Why does Stotts refuse to coach and stress defense?

I don't think anyone thinks the Blazer defense is fine, but it's good enough to win 80% of the games so far. Since this team is newly assembled, and our bench isn't close to complete, I'd say we've been doin okay so far. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I would say that unless you see significant improvement in team defense, between now and April, it won't add up to a fart in the wind in the playoffs.

On the one hand they're winning games, they're fun to watch and they're better than I thought they'd be, but there are some pretty glaring deficiencies that probably won't get corrected just through familiarity and time. Some (or maybe a lot?) of this is a personnel problem and possibly a coaching problem.

 

Funny that little league all star has the same rep as you do after 2000 posts.

To the OP Stotts is an offensive guy, he came up with a smart defensive system to help cover the teams poor team defense and it has worked for the most part. No threes reduce the free throws by giving up open mid range jumpers and score has been successful so far. Teams do adapt so if things start to change it will be important to see how Stotts reacts but right now chalk last night up to tired bodies and a lack of effort of that side of the ball.

 

It's funny, because it is untrue, or because you are a troll?

 

Insulting somebody sure sounds like trolling to me.

 

It's hard to be upset with our record, but it's foolish to just suggest that 22-5, or 3-1, means that there aren't legitimate concerns about the team. Yeah, according to our W/L record on this road trip we performed quite well. But when you look beyond the surface and see that two of those three wins came on buzzer-beaters against average teams, and the other win came against the team least suited to defend our 3-point barrage, then that 3-1 doesn't look quite as rosy.

The defense isn't good, at all. We give up the 3rd most points within 5' of the hoop, and the most points within 5-9' of the hoop. That's bad, no matter what way you slice it. Meanwhile, on the offensive end, we're bottom 10 in FGM from both of those distances. (Interestingly, IND - the only good team below us - ranks as the 3rd worst in FGM <5'.) And then on the flip-side, we score more than anyone in the 15-19' range - the exact shot that our defense is suppose to give up.

So yeah, 22-5 is nice. But there are some legitimate concerns about this team. Luckily there's a lot of room for improvement, and a lot of time to improve. Hopefully we will.

 

I don't think Detroit is an average team, IMO. But I see what you're saying blue.

 

Absolutely....and every team is trying to address those concerns. As fans, I thought forums were to express ideas, discuss those concerns, banter about possible solutions etc. I remember having serious concerns about how Nate ran his offense and at times was vilified because I dared question 'one of the best coaches in the league'. To each their own but you see what someone with a different approach can do. Every coach has their strengths. Wherever Tom Thibodeau goes, that team is very likely to be better defensively. That is just a different approach in scheme and strategy that he is very good at. So to suggest the Blazers have defensive issues at the rim where the easiest shots in the game take place is not anarchy, make someone a troll or not a Blazer fan. It seems a fairly realistic observation and one I'm sure most fans hope improves.

 

Yeah, I didn't feel like looking at the records, etc, and just gave DET/CLE the benefit of the doubt.
Upon second read, I think you might be saying that DET is better than average? That may be. Again - don't feel like looking at their schedule, but I suspect that if they are >average then it's largely because they play in the grossly inferior Eastern Conf.

 

I wasn't referring to you calling anyone such. It was done to me and others who dare questioned Nate. One of those posters is an extremely knowledgeable fan, played a high level of basketball, knows his stuff and has contacts and relatives in the NBA. By the response he got, you'd think he had lost his mind. So basically, he dramatically reduced his posting which was a loss for the board.

That was more in reference to responses I've seen where one person disagreed with another. The 'troll' or 'anti-Blazer' moniker seemed to come out in a hurry. I greatly appreciate the exchange of ideas and commentary. It's unfortunate when some take it so personally. I'm still learning who is being tongue-in-cheek and who is posting out of their mother's basement.

 

It absolutely was in another forum but I've seen similar here not necessarily directed at me. For the most part, it is an entertaining discussion and you hope a few people who sometimes get 'bent' don't take the fun out of it or make it inappropriate for some of the younger posters.

 

Could not of said it better myself! If you dare question Stotts defensive strategy you get called a TROLL and you're not a real fan by a lot of people on here. Then they just say well were 22-5. Yeah I know we have a good record but that is not gonna mean squat if Stotts does not start harping on the defense now. Just watching San Antonio play Golden State tonight and there backups are hanging right there with Golden State's starters in Golden State! Why you might ask? Because Pop is a defensive genius! I wish Stotts would watch what he does with his scheme on defense and apply it to the Blazers. I mean could you imagine how good this team could be if we just kept our offense how it is and actually played really good defense too? It's not about talent on defense, it's about scheme. San Antonio's BACKUPS have held Golden State in check. Our backups would give up 160 points vs Golden State's starters.

 

You've been waiting awhile to post that, huh?

 

Well then scroll up Blazer Fanatic did just that.

 

Awe, you beat me to it. Great minds... lol

Yes, there is nothing quite as amusing as the "baseless rant" argument, followed up by the "victim card" argument when people respond proportionally and quite expectedly to said "baseless rant".

A strong argument stands on it's own merits whether people agree or not.