Our Offense Is Bad

[ABM]

Oh, really?

By the numbers: February 4th thru 17th, 1998

Last time the Blazers had scored 100 points in six consecutive games.......................until now.

So there.

 

[LittleAlex]

Oh, really?

By the numbers: February 4th thru 17th, 1998

Last time the Blazers had scored 100 points in six consecutive games.......................until now.

So there.

I may be wrong here but I was under the impression the problems folks have with Nate's offense is not that it is completely ineffective. They would not have won the number of games they have if the offense was useless.

It's more that it is very predictable and somewhat stationary. The same is said of Mike Brown's offense in Cleveland.

Portland gets almost no easy buckets (which is way different animal then having a running team). This makes the Blazers easier to defend, especially in the playoffs.

I don't think that Portland can win a title with an offense that counts on B-Roy hitting difficult shot after difficult shot in isolation.

I would be most happy to be wrong about that.

 

[ABM]

I don't think that Portland can win a title with an offense that counts on B-Roy hitting difficult shot after difficult shot in isolation.

Sometimes, I think it's a case of Brandon putting too much on his own shoulders.............and Nate idly standing by letting him do so.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

The 6 teams the Blazers have played in that time-frame (ppg allowed)

Memphis - 103
Minnesota -106
Toronto - 105
Indiana - 104
New Jersey - 101
Chicago (OT Loss) - 98.5



I hope we are at least average

 

[ABM]

The 6 teams the Blazers have played in that time-frame

Memphis
Minnesota
Toronto
Indiana
New Jersey
Chicago (OT Loss)

So, in 12 years, the Blazers have never played a collection of bad teams (in succession) such as these?

 

[BGrantFan]

Sometimes, I think it's a case of Brandon putting too much on his own shoulders.............and Nate idly standing by letting him do so.

Or, it's letting your best player have the ball and deciding what to do with it. I guess I don't uinderstand what other options people want to see at the end of games. The three-man weave? The pick and pop? The picket fence? This team needs a viable second option who can create offense at the end of games, and hopefully Miller is that guy. The problem is, Roy has proven to win games at the end with his decisions. I'm not sure if Miller has proven that ability.

 

[Tince]

I may be wrong here but I was under the impression the problems folks have with Nate's offense is not that it is completely ineffective. They would not have won the number of games they have if the offense was useless.

It's more that it is very predictable and somewhat stationary. The same is said of Mike Brown's offense in Cleveland.

Portland gets almost no easy buckets (which is way different animal then having a running team). This makes the Blazers easier to defend, especially in the playoffs.

I don't think that Portland can win a title with an offense that counts on B-Roy hitting difficult shot after difficult shot in isolation.

I would be most happy to be wrong about that.

Passionate fans of a specific team will quickly begin to realize the predictability of their offense. Offensive predictability in the NBA is very common...

 

[BGrantFan]

Passionate fans of a specific team will quickly begin to realize the predictability of their offense. Offensive predictability in the NBA is very common...

This^

I will add that I mentioned in another thread how amazed I was at the diversity of Nate's offense last night, though.

 

[Tince]

This^

I will add that I mentioned in another thread how amazed I was at the diversity of Nate's offense last night, though.

Funny you mention that, I noticed the same thing. Andre Miller did an excellent job of changing the tempo throughout the game as well.

 

[hasoos]

Let me be clear on my opinion. I believe our half court execution is excellent, and getting better. But, I would like to see the team get more easy buckets. I absolutely do not want them to be turned into a running team, as running teams cannot win in the playoffs because good teams will just slow down the pace if they can't run with them. Between controlling the pace, fouls, and TV timeouts it is much to easy to take a running team out of their game, and out of their comfort zone.

 

[oldmangrouch]

It has been said before, and it bears repeating: you don't have to be a "running team" to get easy baskets. Take the recent Spurs teams. They didn't run-and-gun as an offensive strategy, but they got easy buckets in transition from their defense.

 

[Nikolokolus]

If anybody really thinks this team is poised for big time post season success with just a grinding half-court oriented offense that specifically works to open up long 2s and 3s with little real inside-out attack, with only a middling' team field goal percentage' (and even a middling effective team field goal percentage), I believe they are in for a rude awakening ... part of this is a function of the defense that gets few stops and few transition buckets off of those stops (like oldmangrouch mentioned above).

The half-court execution isn't bad for the most part, but either they need more active stops (steals and blocks, not dead 'dead ball' turnovers), or they need to figure out ways to generate higher percentage inside looks with their bigs.

 

[KingSpeed]

Oh, really?

By the numbers: February 4th thru 17th, 1998

Last time the Blazers had scored 100 points in six consecutive games.......................until now.

So there.

That stat doesn't mean our offense is bad. We just play at a different pace. What is our shooting percentage? Free throw shooting percentage? Turnovers percentage? That, to me, as how to judge our offense which I think is one of the most efficient in the league.

 

[ABM]

That stat doesn't mean our offense is bad. We just play at a different pace. What is our shooting percentage? Free throw shooting percentage? Turnovers percentage? That, to me, as how to judge our offense which I think is one of the most efficient in the league.

Huh??

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Let me be clear on my opinion. I believe our half court execution is excellent, and getting better. But, I would like to see the team get more easy buckets. I absolutely do not want them to be turned into a running team, as running teams cannot win in the playoffs because good teams will just slow down the pace if they can't run with them. Between controlling the pace, fouls, and TV timeouts it is much to easy to take a running team out of their game, and out of their comfort zone.

Agreed, but an "up tempo" team creates mis-matches when they run and that creates easy baskets.

 

[Chuck Taylor]

The 6 teams the Blazers have played in that time-frame (ppg allowed)

Memphis - 103
Minnesota -106
Toronto - 105
Indiana - 104
New Jersey - 101
Chicago (OT Loss) - 98.5



I hope we are at least average

great post

 

[Tince]

If anybody really thinks this team is poised for big time post season success with just a grinding half-court oriented offense that specifically works to open up long 2s and 3s with little real inside-out attack, with only a middling' team field goal percentage' (and even a middling effective team field goal percentage), I believe they are in for a rude awakening ... part of this is a function of the defense that gets few stops and few transition buckets off of those stops (like oldmangrouch mentioned above).

The half-court execution isn't bad for the most part, but either they need more active stops (steals and blocks, not dead 'dead ball' turnovers), or they need to figure out ways to generate higher percentage inside looks with their bigs.

1) Who has said this?

2) That was a really long sentence!

 

[STOMP]

If anybody really thinks this team is poised for big time post season success with just a grinding half-court oriented offense that specifically works to open up long 2s and 3s with little real inside-out attack, with only a middling' team field goal percentage' (and even a middling effective team field goal percentage), I believe they are in for a rude awakening ... part of this is a function of the defense that gets few stops and few transition buckets off of those stops (like oldmangrouch mentioned above).

The half-court execution isn't bad for the most part, but either they need more active stops (steals and blocks, not dead 'dead ball' turnovers), or they need to figure out ways to generate higher percentage inside looks with their bigs.

has anyone predicted big time post season success? As configured/built, their inside force guy is Greg...

STOMP

 

[BGrantFan]

If anybody really thinks this team is poised for big time post season success with just a grinding half-court oriented offense.

I've yet to read that post. I do see posters hoping to still make the playoffs and winning in the postseason with no offensive threats down low, and the fact that the team is actually pushing some pace right now gives me some hope that they are adjusting.

 

[Nikolokolus]

1) Who has said this?

2) That was a really long sentence!

has anyone predicted big time post season success? As configured/built, their inside force guy is Greg...

STOMP

I've yet to read that post. I do see posters hoping to still make the playoffs and winning in the postseason with no offensive threats down low, and the fact that the team is actually pushing some pace right now gives me some hope that they are adjusting.

Fair nuff. Nobody said it here, but there has been a semi-long running debate over this team's supposedly superior offense based on their efficiency on a per possession basis, I guess I was 'heading 'em off at the pass' and it wasn't really going that way -- my bad.

 

[BGrantFan]

Fair nuff. Nobody said it here, but there has been a semi-long running debate our this team's supposedly superior offense based on their efficiency on a per possession basis, I guess I was 'heading 'em off at the pass' and it wasn't really going that way -- my bad.

That's cool, Nikolokolus. Did someone just admit to hyperbole on the internet?

Rep

 

[mgb]

To get easier baskets we need to play better D. While you can run it up court after a made basket it's a lot easier when you rebound a miss shot. Having Oden healthy wouldn't hurt.

We did seem to do more plays against the Pacers, but it was against the Pacers. Better teams will take stuff away from us. Usually the most effective is pressure which keeps us from getting into our sets until the clock is down.

 

[andalusian]

Fair nuff. Nobody said it here, but there has been a semi-long running debate over this team's supposedly superior offense based on their efficiency on a per possession basis, I guess I was 'heading 'em off at the pass' and it wasn't really going that way -- my bad.

Detroit won a championship by having rather mediocre offense - but by having absolutely fantastic defense.

The Celts won a championship by having the same distribution of jump-shooting/inside shooting as the Blazers had last year (when we had GO and Joel) and playing fantastic defense - In their championship year, the Celts took 66% jump shots, 29% close, 4% dunks and 1% tips - their offensive rating that year was #10 in the league.

Last year, our jump shooting team had the following distribution: 66% jump shots, 24% close, 7% dunk, 2% tip-in - very similar to what the Celts took (only our offense was more efficient, 1st or 2nd in the league) - but the defense, of course was not there.

However, as we have seen, before GO went down, this team was 2nd in defensive efficiency and 10th in offensive efficiency - and you would have expected them to get better with more games on both sides of the floor - again, the idea that this team's offense (assuming full strength and GO/Joel in the mix) is "ineffective" for the playoffs is totally unfounded, imho - especially when you see how similar it was to the Celts offense when they won the championship.

This team is, despite the cries of "stale offense" - is actually an offensive juggernaut, and early signs at the start of the year showed to be much improved on defense as well.

It's easy to buy the Charles Barkley "they are a jump shooting team" nonsense - but the data shows it to be exactly that - nonsense. BTW - if we look at the Spurs, the year they won their last ring - they took 67% jump shots - higher than what Portland took last year.

Again, the numbers are just not their to support this claim.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Detroit won a championship by having rather mediocre offense - but by having absolutely fantastic defense.

The Celts won a championship by having the same distribution of jump-shooting/inside shooting as the Blazers had last year (when we had GO and Joel) and playing fantastic defense - In their championship year, the Celts took 66% jump shots, 29% close, 4% dunks and 1% tips - their offensive rating that year was #10 in the league.

Last year, our jump shooting team had the following distribution: 66% jump shots, 24% close, 7% dunk, 2% tip-in - very similar to what the Celts took (only our offense was more efficient, 1st or 2nd in the league) - but the defense, of course was not there.

However, as we have seen, before GO went down, this team was 2nd in defensive efficiency and 10th in offensive efficiency - and you would have expected them to get better with more games on both sides of the floor - again, the idea that this team's offense (assuming full strength and GO/Joel in the mix) is "ineffective" for the playoffs is totally unfounded, imho - especially when you see how similar it was to the Celts offense when they won the championship.

This team is, despite the cries of "stale offense" - is actually an offensive juggernaut, and early signs at the start of the year showed to be much improved on defense as well.

It's easy to buy the Charles Barkley "they are a jump shooting team" nonsense - but the data shows it to be exactly that - nonsense. BTW - if we look at the Spurs, the year they won their last ring - they took 67% jump shots - higher than what Portland took last year.

Again, the numbers are just not their to support this claim.

The numbers might support it, but it shouldn't be fair to lump Tim Duncan's silky smooth Bank shot and a Blazer fading away as the shot clock is about to expire in one group.


I think I have posted this before, but an NBA scout friend of mine claims that Portland has one of the easiest offenses to defend, in terms of the X's and O's because they shoot so many jump shots.


So I will listen to his nonsense as well as Barkley's

 

[andalusian]

The numbers might support it, but it shouldn't be fair to lump Tim Duncan's silky smooth Bank shot and a Blazer fading away as the shot clock is about to expire in one group.

If the ball goes in silky smooth or ugly and bouncing it is worth 2 points.

I think I have posted this before, but an NBA scout friend of mine claims that Portland has one of the easiest offenses to defend, in terms of the X's and O's because they shoot so many jump shots.

Well, the numbers show that they do not shoot so many jump shots and the numbers also show that they execute their offense very efficiently - if it was so easy to defend against, surely they would not score as many points for each possession.

So I will listen to his nonsense as well as Barkley's

Hey, you are a big boy. You can listen to any nonsense you want. But unless there is something more than "he said, she said" about it - and there is real data to support it - I will choose to look at it as nonsense.

 

[LittleAlex]

Passionate fans of a specific team will quickly begin to realize the predictability of their offense. Offensive predictability in the NBA is very common...

Oddly enough team failure is also common in the NBA.

Let me be very clear. I think Nate is a good to great defensive coach who has not really had the personel in the past to really implement his game plan.

I also think Nate is a decent but not good offensive coach who could stand to have some improvement in that area. Maybe it comes down to personel in this case as well but I just don't think that is true.

It isn't a crime to suggest that the team shouldn't stand around so much in the last 5 minutes of a close game. Or that the lack of movement may make them easier to defend, especially in a playoff series where the teams can focus on stopping one team instead of having a few hours of tape session on a team before a game like the regular season.

I don't remember which analyst is was (I think Hubie Brown) who said in the playoffs you need a decent 3rd and fourth option on offense in the playoffs because the other team is going to shut down your first and second options. I fear that Portland's third option is the Flaming Bag Pass and desperate shot against the clock. I would like to see that change.

 

[Tince]

Oddly enough team failure is also common in the NBA.

Let me be very clear. I think Nate is a good to great defensive coach who has not really had the personel in the past to really implement his game plan.

I also think Nate is a decent but not good offensive coach who could stand to have some improvement in that area. Maybe it comes down to personel in this case as well but I just don't think that is true.

It isn't a crime to suggest that the team shouldn't stand around so much in the last 5 minutes of a close game. Or that the lack of movement may make them easier to defend, especially in a playoff series where the teams can focus on stopping one team instead of having a few hours of tape session on a team before a game like the regular season.

I don't remember which analyst is was (I think Hubie Brown) who said in the playoffs you need a decent 3rd and fourth option on offense in the playoffs because the other team is going to shut down your first and second options. I fear that Portland's third option is the Flaming Bag Pass and desperate shot against the clock. I would like to see that change.

Please elaborate on this...

 

[LittleAlex]

Please elaborate on this...

Most teams never make it past the first round.

Only 17 out of the 30 teams have ever won a championship in the history of the NBA. I am aware of the fact that all 30 teams haven't existed for that long but it is still disconcerting.

If you consider success to be getting to the second round of the playoffs (and this would be my yardstick for a good team having a successful year) then every single year only 8 out of 30 teams enjoy success. The rest are trying to reach that level.

The teams that have had the most success in the last 15 years had fairly complex offenses (Detroit had an offense setup to run Rip's man into the ground so it wasn't as simple as Portland's currently is). San Antonio did, the Lakers offense is brutally complex (it actually works less well when Kobe stops playing within it).

I have no clue why anyone would think our offense couldn't get better. I think Portland's offense could be better and will have to be better to make it to the second round of the playoffs.

 

[Tince]

Most teams never make it past the first round.

Only 17 out of the 30 teams have ever won a championship in the history of the NBA. I am aware of the fact that all 30 teams haven't existed for that long but it is still disconcerting.

If you consider success to be getting to the second round of the playoffs (and this would be my yardstick for a good team having a successful year) then every single year only 8 out of 30 teams enjoy success. The rest are trying to reach that level.

The teams that have had the most success in the last 15 years had fairly complex offenses (Detroit had an offense setup to run Rip's man into the ground so it wasn't as simple as Portland's currently is). San Antonio did, the Lakers offense is brutally complex (it actually works less well when Kobe stops playing within it).

I have no clue why anyone would think our offense couldn't get better. I think Portland's offense could be better and will have to be better to make it to the second round of the playoffs.

I understand your definition of success, and that helps me understand your previous post.

I'd be shocked if there is a person out there, including Nate who doesn't think our offense could be better. I certainly have never heard someone say that our offense is perfect.