Notice Respect Stotts

[HailBlazers]

I don't get all the comments about Stotts lack of in-game adjustments. In my opinion, it was his late game adjustments that won us the game..

First, was the Hack-a-Jordan. The timing was perfect and it worked like a charm. I know some people don't like it, but identifying your opponent's weaknesses and exploiting them to your advantage is a huge part of coaching. If the Clippers don't like it, they can either hire a shooting coach to work with Jordan, or pull him out of the game until the 2:00 mark. Doc stubbornly stuck with Jordan too long last night and it cost his team the game.

Second, putting Batum on CP3 (and switching with AAA and Wes) shut down the Clippers offense late in the 4th and through the OT.

Third, with Lillard being trapped and ineffective, he put the ball in Batum's hands and ran the pick and roll with Aldridge.

How are those not adjustments? They all came from Stotts and all worked perfectly. As I was watched the 4th quarter and OT last night, I just kept thinking how lucky we are to have a genius like Terry Stotts as our head coach. He COMPLETELY outcoached Doc Rivers when the game was on the line, and it wasn't close. The pick and roll with Nic and Aldridge was ridiculously easy in OT. It was like taking candy from a baby - lure Jordan away from the basket and then have Aldridge cut to the rim. Who do you think called that? Where was the counter adjustment from Doc Rivers? I can't believe how many posters here are criticizing the WINNING coach of a game where our best players were playing like shit.

And before anyone says the adjustments should come sooner - if they come too soon, you give your opponent time to counter. Doc Rivers was completely flummoxed last night. By the time he got his head around what was happening, our guys were in the locker room with another "improbable" win (although at some point, when you've done something 15 times, it no longer seems so improbable any more)...

I don't think it's just a coincidence that we have 15 come from behind wins when were down double digits. The players get a ton of credit for "having heart", "never saying die", etc., but who do you think is engineering those comebacks? For the love of god, does anyone here think we'd EVER win a game like last night with Nate McMillan or Mo Cheeks patrolling our sideline with their arms folded? People here need to start appreciating what we have, and that includes our head coach, Terry Stotts.

BNM

 

[blue32]

I think that is fair, but you must also understand that we are not adjusting against the trap, nor are we adjusting on p/r defense. We continually get abused by screeners. last nights game was very like the spurs series.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Stotts didn't get crap out of Claver when we all know that Pops could have turned him into an allstar.

 

[magnifier661]

I think that is fair, but you must also understand that we are not adjusting against the trap, nor are we adjusting on p/r defense. We continually get abused by screeners. last nights game was very like the spurs series.

As I said in the game thread, I actually think the blitz trapping isn't necessarily on the shoulders of Stotts. Our bigs aren't setting good picks. I think the "big man coach" needs to work on ways to time the pick well enough for Dame to get room. Right now, our bigs are lackluster with keeping the defensive bigs from that "jump out". Maybe do some flopping (within the rules because I hate that type of flopping) to get a foul on them. Something like scouting when their bigs jump out and get into that position and fall.

 

[blue9]

I think that is fair, but you must also understand that we are not adjusting against the trap, nor are we adjusting on p/r defense. We continually get abused by screeners. last nights game was very like the spurs series.

Screens are the absolute worst part of our game.
On the offensive end the placement of our screens doesn't create offense going towards the hoop - it's either lateral to, or moving away from the hoop. And the screens we set are the worst - nobody ever gets any meaningful space after coming off our screens. LMA is awful at setting screens.
And on the defensive end we allow the offense to create a HUGE driving lane directly to the hoop so the PG has tons of room to create high-percentage scoring opportunities.

 

[blue9]

Screens are the absolute worst part of our game.
On the offensive end the placement of our screens doesn't create offense going towards the hoop - it's either lateral to, or moving away from the hoop. And the screens we set are the worst - nobody ever gets any meaningful space after coming off our screens. LMA is awful at setting screens.
And on the defensive end we allow the offense to create a HUGE driving lane directly to the hoop so the PG has tons of room to create high-percentage scoring opportunities.

With that said, at least we don't switch on every screen like we use to.

 

[magnifier661]

Screens are the absolute worst part of our game.
On the offensive end the placement of our screens doesn't create offense going towards the hoop - it's either lateral to, or moving away from the hoop. And the screens we set are the worst - nobody ever gets any meaningful space after coming off our screens. LMA is awful at setting screens.
And on the defensive end we allow the offense to create a HUGE driving lane directly to the hoop so the PG has tons of room to create high-percentage scoring opportunities.

Where is the Vanilla Gorilla when we need him?!?! Imagine how well Dame would flourish if Priz was setting his monster screens.

BTW, I am in full agreement about how bad our bigs set screens. Lopez is a decent screen setter, but he doesn't have the consistent fire power to punish his man for following the ball handler.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

the best way to defend a trap is well timed hard screen before they have time to get to the ball handler, RoLo is the only guy in the starting lineup who can do this but he rarely comes out to the perimeter to do it. I don't know if that's scheme or just bad basketball sense.

The PnR defense is plain dumb too, how many times will we see Dame/Blake on a 6'8+ man and Aldridge trying to guard a quick guard?

 

[blue32]

I was in awe watching Clips last nigh set screens where our guys would run into brick fucking walls. I do not see that happening when we set screens. I do not know why this is.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

I was in awe watching Clips last nigh set screens where our guys would run into brick fucking walls. I do not see that happening when we set screens. I do not know why this is.

Our screens aren't usually meant for the guard to get space, that's our problem. Our screens are for Aldridge to leak out for a jumper 8/10.

 

[blue32]

Our screens aren't usually meant for the guard to get space, that's our problem. Our screens are for Aldridge to leak out for a jumper 8/10.

Yeah, now that you mention it, that happens. Ok and then what comes next bugs me, generally its a stutter-shot, or a dribble turn around jumper by LMA. Lately anyway. The catch and shoot when hes wide open is not happening as often. I hate the fact that he often goes to a more difficult shot. It's a waste of the screen, gives defense time to adjust and wastes possession unless hes 'feelin' it that day.

Edit: dont get me wrong, love me some LMA. just trying to understand the offensive scheme.

 

[blue9]

Our screens aren't usually meant for the guard to get space, that's our problem. Our screens are for Aldridge to leak out for a jumper 8/10.

Ugh. If LMA is >5' from the hoop he's shooting 39%. Great fucking offense, Terry!

 

[Stevenson]

Well said BNM, well said.

 

[magnifier661]

Ugh. If LMA is >5' from the hoop he's shooting 39%. Great fucking offense, Terry!

Not quite sure what site you used, but the 39% is the average from greater than 10' on basketball reference... Under 10 ft, he's shooting 56% from the field.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01/shooting/2015/

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

Ugh. If LMA is >5' from the hoop he's shooting 39%. Great fucking offense, Terry!

The offense should always start with Aldridge deep in the post and then go from there imo. We can play inside out a lot better than we can play outside in.

 

[noknobs]

Freeland is decent at screens, anyone know why he didn't even get in the game last night? I like Stotts, but I'd like him to use the bench more. I don't want the starters run down like last year. A better bench doesn't do you any good if you refuse to use it.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Freeland is decent at screens, anyone know why he didn't even get in the game last night? I like Stotts, but I'd like him to use the bench more. I don't want the starters run down like last year. A better bench doesn't do you any good if you refuse to use it.

Yeah we only played nine guys last night!

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

It would be nice if Kaman wasn't getting dream shook every game off the bench lol

 

[blue9]

Not quite sure what site you used, but the 39% is the average from greater than 10' on basketball reference... Under 10 ft, he's shooting 56% from the field.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01/shooting/2015/

I just ran the numbers NBA.com gave me: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/shooting/?CF=15-19 ft. FGA*GE*2&sort=15-19 ft. FGA&dir=1&PerMode=Totals
Unless I mistyped then he's shooting 39% outside of 5'.

 

[blue9]

The offense should always start with Aldridge deep in the post and then go from there imo. We can play inside out a lot better than we can play outside in.

We use to do that. And LMA use to pass out when the double would come. I can't remember the last time I saw that happen.

 

[noknobs]

Yeah we only played nine guys last night!

Actually ten, but outside of Afflalo the bench didn't play much. Blake didn't even play 10 minutes, Dorell played 7 min and Meyers clocked in at just under two minutes.

 

[magnifier661]

I just ran the numbers NBA.com gave me: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/shooting/?CF=15-19 ft. FGA*GE*2&sort=15-19 ft. FGA&dir=1&PerMode=Totals
Unless I mistyped then he's shooting 39% outside of 5'.

I think it's how you can use the distance curve. If you use the specs of 5 ft and below, he's a 67% shooter. But if you use 3-10 ft, he's a 43%. But when you combine them, he's 56%. I guess the same would apply from 15 to under 3 point (which is the least efficient shot).

 

[Natebishop3]

I really like Terry. I think he's a good coach. I'm honestly not sure how much difference a coach can make in the NBA without the right players. How good would the Spurs be without Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu? Would Pop be considered a great coach if he hadn't been gifted Tim Duncan?

 

[blue9]

I think it's how you can use the distance curve. If you use the specs of 5 ft and below, he's a 67% shooter. But if you use 3-10 ft, he's a 43%. But when you combine them, he's 56%. I guess the same would apply from 15 to under 3 point (which is the least efficient shot).

Yeah, his high-percentage shots inside - when combined with the shots further away - will pull up the overall percentage for the distance you're measuring. But no matter how you slice it, the numbers are there and they say that outside of 5' LMA is a ~40% shooter. I don't know what the league average is, but I suspect he's worse than average.

 

[blue9]

I really like Terry. I think he's a good coach. I'm honestly not sure how much difference a coach can make in the NBA without the right players. How good would the Spurs be without Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu? Would Pop be considered a great coach if he hadn't been gifted Tim Duncan?

I often wonder how good Parker would be if he hadn't played for Pops. I tend to think that Pops made Parker the player he is today, and that Parker would be another journeyman PG if he had been drafted by any other team. Possibly the same with Manu.
I think coaches make all the difference in the world. Unfortunately I think there are very few truly good coaches in the NBA today - the "good" ones largely get by on the talent of their rosters (Doc, Stotts, Brooks, Spoelstra). I'm hopeful that Hornacek, Budenholzer, Joerger, and a few other newer guys might inject some talent into the tepid water that is the NBA coaching pool.

 

[Natebishop3]

I often wonder how good Parker would be if he hadn't played for Pops. I tend to think that Pops made Parker the player he is today, and that Parker would be another journeyman PG if he had been drafted by any other team. Possibly the same with Manu.
I think coaches make all the difference in the world. Unfortunately I think there are very few truly good coaches in the NBA today - the "good" ones largely get by on the talent of their rosters (Doc, Stotts, Brooks, Spoelstra). I'm hopeful that Hornacek, Budenholzer, Joerger, and a few other newer guys might inject some talent into the tepid water that is the NBA coaching pool.

I wouldn't put Stotts in the same boat as Doc Rivers, Brooks, or Spoelstra. As good as Aldridge and Lillard are, they aren't LeBron James or Kevin Durant. If you're talking about Doc, he was fortunate enough to get KG, Pierce, and Allen all at the end of their prime. I really don't think he's a very good coach at all. He might be on the most overhyped coaches in league history.

 

[blue9]

I wouldn't put Stotts in the same boat as Doc Rivers, Brooks, or Spoelstra. As good as Aldridge and Lillard are, they aren't LeBron James or Kevin Durant. If you're talking about Doc, he was fortunate enough to get KG, Pierce, and Allen all at the end of their prime. I really don't think he's a very good coach at all. He might be on the most overhyped coaches in league history.

I agree. I don't think highly of Doc at all, but around the league he's thought of as one of the good coaches...and it's because of his rosters. Much like Stotts is only thought to be good because of our roster.
With that said, until the final 2ish minutes last night Doc was far superior to Stotts.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

I'd put Stotts in the Vogel/Carlisle/Kidd category.

 

[riverman]

I agree. I don't think highly of Doc at all, but around the league he's thought of as one of the good coaches...and it's because of his rosters. Much like Stotts is only thought to be good because of our roster.
With that said, until the final 2ish minutes last night Doc was far superior to Stotts.

You missed the entire first qtr? We dominated the first qtr..that's another 12 minutes where we were superior. Doc was not superior last night. Small sample size. Coaching is like chess, you lose more pieces than your opponent but it comes down to the end game. We won the end game.

 

[Natebishop3]

I agree. I don't think highly of Doc at all, but around the league he's thought of as one of the good coaches...and it's because of his rosters. Much like Stotts is only thought to be good because of our roster.
With that said, until the final 2ish minutes last night Doc was far superior to Stotts.

He took over a team that was stacked with talent. All he has done is continually make moves, fuck with chemistry, and lose in the playoffs. He has arguably the best pure point guard in the league, one of the best power forwards, one of the best centers, a great bench scorer, and a very serviceable shooting guard. The guy can't seem to win. He lucked out of the first round against GSW last year and then got smashed by the Thunder. He couldn't do shit with Boston after his stars aged beyond their peak. About the only skill that he can claim to be the best is whining. Nobody can touch him.