Lillard calls out team after GSW loss

And what's more alarming is that when Terry went back and looked at the footage from the Denver loss, he thought most of the 3's they gave up were contested when many of those were late contests at best, or closed out on with a hand down.

I understand the lack of defensive talent and versatility w/o Aminu (Harkless at the 4 doesn't work, and all our other bigs can't guard most 4's), but if this team had any fight in them, they'd be below average instead of historically bad. This team is going through the motions 90% of the time defensively.

 

We have the worst closeouts in the league that's why.

 

If you're arguing that they're not being taught defense properly, I don't know how any of us can evaluate that, not being both high-level basketball instructors and privy to all the practices. But the scheme is not what's holding the players back. They play a fairly standard conservative NBA scheme that is meant to contest three-pointers and shots at the hoop and largely give up mid-range shots, since mid-range shots are generally the least efficient. Lots of teams play this sort of scheme. The idea that the Blazers are playing some uniquely bad scheme that turns a group of average or better defenders into the worst defense in NBA history isn't at all reasonable. The Blazers' defensive woes are pretty elementary: they have two awful defenders in their backcourt and little-to-no rim protection. Either of those can be a fatal flaw--both combined is insupportable. Thibodeau couldn't turn this personnel into an average defense.

Also, the idea that defense is "90% positioning" is basically a different version of "defense is just effort." Maybe at the high school level and youth league level. In the NBA, defense requires a lot of athleticism, skill and instinct. Leonard or Green aren't great defenders because they simply "want it" more than anyone else or because they understand positioning and no one else does. It's because they have a level of pattern recognition and technique that no one else has. Just as offense requires skill and talent that can't just be magicked up, defense does too. The "defense is all about effort" canard is simply something coaches say to motivate players to work on and practice their defense because few basketball players lack motivation to work on their offensive skills.

I don't think Portland players are dumb, I think they simply lack in defensive skill/talent. Effort and standard positioning aren't what's keeping Plumlee from being a rim protector or Lillard from being a strong defender. They lack some skills and talent on that end. Some of that is just physical--Lillard and McCollum don't have good size or wingspan to really bother opponents and give them some margin for error in defending drives or step-backs. Plumlee doesn't have the footspeed and explosive athleticism to get where he needs to be in time to block or alter a shot. Some of it is lack of pattern recognition (or "instinct") to quickly diagnose what's happening and where to go in a split instant.

 

I include that in positioning. Positioning = place + time. It doesn't take skill to be in the right place at the right time, it takes understanding and practice so that it becomes 2nd nature.

 

You have to be quick enough to keep your man from getting by you on defense and our guards aren't.....we had Dame guarding Draymond, CJ guarding Durant and Plumlee guarding Steph last game way too much...not enough length to pull that off

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. The scheme is, hands down, the dumbest defensive philosophy I've ever seen. Switching every screen, every time, is not "fairly standard" even for the most conservative of defenses. Teams know that every time down the floor all they have to do is run one or two screens to end up with Lillard defending Durant. No amount of skill, positioning, or fight is going to succeed in that sort of scheme. And that's only the most glaring example of how insanely stupid Terry's defense is.

 

Those are two different issues - the second speaks to the point I made in my last post.

I'm not sure that lack of quickness explains our lack of perimeter defense. Perhaps it's a component, but proper positioning and proper help on the screen could help mitigate a lack of lateral quickness.

 

Durant left CJ in the Dust.....what a mismatch ...back in the day Batum would guard Durant well

 

Switching screens is extremely common. The Warriors put it in vogue, but they weren't the first to start doing it and it's very much one of the typical sorts of defensive schemes in the NBA. You do that either with players who are capable of defending multiple positions (like the Warriors) or with players who aren't capable of navigating screens well (Portland definitely comes to mind here). If Durant's man is constantly dying on screens, your choice is to let every screen for Durant yield an open shot, switch it, or bring help in the form of a double team until Durant's man can find his way around the screen and recover.

The first one is obviously not viable, it's known as "not defending." So it's choice two or three. Of those two choices, switching is the more conservative and what you play with less apt defenders. Bringing help requires a group of hyper coordinated and aware defenders who can "play on a string"...flowing around to the perfect spot with every pass and screen. This is not "coordinated and aware like every NBA player should be." It takes a particularly skilled group of players, like the Spurs. With a group of less skilled and talented defenders, the defense breaks down chasing the ball around, trying to scramble to recover after the double-team(s).

So Stotts gets to choose between not defending shots off screens, switching the screen and potentially ending up with a bad match-up or bringing help and watching his group of sub-par defenders go into scramble mode and likely give up an even easier shot when they inevitably make a mistake. Acting like the second option here is stupid simply ignores the reality that there isn't a good option when you have a group of sub-par defenders.

That's why I said that there's no magic scheme that makes bad defenders good. When you have weak defenders, all you can choose from is bad options and I think Stotts (as would be expected from a rational person) has chosen the least-bad option. Giving up a wide open shot off the screen is terrible and putting the team into scramble mode that very likely could end with a cutter getting an easy basket at the hoop is terrible. Durant posting up Lillard and shooting a mid-range jumper over him sucks but sucks less than those other two options. "Sucks less" is the correct choice here. If you want actual good outcomes, the team needs more good defenders.

 

You forgot effort and natural quickness too -- two areas of glaring deficiency on this team.

 

length...serious T Rex guards and center we are wingspan challenged for sure in the backcourt and Plumlee...without Aminu's length it's brutal

 

Neither are "skills". My contention is that defense is more attributable to scheme and execution than individuals possessing defensive skills. Skilled individuals would certainly help cover up for a bad scheme, or mistakes in execution, but should not be the foundation of a defense.

 

TLDR, but this first sentence. Yes, switching is common. Switching EVERY time is NOT common. Switching every time is STUPID.

 

Chris Haynes was on the Truehoop podcast today and dropped a line about this. He said he ran into CJ and Dame in SF after the game and spoke about Dames mindset about how Dame is so sure of himself that he just wants to get to the playoffs and he'll take care of the rest. He thinks this team can win when it gets there.

Spoke to Dame's (and other superstar leaders') sometimes completely irrational confidence and how they wouldn't be nearly as succesful without it. Found that to be cool insight.

 

Being an extreme optimist, I was REALLY looking forward to this year. Now? I hope Dame first concentrates on getting the team even to the playoffs. If not, then screw it. Tank time.....

 

Switching screens as a team's general way to approach screens is very common. It's one defensive philosophy regarding screens, the conservative one as I outlined above. No team does anything literally 100% of the time, Portland included. I've seen plenty of times where a screen wasn't switched and the player tried (usually poorly) to fight over the screen or go under it. It's simply Portland's scheme to usually switch schemes and that's (one) standard way to approach screens even if it creates a bad match-up (because the other options are worse).

 

That's kind of frightening, IMO. Teams that won championships the previous season often have this mindset - but they can afford to. Teams that made it to the 2nd round because their first round opponent had their two best players go down mid-series can't afford to have this sort of mindset.

 

They just need a pep talk from Joe "Small Print" McGrath.