Forum Game Blazers Defense

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Predict our Defensive Rating for 2021-2022

  • Top 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Top 10 (but not Top 5)

    Votes: 12 30.8%

  • Top 15 (but not Top 10)

    Votes: 20 51.3%

  • Top 20 (but not Top 15)

    Votes: 7 17.9%

  • Top 25 (but not Top 20)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Bottom 5... like last year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    39
Wizard Mentor

Wizard Mentor

Wizard Mentor
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
14,705
Likes
15,002
Points
113
With this last move, we have improved our defensive personnel, and (hopefully) a vastly improved defensive coach. Now, we can throw out defensive lineups such as the following:
Dame, Powell, RoCo, Nance, Nurk.

Assuming we are now done getting rotation players (i.e. CJ is not traded), what do you predict our Defensive Rating (Drtg) will be at the end of the season?

Remember, we finished 29th last season. However, our starters Drtg post-Nurk/Powell was considerably better.
 
Last edited:
Wizard Mentor said:
With this last move, we have improved our defensive personnel, and (hopefully) a vastly improved defensive coach. Now, we can throw out defensive lineups such as the following:
Dame, Powell, RoCo, Nance, Nurk.

Assuming we are now done getting rotation players (i.e. CJ is not traded), what do you predict our Defensive Rating (Drtg) will be at the end of the season?

Remember, we finished 29th last season. However, our starters Drtg post-Nurk/Powell with considerably better.
Click to expand...
Like so many things this season I think it depends on if we make more moves or not but as it stands there are other variables. How much will we see the ill conceived lineup that includes three players under 6'4"? If those three play a lot of minutes together we're going to be in trouble. Our starting lineup has two guys at the guard positions who have been traditionally really bad defensively, a guard playing out of position at SF, a smallish PF and a C that made more sense defensively 10-20 years ago when covering the perimeter wasn't a prerequisite to being elite defensively. We have a good defensive forward coming off the bench now in Nance. We have a guy in Nas that has a lot of potential defensively. We have a bunch of min players that are average defensively. We've got Ant who often gets completely lost defensively.

At the same time we have a new coach who was part of one of the greatest defensive teams in league history. Even though Billups plans on making defense a priority and Stotts didn't seem to we still have the personnel we have. It seems we're still planning on playing Dame and CJ a lot of minutes together and not to expect that to be a defensive liability would be absolutely insane after all of these seasons. I think without a trade we'll be out of the bottom third of the league but not in the top half so somewhere between 20th and 16th. 29th to 20th-16th is a huge improvement when we just got rid of a couple of defensive liabilities, signed a bunch of average defenders and traded a really good defender (DJJ) for a better and more versatile one (Nance).
 
Obviously depends on health and it’s kind of hard to predict when we don’t really know what kind of system they’ll be running, but my gut tells me they’re gonna be significantly better. But it all starts with Dame and CJ. They need to buy in.
 
blazerkor said:
Like so many things this season I think it depends on if we make more moves or not but as it stands there are other variables. How much will we see the ill conceived lineup that includes three players under 6'4"? If those three play a lot of minutes together we're going to be in trouble. Our starting lineup has two guys at the guard positions who have been traditionally really bad defensively, a guard playing out of position at SF, a smallish PF and a C that made more sense defensively 10-20 years ago when covering the perimeter wasn't a prerequisite to being elite defensively. We have a good defensive forward coming off the bench now in Nance. We have a guy in Nas that has a lot of potential defensively. We have a bunch of min players that are average defensively. We've got Ant who often gets completely lost defensively.

At the same time we have a new coach who was part of one of the greatest defensive teams in league history. Even though Billups plans on making defense a priority and Stotts didn't seem to we still have the personnel we have. It seems we're still planning on playing Dame and CJ a lot of minutes together and not to expect that to be a defensive liability would be absolutely insane after all of these seasons. I think without a trade we'll be out of the bottom third of the league but not in the top half so somewhere between 20th and 16th. 29th to 20th-16th is a huge improvement when we just got rid of a couple of defensive liabilities, signed a bunch of average defenders and traded a really good defender (DJJ) for a better and more versatile one (Nance).
Click to expand...
I think the under 6'4" thing is totally overblown. How did we do when those 3 were in the game at the same time last year? Also, my understanding is that Powell has the wingspan of a SF.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
I think the under 6'4" thing is totally overblown. How did we do when those 3 were in the game at the same time last year? Also, my understanding is that Powell has the wingspan of a SF.
Click to expand...
Those numbers are inflated by the fact that teams were trying to lose down the stretch and before that we had easy match ups. The under 6'4" thing was a major problem against Denver and teams have seen that now, so they will adjust accordingly. Powell does have the wingspan of a SF but the height of a PG and the body of a SG... playing him at forward is setting him up for failure and failing to take advantage of his great defensive skills when not playing out of position.

That being said, we'll just wait and see, maybe I'm wrong and also maybe coach Billups can do things that make our weaknesses strengths.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
With this last move, we have improved our defensive personnel, and (hopefully) a vastly improved defensive coach. Now, we can throw out defensive lineups such as the following:
Dame, Powell, RoCo, Nance, Nurk.

Assuming we are now done getting rotation players (i.e. CJ is not traded), what do you predict our Defensive Rating (Drtg) will be at the end of the season?

Remember, we finished 29th last season. However, our starters Drtg post-Nurk/Powell was considerably better.
Click to expand...

good thread!

i think soooo much of it depends on Billups and the players buying in to him.
Thats all i have for now other than if Billups gets them to fall in line, top 10 this year, top 5 next year.
 
blazerkor said:
Those numbers are inflated by the fact that teams were trying to lose down the stretch and before that we had easy match ups. The under 6'4" thing was a major problem against Denver and teams have seen that now, so they will adjust accordingly. Powell does have the wingspan of a SF but the height of a PG and the body of a SG... playing him at forward is setting him up for failure and failing to take advantage of his great defensive skills when not playing out of position.

That being said, we'll just wait and see, maybe I'm wrong and also maybe coach Billups can do things that make our weaknesses strengths.
Click to expand...

How can you mention the teams trying to lose idea, which maybe impacted the last 10 games or so, and not mention the negative impact on the defensive rating of Nurk missing almost half the season? As I recall teams weren’t trying to lose during that part of the season.
 
blazerkor said:
Those numbers are inflated by the fact that teams were trying to lose down the stretch and before that we had easy match ups. The under 6'4" thing was a major problem against Denver and teams have seen that now, so they will adjust accordingly. Powell does have the wingspan of a SF but the height of a PG and the body of a SG... playing him at forward is setting him up for failure and failing to take advantage of his great defensive skills when not playing out of position.

That being said, we'll just wait and see, maybe I'm wrong and also maybe coach Billups can do things that make our weaknesses strengths.
Click to expand...
Which teams were trying to lose? All of them? That's a very general statement to me that is simply not true. Denver rested Jokic in the second half of the last game but the other teams seemed to be trying. Phoenix beat us. Also- there's no such thing as an easy game in this league. I think the only teams trying to lose were OKC and then the Clippers in their last two games. Also- our starters played great in the playoffs against Denver. I believe we had a net rating of 20ish per 100 possessions when all the starters played together. It was the bench that killed us. As I understand. Can someone confirm?
 
e_blazer said:
How can you mention the teams trying to lose idea, which maybe impacted the last 10 games or so, and not mention the negative impact on the defensive rating of Nurk missing almost half the season? As I recall teams weren’t trying to lose during that part of the season.
Click to expand...
People are referring to the great numbers put up buy our starting lineup that ended last season and looks like will start this season. So of course we would have been better than 29th if we had Nurk and Norm the entire season but the numbers that have that lineup being a top ten defense were inflated by schedule and end of season shit.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
I think the under 6'4" thing is totally overblown. How did we do when those 3 were in the game at the same time last year? Also, my understanding is that Powell has the wingspan of a SF.
Click to expand...
Also, defense isn't just about size. Look at Phoenix last season. Chris Paul is listed at 6', and Booker is listed at 6'5" but he's 6'5" the same way Dame is 6'2". Haha.

And Booker was never known as a plus defender. He was always thought of much like CJ. Like he would always be a liability and you probably couldn't have a great defense with him playing 36 minutes a game, especially next to an undersized PG. Defense is about coaching, schemes, effort, and IQ. When you mix some freak physical attributes, of course you can have great defense as well.
 
I admit that I tend to be rosy-eyed this time of the year, but I think Norm with a full training camp and full year with the Blazers will, even by itself, really help our defense.
 
KSF-ERIC said:
Which teams were trying to lose? All of them? That's a very general statement to me that is simply not true. Denver rested Jokic in the second half of the last game but the other teams seemed to be trying. Also- there's no such thing as an easy game in this league. I think the only teams trying to lose were OKC and then the Clippers in their last two games. Also- the starters played great in the playoffs against Denver. I believe we had a net rating of 20ish when all the starters played together. It was the bench that killed us. As I understand. Can someone confirm?
Click to expand...
I don't know man, you were the one guaranteeing me that they would and I argued that they wouldn't try to lose and you were right... not me. The Nets and Lakers didn't play anyone against us then the Spurs, Jazz and Nuggets all gave their games away. Before all of that we had a really easy stretch or at least a stretch that should have been easy.
 
blazerkor said:
People are referring to the great numbers put up buy our starting lineup that ended last season and looks like will start this season. So of course we would have been better than 29th if we had Nurk and Norm the entire season but the numbers that have that lineup being a top ten defense were inflated by schedule and end of season shit.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I’m not really looking at last season to show much about this season’s defensive capabilities. I’m trusting that Billups means it when he says playing D isn’t optional. That change in emphasis, coupled with exchanging Melo and Kanter for solid defenders, should move the Blazers into the top half of the league defensively, IMO. Size is the only reason they may not make top-10.
 
I don't care what you guys say. :cool:

Im still concerned about the sf position.
Defense is about scheme and effort until it becomes one on one iso.
The playoffs slow down and become a more half court oriented game.
Whether it works or not, we shall see but i see alot of teams looking to make switches to get the ball into our sf hands knowing they have a much larger defender( on average) to throw at him.
Now i know that is on the offensive side but if they get stops on us then their buckets become easier on run outs, making it harder on us defensively.

The board is fairly clearly torn on this 3guard lineup. It will be interesting how it plays out, no doubt!
 
Orion Bailey said:
I don't care what you guys say. :cool:

Im still concerned about the sf position.
Defense is about scheme and effort until it becomes one on one iso.
The playoffs slow down and become a more half court oriented game.
Whether it works or not, we shall see but i see alot of teams looking to make switches to get the ball into our sf hands knowing they have a much larger defender( on average) to throw at him.
Now i know that is on the offensive side but if they get stops on us then their buckets become easier on run outs, making it harder on us defensively.

The board is fairly clearly torn on this 3guard lineup. It will be interesting how it plays out, no doubt!
Click to expand...
I know you don't care about what I think! :)
The concern about Powell at the 3 can be measured with stats. I haven't seen anyone use stats to justify their concern.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
I know you don't care about what I think! :)
The concern about Powell at the 3 can be measured with stats. I haven't seen anyone use stats to justify their concern.
Click to expand...

sample size though. Thats why i say we shall see how it plays out. In the playoffs, when pitted against a larger Porter jr., we got pretty much torched. If not for super Dame, we possibly get swept.

plus im not a stats guy. Not that i dont believe in them, just i never take the time to find and study them. Not lazy, just a low priority to me when there are others here so good at it and i just piggy back off their knowledge and findings. Im sneaky like that. Lol.
 
Dame already played much better defense at the end of last year, our terrible coach (at least defense wise) is gone, some terrible defenders like Kanter are gone. I voted 15-20 but I think we can even be better if Elleby gets playing time, he's the best defender on the team IMO.
 
Orion Bailey said:
sample size though. Thats why i say we shall see how it plays out. In the playoffs, when pitted against a larger Porter jr., we got pretty much torched. If not for super Dame, we possibly get swept.

plus im not a stats guy. Not that i dont believe in them, just i never take the time to find and study them. Not lazy, just a low priority to me when there are others here so good at it and i just piggy back off their knowledge and findings. Im sneaky like that. Lol.
Click to expand...

Norm is fine defending most SFs because of his freaky long wingspan. There are a few bigger guys who are going to give him problems though. With yesterday’s trade, now the Blazers have options to adjust when a guy like Porter gets it going against Norm. Switching Nance to the 3 on those nights is going to be a nice option.
 
e_blazer said:
Norm is fine defending most SFs because of his freaky long wingspan. There are a few bigger guys who are going to give him problems though. With yesterday’s trade, now the Blazers have options to adjust when a guy like Porter gets it going against Norm. Switching Nance to the 3 on those nights is going to be a nice option.
Click to expand...

great point. Dont get me wrong. Im very intrigued. But just need to see it for a bit first to get on board as a long term solution, before im sold i suppose.
 
blazerkor said:
The under 6'4" thing was a major problem against Denver and teams have seen that now, so they will adjust accordingly. Powell does have the wingspan of a SF but the height of a PG and the body of a SG... playing him at forward is setting him up for failure and failing to take advantage of his great defensive skills when not playing out of position.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you are saying it when we have numbers that prove it wrong. In the playoffs, the starting lineup played 112 minutes together, during these 112 minutes the stats look as follows:

Def-RTG: 103.1 (That's elite defense, better than their 370 minutes together in the regular season).
Off-RTG: 124.8 (That's elite offense, almost by 6 points over their regular season)
Net-RTG: 21.7 (That's bonkers, they were clobbering Denver with that line-up).

The Blazers defense failed in just about any other combination. If you look at this series, there were only 2 5-unit lineups that had more than 20 minutes through the entire series - and both of them had fantastic results (The other one is replacing Nurkic with Melo which was actually even smaller). All other combinations played very little together because they were so bad.

But, size was not the issue for the Blazers defensively. It was the large amount of bad defenders on the roster. Last year, the Blazers had 4+ defenders on the roster (Nurk, Roco, Powell, DJJ). DJJ's offense was so bad that his defensive plus was neutralized.

Norm or Norm's size was not a problem for the Blazers when he had other good defenders next to him - he is a better defender than you give him credit for and while I am sure there are times his size is a problem - it is nowhere near the problem you believe it is. Even that Dame, CJ, Powell, Melo Roco lineup was not horrible defensively (it was not great, but it was not horrible) against Denver. That lineup was actually mind boggling good on offense so it's 109.8 rating on defense was fine.

If you look through the entire playoffs across the league. If you do a 5 units with a positive net-rating that played at least 100 minutes, this lineup was 3rd best defensively in the league.

https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/a...DEF_RATING&dir=-1&CF=NET_RATING*G*0:MIN*G*100
 
andalusian said:
I am not sure why you are saying it when we have numbers that prove it wrong. In the playoffs, the starting lineup played 112 minutes together, during these 112 minutes the stats look as follows:

Def-RTG: 103.1 (That's elite defense, better than their 370 minutes together in the regular season).
Off-RTG: 124.8 (That's elite offense, almost by 6 points over their regular season)
Net-RTG: 21.7 (That's bonkers, they were clobbering Denver with that line-up).

The Blazers defense failed in just about any other combination. If you look at this series, there were only 2 5-unit lineups that had more than 20 minutes through the entire series - and both of them had fantastic results (The other one is replacing Nurkic with Melo which was actually even smaller). All other combinations played very little together because they were so bad.

But, size was not the issue for the Blazers defensively. It was the large amount of bad defenders on the roster. Last year, the Blazers had 4+ defenders on the roster (Nurk, Roco, Powell, DJJ). DJJ's offense was so bad that his defensive plus was neutralized.

Norm or Norm's size was not a problem for the Blazers when he had other good defenders next to him - he is a better defender than you give him credit for and while I am sure there are times his size is a problem - it is nowhere near the problem you believe it is. Even that Dame, CJ, Powell, Melo Roco lineup was not horrible defensively (it was not great, but it was not horrible) against Denver. That lineup was actually mind boggling good on offense so it's 109.8 rating on defense was fine.

If you look through the entire playoffs across the league. If you do a 5 units with a positive net-rating that played at least 100 minutes, this lineup was 3rd best defensively in the league.

https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/a...DEF_RATING&dir=-1&CF=NET_RATING*G*0:MIN*G*100
Click to expand...
Those numbers are skewed but that's OK. I hope you're right. When our starting lineup played against theirs we were not a +21 net rating. That's not how it went down. Their rotation was different than ours and they were playing pretty small at times as well. They still managed to beat us despite not having three of what would have been nine of their rotation players. It's all bad though because we lost the series and I don't need stats to tell me what I saw. MPJ could get a shot off over Norm whenever he wanted... he also backed Norm down and MPJ isn't even a strong SF. So, let's hope it's not a problem this upcoming season but size is a pretty easy thing to game plan for and expose.
 
The numbers are raw, there is nothing skewed about them. You could argue that the blazers starters were decimated by the nuggets starters but somehow played enough minutes against scrubs to get this amazing defensive rating.

All I will say is that I find it very unlikely. The sample size, regular season and playoffs is large enough to suggest that it very unlikely that the blazers really have a defensive issue with this lineup. I am not saying there no specific matchups that will give it problems, but generally, the numbers give me confidence that the argument you presented is meritless
 
blazerkor said:
Those numbers are inflated by the fact that teams were trying to lose down the stretch and before that we had easy match ups. The under 6'4" thing was a major problem against Denver and teams have seen that now, so they will adjust accordingly. Powell does have the wingspan of a SF but the height of a PG and the body of a SG... playing him at forward is setting him up for failure and failing to take advantage of his great defensive skills when not playing out of position.

That being said, we'll just wait and see, maybe I'm wrong and also maybe coach Billups can do things that make our weaknesses strengths.
Click to expand...
Do other teams have the 6'10 sniping SF that Denver has?
 
blazerkor said:
Those numbers are skewed but that's OK. I hope you're right. When our starting lineup played against theirs we were not a +21 net rating. That's not how it went down. Their rotation was different than ours and they were playing pretty small at times as well. They still managed to beat us despite not having three of what would have been nine of their rotation players. It's all bad though because we lost the series and I don't need stats to tell me what I saw. MPJ could get a shot off over Norm whenever he wanted... he also backed Norm down and MPJ isn't even a strong SF. So, let's hope it's not a problem this upcoming season but size is a pretty easy thing to game plan for and expose.
Click to expand...
If Norm was 6'7 he'd still be getting those shots off.
 
BonesJones said:
If Norm was 6'7 he'd still be getting those shots off.
Click to expand...
There isn't one defender i've seen keep Dame from shooting a quality shot. Players are too good. You can only try to alter the shot, or force a pass. Or get a double team to help like CP3 always did.
 
The more I think about it, the less concerned I am with the "OuR sF iS oNlY sIx FoUr!!" hysteria. For the most part, we know Norm can hold his own against most NBA SFs. In those rare circumstances when the opponent's size is just too much, we have to trust Chauncey to utilize all the 6'7" dudes on the roster (RoCo, Nance, Snell, Nas if he's grown like the pics suggested) at the forward spots, and shift Simons out of the rotation for that game so Norm/CJ can get all their minutes at 1/2.

If our coaching change was worthwhile, I think we should be OK with Norm being our primary SF.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
The more I think about it, the less concerned I am with the "OuR sF iS oNlY sIx FoUr!!" hysteria. For the most part, we know Norm can hold his own against most NBA SFs. In those rare circumstances when the opponent's size is just too much, we have to trust Chauncey to utilize all the 6'7" dudes on the roster (RoCo, Nance, Snell, Nas if he's grown like the pics suggested) at the forward spots, and shift Simons out of the rotation for that game so Norm/CJ can get all their minutes at 1/2.

If our coaching change was worthwhile, I think we should be OK with Norm being our primary SF.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, however...
I wish we had a CJ-level ("borderline all-star") at the PF - then we'd be more balanced, as we'd already have an awesome Dame/Powell backcourt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scalma
On and Off Splits
Replies
5
Views
406
andalusian
andalusian
Mr. Robot
  • Poll Poll
OT NBA Drtg (Centers)
Replies
16
Views
1K
UKRAINEFAN
UKRAINEFAN
Further
Notice Defense improving
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
Wizard Mentor
Wizard Mentor
Draco
Advanced Blazers team stats
Replies
11
Views
910
Boise Blazer
Boise Blazer
Denny Crane
Notice Jusuf Nurkic says Trail Blazers have to fix their 'trash' defense, become 'bad boys'
2 3
Replies
72
Views
6K
Boob-No-More
Boob-No-More

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top