It's this first line that's troublesome: "The defensive struggles make me wonder what kind of questions are being asked today in Seattle, or worse yet if there are any questions at all? Is being a fair-to-good team enough for Allen and vice-chair Bert Kolde? Or is excellence the goal?" The last line is maybe the most important: “I think when you look at our rating, our ranking defensively, that number never lies,” Lillard said. “But I think if you are somebody watching the game, I think it’s pretty self-explanatory that it’s not our effort or how much attention we are paying to it. I think it’s just a matter of us being able to sustain certain levels of that defensive intensity and focus, and communication.” There is also the quote by Covington about lack of practice time. If it is too difficult for the players to have intense practice on their day between games, then the coaches need to think of a way to practice without intensity. What about some kind of walkthrough with five rotation players at a time in defensive positions. Then non-rotation players (and coaches if necessary) attack at full speed. Defensive players only have to take a step or two to show intent and to test if they react correctly. Sure it would be a lot of work for the coaches to set this up so it would go smoothly, but maybe they need to work harder.
So now we're seeing people on twitter say that it's because of the players on the team, and not the coach, using the 14-15 team as an example. But they're usually the same people who think Harkless and Aminu (esp Aminu) were great defenders.
This isn't the 80's, Dame isn't retiring at 33. That's crazy, the guy takes a beating and takes care of his body like LeBron. He'll be playing for a long time and if the Vulcans have any brainpower left, he will get a chance under different leadership above him.
Sure, but he won't be Super Saiyan Dame who can drop a 50 piece without breaking a sweat. He could probably still put up 20 well into his 30s, but the athleticism will be gone at that point. The problem isn't taking advantage of having Dame on the team, the problem is taking advantage of Dame's prime, which he is currently at his peak.
I'm a little confused here. The 14-15 team was pretty good defensively but they had Matthews, Batum, and Aldridge to go with Lopez. They also had Chris Kaman, Afflalo, and Steve Blake off the bench. Those three weren't anywhere close to lockdown defenders but they were all decent on defense and could keep their men ahead of them, for the most part Aminu/Harkless wasn't a combo yet, but when they did arrive, they were pretty good defensively. Not as good as Aldridge/Batum though. The big thing was that Matthews was about 3 tiers above CJ as a defender I don't know why this has become an either/or debate. To be a good defensive team, you need good personnel AND good schemes that fit the roster. Portland's defensive failings are on both Stotts and Olshey, maybe in equal measure
I think his peak will last three or four more season and then I just see the guy evolving. That shot's not going anywhere. I think he uses pace so much that like Andre Miller, once he doesn't have that burst, he won't need it. I also think he'll have seasons over ten assists per game. I think his best basketball is actually a few years away because as we've seen with guys like LeBron, who has so many more miles on him than Dame, the explosiveness no longer needs to go away at thirty-two. So until I see him decline, I'll expect an incline and I'm pretty damn sure that decline won't be a steep drop off because of his mind. The other thing is I don't see Dame having the kind of ego that would prevent him from becoming a second or third option. I'm not saying that Oakland point guards are some kind of monolith but Gary Payton and Jason Kidd stayed around for a long time, both past their thirties and neither guy had saw any decline until after thirty-five. I'd also point to Stockton as an example. Chris Paul is playing at a very high level and hasn't been nearly as durable as Dame has been and hopefully continues to be.
Some people, me included, put injuries and roster composition ahead of Stotts' deficiencies as reasons for the Blazers' current problems. I'm not a die-hard Stotts fan, but I've been around long enough to remember when Blazer fans turned on Jack Ramsey when he couldn't turn mediocre post-Walton era rosters into contenders. The coach is always the easy target.
True, but I guess you missed the part about roster composition. Previous versions of the Blazers that Stotts has coached have been mid-level defensive teams. He was the same coach then. The rosters were different. If you honestly believe that changing the coach mid-season is going to fix the Blazers' defense, you're out of your mind.
You really want dame to end up like melo? 37 taking the vet minimum? C'mon, you retire at your best not your worst. Lebron is a unicorn and thats why he is still a force. Dame will not be a force in 5 years.
This is why I say fire Olshey now. His successor will obviously fire Stotts for his mediocre overall results and the fact that his defense has been horrible throughout the majority of his tenure... I don't really give a shit about personnel because his schemes and what he says about how he motivates guys says enough. Again though, I wouldn't worry about firing Stotts today. I would fire Olshey today and let his successor fire Stotts tomorrow or fire them both at the same time... just look at it as an overhaul, which is overdue. If you have a top 5 player in the league, regardless of how long you think he'll be top 5, you don't take it for granted, you strike while the iron is hot. Also, why is Jack Ramsey being mentioned in the same sentence as Stotts? Last time I checked all of us are pissed that Stotts hasn't taken our team anywhere close to the promised land.
I'm nearly certain that they're both on the hot seat and will be looking for new employment if the Blazers don't turn their season around. I'm fine with that. I just don't see firing Stotts mid-season is likely to accomplish anything. I think around the league it would be viewed as nuts given the number of injuries to the starting lineup, especially the loss of Nurk and Collins.
Didnt alot of people think it was nuts for Toronto to fire their coach after reaching the finals? I believe the won it all the very next year? Also, it may not do anything for this season, but it gets a head start for next season. with that said, i'm not for firing him just yet. But the firing paperwork has been signed, just not submitted.
And that was with Dame (who's having easily his worst defensive season imo) -- CJ -- DJJ -- RoCo -- Nurk still defending at a nearly 70th percentile rate with somewhat unlucky opponent shooting on a terrible shot mix that they were starting to show improvement on before the Nurk injury. Give this team 17-18 or even 18-19 personnel (w/o Stauskas) off the bench and I think we are still looking at an average or slightly better defensive team by years end.
It does accomplish 1 thing - it starts the wheels of change... Also, the will be some who have 'hot takes' thinking the Blazers are nuts - but I'm not sure that will be the general consensus. I think most people who closely follow the NBA can see it coming.
ya it's not something to right home about. what's more informative in my mind is how we suck even more after losing Nurk this season, and no improvement at all in the bubble after getting him back. It's the damn system and terry's inability to teach team defense.
It's hard to know if that is the way Lillard intended it but I agree that area does seem to be the responsibility of the coach.
