Perhaps DV holds Nurk to a higher standard defensively because his ability and expectations are higher. If I had pulled a 3.0, my mom would have smacked and grounded me; if my little brother had ever done so, she'd have thrown him a parade, and deservedly so. Perhaps there's a similar disparity in defensive talent and potential between Nurk and Dame/CJ.
If Denny lays you off, how will you pay your bills? He's against pension funds, so maybe the other moderators can chip in.
Still doesn't make it OK. One of the keys to Pop's success in SA is his ability to treat his #1 the same way he treats his #15. And let's be fair here, it's not like Dame/CJ are maximizing their defensive potential. Also, it's on Terry end of the day. DV might actually yell at everyone-- but Terry needs to have similar consequences for every player.
I re-watched the 2nd & 3rd quarter to see what Nurk did wrong defensively. The play I believe he got in trouble for was 80% Dame's fault IMO. Dame got beat & gave up when he had the angle to get back to challenge the shot. Nurk didn't rotate over (as he was following his man as he was vacating the space). I don't like Portland's over-reliance on the switch. I think that creates lazy defenders. I believe this situation was that case in point.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful forum. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy. barfo
His treatment of Nurk and the potential in Collins and Swanigan will be a true test of Stotts coaching acumen. I Wonder why giving plaiying time to guys like Aminu or Davis or Vonleh who are not the Future of this team and not giving Collins minutes and he is probably our Future PF
You guys need to take this conversation over to the "Greatest Coach Ever" thread. They only got like 2 pages over there. It's a team game. Should be a team forum?
To add to worst in assists, taking charges and fast break points, "the Portland Trail Blazers and Toronto Raptors were the two worst teams in field goal percentages when winning by one possession with under two minutes to play." Since we seem to usually resort to one on one basketball at closing time, this would seem to indicate that team ball would work better; our one on one guys are just not good enough to get it done. https://www.casino.ca/nba-chokers-and-closers/
It didn't help that outside of Damian and CJ, no one on the team was even remotely clutch or a dependable outside shooter or could create their own shots.
I know there is probably some statistical reason for it and some math guy some where decided it’s the best way to do it, but I hate the end of game 1 high 4 low offense. Where a ball handler either jacks up a contested 3 or dribbles into some sort of contested shot. Even when they bring up a big to set a pick the position of your players is so easy to guard. It seems like the end of a game is the time when you want the best shot possible to win or tie. In the NBA though it’s the time when you give your best player the ball and let him do his thing, it’s literally the laziest play on offense for 3 or 4 of your players. To me when it matters most (clutch situations at the end of a game) is the time when you want to work for the absolute best shot possible, run plays with multiple reads and options, execute as good as you can to get the best shot you can. It’s not just Stotts or the Blazers though basically everyone does it. Even if you want say Dame or CJ taking the shot, wouldn’t it be better to run a normal set with options if a guy gets loose from the defense they can get an open opportunity to score.
This. The Blazers have added dead-eye outside shooters. That should help. If it doesn't, it will be on Stotts.
We've upgraded one skill set, rather than diversifying our set of skills. While I do think upgrading a single skill will help the team, I think diversifying would help the team more. We are doubling down on "live by the three, die by the three". A decent strategy to win games; an awful strategy to be a good team.
Usually its because it allows you to control when the shot is taken and control the clock, and there's no risk of turnover.
Yeah I get that, but there’s a very high chance of taking a poor, highly contested shot. Could still run time out by passing, and running a play. Not trying to argue with you about it, I just don’t like it.
I don't like it either. Standing a near half court running the clock down then throwing up a 25' shot, is sacrilegious, in my book.
