@handiman I'm guessing you think we had more of a scheme deficiency the last couple of years vs. a personnel deficiency? (For simplicity's sake I'm restricting judgement to the Stott's era). Lots of teams have been able to win with fairly conservative, fundamentally sound schemes. Ultimately it usually comes down to execution and the quality of your athletes. Assuming Olshey acquires the right guys lots of different schemes can work - Ultimately it's about Jimmies and Joes, not Xs and Os.
Yeah... IDK. Last year we were shit on the PnR, and switched like madmen. It burned us. We also had very little shot blocking/intimidating factor on the inside. Didn't steal the ball very much IIRC either.
The thing is, it's by Stotts' DESIGN that nobody jumps out to stop PG penetration off of a pick. It doesn't matter who is on the team - Stotts wants the defense to sag back, which gives PGs all the room in the world to operate off of picks.
Yeah. We had some pretty good defenders in Matthews, Batum, and Lopez. And Aldridge is considered at least average. We were still pretty mediocre with that defensive core until filling out the bench last year with some vets who kept us from giving up big leads every time the starters sat. It's tough to separate the mid-season injuries from the defensive slide, but my feeling all along was that the defense was too predictable (and easy to dissect) to remain statistically viable throughout the season. I meant what examples of teams are there that started with conservative schemes for young players, then transformed the defense into something more effective for deep playoff runs? Today's NBA is dictated by ball dominating scorers, and our defense is designed around making it as easy as possible for them to operate in the mid-range game.
Batum was never that great defensively. He somehow got the rep for being some kind of dedicated wing-stopper, but the truth is he was never able to fulfill his promise at that end of the court. If you don't believe me, that's not just my opinion, it comes straight from his "scounting report" tab at espn.com (whether or not you give any weight to their opinion is another matter). Secondly, Lopez was a plodder, a guy who can take up space and challenge shots, but certainly no defensive ace, mix in some really poor defense from Lillard on the perimeter and the picture it paints is a team with some pretty ho-hum defensive players (aside from Wesley who I thought was pretty good) with limited physicality and less than elite athleticism. If anything I think the scheme was deployed to maximize their chances of being effective and to Stott's and his assistants' credit they somehow cobbled together a team that took away higher value shots and forced teams into lower valued one. I'm anxious to see how it works with guys who are more athletic and more defensively inclined (Davis, Aminu, et al.). The biggest issue I see is youth, and inexperience working together as a unit.
I called Batum pretty good, not great. I absolutely agree that he was a disappointment overall defensively, but he was extremely versatile and should have been a major weapon in a trapping scheme. Not many people can cover the 1-2-3 and occasionally 4 positions that effectively. Plodding isn't really a knock when it comes to defensive centers. Andrew Bogut was considered one of the best defenders in the league this year, and let's just say a footrace between him and Lopez would be pretty entertaining. When you look at the front line as a whole, with five rotation-quality "7-footers" and two very versatile wing defenders, it should have been a lockdown defensive unit with a good scheme. A good scheme can always hide one weak link (i.e. Lillard), like the Pistons with Rip Hamilton.
Batum was the single most overrated defender in the history of the NBA - Bill Walton And Olshey said that Wes Matthews wasn't as good defensively as people thought.
http://www.blazersedge.com/2015/7/2...ail-blazers-2015-16-defensive-scheme-analysis That's a little surprising, and perhaps a bit disappointing, but we should stop short of assuming the defense will look similar even if the scheme remains the same. That may be a strange thing to say but there are lots of changes along the margins of a scheme that can affect how a defense functions. At a certain level, most teams in the NBA employ the same scheme. With the exception of Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Miami, and a few teams that hedge with their power forwards, every team prefers to drop their bigs back against the pick and roll. However, lots of teams' defenses look different because of slight but significant variations within that general framework. Last year, the Blazers had one of the most drastic defenses in the league. They dropped their bigs more consistently and farther than almost any other team. This worked because they had a plethora of trees that could protect the rim. Portland doesn't have those trees anymore. It all depends on what Stotts means by "pressuring" in the quote above. He may not be considering trapping screens but I'd be surprised if the Blazers' bigs don't pick up ball handlers a little higher up the court. The overall philosophy might stay the same but the fine tuning and positioning of the players will have to change. This "fine tuning" may seem insignificant or like fringe changes around the edges of a defense but it can have a drastic effect on its overall character. Pulling the bigs a step or two higher up the court would likely lead to more turnovers, less dribbling by opponent guards and a more active feel to the entire defense. It might be the same basic scheme but it wouldn't behave like the'stay at home, give the ball handler lots of space defense we've grown accustomed to. Along these same lines, the extent of help can change slightly with more athletic, extra long defenders. Al-farouq Aminu and Maurice Harkless have crazy long wingspans and quick feet. If they can take an extra half step, or even a full step into help position, Stotts would be crazy not to encourage them to do so. They wouldn't be making different rotations but those same rotations would be longer. This would, again, lead to more turnovers and a more active defense. More athleticism should also allow increased ball pressure. Aminu and Gerald Henderson seem especially prepared to hawk the ball and bother ball handlers. Last year, Portland struggled controlling the ball and sending it certain directions. We'll have to see how disciplined and refined some of the new defenders are but they have the athleticism to be more aggressive than defenders in years past. I expect the defense to go at the offense, as opposed to simply reacting, much more next season. Finally, this pressure can also be increased off the ball. Memphis disrupted many of our offensive possessions because their guards and wings were physical when chasing Portland's players around picks and denying them along the perimeter. This forced the Blazers' guards and wings to catch the ball farther out and away from their ideal locations. Except for Zach Randolph hedging screens, Memphis had a similar, basic philosophy. They didn't want to get caught in scrambling rotations. However, their guards and wings were much more athletic and physical along the perimeter and it gave their defense an entirely different feel. The Blazers should be able to incorporate some more of this off ball physicality with their new length and athleticism. All that is to say, just because Stotts might not change the Blazers' basic philosophy doesn't mean we won't see the character of the defense change. Picking the ball up a few feet higher, helping an extra half step, and being more physical on and off the ball would all have a profound effect on the defense without deviating from the existing structure. I fully expect the defense to appear much more active and to force more turnovers than the past few years. There's just no way Ed Davis and Mason Plumlee can succeed in the exact same context that LaMarcus Aldridge and Robin Lopez thrived in. They're too different.
Great post!!! As much as I think Coaching will be the most important factor this next season, I agree 100%. You can run the same scheme but in different ways depending on your players strengths, etc.
I agree with you on that but what Portland had trouble last year they ran the same scheme against every team that why Chris Paul tore us up when play against us. The reason is his mid game was great but stotts didn't adjust to that when they play the clippers.
His defense on James Harden is singlehandedly what won us that series. Not LA monstering in the first two games. And not Lillard at .9. Wesley holding Harden to 8/28 regularly is what was needed to win that series.
+> and..........they are playing motivation from all the titles they acquired. I think Popovich is the standard.
And we aren't the Spurs. With the skill set of our current team we should be doing a lot of transition.
Oh no I'm not doubting that at all. I just remembered how the Spurs took care of the Heat's blitzing defense. That's all.
