Stotts' anti-McMillan offense (1 Viewer)

[mook]

I was just watching this vid and was comparing it in my mind to how McMillan was using Matthews, Batum and LMA in his heyday.

[video=youtube;vY74uZBN3OE]

It's so nice to see how each offensive set starts with a wing coming off back picks set by bigs at the elbow. So much motion--it makes it so much harder to plan against. The end result may be a simple LMA ISO in the post, but chaos that it creates in the other team's defense means it's usually a simple 1-on-1 that Aldridge can take advantage of.

And it takes advantage of the poor dribbling of pretty much everybody on our team aside from Lillard. Guys pass it so fast they don't have time to bounce it off their foot. lol.

With so much shot clock used up early in the 24 seconds on motion and swinging the ball, it's pretty interesting that there's almost never a shot clock violation. Seems like there's always a new option. Also doesn't hurt that Damian and Batum can hit shots from 30 feet, I guess.

In the old days it seemed like we just stuck our wings in the corners and relied on a quick pass out of the post to create spacing. So much more hit-and-miss than the current system.

 

[ponderguy]

Stotts offense is certainly more pleasing to the eyes but McMillan had some good success here. Different styles can still win plenty of ball games. No doubt McMillan would have this team committing far fewer turnovers and be a bit better defensively. Would love to see what he could have done with Robinson, McMillan always got the most out of his bigs. He helped turn Cunningham and Pendy into legit rotational guys

 

[mook]

The other thing that really pops out at me is how much we use screens now. You can re-watch the video and just count the number of screens per possession--almost never is there fewer than 2, and usually there are 3-5 before the shot is taken. Nobody is setting real bone-crushing screens, but LMA, Lopez and Freeland are setting so many of them that it's got to wear wing defenders out after a while.

 

[Strenuus]

Stotts offense is certainly more pleasing to the eyes but McMillan had some good success here. Different styles can still win plenty of ball games. No doubt McMillan would have this team committing far fewer turnovers and be a bit better defensively. Would love to see what he could have done with Robinson, McMillan always got the most out of his bigs. He helped turn Cunningham and Pendy into legit rotational guys

3/5 of this team is the same. LMA, Matthews, Batum. And all of them are doing MUCH better in Stotts system.

 

[B-Roy]

3/5 of this team is the same. LMA, Matthews, Batum. And all of them are doing MUCH better in Stotts system.

I'm not sure you can argue that Aldridge is doing better in Stotts's system. At most I think you could say he's about to same.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Stotts used to be more like Nate. With the Bucks he rode Redd the way Nate rode Roy. Obviously, he learned the limitations of that approach.

 

[illmatic99]

Absolutely glorious. That is downright Spurs like. And it doesn't look like there are any sets either. Just guys moving, tons of P&R opportunities, and then reading and reacting. It also helps that we have two great 1 on 1 players and shooters all around.

If our D ever catches up with our O, watch out, league.

 

[Draco]

One thing I've thought this year..... THANK GOD we didn't hire Caleb Kanales and his silly fitting suits.

 

[ponderguy]

3/5 of this team is the same. LMA, Matthews, Batum. And all of them are doing MUCH better in Stotts system.

I don't believe thats accurate. You also need to remember all these guys were youngsters under McMillan and their games were all still developing (less so in LMAs case but true in Nic and Wes' cases.)

10-11 LMA
21.8 ppg, 8.8 rpg, 2.1 apg, 1.2 bpg, 1 spg, 1.9 turnover/game, 50% fg
13-14 LMA
22.3 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1 bpg, 1 spg, 2.4 turnover/game, 45% fg

about the same in every area except shooting fg 5% worse now. with more experience he has become more comfortable in his leadership role but has also is taking a crazy amount of mid range jumpers. I always respected Nate for making him get in the post where he is one of the best in the league.

Wes 10-11
15.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 2 apg, 1.2 spg, 1.7 turnover/game, 44% fg, 40% 3 pointer
Wes 13-14
17.3 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 1.7 apg, 1 spg, 1.2 turnover/game, 56% fg, 52% 3 pointer

Really improved his shooting % and stotts offense gets a lot of credit for that. However Wes can't keep up his hot streak and will come back down eventually. He's a bit better off the dribble now than he was then but overall still much the same player he was a few years ago. Which is fine, I think he's a pretty good 2 guard but definitely wouldn't say he is doing MUCH better.

Nic 10-11
12.4 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 1.5 apg, 0.9 spg, 0.6 bpg, 1 turnover/game, 45% fg, 34% 3 point (worst 3 point % of career under Nate, although the other 3 seasons under him were at 37%, 40%, 39%)
Nic 13-14
13.4 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 4.9 apg, 1.3 spg, 0.6 bpg, 2.6 turnover/game, 44% fg, 41% 3 point

Nic is much more effective in the passing game under Stotts but has also increased his turnovers to a rather high number for a non pg. He has improved overall and this season some of his consistency issues seem to finally be going away. Still not a huge jump anywhere else though besides his assist numbers

 

[blue9]

It's certainly MUCH nicer and gets us far more open looks. I think it still has room for more creativity though. But regardless, it's great to see two guys always in motion. I hated watching 4 players stand around while the other guy dribbles the ball.
What I've really noticed lately, and what really stood out in the video, is how often Nic curls up from the baseline towards the ball, catches a short pass and immediately hands it back while continuing on his path around the 3-point line. It seems to be the staple of the offense that sets the table for whatever comes next. Also, it seems that Nic is involved with 90%* of the plays that result in a lay-up.
*Just a # I pulled out - not an actual statistic.

 

[blue9]

Stotts offense is certainly more pleasing to the eyes but McMillan had some good success here. Different styles can still win plenty of ball games. No doubt McMillan would have this team committing far fewer turnovers and be a bit better defensively. Would love to see what he could have done with Robinson, McMillan always got the most out of his bigs. He helped turn Cunningham and Pendy into legit rotational guys

No, to both bolded statements. Nate was a TERRIBLE defensive coach. His defensive #s are about on par with Mike D'Antoni. And Mike never even tried to implement defense. So for someone who liked to be thought of as a defensive coach to get the same results as someone who didn't care about defense AT ALL is pretty telling. Nate SUCKED at defense. Stotts isn't good either, but there are at least SOME decent principles that he's instituted that already make him better than Nate.
And Pendy was never a serviceable big. Dante was Dante, and continues to be Dante. Nate had nothing to do with who Dante was/is.

 

[tlongII]

If I was the opponent I would pick up Dame full court.

 

[Mediocre Man]

How anyone can say someone had good success here when they never got out of the first round of the playoffs is puzzling to me.

Ass Clown was a horrible coach, in so many ways

 

[Boob-No-More]

The biggest problems with Nate's offense is it was too one dimensional, too predictable and too inflexible. When Brandon Roy was at his absolute peak, that meant winning a decent amount of regular season games. But, an offense that relies too much on one specific player is easy to scout for and easy to shut down in a playoff series. Nate stuck steadfastly to the Roy ISO, even when it clearly wasn't working. Shit, he even ran ISO, after ISO, after ISO when opponents were playing a zone. It didn't matter if Roy beat his man off the dribble, because there were two bigs in his path to shut down the penetration. He absolutely refused to even try to exploit Steve Nash "guarding" Batum. When Roy went down, he just continued to run the Roy ISO with whatever poor man's Roy he had on the roster (Jerryd Bayless, Jamal Crawford, he even tried running the Roy ISO with Andre Miller).

Nate had just as much, if not more offensive talent to work with that what Stotts has, but he could never figure out any sort of offense that relied on more than one player at a time. With Stotts, all five players are involved. There is a lot of player movement and a lot of ball movement. With Nate, there was a LOT of dribbling and 4 players standing around watching 1 player dominate the ball. Is it any wonder it took a player mutiny to finally get Nate fired? Guess which offense will score more, be harder to defend in the playoffs and keep all players happy and bought into the system.

Such a refreshing change. Whether or not we get past the 1st round this year, at least we have a chance and we won't lose because we are being outcoached by the Alvin Gentrys of the world.

BNM

 

[mook]

The biggest problems with Nate's offense is it was too one dimensional, too predictable and too inflexible. When Brandon Roy was at his absolute peak, that meant winning a decent amount of regular season games. But, an offense that relies too much on one specific player is easy to scout for and easy to shut down in a playoff series. Nate stuck steadfastly to the Roy ISO, even when it clearly wasn't working. Shit, he even ran ISO, after ISO, after ISO when opponents were playing a zone. It didn't matter if Roy beat his man off the dribble, because there were two bigs in his path to shut down the penetration. He absolutely refused to even try to exploit Steve Nash "guarding" Batum. When Roy went down, he just continued to run the Roy ISO with whatever poor man's Roy he had on the roster (Jerryd Bayless, Jamal Crawford, he even tried running the Roy ISO with Andre Miller).

Nate had just as much, if not more offensive talent to work with that what Stotts has, but he could never figure out any sort of offense that relied on more than one player at a time. With Stotts, all five players are involved. There is a lot of player movement and a lot of ball movement. With Nate, there was a LOT of dribbling and 4 players standing around watching 1 player dominate the ball. Is it any wonder it took a player mutiny to finally get Nate fired? Guess which offense will score more, be harder to defend in the playoffs and keep all players happy and bought into the system.

Such a refreshing change. Whether or not we get past the 1st round this year, at least we have a chance and we won't lose because we are being outcoached by the Alvin Gentrys of the world.

BNM

Exactly.

 

[dviss1]

Stotts offense is certainly more pleasing to the eyes but McMillan had some good success here. Different styles can still win plenty of ball games. No doubt McMillan would have this team committing far fewer turnovers and be a bit better defensively. Would love to see what he could have done with Robinson, McMillan always got the most out of his bigs. He helped turn Cunningham and Pendy into legit rotational guys

Meh, Yeah right...

Stotts used to be more like Nate. With the Bucks he rode Redd the way Nate rode Roy. Obviously, he learned the limitations of that approach.

Tell the truth, did you watch those games? You could say the same thing about LA and Lillard. Stotts sure is riding them right? Redd was easily the best on that team. Of course he would shoot the most. Also, he came off PLENTY of screens to get open shots. Redd couldn't do half the things Roy could do with the ball. Their offenses (Stotts/McMillan) have never looked anything alike.

 

[blue9]

Whether or not we get past the 1st round this year, at least we have a chance and we won't lose because we are being outcoached by the Alvin Gentrys of the world.

Well, we don't know that yet. Stotts is certainly better than Nate, but he still needs to prove that he can make adjustments during a Playoff series. I'm much more hopeful than I ever was with Nate running the team. But we really won't know whether Stotts can out-coach anyone (or at least not get out-coached himself) until he actually does it in the Playoffs.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

My over-simplification of the difference between McMillan and Stotts: Nate was good at coaching players, but Terry is good at coaching a team. One can help get the most out of an individual, but the other can help several players get the most out of one another.

Sent from my LG-LS840 using Tapatalk

 

[Nikolokolus]

How anyone can say someone had good success here when they never got out of the first round of the playoffs is puzzling to me.

Ass Clown was a horrible coach, in so many ways

QFT.

Then again maybe the bar for successful coaching, is looking stern and folding your arms in a consistently menacing manner.

 

[GeckoDude]

Gotta agree that McMillan rode Roy too much. It was a very different style of play. Put the ball in Roy's hands, drain the clock, and find a shot in the last 8 seconds of the shot clock. Lots of articles were wrote back then about the Blazers having the slowest pace in the league by a considerable margin. It was neat to watch, different, but not all players could play at that pace.

Really like the Stotts offense. It s a breath of fresh air. I just wish we could get Lillard to be better in transition.

 

[jlprk]

McMillan was a very limited coach, and nothing without Roy. Pritchard was no help. Maybe both are learning now from Bird and Vogel. Stotts has benefited from Olshey, who I suspect is the big picture architect of Stotts' system.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Well, we don't know that yet. Stotts is certainly better than Nate, but he still needs to prove that he can make adjustments during a Playoff series. I'm much more hopeful than I ever was with Nate running the team. But we really won't know whether Stotts can out-coach anyone (or at least not get out-coached himself) until he actually does it in the Playoffs.

The fact that he's implemented a system that isn't totally reliant on ONE player bodes well for post season success. Nate was rigidly inflexible and it cost the Blazers in the post season. I agree Stotts hasn't proven anything in the post season, but Nate has - that he can't make mid-game or even mid-series adjustments. At least with Stotts, I feel like we'll have a chance to get past the 1st round. With Nate at the helm, I never felt we'd win a playoff series. At least now, I have hope.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

McMillan was a very limited coach, and nothing without Roy. Pritchard was no help. Maybe both are learning now from Bird and Vogel. Stotts has benefited from Olshey, who I suspect is the big picture architect of Stotts' system.

Actually, I like the way Stotts and Olshey seem to be working together to build a roster that matches the personnel to the system. I give them both credit for that.

BNM

 

[blue9]

The fact that he's implemented a system that isn't totally reliant on ONE player bodes well for post season success. Nate was rigidly inflexible and it cost the Blazers in the post season. I agree Stotts hasn't proven anything in the post season, but Nate has - that he can't make mid-game or even mid-series adjustments. At least with Stotts, I feel like we'll have a chance to get past the 1st round. With Nate at the helm, I never felt we'd win a playoff series. At least now, I have hope.

BNM

Totally agree on all counts!

 

[oldmangrouch]

Stotts has benefited from Olshey, who I suspect is the big picture architect of Stotts' system.

Maybe, but consider this: Stotts' best season as a head coach (with the Bucks) his top bench scorer was a (much) younger Mo Williams. Did Olshey just happen to make Mo a late acquisition? I suspect Stotts has had some major input.

 

[jlprk]

Maybe, but consider this: Stotts' best season as a head coach (with the Bucks) his top bench scorer was a (much) younger Mo Williams. Did Olshey just happen to make Mo a late acquisition? I suspect Stotts has had some major input.

Yep. I think that if you sum all the Xs and Os rattling around inside the heads of Olshey and Stotts, you get a much bigger mountain than with Pritchard and McMillan.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

It's a thing of beauty when Stotts is on duty!

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Dallas ran this and the two-PG lineup was extremely effective with Kidd and Barea.

I can't wait to see the Lillard/CJ backcourt.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

3/5 of this team is the same. LMA, Matthews, Batum. And all of them are doing MUCH better in Stotts system.

Once you start breaking down each play, you get a better sense that this is pretty spot on.

LMA is being moved around a lot more, which has been successful at times, and not so much others, but it's a process of learning where he can succeed and how defenses react so the Blazers can get the best possessions possible in a given shot clock.

Batum being used and able to run the Pick and Roll has been priceless. It has the effect of turning the opponents defensive scheme on it's head and has been extremely effective.

The ball movement has benefited Matthews the most. He is so under-appreciated for his ability to find an outlet passing lane and take full advantage of an open shot. He's also doing a little bit more that simply 3 and D, which absolutely wrecks defenses that are already reeling from a 3rd and 4th pass ending up in the hands of a very capable shooter.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Dallas ran this and the two-PG lineup was extremely effective with Kidd and Barea.

I can't wait to see the Lillard/CJ backcourt.

I don't disagree with this, but with a PG and Batum in the game, it is even more effective tha 2 PGs in the half court. Batum has the ability, because of his height and length and who is guarding him, to exploit the pick and roll in a way that a PG can't.