Blazers won't change defensive scheme

[Sinobas]

Hmm, we'll have to see how this goes. Portland was 10th in the league in defensive efficiency last year (and 8th in offensive efficiency). Maybe this crew will still get more steals on talent alone.
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2015/07/trail_blazers_wont_change_defensive_scheme.html

 

[BonesJones]

So with all the athletes we have, and all the transition basketball were gonna play, we're not going to try to force turnovers? THAT'S WEAK

 

[Pinwheel1]

Well I can't argue with using the same defensive scheme as the Spurs. Now we need the same coaching.
The talent on defense is not the issue. SA is not loaded with superior athletes, but they make it work.

 

[RoyToy]

I'll worry about the scheme when the Blazers can find players that can keep their man in front of them. That wasn't really the case last year.

 

[blue9]

"Their principles of limiting driving lanes and opportunities in the paint while forcing contested mid-range jumpers won't change."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Reep]

So with all the athletes we have, and all the transition basketball were gonna play, we're not going to try to force turnovers? THAT'S WEAK

I don't think that is what he said. He won't trap and extend the defense, but I expect this new team to force more turnovers. I would rather see them force turnovers with solid half court defense than try to trap and press and get beat.

 

[ripcityboy]

So we're not Dick Harter's Kamikaze Kids are we.

 

[riverman]

We now have shot blockers and wing defenders. We have offensive rebounder and youth..the scheme will absolutely change with this roster. Our defensive efficiency was much higher first 30 games of last season..dropped off when injuries happened. Stotts changed his defensive game last season and had good results. No reason to think he won't address it with this team.

 

[julius]

Having more athletic guys will make a difference on their defense.

I hope.

 

[Mediocre Man]

The one thing I got out of that article is that they are really high on CJ McCollum. First Olshey and now Stotts single him out

 

[Mediocre Man]

Having more athletic guys will make a difference on their defense.

I hope.

It should for switching

 

[handiman]

"Even though our bigs and our wings are a little more athletic, I don't see us getting out and pressuring," Blazers coach Terry Stotts said at summer league in Las Vegas on Friday. "I don't think that's a formula for necessarily good defensive teams. I think we established a good foundation."

Losing four starters was a tough pill to swallow, but that quote is the single most depressing aspect of the off-season. Since when is pressure defense not a good formula?

What we've got is a very conservative defensive scheme that will get abused by patient teams, especially in the playoffs. It's fools gold.

And we don't "[force] contested mid-range jumpers," we happily give up uncontested, theoretically less efficient mid-range jumpers.

I've felt for awhile that Stotts is a very creative offensive coach but limited defensively. His willingness to tweak the offense to suit the new personnel but not the defense just reinforces that perception. Having said that, I do agree with keeping a solid foundation to the defensive approach with so many young players.

 

[PDXFonz]

Good, maybe this group will understand it and play it properLy

 

[blue9]

The fact that Stotts thinks his P/R defense is a-okay tells you all you need to know...

 

[Nikolokolus]

Losing four starters was a tough pill to swallow, but that quote is the single most depressing aspect of the off-season. Since when is pressure defense not a good formula?

What we've got is a very conservative defensive scheme that will get abused by patient teams, especially in the playoffs. It's fools gold.

And we don't "[force] contested mid-range jumpers," we happily give up uncontested, theoretically less efficient mid-range jumpers.

I've felt for awhile that Stotts is a very creative offensive coach but limited defensively. His willingness to tweak the offense to suit the new personnel but not the defense just reinforces that perception. Having said that, I do agree with keeping a solid foundation to the defensive approach with so many young players.

In the short-term I wouldn't worry too much.

In any case, there's actually a strong case for focusing all these young guys on learning to play good, fundamental team defense. Once they get that down and they start to play as a unit, maybe you loosen the screws at that point?

 

[magnifier661]

The fact that Stotts thinks his P/R defense is a-okay tells you all you need to know...

The players that played it wouldn't commit to the PG. I think more able and willing young bucks can jump out more aggressively, which should make it more efficient

 

[magnifier661]

In the short-term I wouldn't worry too much.

In any case, there's actually a strong case for focusing all these young guys on learning to play good, fundamental team defense. Once they get that down and they start to play as a unit, maybe you loosen the screws at that point?

Agree wholeheartedly! Give them a team plan first, then let them do their magic. Trapping teams only get so far, plus you really need a major shot blocker to help recover. I don't know if we got one right now.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Agree wholeheartedly! Give them a team plan first, then let them do their magic. Trapping teams only get so far, plus you really need a major shot blocker to help recover. I don't know if we got one right now.

Davis seems to have the instincts, but more than want of a dominant shot-blocker our perimeter defense was the prime offender the last couple of years and it won't get better until/unless Damian improves considerably at that end.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think the Blazers should only play defense half the time and offense the other half. It's more balanced that way.

 

[handiman]

In the short-term I wouldn't worry too much.

For sure, but wouldn't you rather they develop a defensive identity while rebuilding toward the playoffs, rather than have to become a good defensive unit once we've established which players are keepers?

In any case, there's actually a strong case for focusing all these young guys on learning to play good, fundamental team defense. Once they get that down and they start to play as a unit, maybe you loosen the screws at that point?

Maybe, but can you think of any examples of teams following that path toward anything more than mediocre defense in the playoffs? I can only come up with teams that put a system in early and developed personnel to fit it.

I look at it like "playing to win" vs. "playing not to lose." The latter usually results in a loss.

 

[Nikolokolus]

@handiman I'm guessing you think we had more of a scheme deficiency the last couple of years vs. a personnel deficiency? (For simplicity's sake I'm restricting judgement to the Stott's era).

Lots of teams have been able to win with fairly conservative, fundamentally sound schemes. Ultimately it usually comes down to execution and the quality of your athletes. Assuming Olshey acquires the right guys lots of different schemes can work - Ultimately it's about Jimmies and Joes, not Xs and Os.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The opposite of sparkle is darkle.

 

[H.C.]

This is probably the most disappointing thing I've read this off season.

 

[blue32]

This is probably the most disappointing thing I've read this off season.

Yeah... IDK. Last year we were shit on the PnR, and switched like madmen. It burned us. We also had very little shot blocking/intimidating factor on the inside. Didn't steal the ball very much IIRC either.

 

[selloutking]

one thing to say

 

[blue9]

The players that played it wouldn't commit to the PG. I think more able and willing young bucks can jump out more aggressively, which should make it more efficient

The thing is, it's by Stotts' DESIGN that nobody jumps out to stop PG penetration off of a pick. It doesn't matter who is on the team - Stotts wants the defense to sag back, which gives PGs all the room in the world to operate off of picks.

 

[handiman]

@handiman I'm guessing you think we had more of a scheme deficiency the last couple of years vs. a personnel deficiency?

Yeah. We had some pretty good defenders in Matthews, Batum, and Lopez. And Aldridge is considered at least average. We were still pretty mediocre with that defensive core until filling out the bench last year with some vets who kept us from giving up big leads every time the starters sat. It's tough to separate the mid-season injuries from the defensive slide, but my feeling all along was that the defense was too predictable (and easy to dissect) to remain statistically viable throughout the season.

Lots of teams have been able to win with fairly conservative, fundamentally sound schemes.

I meant what examples of teams are there that started with conservative schemes for young players, then transformed the defense into something more effective for deep playoff runs? Today's NBA is dictated by ball dominating scorers, and our defense is designed around making it as easy as possible for them to operate in the mid-range game.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Batum was never that great defensively. He somehow got the rep for being some kind of dedicated wing-stopper, but the truth is he was never able to fulfill his promise at that end of the court.

If you don't believe me, that's not just my opinion, it comes straight from his "scounting report" tab at espn.com (whether or not you give any weight to their opinion is another matter).

The hope that Batum would develop into a stopper has long faded. Plus-minus stats, including ESPN's real plus-minus, have in fact painted Batum as a below-average defender. That feels a bit too harsh. He's proven most useful defensively against point guards, using his long arms to corral smaller opponents and block their vision. Batum was certainly active.

Secondly, Lopez was a plodder, a guy who can take up space and challenge shots, but certainly no defensive ace, mix in some really poor defense from Lillard on the perimeter and the picture it paints is a team with some pretty ho-hum defensive players (aside from Wesley who I thought was pretty good) with limited physicality and less than elite athleticism. If anything I think the scheme was deployed to maximize their chances of being effective and to Stott's and his assistants' credit they somehow cobbled together a team that took away higher value shots and forced teams into lower valued one. I'm anxious to see how it works with guys who are more athletic and more defensively inclined (Davis, Aminu, et al.). The biggest issue I see is youth, and inexperience working together as a unit.

 

[handiman]

I called Batum pretty good, not great. I absolutely agree that he was a disappointment overall defensively, but he was extremely versatile and should have been a major weapon in a trapping scheme. Not many people can cover the 1-2-3 and occasionally 4 positions that effectively.

Plodding isn't really a knock when it comes to defensive centers. Andrew Bogut was considered one of the best defenders in the league this year, and let's just say a footrace between him and Lopez would be pretty entertaining. When you look at the front line as a whole, with five rotation-quality "7-footers" and two very versatile wing defenders, it should have been a lockdown defensive unit with a good scheme. A good scheme can always hide one weak link (i.e. Lillard), like the Pistons with Rip Hamilton.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Batum was the single most overrated defender in the history of the NBA - Bill Walton

And Olshey said that Wes Matthews wasn't as good defensively as people thought.