I think at first, like in the first 2-3 games it will be "This coach is sooooo much better". Won't take more than 5 games. It'll take a season but rest assured someone will start the hate.
In my experience of playing and coaching, you can't be an undisciplined team for 44 minutes then everyone decide they want to be disciplined when you feel it matters most. Even if it were true, you're saying our group (half of which are minus defenders) can rally and become an above average defensive team in the clutch because they want to. That would mean they're also out defending disciplined teams, with better defenders; just doesn't add up to me. Not trying to sound rude, but nearly everything you said appears to be a narrative and isn't backed up by anything of substance.
That might be true but it's bullshit. It's already unprecedented in the history of the league for a head coach to be retained for a ninth season having never won a game in the conference finals. Olshey has been let off of the hook for keeping Stotts for far too long and for not adapting when it's become painfully obvious that the Dame/CJ back court is less than the sum of its parts. You might think that the Dame/CJ thing comes down to the way they've been coached but that falls on Olshey again for keeping Stotts. If the team doesn't win a game in the conference finals (which seems pretty damn close to an impossibility) both Neil and Terry should go and to make a statement but also to help it make sense to Dame, you fire Olshey first and then let the new GM fire Stotts. I love Dame, he's my favorite player in the history of the game. I don't hero worship the guy like I did Clyde from the time I started following basketball until I was an adult which was after he was retired. That being said, if Dame is holding this franchise hostage then he's not the guy I think he is and regardless it's the team's job to go to Dame, tell him they gave things a chance his way and offer him to get on board with big changes that he won't like or choose to leave. We could get great value for Dame, put him in a place where he wants to go. However, if I was the Blazers in that position I would do that for him but also tactfully make it known that Dame just wasn't on board with allowing the team to do what it needed to in order to achieve more success.
OK let's run through this logically... either we magically become a better defense in clutch time or the same guys play better than they do during the rest of the game. So we either have a team that is checked out the majority of the time despite Stotts' efforts (which mean's Stotts has lost the team) or we have a situation in which the players choose how much effort they give and when they do it (which means Stotts is asleep at the wheel). Personally I think it's the last scenario but it's definitely not magic. In your experience, how can this inconsistency not point towards a coaching issue? I'm not being rhetorical. Honestly what do you think the issue is?
Stotts, himself, said from his own mouth, that holding players accountable on defense is just a “catchphrase.” What more evidence do you need for causation?
We would all love to see the Bosnian Beast....but that persona really only existed for a short time after he came over from Denver. It has never really shown itself again except in the briefest of spurts.
I get what you're saying, but Nurk has been injured for so long that I don't think we know whether the beast is gone or simply dormant. Either Nurk unleashes the beast again or he doesn't. What you or I believe/hope he can/will do is pretty much irrelevant.
Well, I pretty much agree with Stotts so I guess I'm going to need more evidence. What does "holding players accountable" mean? Is he going to go all high school coach and make them run laps if they screw up a defensive rotation? Is he going to cut their playing time? I guess, if they guy isn't particularly important to the offense like Simons or Ellis, but Kanter, Melo, Dame, CJ? Yeah, he's not going to cut their minutes. Olshey did dump Trent and Hood to bring in another serious defender, so I think that sends the message that the team is serious about improving the defensive effort. I think guys accept that they need to get better and are working to do that. So, yeah, a reporter asking Stotts if he's going to hold players accountable is kind of a meaningless catchphrase.
At this point in the season all of this talk is more irrelevant than usual and it's almost always completely irrelevant.
Your last question was my original question. I'm open to idea that we're inconsistent due to poor schemes, but it would only make sense to me if those inconsistencies were spread out. If some times we are great in the clutch, other times we awful in the clutch, that I could point to poor scheme. But we haven't been awful late in close games, we're significantly better in the clutch than the rest of the game. To say we're clutch on offense because of Dame is probably the simple and likely correct answer. The defense though I can't give Dame the credit to... the improvement gap is far too large for a minus defender to make up. As you probably know, I'm almost always going to dismiss any assessment regarding effort, heart, passion, etc. because I think it's the reason people give when they can't figure out the real reason. I'm not convinced our defense effort is better at the end of the game, I think the results are better. I don't know the why. I do think players in general are going to be more locked in at the end of the game, but that's going to be true on both ends of the court. Our bad defense is going to be more locked in, but it will be against an opponent typically more locked in, running their best offensive action.
So here's a question for you: If the players aren't giving the effort on defense, who's fault is that? The coach? The players? A combination? The GM for not bringing in good defenders? How does a guy like Thibs go to a team like NY and make them into a really good defensive team overnight? They had the 19th best opponents PPG last year, and this season they're #1. So what changed? I think their personnel was basically the same for the most part. Why are they so much better?
Let me ask you a different question: If the Blazers brought in a hardass like Thibs, who has been known to fail after players, particularly star players, tire of his drill sergeant ways, how long do you think it would be before implosion occurs?
Let me answer your question with ANOTHER question: If Thibs could turn us into one of the best offensive and defensive teams in the league and we won a title, would it be worth it? This team is extremely gifted on offense. The defense is the missing piece. If Thibs could add that component, if only for a couple years, would it be worth it to see what we could do?
In general, I've been pretty consistent that this is a players league and they are paid to be ultimately responisble. If a coach could consistently make a 20 spot ranking difference, they would be worth $50m a year, if not more (I would argue more). I feel a team of bad defenders will never be on a good defensive team, regardless of scheme. It's up to the GM, to put a roster together with quality defenders, and then it's up to the coach to come up with a scheme to fit. So they all share responsibility. I'm not mad at Kanter for being bad a defense because he's never been a good defender, we knew that when we got him. I haven't watched enough Knicks games from last year to this year to provide an educated opinion on their roster change, minute breakdown, scheme, etc. I have seen our defensive rating range 20 spots under the same scheme though.
Tough call. A title would be great. I guess it just depends on how big of a smoking crater it left behind. The Blazers played pretty good D under Nate McMillan, but it sure got ugly after the bloom faded.
