Stotts just gave one of the worst answers I’ve ever heard in a postgame.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
riverman said:
y'all are just trippin' after a road loss to the champs in the WCF......this series is just starting.
Click to expand...
I do think we can beat GS

Also, last night wasn't all on the coach. The turnovers were horrific. Hard to overcome when both the coach and the players have a bad game at the same time.
 
blue9 said:
Terry has always been the king of cognitive dissonance. He started out his Blazers career building the offense around long two-point shots (from a very mediocre shooter). Meanwhile, he designed his defense to give up...long two-point shots!

I've been hammering on this, literally, since his first season here. The dude is not a good coach.
Click to expand...
This is true
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Thing is, they're not "miracle adjustments". The adjustments people are calling for--have been calling for for weeks/months/years--are pretty basic. And there is, of course, no guarantee that they would result in taking GSW down, but they would at least demonstrate an attempt to address the greatest threat posed by GSW's personnel/system.
Click to expand...
Thanks for putting it more eloquently than myself and others, lol.
 
riverman said:
y'all are just trippin' after a road loss to the champs in the WCF......this series is just starting.
Click to expand...

I don't see much 'trippin' after a loss. What I do see is people legitimately questioning if the coach put his players in the best position to win. Those adjustments would of course not guarantee a win but to let Curry/Thompson shoot endless wide-open '3's would be akin to crowding the 3-pt line on Giannis and letting him have an unimpeded lane to the bucket. #asinine
 
James lamphear said:
And make so many turnovers that translate around 30 points. That might bigger negative then what Curry and Thompson did in the game.
Click to expand...
No kidding. At one point we were down 3, after having given up 30 points on turnovers.

GS doesn't scare me. Our players having nothing left in the tank, and the possibility that the coach may not make necessary offensive and defensive changes, does.
 
TBpup said:
I don't see much 'trippin' after a loss. What I do see is people legitimately questioning if the coach put his players in the best position to win. Those adjustments would of course not guarantee a win but to let Curry/Thompson shoot endless wide-open '3's would be akin to crowding the 3-pt line on Giannis and letting him have an unimpeded lane to the bucket. #asinine
Click to expand...
A seven page thread on how a coach answered one question?
Without question. Its trippin.
 
I don't have the patience to read through every post in this thread, but do want to know if it would make sense to have the guards go under the screen when it is 4-5' behind the line, rather than trail around it. I would rather let Klay and Steph launch all the 30+ footers they want, rather than leave them open at the line after going over a screen at the logo.
 
They need to watch Denver's pic and roll defense where the bigs actually come out and help guard the shooters when the original defender runs into the pic. Our bigs just stay back at the paint leaving their world class shooters wide open.
 
TBpup said:
What I do see is people legitimately questioning if the coach put his players in the best position to win
Click to expand...
trippin ….as their coach you don't put players in position to brick shots and turn the ball over 21 times in an opener....we got beat by lack of execution on offense as much as anything....they'll adjust. I think people really want the fire Stotts narrative to become a thing as many have simply disliked him from his first day here......I like him...he wasn't happy with this game..nor should he be. The series just started....we came out cold. People need a scapegoat to mask disappointment in my view. I'm still cheering. Bricking jumpers let's GS get out in transition where they thrive...we did that.
 
blue9 said:
Terry has always been the king of cognitive dissonance. He started out his Blazers career building the offense around long two-point shots (from a very mediocre shooter). Meanwhile, he designed his defense to give up...long two-point shots!
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of Stotts, but I don't think that's a case of cognitive dissonance. Structuring your defense to give up long twos is smart. On the other end, I doubt he wanted to be in the mid-range/long-two business, but that was basically Aldridge's game and he was their centerpiece at the time. Aldridge wasn't great at bullying to the rim for easy two-pointers nor was he a knock-down three-point shooter. He was a good player with a non-ideal skillset and that's what Stotts had to work with.
 
Reep said:
I don't have the patience to read through every post in this thread, but do want to know if it would make sense to have the guards go under the screen when it is 4-5' behind the line, rather than trail around it. I would rather let Klay and Steph launch all the 30+ footers they want, rather than leave them open at the line after going over a screen at the logo.
Click to expand...

That might be slightly better than dropping or chasing over at the logo, but it's still going to result in a lot of threes going in, unless they're off. Both guys are great enough shooters that a steady diet of wide open 28-30' shots is right in their wheelhouse, especially for Curry.

There's no perfect solution but, IMO, probably their best choice is to hedge and recover or even just trap if it's a big man screening for Curry/Thompson. If it's something more unusual, like a Curry-Thompson pick-and-roll (or a Durant-Curry pick-and-roll later in the series), then they probably have to switch. Golden State has many ways to pick a hedging defense apart, but at least they have to execute and work for it. If they're sloppy, they'll pay at least.
 
Minstrel said:
I'm not a big fan of Stotts, but I don't think that's a case of cognitive dissonance. Structuring your defense to give up long twos is smart. On the other end, I doubt he wanted to be in the mid-range/long-two business, but that was basically Aldridge's game and he was their centerpiece at the time. Aldridge wasn't great at bullying to the rim for easy two-pointers nor was he a knock-down three-point shooter. He was a good player with a non-ideal skillset and that's what Stotts had to work with.
Click to expand...
Defensively I agree - that wasn't a bad strategy. But that absolutely WAS his offensive strategy. And that's pretty much the dictionary definition of cognitive dissonance.

Sure, LA had something to do with it. But it was Terry that ultimately decided to play him 18' from the basket rather than 8' from the basket. It was Terry that decided that LA should take more shots than all the players who were more effective than him (and MOST of our players were more effective than him). Terry wanted his offense to take the very shots his defense was designed to give up.
 
Minstrel said:
That might be slightly better than dropping or chasing over at the logo, but it's still going to result in a lot of threes going in, unless they're off. Both guys are great enough shooters that a steady diet of wide open 28-30' shots is right in their wheelhouse, especially for Curry.

There's no perfect solution but, IMO, probably their best choice is to hedge and recover or even just trap if it's a big man screening for Curry/Thompson. If it's something more unusual, like a Curry-Thompson pick-and-roll (or a Durant-Curry pick-and-roll later in the series), then they probably have to switch. Golden State has many ways to pick a hedging defense apart, but at least they have to execute and work for it. If they're sloppy, they'll pay at least.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the issue. At least make them work to get open shots. They will still get them, because they are the Warriors, and they are really good, but how can you let Curry expend no energy to just launch up open 3s? Absolutely boggles the mind.
 
blue9 said:
Defensively I agree - that wasn't a bad strategy. But that absolutely WAS his offensive strategy. And that's pretty much the dictionary definition of cognitive dissonance.

Sure, LA had something to do with it. But it was Terry that ultimately decided to play him 18' from the basket rather than 8' from the basket. It was Terry that decided that LA should take more shots than all the players who were more effective than him (and MOST of our players were more effective than him). Terry wanted his offense to take the very shots his defense was designed to give up.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that was only the strategy because that's how Aldridge wanted to play. He plays for Popovich now and still prefers a diet of long mid-range shots. Also, I disagree that anyone other than Lillard was more effective than him (and Lillard only later on)--on high volume. Sure, players can post higher efficiency on a few cherry-picked shots, but in terms of carrying an offensive load, no one else on that team sans Lillard was capable of being a superior go-to scorer. Stotts had to build his strategy around his main, if flawed, offensive player.
 
Minstrel said:
Also, I disagree that anyone other than Lillard was more effective than him (and Lillard only later on)--on high volume. Sure, players can post higher efficiency on a few cherry-picked shots, but in terms of carrying an offensive load, no one else on that team sans Lillard was capable of being a superior go-to scorer.
Click to expand...
Literally every single starter (not small sample size players) was more efficient than LA. I don't really want to get bogged down in this, as it all happened years ago. I was just noting that Terry's cognitive dissonance reaches back to his very first days as our coach.

Fuck LA - so glad he's not on the team anymore. Can't wait for Terry to walk out that door and never come back. Two most overrated Blazers ever.
 
Wade Garrett said:
I know.....I know....

Terry should have announced his strategy change in the post game.
Tell Steve Kerr what he's thinking and MORE IMPORTANTLY let the panicked pricklies disquised as knowledgeable fans(fams?) know.
Grow up.
Click to expand...
How do you explain the announcers after Curry's 1st wide open 3 (both former coaches) saying that an immediate adjustment needed to be made and them being befuddled that no adjustment was made late in the 2nd half.

We just gave away a game against the Warriors. A game in which Durant didn't play. They are tough enough to beat without being stupid.
 
hoopsjock said:
How do you explain the announcers after Curry's 1st wide open 3 (both former coaches) saying that an immediate adjustment needed to be made and them being befuddled that no adjustment was made late in the 2nd half.

We just gave away a game against the Warriors. A game in which Durant didn't play. They are tough enough to beat without being stupid.
Click to expand...
Maybe why there former coaches and Stotts still coaching. I never was a big believer in Stotts idea how to play that end of the floor. But here 2 guys haven't sniff a coaching job since they was let go from last coaching gig.
 
James lamphear said:
Maybe why there former coaches and Stotts still coaching. I never was a big believer in Stotts idea how to play that end of the floor. But here 2 guys haven't sniff a coaching job since they was let go from last coaching gig.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that Stotts game plan was effective? I don't get how those announcers could be discredited. Anyone who watched that game felt the same way about how stupid it was to leave Curry wide open.
 
hoopsjock said:
How do you explain the announcers after Curry's 1st wide open 3 (both former coaches) saying that an immediate adjustment needed to be made and them being befuddled that no adjustment was made late in the 2nd half.

We just gave away a game against the Warriors. A game in which Durant didn't play. They are tough enough to beat without being stupid.
Click to expand...
Stotts had a shitty game.
He wasn't alone nor immuned.
Get over it.
 
hoopsjock said:
Read this thread again. The answer is ANY FUCKING ADJUSTMENT IS BETTER THAN GIVING CURRY AND THOMPSON OPEN THREES.

We didn't even hedge a pick or trap a pick. Every fucking time the guard died on the pick and the big sagged back too far giving them clean open looks.

I don't even get how you are arguing when you obviously aren't reading the posts.

Edit: You clarified your confusion while I was typing.
Click to expand...
Too late meanie
 
Wade Garrett said:
Stotts had a shitty game.
He wasn't alone nor immuned.
Get over it.
Click to expand...

Dude..... how can you attribute this to one game?

Aminu has been sucking ass all playoffs.

Dame has been trapped for.... what...... six different playoff series? This isn't one bad game. These are recurring issues.
 
hoopsjock said:
So what you're saying is that Stotts game plan was effective? I don't get how those announcers could be discredited. Anyone who watched that game felt the same way about how stupid it was to leave Curry wide open.
Click to expand...
No I am not saying that but you got 2 guys that was coaches that was know more successful then Stotts has been. I already said I don't like Stotts defense strategy especially with Thompson and Curry. But there was a lot of other problems out there that cost us the game. Jackson the same team that Kerr coach. Kerr wins the championship. Van gundy his biggest highlight as coach is grabbing Alonzo Mourning leg in a fight. Now both of those trying sit on TV trying tell audience that watching how it should be. Now in this case I would probably have to agree with them. But Stotts have got his team farther then both those guys did when they was coaching.
 
Wade Garrett said:
Stotts had a shitty game.
He wasn't alone nor immuned.
Get over it.
Click to expand...
I have two problems with this.

1) Stotts seemed to indicate in his answer (the whole point of this thread) that there was nothing wrong with what he did.

2) We've had the same predictable PnR defense for 7 years. It's one of the main reasons for his playoff failures (McMillan too!). The only reason it hasn't burnt us this year is both Denver and OKC had atrocious games shooting the threes.

If he tweaked it at halftime then fine, I'd still question why he thought it would work but at least today I could say he adapted. Instead not only did he not change it but he got defensive about it afterwards.

We can still win Game 2. Heck we can still win the series. Why throw away a game that would've made it way easier to accomplish that though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top