Trade Larry Nance Jr traded to Portland

[Orion Bailey]

Stotts was horrible at defensive adjustments (adjustments in general).

the runs made on us without any adjustments was infuriating.
Also no adjustments on O. How many times have we seen Dame trapped.
Stotts good coach. takes a great to elite coach to go deep into the playoffs consistently.

I also think Stotts style wained. Billups fresh breath can possibly be all it really takes to change our game which in turn maximizes our talents and masks our deficiencies.

 

[andalusian]

Stotts was horrible at defensive adjustments (adjustments in general).

That is a valid point and I honestly am not good enough, basketball wise, to comment on this. (I was a decent player at the HS level, broke my ankle in spectacular fashion as a Junior, and all my basketball from that point forward was pretty much as a fan - so I am sure that people that played more and in more advanced situations learned more about the specifics of basketball adjustments than I had).

But, that, to me, is less defensive coaching, it is game management and personnel management - I suspect that there were other considerations there - more than just defensive decisions (and I understand that you might disagree, but that's my take on it).

Defensive coaching to me, at least as a numbers guy is looking at the statistics over a large sample size - and when we know that in the season the Blazers had healthy roster with good defensive members on it next to Dame, CJ - the Blazers were more than good enough defensively which tells me that despite the handicap of featuring these 2 smaller guys - over a long season - the defensive scheme the Blazers had that the coaching staff implemented was working and working well.

 

[e_blazer]

This one was always my favorite!
View attachment 40455

Mine:

 

[dviss1]

the runs made on us without any adjustments was infuriating.
Also no adjustments on O. How many times have we seen Dame trapped.
Stotts good coach. takes a great to elite coach to go deep into the playoffs consistently.

I also think Stotts style wained. Billups fresh breath can possibly be all it really takes to change our game which in turn maximizes our talents and masks our deficiencies.

It's easy to avoid traps with Dame. GSW was running a 1-2-2 halfcourt trap.

You flash Nurk to the middle (between the free throw and 3 pointer) give it to him, he turns and faces.

For being the offensive genius" our offense became exceptionally predictable.

We had double digit leads in each of those games vs GSW. He and his inability to adjust is why we lost.

 

[dviss1]

That is a valid point and I honestly am not good enough, basketball wise, to comment on this. (I was a decent player at the HS level, broke my ankle in spectacular fashion as a Junior, and all my basketball from that point forward was pretty much as a fan - so I am sure that people that played more and in more advanced situations learned more about the specifics of basketball adjustments than I had).

But, that, to me, is less defensive coaching, it is game management and personnel management - I suspect that there were other considerations there - more than just defensive decisions (and I understand that you might disagree, but that's my take on it).

Defensive coaching to me, at least as a numbers guy is looking at the statistics over a large sample size - and when we know that in the season the Blazers had healthy roster with good defensive members on it next to Dame, CJ - the Blazers were more than good enough defensively which tells me that despite the handicap of featuring these 2 smaller guys - over a long season - the defensive scheme the Blazers had that the coaching staff implemented was working and working well.

Teams would go on runs when we kept dropping our Center. He NEVER adjusted to that. Ever.

 

[Natebishop3]

I honestly do not believe that. The Blazers have played more or less the same defense philosophy for a long time - and every time the Blazers roster had good defenders and good health - the Blazers were fine (or better) defensively.

Now, you might tell me that there are better defensive coaches than him and I will absolutely believe it, but when he has to coach a team that features 2 small, minus defenders and still was good defensively (or elite in the right combination) with these 2 in the mix given roster and health - I am going to say that logically, it makes no sense to me that he can not coach defense.

If you are going to tell me he can not coax better defense from CJ or Dame - maybe, I have no idea how to judge that - as I have no access to the team and what their specific conversations are.

The only thing I can, without bias, judge - is results, and when the Blazers have good defensive players next to Dame and CJ and health - they have been good defensively under TS.

My thought on why our defense progressively got worse is because the league has drastically shifted towards three point shooting in the past few years. I posted it a while back, but the number of teams shooting more than 20 threes a game has gone from like 1 or 2 to like half the league. Our defense of the three point line is horrible. One of the worst in the league. So I think our defense tanking is a direct result of the league shifting heavily towards three pointers. Stotts system could not adapt to the rest of the league, which is hilarious considering we are one of the teams that takes a ton of threes.

 

[dviss1]

Defensive coaching to me, at least as a numbers guy is looking at the statistics over a large sample size - and when we know that in the season the Blazers had healthy roster with good defensive members on it next to Dame, CJ - the Blazers were more than good enough defensively which tells me that despite the handicap of featuring these 2 smaller guys - over a long season - the defensive scheme the Blazers had that the coaching staff implemented was working and working well.

This is exactly what Stotts did. He looked at the numbers and statistics, used the midrange shot (supposedly the worst shot in basketball but low and behold it's CJ's BEST shot) as a barometer to dictate his ENTIRE defense. And he never adjusted away from it when scoring on us became so predictable. It's why we lost leads to GSW.

 

[andalusian]

Teams would go on runs when we kept dropping our Center. He NEVER adjusted to that. Ever.

Even if we can verify it, which frankly, I find hard to do, this is again about game management and less about defensive coaching imho.

 

[dviss1]

My thought on why our defense progressively got worse is because the league has drastically shifted towards three point shooting in the past few years. I posted it a while back, but the number of teams shooting more than 20 threes a game has gone from like 1 or 2 to like half the league. Our defense of the three point line is horrible. One of the worst in the league. So I think our defense tanking is a direct result of the league shifting heavily towards three pointers. Stotts system could not adapt to the rest of the league, which is hilarious considering we are one of the teams that takes a ton of threes.

Lots of that was with regard to our inability to guard and adjust to the pick and roll. Dropping our center puts a guard in position to find open shooters.

Stotts. Stotts. Stotts.

 

[dviss1]

Even if we can verify it, which frankly, I find hard to do, this is again about game management and less about defensive coaching imho.

Bruh... Not sure why you're trying to differentiate between the two. I simply gave another deficiency in Stott's coaching.

 

[andalusian]

My thought on why our defense progressively got worse is because the league has drastically shifted towards three point shooting in the past few years. I posted it a while back, but the number of teams shooting more than 20 threes a game has gone from like 1 or 2 to like half the league. Our defense of the three point line is horrible. One of the worst in the league. So I think our defense tanking is a direct result of the league shifting heavily towards three pointers. Stotts system could not adapt to the rest of the league, which is hilarious considering we are one of the teams that takes a ton of threes.

I think it is hard to do that analysis in isolation - and the number of shots is less important imho to judge the effectiveness, it is the opponent's 3P% vs. the league average 3P% for that year (or opponent 3P% ranking within the league).

If you look at the years the Blazers had a heathy roster (for most of the year, at least) and good defenders around Dame/CJ, the Blazer's 3P% defense (Opponent 3P%) is close to the league average 3P%. The years the team had injuries / lack of good defenders - it was awful. They Blazers were 21st in the league last year and 29th a year before (ranking), but 2018-2019, for example, the year the team had ET, RH, Aminu, Harkless and for most of the year Nurk - they were #16 in the league (which is just the median, but is not awful). So, I still think that this is more a case of roster and health than scheme. I am not saying that the league does not change and schemes need to adjust with it, I am saying is that there is a clear correlation between roster/health and the quality of the defense under TS.

 

[BBert]

I completely agree with this. I’m also just really curious about seeing how a Billups-coached version of CJ works. If Billups puts more motion in the offense, doesn’t tolerate guys stopping the ball with isos, I think we’re going to see CJ hitting shots at a very big percentage as he gets more open looks in catch and shoot situations. That version of CJ could be a deadly asset.

Not to mention he would most likely have more in the tank to enable him to play some defense.

 

[andalusian]

Bruh... Not sure why you're trying to differentiate between the two. I simply gave another deficiency in Stott's coaching.

Because imho they are different. One of them is adjusting to personal on a specific matchup and the other is philosophy and scheme. I have said that I can not, and do no think I am qualified to judge adjustments (and frankly, I suspect that unless you are in that team knowing all the factors that went into a decision - it is hard to make the judgement because each one of them is so specific to the situation at hand). What I can do is look at long-term trends and correlate them to roster/health - there is no bias there - we know when the roster was healthy or not, we know when a team has a roster of long, athletic guys that have done well defensively over their career. That's what I mean when I say there is no bias - these are clear things we can track.

Now, maybe it is all these years of working with data scientists - when trying to assess something very fundamental like coaching "defense"- I just try to "smooth" spikes with long term data. Your claim of being bad at adjustments might be 100% right and might be 100% wrong (I suspect it is more likely to be something like 70/30 - but I have no way of measuring it).

 

[Idog1976]

He scorned coming here. That shows a pompous attitude of entitlement. If those press releases of him not wanting to play in Portland or Toronto are false, come out and say it.

He probably doesn't care to comment on every article about him there were dozens and dozens. Toronto has a major nightlife so that doesn't pass the smell test plus he could party with Drake. Ridiculous that if an athlete doesn't deny a specific piece of trash journalism it becomes gospel? Get outta here.

 

[Idog1976]

Don't tell me why I made my decision about Ben Simmons. You may need to go and read the Simmons thread.

My reasons why have been made clear. You are the only one assuming here...

OK i respect your right yo have an opinion I think is wrong. That said, Im gonna go with top tier scouts, All-NBA voting, All-NBA defensive team voting and Finishing second in DPOY voting by experts, rather than whatever character based reasons you have. Plus you cite the Hawks series a few posts below.

 

[Idog1976]

Which it's why noob posters don't need to assume why I dislike trading CJ for Simmons.

Nurk and Simmons cannot share the floor IMHO. Bam, there's another reason...

Noob posters? lol. My account is two years older than yours, but I'm done here. If Nurk and Simmons cant play together you trade Nurk. We need a second star and Nurk has the same limitations almost to a T as Simmons so funny you’d cite the inferior talent as a reason not to make the trade.

 

[blazerkor]

Noob posters? lol. My account is two years older than yours, but I'm done here. If Nurk and Simmons cant play together you trade Nurk. We need a second star and Nurk has the same limitations almost to a T as Simmons so funny you’d cite the inferior talent as a reason not to make the trade.

Yeah, Simmons is the much better talent when compared to Nurk, so if Simmons and Nurk don't work together then you ship Nurk off to the highest bidder. Ideally, I would get a third team involved like you were saying with the Celtics but a team interested in Nurk and get pieces to sweeten the CJ deal to get Simmons.

Dame, Norm, RoCo, Nance and Simmons is a championship level starting lineup and with Nas, Snell and Zeller coming off the bench we might have the best defense in the league.

 

[BonesJones]

OK i respect your right yo have an opinion I think is wrong. That said, Im gonna go with top tier scouts, All-NBA voting, All-NBA defensive team voting and Finishing second in DPOY voting by experts, rather than whatever character based reasons you have. Plus you cite the Hawks series a few posts below.

You can have the media on your side. I'll go with all the NBA GMs that won't trade for him.

 

[dviss1]

OK i respect your right yo have an opinion I think is wrong. That said, Im gonna go with top tier scouts, All-NBA voting, All-NBA defensive team voting and Finishing second in DPOY voting by experts, rather than whatever character based reasons you have. Plus you cite the Hawks series a few posts below.

Not gonna go back and forth over something you still don't know nor care to find out. I've given my reasons and you don't even know what they are.

So yeah... We're done.

 

[dviss1]

Noob posters? lol. My account is two years older than yours,

So you been around that long but just lurking and watching what everyone else is posting...?

Weird...

 

[Idog1976]

So you been around that long but just lurking and watching what everyone else is posting...?

Weird...

Nope. I left ages ago to Blazers edge for awhile (fail on my part) and have returned after a long absence, but definitely not a noob. Thanks for the insult though and if you don't care to explain it like everyone else does, i certainly don't care to dive through threads for one dudes opinion which i can pretty much guarantee I disagree with anyways. Gonna go with experts at the NBA level rather than waste precious time to hunt down someone’s opinion. Perhaps if you laid it out, or weren’t well, like you’re being about it, Id have more interest. Unless you have dyed in the wool proven insider info it’s...

 

[dviss1]

Nope. I left ages ago to Blazers edge for awhile (fail on my part) and have returned after a long absence, but definitely not a noob. Thanks for the insult though and if you don't care to explain it like everyone else does, i certainly don't care to dive through threads for one dudes opinion which i can pretty much guarantee I disagree with anyways. Gonna go with experts at the NBA level rather than waste precious time to hunt down someone’s opinion. Perhaps if you laid it out or weren’t well, like yore being about it, Id have more interest. Unless you have dyed in the wool proven insider opinion its...

I don't need to explain it to you. I've already done it in the correct thread. This is not the Ben Simmons Thread.

You are the one who doesn't need to assume why. Figure that out.

 

[Idog1976]

I don't need to explain it to you. I've already done it in the correct thread. This is not the Ben Simmons Thread.

You are the one who doesn't need to assume why. Figure that out.

I think you are misunderstanding. I don't care what your reasons are unless they are based upon something Insider related. I will take the experts over you all day, every day. It’s not on me to look it up because it would be a waste of my time.

 

[dviss1]

I think you are misunderstanding. I don't care what your reasons are unless they are based upon something Insider related. I will take the experts over you all day, every day. It’s not on me to look it up because it would be a waste of my time.

It was understood that you didn't care what my reasoning is once you made it up...

 

[Idog1976]

It was understood that you didn't care what my reasoning is once you made it up...

Oh is that your concern? I apologize for misrepresenting your position which could be anything really since you wont reveal it. There you feel better?

You say its not appropriate to list your reasons here, and say we shouldn’t be talking about Ben Simmons in this thread, when actually YOU brought him up in the negative and I responded with my well founded position which I am able to articulate as often as needed. You got your apology since you needed that for some reason. Good day.

 

[BonesJones]

Nope. I left ages ago to Blazers edge for awhile (fail on my part) and have returned after a long absence, but definitely not a noob. Thanks for the insult though and if you don't care to explain it like everyone else does, i certainly don't care to dive through threads for one dudes opinion which i can pretty much guarantee I disagree with anyways. Gonna go with experts at the NBA level rather than waste precious time to hunt down someone’s opinion. Perhaps if you laid it out or weren’t well, like yore being about it, Id have more interest. Unless you have dyed in the wool proven insider opinion its...

Typical Blazers Edge style way of arguing. You value Simmons more than any other GM outside of Daryl Morey but sit here with "The experts say I'm right! ". Weakest argument tactic there is.

 

[BonesJones]

I responded with my well founded position

For fucks sake.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

For fucks sake.

It is "Well Founded" by the experts. (Or at least those considered experts)
Just maybe not by people who actually think about things more than clicks and views?
Simmons would be a solid pickup but he isn't the end all and he might not even be worth CJ in my opinion.
I am a bit turned off by his attitude as well.
I'm no expert though.

 

[dviss1]

It is "Well Founded" by the experts. (Or at least those considered experts)
Just maybe not by people who actually think about things more than clicks and views?
Simmons would be a solid pickup but he isn't the end all and he might not even be worth CJ in my opinion.
I am a bit turned off by his attitude as well.
I'm no expert though.

Forget Ben Simmons accolades for just a moment.

Which GM is clamoring for his services? Who's been linked to wanting to trade for him?

His own GM has certainly been hilariously connected to wanting everything the sun touches plus 4 firsts...

Then we've heard talk about the same GM being rebuffed for those outlandish offers...

Who are the experts that are looking to add Simmons to their team?

 

[wizenheimer]

been gone for 10 days camping. No internet, thankfully. Haven't read the thread but I imagine people have mentioned how Portland made a trade that many have talked about. That's good and the trade very likely improves the Blazers. I don't believe Jones would have contributed that much. Nance isn't good at the three-ball, but he's better than Jones, or Turner or Hezonja. Yeah, faint praise, but at least the Blazers added a PF. One worry is that Nance has missed at least 15 games every season.

one big plus is that with Jordan Kent gone, we won't have to hear "Larry Nance JUNIOR" 15 times a game

the one thing I hate is the loopy protections on the draft pick. That just monkey-wrenches trade flexibility for a year. Making it unprotected would be better than putting a straight-jacket on draft picks for 7 years