and after where virtually EVERY title winning team except for the Spurs and Pistons had their top guys averaging from 27 to 30+ ppg!!! Jordan syndrome in full effect.

Fact is that between the salary explosion, salary cap and expansion that coincided in the early 90's it became more financially reasonable to build teams around 1 or 2 scorers thus turning the offenses into shells of the diversity and firepower they once exhibited not to mention coaches started to become control freaks to keep their lucrative jobs (thank Pat Riley and Knicks for that one).

Is it a coincidence that the NBA's golden era (79 to 91) also came at the same period that the NCAA experienced their greatest period ever? Ponder that

[Rose'sACL]

All I hear is that the modern game is full of unselfishness and teamwork well the 1980's was probably the most unselfish era in basketball history! Take a look at the championship winning rosters of that decade and the great players that were present and wrap your head around the fact that NONE of those teams had a player averaging more than 26 ppg! The top scorers ranged around 21 to 24 ppg. Compare that to 1991 and after where virtually EVERY title winning team except for the Spurs and Pistons had their top guys averaging from 27 to 30+ ppg!!! Jordan syndrome in full effect.

Fact is that between the salary explosion, salary cap and expansion that coincided in the early 90's it became more financially reasonable to build teams around 1 or 2 scorers thus turning the offenses into shells of the diversity and firepower they once exhibited not to mention coaches started to become control freaks to keep their lucrative jobs (thank Pat Riley and Knicks for that one).

i might agree with your statement for early 00s but it certainly hasn't been the case for some time now.
mavs, heat, spurs have all played unselfish ball. hawks and warriors are conference leaders right now. truth is that celtics and lakers were so loaded with talent that you didn't need anyone to carry the team alone. it is easy to be unselfish when your team has 4-5 HoF players in their prime or close to it with HoF coach while defense was still not a really big part of the game like in the 90s or now.