Stotts' anti-McMillan offense

[OneLifeToLive]

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

To me I don't think there is a comparison in BBIQ's. On either end of the court.

 

[fumanchu]

The fact that he's implemented a system that isn't totally reliant on ONE player bodes well for post season success.

BNM

I believe our current offense is just as reliant on Lamarcus as Nate's teams were with Roy. Lamarcus draws so much attention inside that it frees up our shooters. If you took out LA our offense would grind to a hault IMO.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I believe our current offense is just as reliant on Lamarcus as Nate's teams were with Roy. Lamarcus draws so much attention inside that it frees up our shooters. If you took out LA our offense would grind to a hault IMO.

The passing on this team is light years better than anything Nate instilled. There would certainly be a drop in production and an adjustment period, but it would be nothing like those McMillan teams

 

[ponderguy]

To me I don't think there is a comparison in BBIQ's. On either end of the court.

Olympic assistant coach- smarter basketball people than anyone here chose him for that job

 

[BBert]

I believe our current offense is just as reliant on Lamarcus as Nate's teams were with Roy. Lamarcus draws so much attention inside that it frees up our shooters. If you took out LA our offense would grind to a hault IMO.

IMO, McMillan's offense, and any success he had, was completely reliant on Roy. I think with Stotts, it isn't that the offense is 'reliant' on LaMarcus, as much as it is that LaMarcus is our best player, so of course he is a hub of the offense. The Stotts offense isn't iso-centric. Everyone is involved, as witnessed by those games where a different player has a big quarter, every quarter, and different players are making big shots during crunch time.

 

[Strenuus]

Olympic assistant coach- smarter basketball people than anyone here chose him for that job

lol. This is funny.

 

[Eastoff]

Olympic assistant coach- smarter basketball people than anyone here chose him for that job

Yeah, and the head coach was a college coach. Clearly they know what's best, and didn't pick good coaches that are used to working with egotistical players...

 

[Boob-No-More]

I believe our current offense is just as reliant on Lamarcus as Nate's teams were with Roy. Lamarcus draws so much attention inside that it frees up our shooters. If you took out LA our offense would grind to a hault IMO.

Of course, losing your best player, whoever that is, will impact your offense - until you make adjustments. But, I strongly disagree that our current offense is as reliant on Aldridge as Nate's offense was on Roy. Just watch the ball movement. In Nate's offense, players like Batum and Matthews would often go multiple possessions without touching the ball. The PG (Blake or Miller) would bring the ball up the court, pass it to Roy, and then he'd pound the ball until about 8 on the shot clock and then try to beat his man off the dribble. In the current system, most of the players (with the occasional exception of Lopez) touch the ball on every possession - often multiple times during the same possession. There is SO much more ball movement and so much more player movement (Batum no longer parked in the corner waiting for the occasional kick out from Roy with less than 3 seconds on the shot clock). It really is night and day.

BNM

 

[jlprk]

Aldridge's job is to decoy the opponent's defense away from his teammates all game long by actually producing for a few mid-game minutes. Roy's job was to win games in clutch moments. It's a difference between reputation/fooling people, and actual production.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Olympic assistant coach- smarter basketball people than anyone here chose him for that job

It must be burning you up trying to hold back posting the cawk pix? I'm impressed.

 

[riverman]

For one, Stotts has won a championship and Nate has not. Nate was probably the better defensive coach which is why he's perfect as Indiana's defensive coordinator but his offensive game was slow and predictable. Basically iso ball with everyone expected to give BRoy the ball and stand back. (Steve Blake?) Nate also played his starters into the ground and did not develop rookies. Nate would have been my first choice for a defensive coordinator on Stotts bench. I am really, really impressed with Stotts demeanor and the trust his players have in his system. He has everyone on the same page. A players coach if there ever was one. Nate lost his team's trust and then lost his job. He was also a loser for every head coaching job he applied for afterwards. This alone tells the tale. I think Paul Allen has assembled a staff that is geared for success and it's working. Stotts would get my vote for coach of the year in a heartbeat.

 

[blue9]

I believe our current offense is just as reliant on Lamarcus as Nate's teams were with Roy. Lamarcus draws so much attention inside that it frees up our shooters. If you took out LA our offense would grind to a hault IMO.

That's just not true. LMA is rarely in the low-post. He's mainly high-post or pick/pop - places where he's either in single coverage (high-post) or not covered at all (pick/pop).
The offense is almost entirely set up by Nic curling around the entire arc of the 3-point line, catching a short pass from Lillard as he nears the top, immediately passing it back and continuing along his arcing path. Meanwhile Wes is running a similar route but off by 180 degrees, coming off of a Lopez pick. Lillard has the ball with two players in motion and LMA ready to set a high pick. Based on how the defense has covered the two players in motion dictates what Lillard does next. This is in no way, shape, or form an inside/out offense. Occasionally LMA will be given the ball on the low-block, but that's not the staple.

 

[riverman]

That's just not true. LMA is rarely in the low-post. He's mainly high-post or pick/pop - places where he's either in single coverage (high-post) or not covered at all (pick/pop).
The offense is almost entirely set up by Nic curling around the entire arc of the 3-point line, catching a short pass from Lillard as he nears the top, immediately passing it back and continuing along his arcing path. Meanwhile Wes is running a similar route but off by 180 degrees, coming off of a Lopez pick. Lillard has the ball with two players in motion and LMA ready to set a high pick. Based on how the defense has covered the two players in motion dictates what Lillard does next. This is in no way, shape, or form an inside/out offense. Occasionally LMA will be given the ball on the low-block, but that's not the staple.

Sometimes people don't see the big picture. With Robin Lopez and Joel Freeland in the post, LA can pace himself, not burn out and have legs in the 4th qtr. He also minimizes his risk of injury. The way LA is playing, he'll stay healthy and close out close games when we need him there. Count the guys who spend a lot of time in the paint that are out with injury after 15 games and there are quite a few. I think LaMarcus has the big picture in mind after seeing so many teammates go down with career ending injuries. He's playing smart basketball and like Duncan, will have a long career of productive team play

 

[blue9]

Nate was probably the better defensive coach...

I don't think that's true. Unfortunately Stotts doesn't have enough experience to put together a meaningful comparison between the two. But Nate was never a good defensive coach. If you average out his team's defensive rankings over the course of his career he has an average rank of #20. If you do the same with D'Antoni he has an average rank of 18.3. These are two coaches who had/have completely opposite reputations - Nate is known for talking about Defense, and D'Antoni is known as not caring about defense at all. It's quite telling for D'Antoni to have a higher defensive ranking average than a coach who preached defense.

It remains to be seen whether Stotts can orchestrate a good defense - but my money is on him being better than Nate. Based on the eye-test alone, he already is. Over the years I think the stats will be there to back it up.

 

[mook]

Sometimes people don't see the big picture. With Robin Lopez and Joel Freeland in the post, LA can pace himself, not burn out and have legs in the 4th qtr. He also minimizes his risk of injury. The way LA is playing, he'll stay healthy and close out close games when we need him there. Count the guys who spend a lot of time in the paint that are out with injury after 15 games and there are quite a few. I think LaMarcus has the big picture in mind after seeing so many teammates go down with career ending injuries. He's playing smart basketball and like Duncan, will have a long career of productive team play

It wouldn't kill him to set up a few feet closer to the rim when he does post up, but you do have a point. LMA is actually 5th in the league this year in minutes played, field goals made and field goals attempted. Hard to imagine him carrying on at that rate if he were banging around all game in the post.

He's also shooting (by far) the worst percentage of his career--.446. That's terrible for a guy who is 6'11 and doesn't take threes.

While the wins keep piling up, it's hard to say that anything is broken. But at some point we're going to lose a couple games in a row and a lot of people will be talking about that shooting percentage.

 

[blue9]

Sometimes people don't see the big picture. With Robin Lopez and Joel Freeland in the post, LA can pace himself, not burn out and have legs in the 4th qtr. He also minimizes his risk of injury. The way LA is playing, he'll stay healthy and close out close games when we need him there. Count the guys who spend a lot of time in the paint that are out with injury after 15 games and there are quite a few. I think LaMarcus has the big picture in mind after seeing so many teammates go down with career ending injuries. He's playing smart basketball and like Duncan, will have a long career of productive team play

I was merely pointing out that this statement is not true, not making a judgement on LMA:

I believe our current offense is just as reliant on Lamarcus as Nate's teams were with Roy. Lamarcus draws so much attention inside that it frees up our shooters. If you took out LA our offense would grind to a hault IMO.

 

[blue9]

He's also shooting (by far) the worst percentage of his career--.446. That's terrible for a guy who is 6'11 and doesn't take threes.

While the wins keep piling up, it's hard to say that anything is broken. But at some point we're going to lose a couple games in a row and a lot of people will be talking about that shooting percentage.

Yeah - it hasn't really been discussed since his scorching start. But his shooting has REALLY come back down to earth. Right now I'm just satisfied with the team wins. But I hate watching him jack those 18-footers. Thankfully in the GS game he actually took it inside after the altercation - that's the only reason we won. If he had continued shooting jumpers we would have lost that game.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I'm not worried about Aldridge's shooting percentages, it just seems like he hasn't quite gotten into a rhythm from his comfort zones. I'm just glad to see the improved work on the boards.

 

[riverman]

I don't think that's true. Unfortunately Stotts doesn't have enough experience to put together a meaningful comparison between the two. But Nate was never a good defensive coach. If you average out his team's defensive rankings over the course of his career he has an average rank of #20. If you do the same with D'Antoni he has an average rank of 18.3. These are two coaches who had/have completely opposite reputations - Nate is known for talking about Defense, and D'Antoni is known as not caring about defense at all. It's quite telling for D'Antoni to have a higher defensive ranking average than a coach who preached defense.

It remains to be seen whether Stotts can orchestrate a good defense - but my money is on him being better than Nate. Based on the eye-test alone, he already is. Over the years I think the stats will be there to back it up.

Well I'm not a stat guy, but having watched hundreds of Nate coached games, there's a reason he's a gold medal winning defensive coordinator for the National Team and Stotts was the offensive coordinator for a championship Mavs squad. Stotts is adjusting defensively after a first year of very poor defense, Nate didn't adjust offensively. D'Antoni in my opinion is the most overrated coach in the conversation, though he and Nate together did a good job for team USA. Stotts is a smart, smart tactician. He finds answers.

 

[ponderguy]

Well I'm not a stat guy, but having watched hundreds of Nate coached games, there's a reason he's a gold medal winning defensive coordinator for the National Team and Stotts was the offensive coordinator for a championship Mavs squad. Stotts is adjusting defensively after a first year of very poor defense, Nate didn't adjust offensively. D'Antoni in my opinion is the most overrated coach in the conversation, though he and Nate together did a good job for team USA. Stotts is a smart, smart tactician. He finds answers.

completely agree on this. If there was some way to pair Stotts and McMillan together you'd have a hell of a coaching tandem.

 

[Boise Blazer]

Pinwheel Empire @pinwheelempire
"Probably the one thing.. I regret was the decision to take Nicolas out of that lineup and starting Wallace"-Coach Nate #ripcity #blazers


"He (Wallace) felt like he needed to be in the starting lineup. I went against what I really believed was right"-Nate #ripcity #blazers


"when you lose Roy and Oden in the same year, going to be hard for anybody to survive...I got caught in a storm."-Nate #ripcity #blazers

 

[jlprk]

Here we go again with the Oden excuse. You can't lose what you never had. Each succeeding injury was absolutely no surprise. To pretend his absence was a surprise is a lie. To pretend McMillan ever relied upon him is a lie.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

Olympic assistant coach- smarter basketball people than anyone here chose him for that job

Well...I prob don't know that much but I'm not really that impressed with McMillan. He lived and died playing one kind of style offensively and defensively. If he had depth of knowledge of the game, he really didn't show it with the lack of adjustments on either side of the court.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Pinwheel Empire @pinwheelempire
"Probably the one thing.. I regret was the decision to take Nicolas out of that lineup and starting Wallace"-Coach Nate #ripcity #blazers


"He (Wallace) felt like he needed to be in the starting lineup. I went against what I really believed was right"-Nate #ripcity #blazers


"when you lose Roy and Oden in the same year, going to be hard for anybody to survive...I got caught in a storm."-Nate #ripcity #blazers

Lame ass excuse after the fact time.

So, what about the playoff series against the Rockets? Nate had both Oden and Roy healthy. Oden was the healthiest he's ever been and Roy was in his prime, 100% healthy and one of the top players in the league. And, the Blazers had home court advantage. Houston actually lost Mutombo early in that series, but I didn't hear them making any excuses.

BNM

 

[ponderguy]

Lame ass excuse after the fact time.

So, what about the playoff series against the Rockets? Nate had both Oden and Roy healthy. Oden was the healthiest he's ever been and Roy was in his prime, 100% healthy and one of the top players in the league. And, the Blazers had home court advantage. Houston actually lost Mutombo early in that series, but I didn't hear them making any excuses.

BNM

a 42 year old Mutombo is not a difference maker. Oden may have been healthy for that series but he was still in his rookie year and learning the game. That Rockets team may have only been the 5th seed but they were a tough out for anyone who was going to be matched up on them that year. They had a healthy Yao in our series and we still took them 6 games. Then Yao got injured they still took the Lakers to 7.

 

[Boob-No-More]

a 42 year old Mutombo is not a difference maker. Oden may have been healthy for that series but he was still in his rookie year and learning the game. That Rockets team may have only been the 5th seed but they were a tough out for anyone who was going to be matched up on them that year. They had a healthy Yao in our series and we still took them 6 games. Then Yao got injured they still took the Lakers to 7.

Still took them to 6 games when we were a higher seed with HCA? You act like that's something to be proud of. It's not. It was a failure.

Point being, after Mutombo went down, other than Yao, they had no one on their roster taller than 6'9". The Blazers had: Joel, 7'1"; Greg 7'0", LaMarcus, 6'11" and Channing 6'11". Aldridge killed Scola, Carl Landry and Chuck Hayes during the regular season. With Mutombo out, 6'6" Chuck Hayes became their backup center. Granted Hayes is a very good defender for his size, but he's only 6'6" and provides zero offense.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with the Blazers getting blown out by 27 at home in game 1. That was inexcusable. The team was not ready to play, and a lot of that needs to fall on the head coach. And, it wasn't all Yao. He averaged less than 16 ppg in that series. The Blazers let Aaron Brooks, Luis Scola and Von Wafer beat them.

BNM

 

[ponderguy]

Still took them to 6 games when we were a higher seed with HCA? You act like that's something to be proud of. It's not. It was a failure.

Point being, after Mutombo went down, other than Yao, they had no one on their roster taller than 6'9". The Blazers had: Joel, 7'1"; Greg 7'0", LaMarcus, 6'11" and Channing 6'11". Aldridge killed Scola, Carl Landry and Chuck Hayes during the regular season. With Mutombo out, 6'6" Chuck Hayes became their backup center. Granted Hayes is a very good defender for his size, but he's only 6'6" and provides zero offense.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with the Blazers getting blown out by 27 at home in game 1. That was inexcusable. The team was not ready to play, and a lot of that needs to fall on the head coach. And, it wasn't all Yao. He averaged less than 16 ppg in that series. The Blazers let Aaron Brooks, Luis Scola and Von Wafer beat them.

BNM

their pgs feasted on steve blake and jerryd bayless. No coach or scheme was going to turn Blake into a lockdown defender. the rockets were a veteran team with some amazing defenders. Ron Artest and shane Battier together formed one of the best perimeter defenses in the league. Chuck Hayes is only 6'6" but has played center for years. They may not have had as good of a regular season but they were certainly a better playoff team. The 5 seed winning in a 4-5 matchup is hardly a big upset, nor is the 4 seed generally going to be a big favorite.

 

[jlprk]

Lame ass excuse after the fact time.

So, what about the playoff series against the Rockets? Nate had both Oden and Roy healthy. Oden was the healthiest he's ever been and Roy was in his prime, 100% healthy and one of the top players in the league. And, the Blazers had home court advantage. Houston actually lost Mutombo early in that series, but I didn't hear them making any excuses.

McMillan was carefully rationing Oden's minutes to delay his next injury and his foul trouble. This also delayed the development of Oden's BBIQ, which was thus abysmal compared to Przybilla's. Against Yao, we needed savvy, not brawn. In this case, McMillan made the right choice.