Game Thread GAME# 44: BLAZERS @ NUGGETS - JANUARY 13, 2019 - SUNDAY, 5:00 PM, NBCSNW

[PtldPlatypus]

Of course it does. Thats what I'm saying. We win a couple we are headed to the finals, we lose a couple season over. This place never changes.

People point out a positive, they're "homers". People point out a negative, they're "haters". People have an opinion, they're extremists. This place never changes.

 

[THE HCP]

I think people are mad because we lost a winnable game.

As well they should be. They need to realize, that's the game. We had no right beating Golden State last time down there, but we did. It happens.

 

[kjironman1]

Of course it does. Thats what I'm saying. We win a couple we are headed to the finals, we lose a couple season over. This place never changes.

Even more so if we win 4 in a row "Now Stotts is doing what i said to do..." We lose one "Stotts is an idiot and can't coach". It's absolutely comical.

 

[blue9]

In case it wasn't clear my post was sarcastic and I didn't feel the need to make it green font.

That is an excuse I hear all the time. If so and so just makes a shot they normally hit, we win!

No no, it was clear! I'm just saying that those shots people say we "normally hit", we don't actually normally hit.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Of course it does. Thats what I'm saying. We win a couple we are headed to the finals, we lose a couple season over. This place never changes.

My thoughts on the ceiling and floor for the team (this year) havent changed really since the beginning. The only real thing I think has made me question that is Nurkic, I know last night was a bad game for him, but I think if he can be their consistant 2nd best player then maybe they got a very, very outside shot at the western conference finals.
Still think 2nd round is probabably the ceiling.

 

[tester551]

meh, I think they're about the same. Which says a lot about how crappy CJ has become.

CJ hasn't 'become' crappy. He's playing at the same level he has 3 of the 4 years he's been a starter. The second year as a starter (his MIP season) appears to be an aberration.

And just to be clear, CJ is a good player.... just not as 'great' as Olshey appears to believe him to be.

 

[Scalma]

CJ hasn't 'become' crappy. He's playing at the same level he has 3 of the 4 years he's been a starter. The second year as a starter (his MIP season) appears to be an aberration.

And just to be clear, CJ is a good player.... just not as 'great' as Olshey appears to believe him to be.

Yeah my frustrations have more to do with Olshey/Stotts than CJ himself. CJ is who he is. It’s hard to change that, and maybe we shouldn’t change that. If a guy isn’t a good passer, we shouldn’t try to force him into a playmaking role, as Stotts has done, or talked about him in the same sentence as Dame, like Olshey keeps doing. He’s not a star, stop trying to sell him to us as one.

 

[BonesJones]

Without even watching the game again i can come up with 4 right off the top of my head. By the way using a different player would be considered a different look. He has Nurk on him alone-1 He had Nurk and Aminu down low- 2 He had Nurk and Turner-3 He used CJ from the back side 4. I would also add the period he had Meyers in but that won't count in your mind. Then there was Aminu alone seeing if he could out quick Jokic- ooops that's 5 or is that 6? Wait a minute???? I have not even looked at film yet.

Then if you read my original post is said "as many as 6" seems like i low balled my estimate.

Different single covered defenders aren't different looks. And a defender too late in helping isnt a different look either. He's still one on one in the post.

 

[BonesJones]

Even more so if we win 4 in a row "Now Stotts is doing what i said to do..." We lose one "Stotts is an idiot and can't coach". It's absolutely comical.

So tired of you generalizing everything.

 

[BonesJones]

People point out a positive, they're "homers". People point out a negative, they're "haters". People have an opinion, they're extremists. This place never changes.

What are the people that do them all?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

What are the people that do them all?

"TrueBlazerFan"s!!

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

"TrueBlazerFan"s!!

TorturedBlazerFans?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

TorturedBlazerFans?

That too.

 

[JDC]

If the best defensive gameplan you can come up with is to force (allow) an elite player to score, then you shouldn't be a head coach.

If your scheme is to allow insanely wide open shots from 10-15 feet, you shouldn't be an NBA head coach.

The plan is not to allow wide open 10-15 footers. Preferably Dame, CJ and the other guards chase over or meet under for a quality contest. Some nights the effort isn't there and/or teams make shots and it looks bad. but every scheme is going to be forced to give up something.

Terry just opts to limit the double teams and to guard pnr's 2 v 2 to limit rotations/catch and shoot 3's/assisted shots at the rim. You might not agree with that strategy, but it's one that many NBA coaches use and have had success with.

But I do agree that his scheme doesn't quite hold up in the playoffs and he's too unwilling to deviate from those principles. I'll still contend though that personnel and match ups have played a major part in those struggles and I also don't think Terry is too stubborn to evolve.

It's just hard for me to rag on him too much when these Blazer teams the last few years have consistently improved on a lot of the things that lead to winning defensively.
- Giving up low value / limiting high value shots on D
- Defensive rebound
- Low foul rate

They're might be a better coach for this team, but I think it's far from a given. Still think this team has WCF type potential in a couple years when Zach will be closer to his prime and we are in better position financially/contractually to make improvements to the roster.

And at that point, I'm much more worried about Neil's ability to make the right moves to take us to the next level, than if Terry is the right guy to lead us there.

 

[BonesJones]

The plan is not to allow wide open 10-15 footers. Preferably Dame, CJ and the other guards chase over or meet under for a quality contest. Some nights the effort isn't there and/or teams make shots and it looks bad. but every scheme is going to be forced to give up something.

Terry just opts to limit the double teams and to guard pnr's 2 v 2 to limit rotations/catch and shoot 3's/assisted shots at the rim. You might not agree with that strategy, but it's one that many NBA coaches use and have had success with.

But I do agree that his scheme doesn't quite hold up in the playoffs and he's too unwilling to deviate from those principles. I'll still contend though that personnel and match ups have played a major part in those struggles and I also don't think Terry is too stubborn to evolve.

It's just hard for me to rag on him too much when these Blazer teams the last few years have consistently improved on a lot of the things that lead to winning defensively.
- Giving up low value / limiting high value shots on D
- Defensive rebound
- Low foul rate

They're might be a better coach for this team, but I think it's far from a given. Still think this team has WCF type potential in a couple years when Zach will be closer to his prime and we are in better position financially/contractually to make improvements to the roster.

And at that point, I'm much more worried about Neil's ability to make the right moves to take us to the next level, than if Terry is the right guy to lead us there.

When a good guard goes around a screen well, it's VERY hard to get a good contest on that shot. When it doesn't work, Stotts should switch up his pick n roll coverage. Like you said, he can't adjust and doesn't have any versatility in his defensive scheme, so sometimes our scheme is literally allowing wide open mid-range shot after wide open mid-range shot (remember Beno Udrih?). Yet, he sticks with it, and his reaction coaching-wise is essentially: "Dang, they're getting wide open 10-15 footers, nothing we can do", so he basically allows them to get those shots instead of switching up coverages. I get limiting double teams but there's times where you have to double and he waits too long to do so. Also, the only way guarding Jokic with Aminu makes sense is if you're going to throw a double team at him. Otherwise, Jokic eats down-low.

I understand the reasoning for his scheme, and sometimes it works (just like any other scheme would)… But when teams take-advantage of it and get what they want and he doesn't adjust at all, then he's essentially allowing them to get what they want.

Terry isn't too stubborn to evolve? He hasn't shown any sort of defensive versatility in his schemes in his 7 years here. He hedged for a bit and did nothing else. Now he ices the pick n roll. He's never been a guy to throw doubles or traps at a team. I don't think he ever will evolve in that regard.

I don't think this team is built for post-season success because the post-season is a game of coaching adjustments and playing your matchups, which (which you somewhat agree with?) Stotts is terrible at. Matchups are an excuse. A good coach is able to minimize and adjust the other teams matchup advantages and is able to maximize his own matchup advantages. Last year, Stotts literally maximized the other teams matchup advantages, and then you have people saying "they were a bad matchup, it's not Terry's fault"....

But this is how you discuss coaching with me. Discussing basketball. I respect it. I hate all the generalizing and generic arguments that most Stotts defenders give me.

 

[BonesJones]

"TrueBlazerFan"s!!

Yessir!

 

[JDC]

When a good guard goes around a screen well, it's VERY hard to get a good contest on that shot. When it doesn't work, Stotts should switch up his pick n roll coverage. Like you said, he can't adjust and doesn't have any versatility in his defensive scheme, so sometimes our scheme is literally allowing wide open mid-range shot after wide open mid-range shot (remember Beno Udrih?). Yet, he sticks with it, and his reaction coaching-wise is essentially: "Dang, they're getting wide open 10-15 footers, nothing we can do", so he basically allows them to get those shots instead of switching up coverages. I get limiting double teams but there's times where you have to double and he waits too long to do so. Also, the only way guarding Jokic with Aminu makes sense is if you're going to throw a double team at him. Otherwise, Jokic eats down-low.

I understand the reasoning for his scheme, and sometimes it works (just like any other scheme would)… But when teams take-advantage of it and get what they want and he doesn't adjust at all, then he's essentially allowing them to get what they want.

Terry isn't too stubborn to evolve? He hasn't shown any sort of defensive versatility in his schemes in his 7 years here. He hedged for a bit and did nothing else. Now he ices the pick n roll. He's never been a guy to throw doubles or traps at a team. I don't think he ever will evolve in that regard.

I don't think this team is built for post-season success because the post-season is a game of coaching adjustments and playing your matchups, which (which you somewhat agree with?) Stotts is terrible at. Matchups are an excuse. A good coach is able to minimize and adjust the other teams matchup advantages and is able to maximize his own matchup advantages. Last year, Stotts literally maximized the other teams matchup advantages, and then you have people saying "they were a bad matchup, it's not Terry's fault"....

But this is how you discuss coaching with me. Discussing basketball. I respect it. I hate all the generalizing and generic arguments that most Stotts defenders give me.

Some things in here I disagree with, specifically on when and why a coach should adjust his scheme. It's a question that is a lot more difficult to answer than most would think and one that all coaches struggle with. There's no guarantee that a scheme change is going to lead to a better result or be better executed (it's actually more likely that it won't be), regardless of how obvious the adjustment might seem on the surface. Especially if it's something that isn't practiced.

Budenholzer shares a lot of the same philosophies and has had the same questions surrounding him as far as whether or not he's smart/flexible enough as a coach to translate his regular season success into playoff wins.

 

[hoopsjock]

Some things in here I disagree with, specifically on when and why a coach should adjust his scheme. It's a question that is a lot more difficult to answer than most would think and one that all coaches struggle with. There's no guarantee that a scheme change is going to lead to a better result or be better executed (it's actually more likely that it won't be), regardless of how obvious the adjustment might seem on the surface. Especially if it's something that isn't practiced.

Budenholzer shares a lot of the same philosophies and has had the same questions surrounding him as far as whether or not he's smart/flexible enough as a coach to translate his regular season success into playoff wins.

In my opinion, having the same pick and roll philosophy regardless of the competition is really bad. It also allows the team you are playing against to easily prepare their gameplan. That is why it doesn't work in the playoffs when teams have lots of time to figure it out. It would be okay to have a base PnR philosophy but I strongly believe in throwing wrenches into it every game.

That is why blitzing the pick worked so well against Harden in that one game last year. He was completely caught off guard and wasn't expecting it because we had never played him like that. At the very least every every so often throw a hard hedge or trap or whatever. I just don't like doing the same thing every time within the same game. For Dirk's whole career we switch immediately when he sets a screen up top and he gets a guard switched onto him and he posts up at the free throw line and just shoots over him.

 

[BonesJones]

In my opinion, having the same pick and roll philosophy regardless of the competition is really bad. It also allows the team you are playing against to easily prepare their gameplan. That is why it doesn't work in the playoffs when teams have lots of time to figure it out. It would be okay to have a base PnR philosophy but I strongly believe in throwing wrenches into it every game.

That is why blitzing the pick worked so well against Harden in that one game last year. He was completely caught off guard and wasn't expecting it because we had never played him like that. At the very least every every so often throw a hard hedge or trap or whatever. I just don't like doing the same thing every time within the same game. For Dirk's whole career we switch immediately when he sets a screen up top and he gets a guard switched onto him and he posts up at the free throw line and just shoots over him.

Exactly. If teams know they're going to get the same look on every pick n roll, they're going to get comfortable, things are going to be repetitive, so making the right reads will become increasingly easier. Also, different personnel in the pick n roll on both sides of the ball call for difference in coverages to maximize the defenses strengths and minimize the offenses strengths

There's no guarantee that a scheme change is going to lead to a better result or be better executed (it's actually more likely that it won't be), regardless of how obvious the adjustment might seem on the surface. Especially if it's something that isn't practiced.

Of course there's no guarantee, nothing is guaranteed. But certain coverages increase the likelihood of success depending on certain situations. And if the current coverage is getting killed, then you should be able to switch things up. Keeping teams off-balance with different looks thrown in here and there will also greatly increase the likelihood of success for a base scheme. The team should practice all types of coverage to be ready to switch if the situation calls for it.
.

 

[kjironman1]

Different single covered defenders aren't different looks. And a defender too late in helping isnt a different look either. He's still one on one in the post.

Really?
Your really gonna run with that huh?
You realize that comment is going to come back to haunt you right?

 

[BonesJones]

Really?
Your really gonna run with that huh?
You realize that comment is going to come back to haunt you right?

That comment is gonna a haunt me? Hahahahahahahahaha get outta here