Yes, there are variations (like hedging, which I assume is what you mean by "jump and recover") which is a variation on not switching, but every scheme requires this: You say that it doesn't take excellent defenders, but it's a fallacy that "positioning, awareness and 5 guys acting cohesively" only requires practice, effort and discipline. Every team tries, practices and has discipline--at the NBA level, it's incredibly rare to actually be "poorly coached" or to have players who don't try. At this level, it's the players who process what's happening the fastest and instinctively make the right decisions in real time who succeed. You've previously scoffed at the idea that NBA actions moves fast, but coaches, players and analysts all say that the NBA game is incredibly fast and difficult to process in real time. Even smart coaches and analysts often have to watch plays over and over to really understand what happened and what players should have done. Players actually doing it have to do it on the first take, without an overhead camera view. Saying that defense is just about practice, discipline and/or effort is akin to saying that passing is just about practice, discipline and/or effort. Sure, making the easy, obvious pass is just about learning and discipline, just like making one easy and obvious defensive rotation. Making a pass through traffic to set up an action three passes away takes vision and innate talent, just as making a rotation with the awareness that the current action is just a feint to set up a second or third action takes innate talent. Playing modern, on-a-string defense requires five guys with good innate defensive awareness. We have about three such players in Turner, Harkless and Aminu.
Check out this video. Notice most of the ICE examples are of the Blazers. Also notice, despite the misses, that they generally generate better shots than the other examples in the video. ICE is fine to use as part of your defensive scheme, but it's literally designed to create a passing lane from the ball-handler to the screener for an open mid-range shot. I understand that that's the least effective shot in the game - and it's a large reason I hated Aldridge. But at this level it's stupid to consistently give up a mid-range shot to anyone - guys are too good at this level, and if they get comfortable they'll knock them down...and they come into the game comfortable because they know we're going to give them wide open shots from the jump.
Sure, if you're striving to be one of the best defensive teams in the league you also need players with more individual defensive skill. But there's no reason this roster can't be average...other than the coaching. Also, I disagree with the statement that every team has discipline and that it's rare to be poorly coached. Mo, Nate, and Terry are horrible, bad, and meh respectively.
Sure there is--they have substandard defensive personnel. By your logic, there's no reason every team shouldn't be at least average. Which isn't logically possible. Every team has reached the "effort/practice/coaching" average. What differentiates teams now is talent. And the Blazers are well below average in that. And regarding your post about giving up midrange shots--you're still assuming that no defense should ever have to give anything up. That's simply not accurate. Unless you have Spurs or Warriors type personnel, you're going to have to make sacrifices somewhere. The Blazers, far from having elite defensive personnel, have poor defensive personnel. So they have to give up a ton--all you can do with scheme is try to dictate what you're going to give the offense. In that circumstance, I'd also prefer to give up midrange jumpers. Is it ideal to give those up? No. But it's far better to give those up than easy opportunities at the rim or open three-pointers. The Blazers don't have the personnel to lock down every region of the court.
