Hmm, we'll have to see how this goes. Portland was 10th in the league in defensive efficiency last year (and 8th in offensive efficiency). Maybe this crew will still get more steals on talent alone. http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2015/07/trail_blazers_wont_change_defensive_scheme.html
So with all the athletes we have, and all the transition basketball were gonna play, we're not going to try to force turnovers? THAT'S WEAK
Well I can't argue with using the same defensive scheme as the Spurs. Now we need the same coaching. The talent on defense is not the issue. SA is not loaded with superior athletes, but they make it work.
I'll worry about the scheme when the Blazers can find players that can keep their man in front of them. That wasn't really the case last year.
"Their principles of limiting driving lanes and opportunities in the paint while forcing contested mid-range jumpers won't change." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I don't think that is what he said. He won't trap and extend the defense, but I expect this new team to force more turnovers. I would rather see them force turnovers with solid half court defense than try to trap and press and get beat.
We now have shot blockers and wing defenders. We have offensive rebounder and youth..the scheme will absolutely change with this roster. Our defensive efficiency was much higher first 30 games of last season..dropped off when injuries happened. Stotts changed his defensive game last season and had good results. No reason to think he won't address it with this team.
The one thing I got out of that article is that they are really high on CJ McCollum. First Olshey and now Stotts single him out
Losing four starters was a tough pill to swallow, but that quote is the single most depressing aspect of the off-season. Since when is pressure defense not a good formula? What we've got is a very conservative defensive scheme that will get abused by patient teams, especially in the playoffs. It's fools gold. And we don't "[force] contested mid-range jumpers," we happily give up uncontested, theoretically less efficient mid-range jumpers. I've felt for awhile that Stotts is a very creative offensive coach but limited defensively. His willingness to tweak the offense to suit the new personnel but not the defense just reinforces that perception. Having said that, I do agree with keeping a solid foundation to the defensive approach with so many young players.
In the short-term I wouldn't worry too much. In any case, there's actually a strong case for focusing all these young guys on learning to play good, fundamental team defense. Once they get that down and they start to play as a unit, maybe you loosen the screws at that point?
The players that played it wouldn't commit to the PG. I think more able and willing young bucks can jump out more aggressively, which should make it more efficient
Agree wholeheartedly! Give them a team plan first, then let them do their magic. Trapping teams only get so far, plus you really need a major shot blocker to help recover. I don't know if we got one right now.
Davis seems to have the instincts, but more than want of a dominant shot-blocker our perimeter defense was the prime offender the last couple of years and it won't get better until/unless Damian improves considerably at that end.
I think the Blazers should only play defense half the time and offense the other half. It's more balanced that way.
For sure, but wouldn't you rather they develop a defensive identity while rebuilding toward the playoffs, rather than have to become a good defensive unit once we've established which players are keepers? Maybe, but can you think of any examples of teams following that path toward anything more than mediocre defense in the playoffs? I can only come up with teams that put a system in early and developed personnel to fit it. I look at it like "playing to win" vs. "playing not to lose." The latter usually results in a loss.
