Our Scheme, Not Lillard's Absence, is Responsible For the Recent defensive success

Yeah, but you're throwing an opponent a bunch of different looks defensively, it's a lot harder to scout. Also, were playing to our strengths now, so scouting won't get rid of the improvement.

 

I still think we should try to reduce Lillard's role a little bit when he comes back.
Let CJ be the primary ballhandler, let Dame "rest on the floor" a bit more, keep the other guys involved, no more stupid ass shots from 30' etc.

As i see it, it's either that or starting with the super-switch lineup i suggested earlier (Mase-Von-Aminu-Hark-Dame / Mase-Aminu-Hark-Turner-Dame).

 

I like the idea of starting turner and giving cj that jason terry 36 minutes off the bench ball handler roll tbh

 

Yeah, killing CJs energy for the end of each half by playing him 18 straight minutes to end the half is such a great idea.

 

Bet your bottom dollar that Stotts will revert back to his old ways no matter how successful this new scheme is. We've had success with it in the past and he always goes back.

Plumlee is an undersized, but mobile center and he'd be much better suited to come out to help than sitting back by the rim.

 

There's always a counter. Other teams will make adjustments. So I'm not saying it's doomed to fail, but we don't know yet if it's going to hold up -- especially adding back in a net negative defender like Damian back into the mix.

 

Yes, i agree with this. And since we are doing stuff now that we haven't done before, we probably don't have it down that well.

 

This seems like as good of a thread as any to make a comment on coaching and defenses. Some people around here have been clamoring for Stotts' head because he's not a good defensive coach. There have been comments about how the Blazers need someone like Thibs to come in and install a solid defense. Now, Thibs is a really good defensive coach. You'll get no argument from me on that, but I couldn't help but notice that in the last game, when the Blazers only had ONE significant offensive threat, the TWolves defense couldn't get the job done. All they had to do was hold CJ to somewhere near his scoring average and they walk away with the W. Instead, he dropped 43 on them and won the game for the Blazers. The TWolves have a bevvy of young, athletic players, including KAT who we would all kill to have in a Blazers uniform. But they are YOUNG. Coaching is an essential part of defensive success, but a bigger part is getting game experience and learning some of those veteran tricks that make teams with a solid defensive rep so hard to score against.

 

agreed, our team is currently tied for second youngest roster and second in years of league experience. the converse has clevland, GS, spurs and clipps as oldest and most experienced teams, all excellent defensive teams so there seems to be some correlation to the experience/team defense concept

 

Great post. Love the Sig.

 

There is no such thing. Jason Terry has never once in his 18-year NBA career averaged 36 MPG off the bench.

He's been coming off the bench for so long, I think people forget Terry was a full time starter for the first 8 years of his NBA career. The only time in his NBA career Jason Terry averaged 36 MPG was when he was in his mid-20s (same age as C.J.) and a full time starter (same as C.J.).

Terry did not become a 6th man/full time back up until after he turned 30. The most minutes Jason Terry ever averaged coming off the bench was 33.1 MPG, at the age of 30, the very first year he became a 6th man. The next year he was at 32.2 MPG and then 30.5 MPG. Those were all in DAL. He has never even averaged 25MPG as a reserve for any team since he left DAL six seasons ago. The myth of Jason Terry being a 36 MPG off the bench guy is just that, a myth. It never happened.

Ditto for Jamal Crawford. He did not move to the bench until the age of 29 (turned 30 later that season) and has never averaged more than 31.1 MPG coming off the bench in his 19 year NBA career. The second, and last time, he even averaged 30 MPG off the bench was the next year, his last in ATL six seasons ago. His career arc was exactly the same as Jason Terry's - starter throughout their mid to late 20s averaging > 36 MPG, moved to the bench the season they turned 30, saw their minutes drop to low 30 MPG range for a couple seasons and then mid to high 20 MPG range after that.

In fact, I can't think of any recent (as in last 25 years) top 6th man type players that played that role in the prime years of their career. All of Manu, Terry, Crawford were starters during their mid to late 20s. Others, like Harden came off the bench early in their career (like C.J.), but became full time starters by the time they reached their mid-20s (like C.J.).

And, keep in mind that all of these players, at the time they were coming off the bench would have been no better than the third option on offense if they'd been in the starting line up (Harden behind Durant and Westbrook; Manu behind Tim/Kawhi and Parker; Crawford behind Blake and CP3, etc.). It makes zero sense to me to move your second best player and most efficient scorer to the bench in the prime of his career.

You WILL reduce his minutes in doing so, and that's why all of the most obvious examples (Terry, Manu, Crawford, etc.), were not moved from full time starters to bench players until later in their careers when the reduced minutes made sense to extend their careers.

The rotation that makes the most sense is to start the game and finish the game with both Dame and C.J. on the court and stagger their rest breaks in between so that there is always at least one on the court at all times (except garbage time in blowouts).

BNM

 

You don't seriously think it's a coincidence that changes like this are being implemented now that Aminu is back in the lineup and rounding nicely into game shape, do you? Like Stotts just came up with a new idea out of the blue a few days ago?

 

So where do CJs 7 minutes of rest come each half?

 

So does he get subbed in 3.5 minutes into the game? What's the point then in not starting him?

Also, you'll still have CJ and Dame on the floor the same amount of time. What's the point in having them on the floor later in quarters?

What's the point in starting him the 2nd half but not having him start the game?

It just makes no sense.

 

It makes sense an Aminu is really effective at hedging and blitzing. The thing is, the scheme fits the rest of our bigs better too, and I've been clamoring for this scheme change for over a year. You can't really say that Aminu being out was the reason we weren't playing this type of defense.

 

Doable yea, practical no.

If you swap C.J.'s and Crabbe's roles, you either swap their minutes or you end up with some pretty fucked up rotations that result in either players playing some every short stints, which never lets them even get warmed up and into the flow of the game, or some very long stints that have them playing tired.

I've mentioned several times that C.J. is our most efficient first quarter scorer. That alone should be reason to start him. If the 4th quarter is Lillard time, the 1st quarter is McCollum time. If the team gets off to a good start, it is almost guaranteed that C.J. is the one with the hot hand.

So, that begs the question, for the Dame and C.J, cannot coexist/Crabbe must start coalition: if C.J. is the more efficient 1st quarter score, why have I not seen one single post in the entire history of this forum suggesting that we should start C.J. and Crabbe and bring Dame off the bench?

Zip, nada, zero. Yet, I can't seem to go a day without someone insisting we NEED to bring C.J, off the bench, that it's his preordained destiny to be relegated to 6th man status during the prime of his career.

You know why no one has suggested we bring Dame off the bench? Because it's fucking ridiculous that's why. The notion of bringing your best player off the bench during the prime if his career is pure lunacy.

So before anyone suggests, for the billionth time, we should bring C.J. off the bench, please consider this:

Bringing your second best player, who is also your most efficient 1st quarter scorer, off the bench in the prime if his career is every bit as ridiculous as bringing your best player off the bench in the prime of his career.

The ONLY way it makes sense to bring C.J. off the bench is if he's no longer our second best player. Want to bring C.J. off the bench, sure no problem. Just go get someone better to replace his scoring with the first unit. Doesn't even have to be someone plays the same position, just someone to replace the scoring void that would be created at the beginning of games by moving C.J. to the bench.

And, if you think I'm being stubborn and bullheaded about this, please provide one example of another team who brings their second best player off the bench. Better still, provide an example of a GOOD team who brings their second best player off the bench. Apparently, I'm not alone in my stubbornness. I can't think of a single NBA coach, let alone a successful one, who thinks it's a good idea to bring his second best player off the bench.

Can't do it? This isn't a thing, because it doesn't make any practical sense. I've mentioned it about a million times, but none of the great 6th men in recent history came off the bench during the prime of their careers and none of them were in the top 2 best players on their teams at the time they were moved to the bench.

As long as C.J. is our second best player, he absolutely should continue to start.

BNM