The other day a thought crossed my mind.... amazing eh? I was thinking about the season and watching as many games as I could often on DVR due to a weird schedule. I read the board almost daily and for several years now I have seen a large percentage complaining about defense. I agree our defense is bad, but something I came away from games and the season thinking wasn't that we lost or were inconsistent because of defense, I felt like it was because a lack of balance in scoring. A lack of consistency of scoring from role players. Granted Nurkic seems to have addressed much of both issues, but I wonder do we need more role scoring or more role defense?
Well, we need both. But I voted that we need defense because I think Nurkic brings the more balanced scoring.
A bottom 5 defense is going to make winning inconsistent at best in the regular season (when quality and effort of opponent varies from night to night) and next to impossible in the playoffs. As for the offense, I definitely think Nurkic makes them better and more balanced at that end of the floor, but the Blazers March schedule was also pretty soft for the most part; I'm not sure how much you can take away from it, especially when a lot of lottery bound teams had already mailed it in.
I thought the same thing too Schilly watching the Warriors play. The problem with them is that they are so deep and talented, especially shooting wise, that once you double someone, the other guy can hit the open shot. We don't really seem to have that, at least consistently.
Balanced scoring is a luxury, solid/good defense a necessity. Every contender doesn't have balanced scoring--the Warriors do because the Warriors have (nearly) everything. They're a bad model to shoot for. But every contender (other than Cleveland, which is why some people are wondering how good Cleveland really is) has solid or better defense. That's a trend going back decades--nearly every championship team has had a top-15 defense and usually a top-10 defense. The same trend doesn't hold true quite as strongly for offense (though, of course, most champions do generally have good offenses too). The Blazers can't contend with a bottom-20 defense. I feel that's a lead-pipe cinch. Balanced scoring would be nice, but I think you can build a contender that's top-heavy in terms of scoring. Quite a few contenders have been built that way. So for me, defense is definitely the overarching flaw. The flaw that completely precludes contention until it's fixed. If they can fix that, while still employing Lillard, McCollum and Nurkic, I don't think scoring will be a major issue--though I'll never say no to more scoring if the defense is also there.
I thought the D sucked for much of the year. Why can't that simple concept be taught into a Portland team? In the playoffs, Golden State proved that the effort to play defense actually wins games. The first game was so evident of that fact. Here's some defense for ya.
I agree that both scoring balance and defense need to be improved. I think that it's important to note that after acquiring Nurkic the defense did improve considerably. According to NBA.com: Defensive Rating Before Nurkic: 108.9 (No. 26) Defensive Rating with Nurkic: 105.9 (No. 13) Some of that is attributable to Nurkic and some of it is attributable to schedule, but the team did improve after the trade. I think that with Lillard and McCollum, and with the team running Stotts' high-octane offense, it's okay during the regular season to be a middle of the pack defensive team. The Blazers can probably win 45-50 games if they just up their defense to around the 105-106 that they averaged with a healthy Nurkic. I don't think, however, that that would be a recipe for winning a title. If Olshey is going to keep the Lillard-McCollum backcourt, he's going to have to have guys at the SF and PF spots, plus Nurk, who are good at helping to cover for the guards' defensive liabilities. And, yeah, we need a bench that doesn't consistently give up 10-20 points to the opposing bench players.
I think defense is played with effort not skill. We seem to have a team of pretty low motor guys. Dame plays hard, so do CJ and Nurk the rest of the guys are hit and miss. Turner was probably the next most consistent in terms of effort from what I saw.
Part of that is true; effort certainly plays a huge role, but there's a reason why guys with long wing-span and great lateral movement skills are highly coveted. Being small, short-armed and/or slow-footed are the kinds of things that can only be compensated for so much. Another factor to consider is experience, and recognition of sets and tendencies.
Even if that were true (which I'm not saying is or isn't yet) what about the rest of the time he's not on the floor, or if he gets hurt again, or if he gets in to foul trouble? Do you see what I'm saying? Nurkic may cover over some sins, but there's still a whole lot of issues that need to be settled on the wing, particularly with respect to pick and rolls.
One thing I would say is we lacked a consistent scorer off the bench. Last year, when the Blazers went on that span for a month when we were the hottest team in league, Gerald Henderson seemed to be that offensive spark when Dame and CJ were off. That's why after in the third quarter, Dame and CJ would tire out and the other team would catch up. I think maybe Olshey thought Crabbe and Turner could fill the gap. Well they didn't.
1) During those games, we were a top 10 defense including the minutes he was on the floor, and those he was off. 2) If he gets hurt again, he does. It doesn't make sense to me to worry about that. 3) BUT TO YOUR MAIN POINT, I totally agree with In fact, that's basically what Kevin Durant said about the Blazers in his post-Series interview. Interestingly, the player that best fit HIS description was HIM. Also, he emphasized that (with Nurk) we weren't that far away. My guess today is that we make exactly 1 rotation-guy trade, and draft a couple of guys. It would make an enormous amount of sense to trade Crabbe + stuff for an older starting SF.
Agreed. Nurkic helps with both, of course, but defense is a must. But of course, balanced scoring can be fixed merely by adding to what we already have. Defense might not be fixable as long as we have a backcourt of Lillard and McCollum.
I think that's mostly true at the high school level and maybe the lower college level. In the pros, skill and talent matter tremendously. Good defenders see plays developing several steps ahead--modern offenses run action to set up an action that sets up the real action. Navigating that takes a lot more than effort (effort is required for everything in basketball), it even takes more than the type of knowledge a coach might have. Coaching, or analytical, knowledge helps when reviewing film, where you can slow it down, stop it, and figure things out. Sorting through deceptive actions, sniffing out screens, understanding where the offense is going to pass the ball next, in real time, while everything's whirling around you, takes talent (or instinct). I don't think the Blazers are lazier than other teams--I think the team's players lack the innate defensive instincts and awareness. Boob-No-More mentioned some interesting numbers earlier in the year, that the Blazers were better defensively against isolations. That, to me, actually shows that the team is putting in effort and is competing. When it's one-on-one, there's a lot less complexity. Effort and athleticism are more important, along with understanding basic defensive fundamentals. The Blazers have that. They don't have instinctive, talented defenders that are necessary when playing against high-level team offense.
