Notice OFFICIAL AROUND THE NBA THREAD-January 2021

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Still don't understand why they got rid of Jrue? Like him WAY better than Bledsoe!

they just didn't get Bledsoe; they also traded for George Hill, and then traded Hill and some minor assets for Steven Adams. They also got two first round pick swaps from the Bucks, which was probably a reasonable gamble before Giannis has re-signed
 
We have added to higher end defensive players (at least before they got here), and yet our defense ranks the same as last year. We can't blame that on losing Nurk because it was no better when he was playing. And now we can't blame it on CJ....because he never really played any D to start with.

So if adding players doesn't help, and losing players, doesn't really matter, what is the constant? It is the Walnut. And the abject refusal to bring in someone who is defensive minded (the 3-day seminar thing was a joke), then they sadly almost deserve what they get. I'm not a huge fan of what Neil has done but he did provide 2 defensive minded wings.

.....and it has had jack squat in terms of making a difference.

Maybe making a significant change in defensive schemes and incorporating two new starters requires something the Blazers haven’t had much of until now: practice time. Quick’s article this morning in The Athletic touched on this:

“That said, I think Lillard last week after the Atlanta game made a telling observation: The Blazers are using a different defensive scheme this season, one where the centers play up on the pick-and-roll, which theoretically forces the ball out of the guard’s hands quicker. This style requires the weakside defenders — the defenders away from the ball — to offer help, thereby setting into action a series of rotations by defenders to cover for the teammate who left their man. That weakside help, Lillard said, is where the team is struggling. He used the word “trust” — as in you have to trust your teammate is going to cover your man if you leave to offer help — and right now, the players haven’t shown often enough that they will make that extra rotation or move to help, which has prevented trust from developing.

They have shown at times they can play pretty good defense — the second half against Atlanta (40 points), the first game against Sacramento (99 points), the win at the Lakers (Anthony Davis 13 points) — but it hasn’t been consistent.”

Here’s hoping almost a week of practice will make the defense more consistent.

For those who don’t subscribe, there’s also some good stuff on why the Blazers aren’t giving up on Simons and how the opportunity he’s getting now will be important as the team looks to figure out his future with the Blazers going forward.
 
Maybe making a significant change in defensive schemes and incorporating two new starters requires something the Blazers haven’t had much of until now: practice time. Quick’s article this morning in The Athletic touched on this:

“That said, I think Lillard last week after the Atlanta game made a telling observation: The Blazers are using a different defensive scheme this season, one where the centers play up on the pick-and-roll, which theoretically forces the ball out of the guard’s hands quicker. This style requires the weakside defenders — the defenders away from the ball — to offer help, thereby setting into action a series of rotations by defenders to cover for the teammate who left their man. That weakside help, Lillard said, is where the team is struggling. He used the word “trust” — as in you have to trust your teammate is going to cover your man if you leave to offer help — and right now, the players haven’t shown often enough that they will make that extra rotation or move to help, which has prevented trust from developing.

They have shown at times they can play pretty good defense — the second half against Atlanta (40 points), the first game against Sacramento (99 points), the win at the Lakers (Anthony Davis 13 points) — but it hasn’t been consistent.”

Here’s hoping almost a week of practice will make the defense more consistent.

For those who don’t subscribe, there’s also some good stuff on why the Blazers aren’t giving up on Simons and how the opportunity he’s getting now will be important as the team looks to figure out his future with the Blazers going forward.
I don't agree that the problem is trust. It could be resistance to change, inflexibility, aren't sold on the system, laziness, but I doubt if it is lack of trust.
 
One the problem is there weak side go to far over for help defense and can't get back to the corner. A lot time it's one our 6'3 guard down there and don't have the size to be effective. Hopefully these days in practice they correct some of those problems if not it's going be a long season.
 
Great fun watching the Cavaliers again tonight. Didn't know that Nance leads the league in steals and high in deflections also. Lots of fast breaks and lobs!
 
Cavs beat the Nets (without Durant tonight) two times in a row. I know it's easy to see it looking back; obviously we didn't know NJ would be desperate for a first round pick when we made the trade for Roco. And we didn't know Collins and Nurk would go down. Cavs got Jarrett Allen and Prince for Exum and Milwaukee's first rounder for 2021. Seems we could have got those two for Ariza and our 2021 pick. I tell you, it sure is nice to see a center who stuffs the ball on a regular basis.
 
Cavs beat the Nets (without Durant tonight) two times in a row. I know it's easy to see it looking back; obviously we didn't know NJ would be desperate for a first round pick when we made the trade for Roco. And we didn't know Collins and Nurk would go down. Cavs got Jarrett Allen and Prince for Exum and Milwaukee's first rounder for 2021. Seems we could have got those two for Ariza and our 2021 pick. I tell you, it sure is nice to see a center who stuffs the ball on a regular basis.

Then I started thinking: Couldn't someone like Harry Giles do everything that a Jarrett Allen does, if he was given the opportunity? Why can't we ever have a change of pace second unit that really pushes the ball and uses their athleticism? That, of course, would probably require a dynamic playmaker PG, so I guess not......
 
While not the best coach ever, I always liked Monty.





 


I hope the rebuild starts sooner than later so we can find gems like this
 
Maybe making a significant change in defensive schemes and incorporating two new starters requires something the Blazers haven’t had much of until now: practice time. Quick’s article this morning in The Athletic touched on this:

That is all legitimate, but it doesn't seem to be bothering the Pacers who have new players, a MAJOR trade, a new offense, a new defense and a new coach.....and they are looking very good.

Excuses are easy. But when we've seen this movie over....and over...and over again, it gets a bit old.
 
That is all legitimate, but it doesn't seem to be bothering the Pacers who have new players, a MAJOR trade, a new offense, a new defense and a new coach.....and they are looking very good.

Excuses are easy. But when we've seen this movie over....and over...and over again, it gets a bit old.

Okay, I was with you in the first paragraph. You raise a good point as to why the Pacers are able to play competent defense with their many roster changes while the Blazers haven’t been able to. As with any question like that, I suspect there are multiple reasons. One certainly is the one that gets raised here over and over again, any team with Dame and CJ as it’s backcourt is at a disadvantage defensively no matter who is coaching the defense and what schemes they run. Another is that Stotts, while recognizing that the defense needs upgrading, is first and foremost an offense-oriented coach. There’s a lot more we could discuss on this topic.

Your second paragraph is the part I have problems with. Why is it that so often around here that when someone points to reality-based issues that impact the team’s performance, they get accused of making “excuses”? And why is it that after I wrote a lengthy post the other day on the vast differences from season to season of the Lillard/Stotts era, the same old mantra that boils down to “same shit every year” gets trotted out? It’s not the same. The Blazers have had weak defensive years and solid defensive years during that timeframe. It’s primarily been a function of the supporting roster that’s made the difference, not Stotts and not Dame.
 
Ah, but that’s only because yours are the same year after year, grasshopper.

"Just as a snake sheds its skin, we must shed our past over and over again.”
― Gautama Buddha
 
"Just as a snake sheds its skin, we must shed our past over and over again.”
― Gautama Buddha

“We do not learn from experience... we learn from reflecting on experience.
—John Dewey
 
Why is it that so often around here that when someone points to reality-based issues that impact the team’s performance, they get accused of making “excuses”? .

let me take a stab at answering this

they often seem like excuses to me because I have seen the same team and roster failings, season after season, no matter the personnel. The same offensive stagnation; the same defensive lapses. It's happened to the Dame/Aldridge team & the Dame/CJ team. It's happened to teams that have had almost no roster turnover. And teams that have had significant turnover. The same failures for healthy teams as those of injured teams

I know when viewed by winning percentage, there seems to be a big difference between seasons. 41 wins to 49 wins; 49 to 53. But if you look at the average record of the dame CJ era, after normalizing last season to 82 games, you end up with 45 wins, on average. A 55% winning percentage. That's just about what their winning percentage is this season.

in other words we're arguing if it's excuses or logic that explains the current season that happens to look a lot like the Blazer norm in the Dame/CJ era; or the Olshey/Stotts era, actually. There really hasn't been that much variance, and what there has been is basically due to the same player putting on a cape and going super-hero for long stretches of games
 
That is all legitimate, but it doesn't seem to be bothering the Pacers who have new players, a MAJOR trade, a new offense, a new defense and a new coach.....and they are looking very good.

Excuses are easy. But when we've seen this movie over....and over...and over again, it gets a bit old.

The Pacers are 9-6. The Blazers are 8-6, with the last loss coming without 2 of their 3 best players. I really don't see why we should at all be jealous of Indiana - they're even more stuck on the ladder than we are - no superstar means they have no chance.
 
The Pacers are 9-6. The Blazers are 8-6, with the last loss coming without 2 of their 3 best players. I really don't see why we should at all be jealous of Indiana - they're even more stuck on the ladder than we are - no superstar means they have no chance.

that would be a lot more persuasive if we hadn't recently seen both team on the floor together...when CJ was healthy and the Pacers were missing two starters. Little doubt which team was better that night
 
I know when viewed by winning percentage, there seems to be a big difference between seasons. 41 wins to 49 wins; 49 to 53. But if you look at the average record of the dame CJ era, after normalizing last season to 82 games, you end up with 45 wins, on average. A 55% winning percentage. That's just about what their winning percentage is this season.

That guy says, look more deeply than nominal standings...so this guy goes with nominal standings.

The Pacers are 9-6. The Blazers are 8-6
 
Craziest part is the two games the Blazers just missed were games they probably win. So 8-6 goes 10-6 pretty quick. Puts them in 4th place all alone with a .625 winning record.
 
let me take a stab at answering this

they often seem like excuses to me because I have seen the same team and roster failings, season after season, no matter the personnel. The same offensive stagnation; the same defensive lapses. It's happened to the Dame/Aldridge team & the Dame/CJ team. It's happened to teams that have had almost no roster turnover. And teams that have had significant turnover. The same failures for healthy teams as those of injured teams

I know when viewed by winning percentage, there seems to be a big difference between seasons. 41 wins to 49 wins; 49 to 53. But if you look at the average record of the dame CJ era, after normalizing last season to 82 games, you end up with 45 wins, on average. A 55% winning percentage. That's just about what their winning percentage is this season.

in other words we're arguing if it's excuses or logic that explains the current season that happens to look a lot like the Blazer norm in the Dame/CJ era; or the Olshey/Stotts era, actually. There really hasn't been that much variance, and what there has been is basically due to the same player putting on a cape and going super-hero for long stretches of games

And here's my problem with that: When you look only at the results in terms of wins and losses and then try to make generalized deductions about the roster and coaching, without considering the things that happened that influenced the record, your conclusions are ultimately nothing more than opinions. Nurk broke his leg and that influenced the team's record for not one, but two of the seasons you're looking at. I'd submit that event had far more impact on the record than Stotts' coaching, the too-small backcourt, the offensive stagnation, or any other variable that gets bandied about here. But, of course, if one takes that point of view, it's "excuse-making", not reality. The main reason that I seem to annoy the heck out of jlprk appears to me to be that I look at the Blazers with that perspective. Oh well, one of us will croak eventually and leave the other in peace.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top