How Evan Turner can open up the Portland Trail Blazers' offense

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
The Blazers ran the fewest post ups of any team in NBA history last season.
 
To all the morons in the national media who said Turner is a poor fit with the Blazers because he's not a great 3-point shooter:

""Catch and shoot and getting quality looks is really important for every team in the league," Stotts said. "So if we can get Dame and CJ a few more looks like that I think it makes it easier for us."

Lillard shot 41.6 percent on catch and shoot three-pointers last season compared to 34 percent on pull-up attempts while McCollum shot 43.9 percent on catch and shoot threes and 39.2 percent when pulling up off the dribble from deep.

With shooting threats spotted up on the perimeter, Turner will get more room to operate off the dribble where he's most comfortable."

This is pretty much what most posters have been saying here since the Turner signing was announced. Getting Dame and C.J. more catch and shoot opportunities will improve their efficiency. while having them spacing the floor will make it easier for Turner to do what he does best. How is that not a great fit? It maximizes all three players' strengths.

BNM
 
BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94 said:
I wonder if the whole NBA ran the fewest posts ups ever as a league last season.
Click to expand...

It would not surprise me one bit. The death of the traditional low post center has been happening for a decade and the number of 3-pointers attempted and made has been on the rise. The game has changed and the Blazers have built a roster to match these changes.

And, notice that they specifically mentioned post ups not points in the paint. Points in the paint are still high percentage points and therefore still important. The difference is in today's game, it more likely the guards and small forwards penetrating and scoring in the paint. All the more reason Evan Turner is a good fit and why keeping Meyers Leonard made sense.

Both Turner and C.J. have good midrange games and can score at a high percentage off pull up jumpers in the paint. Turner is also good at finishing in traffic around the rim and Dame has been working on that, too.

We'll likely run even fewer post ups this year than last, but I also expect our points in the pain to actually increase with the addition of Turner and having Meyers back to help spread the floor to create open lanes for Dame, C.J., Turner and Harkless to attack the basket more and with greater success.

It's all about roster synergy, and Neil and Terry know what they are doing. They built the roster the way they did because they understand what's important to winning in today's NBA. Post ups, not so much.

BNM
 
Last edited:
Stotts is the king of misdirection. Zach Lowe has noted how we have the most off ball movement in the league, where guys just move around without actually even having hope of getting the ball. Now if we have CJ running around and drawing defenses on the weak side with his action, it leaves so much room for ET to create for Dame on the strong side. If we had Nate at the helm running this team, I'd have no hope, but Stotts has shown that he is far more imaginative than any coach we've had since Adelman. This can work.

In time.

I expect some hiccups in the first few months.
 
yuyuza1 said:
If we had Nate at the helm running this team, I'd have no hope...
Click to expand...

I think you misspelled ruining...

I'm curious to see what happens with Nate in Indy this season. If he runs his same old, boring, predicable, iso heavy, grind it out system, they might actually do OK during the regular season. They have guys who are capable to scoring on isos in Paul George and Monte Ellis, and the ridiculously slow pace will limit opponents scoring opportunities. Nate was already a dinosaur five years ago when he last stuck Nic in the corner and ran non-stop Roy isos. It will be interesting to see if he's able to adapt to the new NBA, or will just fall into old, familiar patterns.

Regardless how Indy does in the regular season, I expect them to underachieve in the playoffs - the trademark of an inflexible, unimaginative coach who can't make adjustments.

BNM
 
Will be interesting to see if Nate has adapted...given his years with Team USA I'd think he'd pick up a trick or two...it's been a long stretch since Blazer Nate ball now..I think Indy is probably a perfect fit for him given the culture there.
 
Boob-No-More said:
I think you misspelled ruining...

I'm curious to see what happens with Nate in Indy this season. If he runs his same old, boring, predicable, iso heavy, grind it out system, they might actually do OK during the regular season. They have guys who are capable to scoring on isos in Paul George and Monte Ellis, and the ridiculously slow pace will limit opponents scoring opportunities.
Click to expand...
Forgot the guy who will be his biggest crutch... Big Al Jefferson.
 
yuyuza1 said:
Forgot the guy who will be his biggest crutch... Big Al Jefferson.
Click to expand...

Only if both George and Ellis are injured. Nate has never been able to devise an offense that involves more than two players at a time.

He is also the same coach that told reporters after Greg Oden led the team in scoring during the preseason before his rookie year that he wouldn't be calling any plays for Greg. It was not his job to score, he needed to focus on defense and rebounding.

And, also the same coach that in the final five games against PHO refused to call one single post up for Nic Batum while he was being guarded by Steve Nash.

So, he'll probably tell Big Al to focus on defense and rebounding and leave the scoring to others - unless those others get hurt.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
To all the morons in the national media who said Turner is a poor fit with the Blazers because he's not a great 3-point shooter:

""Catch and shoot and getting quality looks is really important for every team in the league," Stotts said. "So if we can get Dame and CJ a few more looks like that I think it makes it easier for us."

Lillard shot 41.6 percent on catch and shoot three-pointers last season compared to 34 percent on pull-up attempts while McCollum shot 43.9 percent on catch and shoot threes and 39.2 percent when pulling up off the dribble from deep.

With shooting threats spotted up on the perimeter, Turner will get more room to operate off the dribble where he's most comfortable."

This is pretty much what most posters have been saying here since the Turner signing was announced. Getting Dame and C.J. more catch and shoot opportunities will improve their efficiency. while having them spacing the floor will make it easier for Turner to do what he does best. How is that not a great fit? It maximizes all three players' strengths.

BNM
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
BBert said:
Yep.
Click to expand...

The cluelessness of the national media is downright stunning at times. I just went back over a few of the offseason grade articles, and am appropriately stunned by the overwhelming negativity with regard to the Evan Turner signing. I'm seeing grades like F+ and D+ and articles calling it the worst move by the Blazers and maybe even the worst off season move in the entire league. All because Evan Turner only shot .241 3FG% last season.

Hello national media, you missed the fucking point. We already have three guards who all shoot the 3 well in Damian Lillard, C.J. McCollum and Allen Crabbe. We don't need a 4th. That would be redundant. Understand? We don't need more of what we already have. Understand? We need someone to help those three guys get more wide open catch and shoot opportunities. Do you understand what this even means?

Lillard, McCollum and Crabbe, and pretty much every other shooter in the league, knocks down a much higher percentage of their 3-pointers in catch and shoot situations than they do off the dribble. That's a fact that's easily proven thanks to today's advanced stat reporting.

If you've been paying any attention at all the last two years, you may have heard of a guy named Steph Curry. He's been winning MVP awards and setting 3-point shooting records. Curry has always been an excellent shooter, but over the last two seasons, he's taken his shooting to an unprecedented level. How did this happen, you ask (again why were't you paying attention, it's your job - supposedly)?

Three seasons ago, under Marc Jackson, Steph Curry was a traditional NBA point guard with a good outside shot. He was his team's best scorer, but also their primary ball handler and distributor. That's a lot of work for one player. He had a nice little season, but nowhere near MVP level. The Warriors won 51 games and got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs. As the primary ballhandler, Curry handed out 35% of his teams total assists. He had 666 assists and no one else had more than 263.

Enter Steve Kerr and Steph Curry playing off the ball. Kerr realized two things that Jackson did not. First, all that work was wearing Curry down, Second, Curry, like most everyone else, shoots a significantly higher percentage off catch and shoot situation with his feet set, than he does pulling up off the dribble. I'm not saying Curry is a bad shooter off the dribble. He's not, but he's far better off the catch than he is off the bounce. So are Damian Lillard, C.J. McColuum and Allen Crabbe.

Comparing Curry's last season under Jackson to his second season under Kerr, the differences are astounding. Curry went from borderline all star to unanimous MVP. His assists went down from 666 to 527. He was second on the team in assists and was now only responsible for 22% of his team's total assists. His 2FG% jumped from .509 to .566 and his 3FG% increased from .424 to .454. Before you think those numbers aren't that impressive, consider this, Curry scored over 500 points more (2375 vs. 1873) last year than he did in 2013-14, while playing 146 fewer minutes. His made 3-pointers jumped from 261 to 402. He led the league in scoring while playing less than 32 MPG. He also led the league in TS% and PER for the first time. His points/36 jumped by a full 8.0 from 23.7 to 31.7. That's a huge leap in scoring and efficiency for a guy who was already considered one of the best shooters in the league.

And, this all came about because Steve Kerr started playing Steph Curry off the ball more. The Warriors added Shaun Livingston to their back court and started using Draymond Green as a ballhandler to free up Steph Curry to play off the ball much more.

Newsflash: Evan Turner is a younger, better defending Shaun Livingston. Their advanced stats for last season are almost identical. Like Livingston, Turner is 6'7" and can guard bigger players. He has a good midrange game, but most of all, when Livingston is in the game Curry plays off the ball nearly 100% of the time. Please note: Shaun Livingston is a worse 3-point shooter than Evan Turner. He made a total of TWO 3-pointers last season while shooting .167 from 3-point range.

Yet, I have not read a single article in the national media telling us what a horrible fit Shaun Livingston is in the GSW system because he's a poor 3-point shooter that can't spread the floor. In terms of 3-point shooting Livinston is the anti-Splash Bro. Yet, he's been a GREAT fit in GSW who has helped Curry and Thompson elevate their games. Imagine that.

So, national media pundits, please explain to me why Shaun Livingston works so well in GSW's 3-point heavy system, yet Evan Turner is such a horrible fit in POR's similar system.

Livingston is proof that not every player on your roster needs to be a lights out 3-point shooter to benefit your team's overall 3-point shooting. I'm sure the detractors will point out that Turner will make 3x as much as Livingston this season, to which I counter that Turner is over 3 years younger, more durable, capable of playing many more minutes and guarding 3 positions. Livingston was picked up off the scrap heap as a player with a horrible injury history who was considered past his prime. He ended up being a great fit and a great bargain for GSW. Turner is in the heart of his prime without a similar injury history. He's not the bargain Livingston was, but that doesn't change the fact he will be, like Livinston in GSW, and great fit in POR that will help his teammates improve their scoring efficiency while also improving team defense, something Livingston doesn't really do.

Bad fit my ass. Turner is a great fit. I feel like I'm rapidly becoming a grumpy old man, but I can't stand these lazy national writers who overlook the obvious. And, it's not just Livingston in GSW. It was also Kemba Walker having a breakout season last year as the addition of Nicolas Batum at the SG position allowed Walker to play off the ball for the first time in his career. Advanced stats tracking is opening eyes and changing the way the game is played. If your best shooters shoot even better on catch and shoot situations, isn't the obvious solution to get them even more catch and shoot opportunities? It would seem so, yet that obvious conclusion is totally missed by the national media who have routinely panned the Turner signing.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
The cluelessness of the national media is downright stunning at times. I just went back over a few of the offseason grade articles, and am appropriately stunned by the overwhelming negativity with regard to the Evan Turner signing. I'm seeing grades like F+ and D+ and articles calling it the worst move by the Blazers and maybe even the worst off season move in the entire league. All because Evan Turner only shot .241 3FG% last season.

Hello national media, you missed the fucking point. We already have three guards who all shoot the 3 well in Damian Lillard, C.J. McCollum and Allen Crabbe. We don't need a 4th. That would be redundant. Understand? We don't need more of what we already have. Understand? We need someone to help those three guys get more wide open catch and shoot opportunities. Do you understand what this even means?

Lillard, McCollum and Crabbe, and pretty much every other shooter in the league, knocks down a much higher percentage of their 3-pointers in catch and shoot situations than they do off the dribble. That's a fact that's easily proven thanks to today's advanced stat reporting.

If you've been paying any attention at all the last two years, you may have heard of a guy named Steph Curry. He's been winning MVP awards and setting 3-point shooting records. Curry has always been an excellent shooter, but over the last two seasons, he's taken his shooting to an unprecedented level. How did this happen, you ask (again why were't you paying attention, it's your job - supposedly)?

Three seasons ago, under Marc Jackson, Steph Curry was a traditional NBA point guard with a good outside shot. He was his team's best scorer, but also their primary ball handler and distributor. That's a lot of work for one player. He had a nice little season, but nowhere near MVP level. The Warriors won 51 games and got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs. As the primary ballhandler, Curry handed out 35% of his teams total assists. He had 666 assists and no one else had more than 263.

Enter Steve Kerr and Steph Curry playing off the ball. Kerr realized two things that Jackson did not. First, all that work was wearing Curry down, Second, Curry, like most everyone else, shoots a significantly higher percentage off catch and shoot situation with his feet set, than he does pulling up off the dribble. I'm not saying Curry is a bad shooter off the dribble. He's not, but he's far better off the catch than he is off the bounce. So are Damian Lillard, C.J. McColuum and Allen Crabbe.

Comparing Curry's last season under Jackson to his second season under Kerr, the differences are astounding. Curry went from borderline all star to unanimous MVP. His assists went down from 666 to 527. He was second on the team in assists and was now only responsible for 22% of his team's total assists. His 2FG% jumped from .509 to .566 and his 3FG% increased from .424 to .454. Before you think those numbers aren't that impressive, consider this, Curry scored over 500 points more (2375 vs. 1873) last year than he did in 2013-14, while playing 146 fewer minutes. His made 3-pointers jumped from 261 to 402. He led the league in scoring while playing less than 32 MPG. He also led the league in TS% and PER for the first time. His points/36 jumped by a full 8.0 from 23.7 to 31.7. That's a huge leap in scoring and efficiency for a guy who was already considered one of the best shooters in the league.

And, this all came about because Steve Kerr started playing Steph Curry off the ball more. The Warriors added Shaun Livingston to their back court and started using Draymond Green as a ballhandler to free up Steph Curry to play off the ball much more.

Newsflash: Evan Turner is a younger, better defending Shaun Livingston. Their advanced stats for last season are almost identical. Like Livingston, Turner is 6'7" and can guard bigger players. He has a good midrange game, but most of all, when Livingston is in the game Curry plays off the ball nearly 100% of the time. Please note: Shaun Livingston is a worse 3-point shooter than Evan Turner. He made a total of TWO 3-pointers last season while shooting .167 from 3-point range.

Yet, I have not read a single article in the national media telling us what a horrible fit Shaun Livingston is in the GSW system because he's a poor 3-point shooter that can't spread the floor. In terms of 3-point shooting Livinston is the anti-Splash Bro. Yet, he's been a GREAT fit in GSW who has helped Curry and Thompson elevate their games. Imagine that.

So, national media pundits, please explain to me why Shaun Livingston works so well in GSW's 3-point heavy system, yet Evan Turner is such a horrible fit in POR's similar system.

Livingston is proof that not every player on your roster needs to be a lights out 3-point shooter to benefit your team's overall 3-point shooting. I'm sure the detractors will point out that Turner will make 3x as much as Livingston this season, to which I counter that Turner is over 3 years younger, more durable, capable of playing many more minutes and guarding 3 positions. Livingston was picked up off the scrap heap as a player with a horrible injury history who was considered past his prime. He ended up being a great fit and a great bargain for GSW. Turner is in the heart of his prime without a similar injury history. He's not the bargain Livingston was, but that doesn't change the fact he will be, like Livinston in GSW, and great fit in POR that will help his teammates improve their scoring efficiency while also improving team defense, something Livingston doesn't really do.

Bad fit my ass. Turner is a great fit. I feel like I'm rapidly becoming a grumpy old man, but I can't stand these lazy national writers who overlook the obvious. And, it's not just Livingston in GSW. It was also Kemba Walker having a breakout season last year as the addition of Nicolas Batum at the SG position allowed Walker to play off the ball for the first time in his career. Advanced stats tracking is opening eyes and changing the way the game is played. If your best shooters shoot even better on catch and shoot situations, isn't the obvious solution to get them even more catch and shoot opportunities? It would seem so, yet that obvious conclusion is totally missed by the national media who have routinely panned the Turner signing.

BNM
Click to expand...

For the tl:dr short attention span crowd:

Fuck the clueless national media. Evan Turner will be a GREAT fit in Portland.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
The cluelessness of the national media is downright stunning at times. I just went back over a few of the offseason grade articles, and am appropriately stunned by the overwhelming negativity with regard to the Evan Turner signing. I'm seeing grades like F+ and D+ and articles calling it the worst move by the Blazers and maybe even the worst off season move in the entire league. All because Evan Turner only shot .241 3FG% last season.

Hello national media, you missed the fucking point. We already have three guards who all shoot the 3 well in Damian Lillard, C.J. McCollum and Allen Crabbe. We don't need a 4th. That would be redundant. Understand? We don't need more of what we already have. Understand? We need someone to help those three guys get more wide open catch and shoot opportunities. Do you understand what this even means?

Lillard, McCollum and Crabbe, and pretty much every other shooter in the league, knocks down a much higher percentage of their 3-pointers in catch and shoot situations than they do off the dribble. That's a fact that's easily proven thanks to today's advanced stat reporting.

If you've been paying any attention at all the last two years, you may have heard of a guy named Steph Curry. He's been winning MVP awards and setting 3-point shooting records. Curry has always been an excellent shooter, but over the last two seasons, he's taken his shooting to an unprecedented level. How did this happen, you ask (again why were't you paying attention, it's your job - supposedly)?

Three seasons ago, under Marc Jackson, Steph Curry was a traditional NBA point guard with a good outside shot. He was his team's best scorer, but also their primary ball handler and distributor. That's a lot of work for one player. He had a nice little season, but nowhere near MVP level. The Warriors won 51 games and got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs. As the primary ballhandler, Curry handed out 35% of his teams total assists. He had 666 assists and no one else had more than 263.

Enter Steve Kerr and Steph Curry playing off the ball. Kerr realized two things that Jackson did not. First, all that work was wearing Curry down, Second, Curry, like most everyone else, shoots a significantly higher percentage off catch and shoot situation with his feet set, than he does pulling up off the dribble. I'm not saying Curry is a bad shooter off the dribble. He's not, but he's far better off the catch than he is off the bounce. So are Damian Lillard, C.J. McColuum and Allen Crabbe.

Comparing Curry's last season under Jackson to his second season under Kerr, the differences are astounding. Curry went from borderline all star to unanimous MVP. His assists went down from 666 to 527. He was second on the team in assists and was now only responsible for 22% of his team's total assists. His 2FG% jumped from .509 to .566 and his 3FG% increased from .424 to .454. Before you think those numbers aren't that impressive, consider this, Curry scored over 500 points more (2375 vs. 1873) last year than he did in 2013-14, while playing 146 fewer minutes. His made 3-pointers jumped from 261 to 402. He led the league in scoring while playing less than 32 MPG. He also led the league in TS% and PER for the first time. His points/36 jumped by a full 8.0 from 23.7 to 31.7. That's a huge leap in scoring and efficiency for a guy who was already considered one of the best shooters in the league.

And, this all came about because Steve Kerr started playing Steph Curry off the ball more. The Warriors added Shaun Livingston to their back court and started using Draymond Green as a ballhandler to free up Steph Curry to play off the ball much more.

Newsflash: Evan Turner is a younger, better defending Shaun Livingston. Their advanced stats for last season are almost identical. Like Livingston, Turner is 6'7" and can guard bigger players. He has a good midrange game, but most of all, when Livingston is in the game Curry plays off the ball nearly 100% of the time. Please note: Shaun Livingston is a worse 3-point shooter than Evan Turner. He made a total of TWO 3-pointers last season while shooting .167 from 3-point range.

Yet, I have not read a single article in the national media telling us what a horrible fit Shaun Livingston is in the GSW system because he's a poor 3-point shooter that can't spread the floor. In terms of 3-point shooting Livinston is the anti-Splash Bro. Yet, he's been a GREAT fit in GSW who has helped Curry and Thompson elevate their games. Imagine that.

So, national media pundits, please explain to me why Shaun Livingston works so well in GSW's 3-point heavy system, yet Evan Turner is such a horrible fit in POR's similar system.

Livingston is proof that not every player on your roster needs to be a lights out 3-point shooter to benefit your team's overall 3-point shooting. I'm sure the detractors will point out that Turner will make 3x as much as Livingston this season, to which I counter that Turner is over 3 years younger, more durable, capable of playing many more minutes and guarding 3 positions. Livingston was picked up off the scrap heap as a player with a horrible injury history who was considered past his prime. He ended up being a great fit and a great bargain for GSW. Turner is in the heart of his prime without a similar injury history. He's not the bargain Livingston was, but that doesn't change the fact he will be, like Livinston in GSW, and great fit in POR that will help his teammates improve their scoring efficiency while also improving team defense, something Livingston doesn't really do.

Bad fit my ass. Turner is a great fit. I feel like I'm rapidly becoming a grumpy old man, but I can't stand these lazy national writers who overlook the obvious. And, it's not just Livingston in GSW. It was also Kemba Walker having a breakout season last year as the addition of Nicolas Batum at the SG position allowed Walker to play off the ball for the first time in his career. Advanced stats tracking is opening eyes and changing the way the game is played. If your best shooters shoot even better on catch and shoot situations, isn't the obvious solution to get them even more catch and shoot opportunities? It would seem so, yet that obvious conclusion is totally missed by the national media who have routinely panned the Turner signing.

BNM
Click to expand...

Post of the month.
 
Boob-No-More said:
The cluelessness of the national media is downright stunning at times. I just went back over a few of the offseason grade articles, and am appropriately stunned by the overwhelming negativity with regard to the Evan Turner signing. I'm seeing grades like F+ and D+ and articles calling it the worst move by the Blazers and maybe even the worst off season move in the entire league. All because Evan Turner only shot .241 3FG% last season.

Hello national media, you missed the fucking point. We already have three guards who all shoot the 3 well in Damian Lillard, C.J. McCollum and Allen Crabbe. We don't need a 4th. That would be redundant. Understand? We don't need more of what we already have. Understand? We need someone to help those three guys get more wide open catch and shoot opportunities. Do you understand what this even means?

Lillard, McCollum and Crabbe, and pretty much every other shooter in the league, knocks down a much higher percentage of their 3-pointers in catch and shoot situations than they do off the dribble. That's a fact that's easily proven thanks to today's advanced stat reporting.

If you've been paying any attention at all the last two years, you may have heard of a guy named Steph Curry. He's been winning MVP awards and setting 3-point shooting records. Curry has always been an excellent shooter, but over the last two seasons, he's taken his shooting to an unprecedented level. How did this happen, you ask (again why were't you paying attention, it's your job - supposedly)?

Three seasons ago, under Marc Jackson, Steph Curry was a traditional NBA point guard with a good outside shot. He was his team's best scorer, but also their primary ball handler and distributor. That's a lot of work for one player. He had a nice little season, but nowhere near MVP level. The Warriors won 51 games and got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs. As the primary ballhandler, Curry handed out 35% of his teams total assists. He had 666 assists and no one else had more than 263.

Enter Steve Kerr and Steph Curry playing off the ball. Kerr realized two things that Jackson did not. First, all that work was wearing Curry down, Second, Curry, like most everyone else, shoots a significantly higher percentage off catch and shoot situation with his feet set, than he does pulling up off the dribble. I'm not saying Curry is a bad shooter off the dribble. He's not, but he's far better off the catch than he is off the bounce. So are Damian Lillard, C.J. McColuum and Allen Crabbe.

Comparing Curry's last season under Jackson to his second season under Kerr, the differences are astounding. Curry went from borderline all star to unanimous MVP. His assists went down from 666 to 527. He was second on the team in assists and was now only responsible for 22% of his team's total assists. His 2FG% jumped from .509 to .566 and his 3FG% increased from .424 to .454. Before you think those numbers aren't that impressive, consider this, Curry scored over 500 points more (2375 vs. 1873) last year than he did in 2013-14, while playing 146 fewer minutes. His made 3-pointers jumped from 261 to 402. He led the league in scoring while playing less than 32 MPG. He also led the league in TS% and PER for the first time. His points/36 jumped by a full 8.0 from 23.7 to 31.7. That's a huge leap in scoring and efficiency for a guy who was already considered one of the best shooters in the league.

And, this all came about because Steve Kerr started playing Steph Curry off the ball more. The Warriors added Shaun Livingston to their back court and started using Draymond Green as a ballhandler to free up Steph Curry to play off the ball much more.

Newsflash: Evan Turner is a younger, better defending Shaun Livingston. Their advanced stats for last season are almost identical. Like Livingston, Turner is 6'7" and can guard bigger players. He has a good midrange game, but most of all, when Livingston is in the game Curry plays off the ball nearly 100% of the time. Please note: Shaun Livingston is a worse 3-point shooter than Evan Turner. He made a total of TWO 3-pointers last season while shooting .167 from 3-point range.

Yet, I have not read a single article in the national media telling us what a horrible fit Shaun Livingston is in the GSW system because he's a poor 3-point shooter that can't spread the floor. In terms of 3-point shooting Livinston is the anti-Splash Bro. Yet, he's been a GREAT fit in GSW who has helped Curry and Thompson elevate their games. Imagine that.

So, national media pundits, please explain to me why Shaun Livingston works so well in GSW's 3-point heavy system, yet Evan Turner is such a horrible fit in POR's similar system.

Livingston is proof that not every player on your roster needs to be a lights out 3-point shooter to benefit your team's overall 3-point shooting. I'm sure the detractors will point out that Turner will make 3x as much as Livingston this season, to which I counter that Turner is over 3 years younger, more durable, capable of playing many more minutes and guarding 3 positions. Livingston was picked up off the scrap heap as a player with a horrible injury history who was considered past his prime. He ended up being a great fit and a great bargain for GSW. Turner is in the heart of his prime without a similar injury history. He's not the bargain Livingston was, but that doesn't change the fact he will be, like Livinston in GSW, and great fit in POR that will help his teammates improve their scoring efficiency while also improving team defense, something Livingston doesn't really do.

Bad fit my ass. Turner is a great fit. I feel like I'm rapidly becoming a grumpy old man, but I can't stand these lazy national writers who overlook the obvious. And, it's not just Livingston in GSW. It was also Kemba Walker having a breakout season last year as the addition of Nicolas Batum at the SG position allowed Walker to play off the ball for the first time in his career. Advanced stats tracking is opening eyes and changing the way the game is played. If your best shooters shoot even better on catch and shoot situations, isn't the obvious solution to get them even more catch and shoot opportunities? It would seem so, yet that obvious conclusion is totally missed by the national media who have routinely panned the Turner signing.

BNM
Click to expand...
Mic drop. This needs to be sent to every national writer who makes draft grades and preseason previews. In fact I will use this to further explain and back up the ET signing to all my uneducated friends who have been arguing Evan turners value to this team.
 
Nhawz said:
Mic drop. This needs to be sent to every national writer who makes draft grades and preseason previews. In fact I will use this to further explain and back up the ET signing to all my uneducated friends who have been arguing Evan turners value to this team.
Click to expand...

The shear lassitude of the national media on the Turner signing is what I find most aggravating.

Last off season Neil Olshey replaced 4 starters with relatively unknown players, three of who were cast offs by their previous teams. Terry Stotts figured out how to make it all work - how to optimize those players' talents while covering for their weaknesses.

The result was an unexpectedly successful season that took nearly everyone in the national media by complete surprise. As a result Olshey and Stotts came in second in Executive of the Year and Coach of the Year voting.

I sort of get how the national media underestimated Olshey, Stotts and the team last year. What I don't get is how they can be similarly surprised two years in a row. Do they consider the success these two men and this team had last year purely a fluke?

It would seem so. Their analysis of the Turner signing starts and ends with the fact he is not a good 3-point shooter. It's like they think Neil and Terry are complete morons. I wasn't in the room, but I'm pretty sure, that at no point, did Terry turn to Neil and say, "you know what this team really needs is an overpaid guard who cant shot the 3".

So, there must have been some other reason the guys who came in second in EOY and COY decided to target Evan Turner. Sure, we missed out on Whiteside and Chandler Parsons. So, did a lot of other teams, but there were still a LOT of other free agents available when we signed Evan Turner. An inquisitive journalist would have asked, "Why did Olshey and Stotts target Evan Turner? What does he give them that they don't already have?"

Yet, I didn't see anyone in the national media ask, and attempt to answer, those questions. That's just plain lazy, and assuming Turner is a poor fit in Stotts' system because he's not a great 3-point shooter completely overlooks Turner's strengths, and how Terry Stotts can incorporate those strengths to make the team better as a whole. Basketball is still a team sport and this team proved last year that the sum can be greater than the whole of the parts. It's not about how good Evan Turner is individually. It's about how he can, and will, make this team better. The national media totally missed out on that.

BNM
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Here's another Evan Turner article.
Click to expand...

"Turner came to Portland essentially to become its version of Shaun Livingston. "

I swear to god, I did not see this article until AFTER I made my Shaun Livingston comparison!

It's a good article and not simply because the author agrees with me. It's a good article because he did his research.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
The shear lassitude of the national media on the Turner signing is what I find most aggravating.

Last off season Neil Olshey replaced 4 starters with relatively unknown players, three of who were cast offs by their previous teams. Terry Stotts figured out how to make it all work - how to optimize those players' talents while covering for their weaknesses.

The result was an unexpectedly successful season that took nearly everyone in the national media by complete surprise. As a result Olshey and Stotts came in second in Executive of the Year and Coach of the Year voting.

I sort of get how the national media underestimated Olshey, Stotts and the team last year. What I don't get is how they can be similarly surprised two years in a row. Do they consider the success these two men and this team had last year purely a fluke?

It would seem so. Their analysis of the Turner signing starts and ends with the fact he is not a good 3-point shooter. It's like they think Neil and Terry are complete morons. I wasn't in the room, but I'm pretty sure, that at no point, did Terry turn to Neil and say, "you know what this team really needs is an overpaid guard who cant shot the 3".

So, there must have been some other reason the guys who came in second in EOY and COY decided to target Evan Turner. Sure, we missed out on Whiteside and Chandler Parsons. So, did a lot of other teams, but there were still a LOT of other free agents available when we signed Evan Turner. An inquisitive journalist would have asked, "Why did Olshey and Stotts target Evan Turner? What does he give them that they don't already have?"

Yet, I didn't see anyone in the national media ask, and attempt to answer, those questions. That's just plain lazy, and assuming Turner is a poor fit in Stotts' system because he's not a great 3-point shooter completely overlooks Turner's strengths, and how Terry Stotts can incorporate those strengths to make the team better as a whole. Basketball is still a team sport and this team proved last year that the sum can be greater than the whole of the parts. It's not about how good Evan Turner is individually. It's about how he can, and will, make this team better. The national media totally missed out on that.

BNM
Click to expand...
I'm baffled by their opinions as well. Did they not watch the series against golden state? In the last 15 games of the season and in the playoffs you saw major improvements in not only individual play but how the team was starting to gel and play within Terry's system. Two playoff series experience and another summer of bonding and they predict our regular season win total to increase by three? Absolutely crazy to me. I've watched every game last season along with probably every regular poster here and I feel as if 52+ wins and third in the west is where predictions for this team should start. I do really appreciate the slight though, just more fuel for the fire. And it's going to be fun watching all these water heads jump on our wagon about halfway through the season, while eating crow.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Here's another Evan Turner article.
Click to expand...
It's a little concerning for me that the says the midrange is the future of the NBA but he shoots less than 40% from midrange. I believe he did shoot quite well from the three in the 2nd half of the last season and I think Stotts wants him shooting more threes, not sure if he is buying in; I guess it's to early to know.
 
Boob-No-More said:
"Turner came to Portland essentially to become its version of Shaun Livingston. "

I swear to god, I did not see this article until AFTER I made my Shaun Livingston comparison!

It's a good article and not simply because the author agrees with me. It's a good article because he did his research.

BNM
Click to expand...

I found these comments especially interesting:


“When you’re in the playoffs, sometimes the midrange is the only shot you really have,” Turner said. “Especially from the defensive mind of the coaches. I know here, we like to give up the midrange. And in other situations, other teams like to give up the midrange, [too]. They’re betting on the analytics of it."

"If there’s one part of the court where Turner is truly excellent, it’s in the post. Turner scored 0.99 points per possession on post-up attempts last season, which put him in the 84th percentile among all players, and behind only Kevin Durant, Arron Afflalo, Kawhi Leonard, and Andrew Wiggins among perimeter-oriented players with at least 100 possessions in the post."
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I found these comments especially interesting:


“When you’re in the playoffs, sometimes the midrange is the only shot you really have,” Turner said. “Especially from the defensive mind of the coaches. I know here, we like to give up the midrange. And in other situations, other teams like to give up the midrange, [too]. They’re betting on the analytics of it."

"If there’s one part of the court where Turner is truly excellent, it’s in the post. Turner scored 0.99 points per possession on post-up attempts last season, which put him in the 84th percentile among all players, and behind only Kevin Durant, Arron Afflalo, Kawhi Leonard, and Andrew Wiggins among perimeter-oriented players with at least 100 possessions in the post."
Click to expand...


I am just curious if signing a smart player should always be considered a smart signing. Would Stephen Hawking be a smart signing? Anyway, I jest, but I'm very impressed with the basketball mind Evan Turner is offering here.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I found these comments especially interesting:


“When you’re in the playoffs, sometimes the midrange is the only shot you really have,” Turner said. “Especially from the defensive mind of the coaches. I know here, we like to give up the midrange. And in other situations, other teams like to give up the midrange, [too]. They’re betting on the analytics of it."

"If there’s one part of the court where Turner is truly excellent, it’s in the post. Turner scored 0.99 points per possession on post-up attempts last season, which put him in the 84th percentile among all players, and behind only Kevin Durant, Arron Afflalo, Kawhi Leonard, and Andrew Wiggins among perimeter-oriented players with at least 100 possessions in the post."
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Turner's comment about the midrange being the future of the game. I do agree that it's a shot that is, and will always be, there for anyone who can knock it down. Back in the days when dominant low post centers roamed the earth, it was always there as teams used wing players to drop down and double team the big men. That created a defensive vacuum in the midrange area.

That defensive vacuum is even larger in today's analytics driven game where defenses focus on protecting the rim and running shooters off the 3-point line. It's viewed as a less efficient weapon than layups and 3-pointers. And, in general, it is for the fact that most players can't hit that shot at a decent percentage. However, for players that can, they can get wide open 13-17 footers all day long.

The problem is few players hit that shot at a high percentage, even when wide open, which seems bizarre as there are plenty of guys who can knock down an open 3 and shoot 90% from the line. I think the real issue is, because it's never been highlight reel material and now players are taught it's an inefficient shot, kids don't work on it growing up. Back when Michael Jordan burst on the scene, all anyone wanted to do was dunk like Mike. Now, with Steph Curry transcending the game, everyone wants to shoot the 3 like Steph. There hasn't been a transcendent player who was great in the midrange since maybe the 1960s or 70s. No kid growing up today says, damn, I want to grow up to have a midrange game like_________. So, it's neglected and no one works on it.

So, it becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. No one can hit the midrange shot, so defenses always give it up and focus on the rim and 3-point line. If I was coaching kids in high school and college today, I'd make developing a midrange game a priority, especially for kids that lack the athleticism to be high flying dunkers and maybe lack the handles to create their own shots. Defenses will GIVE you that shot. All you have to do is knock it down.

So, maybe I just talked myself into agreeing with Turner. The midrange is the one area that is under exploited right now. If players start emerging on the scene that can consistently knock down that shot at > 50%, it will force defenses to adjust. Until then, the midrange jumper will remain wide open for the few players than can consistently make it. Which is why it can be such an effective weapon for a guy like Mason Plumlee. IF (big IF) Plums can consistently knock down that little elbow jumper, it will force opposing defenses to choose their poison.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
So, maybe I just talked myself into agreeing with Turner. The midrange is the one area that is under exploited right now. If players start emerging on the scene that can consistently knock down that shot at > 50%, it will force defenses to adjust. Until then, the midrange jumper will remain wide open for the few players than can consistently make it. Which is why it can be such an effective weapon for a guy like Mason Plumlee. IF (big IF) Plums can consistently knock down that little elbow jumper, it will force opposing defenses to choose their poison.

BNM
Click to expand...

Ha! That happens to me all the time. Yeah I think that was ET's point. As you said defenses adjust to what offenses are doing and if teams, like the Blazers, are giving up those shots to defend the 3 pt line and the post....then the next big trend/future...... is back to the mid range shot. CJ should benefit from this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Canzano: Portland Trail Blazers strike out, summer free-agent ritual stings
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
e_blazer
e_blazer
SlyPokerDog
Expect the unexpected from the Portland Trail Blazers
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man
SlyPokerDog
Trail Blazers will be 'aggressive on draft night' even without draft picks
Replies
13
Views
907
BonesJones
BonesJones
SlyPokerDog
Wesley Matthews 'over' Trail Blazers reunions: 'I'm pretty sure they don't miss me'
Replies
29
Views
4K
H.C.
H.C.
SlyPokerDog
Former Trail Blazer Damon Stoudamire says 'Jail Blazers' documentary in production
Replies
21
Views
5K
Minstrel
Minstrel

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top