McMillan = Defensive Genius
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 8:56 PM PST
Email
PrintRecently there has been a lot of discussion related to Nate’s ability to coach defense. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at some opinions that are not wrapped up in emotional fan paranoia. Sometimes we hurt the ones we love the most.
Example 1. Clippers Blog
"Nate McMillan makes a couple of smart defensive decisions: He puts Brandon Roy on Al Thornton, and assigns his small forward Nicolas Batum to guard Eric Gordon. In doing so, McMillan dares Thornton to shoot over a smaller defender [seven of Thornton's 11 shot attempts in the first half are jumpers from outside the paint], and challenges Gordon to free himself against a bigger, longer defender. Gordon gets only one shot against Batum in the seven minutes to start the game. Eric never gets on track against a Portland team that refuses to leave him at any cost. Gordon manages only five shot attempts in the first half [2-4 FG, 2-2 FT] which, when you consider who else is out there with him, is pretty incredible.
In many respects, the superb performances by Fred Jones and Steve Novak are by Portland’s design. McMillan decides he won’t allow Gordon anything and will happily force Thornton into difficult shots on the right wing. As a result, the easy shots are ceded to the Clippers’ secondary scorers."
Example 2. Players
"He’s one of the best coaches I’ve seen," -Kobe Bryant.
"Nate’s strength when he played was defense and this team definitely has his characteristics of playing defense and having fun playing defense."- Jason Kidd
Lebron also gave Nate credit during a TV interview, saying that McMillan was responsible for him emergence as a defensive powerhouse. He also called Nate one of the best defensive minds in the league.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I personally think Nate just doesn’t have the right players to run an elite defense.(Besides that one French kid) Hopefully that will change by the trade dreadline. Is Nate a defensive genius? I don't know, but a lot of really smart people seem to think so. It's interesting to me that Terry Porter was hired to coach the Suns specifically to improve the defense. Currently the Suns are tied with the Blazers in defensive efficiency. It just goes to show that if you don't have the right defensive minded people on the roster, there isn't a lot you can do.
Thoughts? Comments? Pearls of wisdom? Pontifications?
182 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i agree to some extent
i personally believe a lot of college players do not have the fundamentals of defense, when you are a 1 and done player, ur mostly interested in scoring as that is what people will notice and most likely get you in the lottery.
and to be honest it may be hard to break that mentality, you can see a lot of players rely on athleticism to defend rather that use correct positioning and footwork.
i think the blazers have the team to be a lockdown defensive team, it might take them a few seasons though.
Yeah, age will help a lot.
Lebron was one of the most physically gifted players ever from day one, yet it took him 5 years to become a dominate force on the defensive end. I don’t think you can criticize McMillan until he has all the players he needs. Oden’s development alone might solve half our problems.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
Give the Baby Blazers a couple years to buy into the defensive mindset
I think as soon as LmA ‘gets it’ that’s when we become a great defensive team.
"Only dunk and go to the defense." Rudy Fernandez
It's like Tony Dungy on the Colts
Our coach is a great coach and great guy who preaches defense… but our players are all about the offense (I mena that in a skill set way, rather than mentality way).
Sometime around this time last season I did a great big breakdown of which teams did the best at preventing other star players from having big games and the Blazers did very well relative to their overall defense (were in the 8-10 range iirc). I wouldn’t be surprised if the same is true this year which matches the ClippersBlog quote above perfectly. I may have to look that up…
it's hard to be patient
but this team is so young. there is progress but it’s slow.
eve so, the blazers are a fascinating, crazy-entertaining team.
ignacio
The only good defensive team Nate has ever coached
was the Olympic team this summer, and that was only because he was working with the most talented bunch of players on the planet. It’s an easy thing to do, when you’re used to using all your energy on the offensive end, and now all of a sudden, you don’t have to worry about carrying your team, you have that energy to use defensively.
We’re the 20th ranked team defensively. Lets not give credit where credit isn’t due.
by as11osu on Jan 27, 2009 9:21 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
By that logic...
we should be calling Nate the 2nd best offensive coach in the league, as we rank 2nd in offensive efficiency. The fact that this team ranks 20th in defensive efficiency is nothing short of a miracle considering the quality of defenders the Blazers have.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions
Well. Yeah. Nate's a terrific offensive coach
as he’s demonstrated with both his blazers and his sonics squad.
Unfortunately, he’s not a terrific defensive coach other than with his olympic squads for whatever reason. Don’t ask me why, but the results kind of speak for themselves.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh....
Some people are completely clueless…………Defense is the toughest thing to teach………and you can teach it all day long but someone NEEDS to have the will to play D. Defense comes down to two things mainly, Effort and undertsanding. By understanding i mean understanding the “fundamentals.” Where you need to be on the court, where the ball is, understand the play being ran, knowing your man and his tendencies. Etc. These are all things that come with time, the intangable is Effort, it cant be taught or coached or forced. you either give it or you dont. The teams effort is there at times, they just need to learn to have it there all the time. IT TAKES TIME.
by blazerbeliever97504 on Jan 27, 2009 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
yeah.... again, scott skiles takes disastrous defenders like
charlie v, michael redd, and luke ridnour from 30th ranked defense last year to 12th this year. Less than one full season. but “IT TAKES TIME”
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 9:38 PM PST up reply actions
Isn't that even more impressive?
Getting players that have never played a lick of defense in their life to commit to his defensive philosophies? We’ve got some serious homers on this board, and it shows up in this topic specifically.
Veteran players at least understand spacing, the basic stuff
Experience is a huge deal. James Jones wasn’t the best defender in the world, but he knew the basics of defense and did a pretty good job for us.
If we added a few veterans, like Kirk Hinrich, we’d be a much, much better defensive team.
Didn't the Sonics have veteran players?
Umm…yes they did and they were a terrible defensive team.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
What's more damning is this.....
Luke Ridnour, Ray Allen, and Rashard Lewis all play for a top 12 defensive team.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
Also, Ray Allen went from being a mediocre defender with the Seattle ...
SuperSonics to an above average defender under assistant coach Tom Thibodeau’s command with the Boston Celtics. Now, while Rashard Lewis and Luke Ridnour haven’t necessarily improved their individual defensive numbers after leaving the SuperSonics, they’ve joined ballclubs that are noted for superb team defense.
Ray Allen
Improved in part, because he didn’t have to cary the entire scoring load every night. He has more energy to contribute on the defensive end. Also, I imagine it helps having Garnett keeping everyone accountable.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 11:47 PM PST up reply actions
yeah, it's amazing how much it helps to have someone
who’ll hold a team accountable to play defense.
Sure wish we had someone the blazers employed who was responsible for holding our team accountable to play defense.
If we had someone like that on staff, I wonder what their position would be.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Well played.
Still… Garnett is on another level when it comes to accountability.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions
and effort sure as hell can be coached.
I guarantee you, a true defensive coach like jeff van gundy or pops or skiles would never let our guys get away with trying so little on defense. They’d be benching guys right and left until they saw them exert more effort. LMA gets sat for a couple of weeks, I guarantee he’d try a bit harder than he’s doing now.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions
Ehhh..
I can’t say I’d like to see Larry Brown here. Would be too worried about him leaving right in the middle of things. That, and he doesn’t develop rookies at all.
That doesn't exactly apply this year
D.J. is playing 28 minutes per game, more than any of our rookies.
that is skewing the facts a bit much doncha think?
we have 4 rookies getting big minutes, we are currently averaging 80 minutes a game of rookie playing time, the fact that we are as doing as well as we are defensively is nothing short of amazing.
The end is in the beginning and yet I go on....
-Beckett
#20 in defense is a lot short of amazing
Two of our better defenders are rookies, three if you count Bayless. We have more talent than 90% of the teams in this league, and if we wanted to, we could have a legitimately good-great defensive center patrolling down low for 48 minutes per game. I didn’t expect to be as good offensively as we are, conversely, I did expect more out of our defense.
As for Larry Brown, he has a nasty habit of starting his best players. Darko wasn’t ever one of those guys, so he never played. Nate also has that nasty habit, it just so happens that like D.J. is worthy of playing those minutes with the Bobcats, likewise our four rookies are worthy of playing the minutes here.
Nate is a great offensive coach
Nate is not a great defensive coach.
Nate has been coaching for 9 years. At some point, you are what you are. Of course he’ll look better eventually on the defensive end because of the players on this team (as he did in the Olympics this year), specifically at center, but to call him “a defensive genius” knowing what we know as of today, is just wrong.
Quality of defenders?
Let’s see, besides Batum, Nate has Joel, Oden, LA, Brandon, and Rudy. I don’t see those guys as huge handicaps defensively. I will concede though that youth is a negative factor here.
I suspect that Nate is good at teaching individuals defensive tactics, but we have seen very little from him regarding good, solid team defenses.
To quote as11osu, “let’s not give credit where credit is not due”.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
And you don't think it applies the other way?
We’re the youngest active team in the NBA. A coach can only coach, he can’t be out on the court playing defense himself. Last night we took a red hot Eric Gordon out of the game. The Clippers were open for some 3’s but nobody dropped 40 points on us and their top scorer for the night shot 9-20. In fact nobody except Deandre who only took 3 shots, shot over 50% on the Clippers.
They were making 3’s. Teams do that, we’ve had games where we’ve destroyed the other team with 3’s.
When the top players in the world are saying Nate’s defense is good, saying they learned a lot from him, and when his old team mates and colleagues often comment about how he knows defense that gets taken a little more seriously that angry fans saying his defense sucks.
We really don’t have many defensive players. We don’t have that lock down wing defender, we don’t have that big time stopper in the paint (hopefully Oden and Batum will get there soon). You need the players to make it work. The Olympics were evidence that when given the right players Nate’s defense works and that’s because you need the players AND the coaching. Right now we only have one of those. He was chosen for a reason.
One of Nate's strengths
is his willingness to put Batum on any wing player. Any of them. And have that work as a defense, with the various other match-ups.
Scott Skiles has worse defensive players than the blazers.
3 of his top rotation guys are Charlie V, Michael Redd, and Luke frickin Ridnour, and he’s taken them from 30th to 12th in the league in defensive rating.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 9:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
are we talking defense? or overall record?
Should we claim that Dantoni was a brilliant defensive coach because his phoenix teams had great overall records? Obviously his teams won with offense (although his teams were better defensively than their reps, at least they were mediocre unlike ours which is affirmatively bad).
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
true
But our goal for this year is to make it into the playoffs and gain experience. Whichever way they choose to win now to make it into the playoffs is fine by me. They will eventually gain the experience of the defensive grit from playoff caliber teams after they make the playoffs. Next season I’ll have higher standards for the defense of this team.
by Tofu Anonymous on Jan 27, 2009 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
I don't disagree with that.
But the topic of this post is about Nate’s defensive coaching. He’s doing a great job with the offense but pretty rotten job on the defense. Sorry if yall find it upsetting to hear that, but I find it upsetting to hear about what a brilliant defensive coach he is when I watch him tolerating such rotten defense from our guys and not doing anything about it.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
Dang, Howlingfan and as11osu,
Somebody better let Coach K and Colangelo and all those guys know that Nate isn’t a good defensive coach. They are ignorant of his lack of abilities. You guys better tell them right away. While you are at it, you should also let Kobe, Kidd, and Lebron know too. They are all SO STUPID! You guys are geniuses! What incredible inside info you possess to determine that this young team, comprised of rookies and guys just a few years out of high school, and from defensive powerhouse colleges like Texas, and great bastions of defensive prowess like the Spanish league, France, and Starksville are all capable defenders if it just wasn’t for Nate’ s ineptitude. Wow, I’m impressed!
by crakarjack on Jan 28, 2009 12:17 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Did you just take my joke literally?
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 12:27 AM PST up reply actions
Oh yeah, I love this argument.
“Some other guys said something and those guys know a lot, so it must be true”.
I personally like to see evidence of things before I believe it. So yeah, until I see some good defense out of our squad, I’m going to continue to to believe that nate’s an offense-first coach, not a defense-first coach. And, you know, every single team he’s coached professionally has been good to great offensively and bad to terrible defensively, so I think facts kind of be on my side here.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 12:23 AM PST up reply actions
I think the point
Is that “yes, we see flaws, but we are not experts. Experts in the field have VERY high praise for Nate. There could be something to that.”
There are things that frustrate me on defense. I would assume they frustrate nate too. I also assume his talent level is YOUNG. Nate may be picking his battles. of COURSE he wants perfection now, but if that’s beyond the abilities of the players, he can’t get it.
Is nate’s purpose to be a defensive team this year, or to win?
Are those mutually exclusive because young players can only absorb so much?
Is Nate attempting to teach and instill good habits in players and sacrifices short term for long term? (comment about Greg)
I don’t have answers to those questions. nate hasn’t specifically answered them (as far as I know). What I do know is that the people who compliment Nate know a lot. They appreciate things I won’t EVER see. I do know that nate took a seattle team that sucked and got them into the play-offs. I do know that Nate took an olympic team and helped take them to the gold medal. I do know that Nate has the blazer team, the past two years, over achieving based on all but homer fan expectations.
Maybe he does suck on defense. I don’t know. What is clear to me is that he knows how to milk what he has to get wins. Look back over history and see how we compare to teams our playing age (bye raef). Look back at history and look how teams with two starting rookies and another rookie playing major minutes fairs.
Maybe he sucks on defense, but he gets this team to win too.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
by ratbastird on Jan 28, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Well said
I think a lot of people assume the argument is, “I listen to whatever anyone on TV says instead of thinking for myself,” and that’s not the case. It’s not like most entertainment where it’s all completely subjective to the viewer. Experience matters in this case.
I can guarantee I don't listen to what people on tv say
as I don’t have one.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
It doesn't take a genius to analyze 9 years of Nate's track record on the defensive end
All his teams stunk defensively.
I wish I could be like you, and put all my faith in a single summer of coaching. A single summer mind you, that WASN’T in the NBA, and which he had more talent than any coach has had in over 16 years of professional basketball.
Were you watching a lot of Sonics games 9 years ago?
If it doesn’t take a genius to determine that Nate isn’t a good defensive coach, then why did they select him to be THE defensive coach for team USA?
That just seems crazy. Those people should have their heads examined. They could have had anyone they wanted and yet they selected a guy who, by your measuring stick, isn’t a good defensive coach. Weird.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 12:26 AM PST up reply actions
They probably figured a guy that loves to have his team shoot jumpers
would understand the International game better than other guys. If you look at the numbers, it was the offense that won the U.S. the gold, not the defense.
numbers
Reliable defensive numbers don’t really exist.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 12:40 AM PST up reply actions
Sure they do, and that's what defensive efficiency is. A reliable defensive stat.
You just don’t buy into them, because they don’t help your ridiculous statement. The top 5 in defensive rankings this year are Boston, Cleveland, Orlando, Los Angeles and San Antonio. That seems pretty freaking accurate to me. Not allowing 9 years of overwhelming stats to to influence your opinion at all just doesn’t make any sense.
LeBron James, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade and Dwight Howard are the top 4 leaders in PER. They are probably the four most valuable players on the planet right now, but that doesn’t mean PER is an overwhelmingly reliable statistic.
A large part of real world defensive efficiency is built on intangibles. Statistics can’t measure intangibles.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
I wasn't talking about PER
I was talking about a teams defensive efficiency rating. No intangibles required. Just an overall precise measurement of how effective your team is at holding opponents without points per possession.
I've been reading your arguments ...
… and this last one is the weakest yet.
From everything I read, McMillan’s primary responsibility was on the defensive end. I doubt he was hired to teach guys like Kobe, Wade and LeBron how to shoot jump shots.
Whether we are talking offense or defense, there is only so much a coach can do. In the Blazer’s case, McMillan has multiple objectives to consider. He has a team that is both young age wise and short of NBA experience. He has to concern himself with both offensive and defensive development. It would not surprise me if he’s concluded that it will take longer to get the team to were he wants defensively, then offensively. Perhaps he’s simply being patient, allowing the offense to come and then concentrating on defense. Let’s not forget the role and responsibility of assistent coaches. Do you want to claim that Doc Rivers is a great defensive coach? I don’t believe he had such a reputation before hiring Thibadueax. Not to say he was a lousy defensive coach either. But at least consider the possibility that a head coach has a lot on his plate and there are only so many things he can focus on at one time.
In other words, there could be a lot of different reasons why Portland is not among the top defensive teams in the league. That it is due to Nate being a poor defensive coach is probably pretty far down on that list.
hakkaa päälle !
Another way to say
what I just said too. I think we’re on the same page, and I think it’s safe to say that the fans being critical don’t know because we don’t have that access.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
offense wins every game
rememeber – - —? most points win
"..[Travis Outlaw] could jump, grab a rafter, eat a sandwich, and then dunk.."
tmundal 12/30/07
Don't be silly
DEFENSE wins every game, as the team that allows the least amount of points wins. You don’t want to plan on scoring more points, you want to allow less. If you can do that and also score more points than your opponent, that is a plus.
Salaam.
Bloggers win games
"Only dunk and go to the defense." Rudy Fernandez
by Sabonis4Ever on Jan 28, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
i thought it was the blazer dancers
although my crush is on one of the stunt girls.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
Ione
Dreamy. All time #1 favorite Blazerdancer.
"Only dunk and go to the defense." Rudy Fernandez
by Sabonis4Ever on Jan 28, 2009 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
i don't remember seeing her
but i have to agree that I appreciate what I’m seeing.
The gal that i claimed as “mine” is a blonde stunt girl. She’s very much like a girl next door and just looks like someone who’d be cool to hang out with.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
The stunt girls are cute
Are you talking about the blond with short hair?
"Only dunk and go to the defense." Rudy Fernandez
by Sabonis4Ever on Jan 29, 2009 5:50 PM PST up reply actions
no
the girl i’m talking about how longer hair… just below shoulders. I think she hunches a little at times and has a RIPPED stomach.
She just looks cute and nice.
Blonde though, yes. she does the flips.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
The is the definition of an ad hominem argument
We could all be a bunch of basketball morons—that doesn’t mean we’re right or wrong.
I'd say that .... with but a few exceptions ,
most of us are basketball morons.
At least insofar as truly understanding and being capable of evaluating professional players and coaches.
hakkaa päälle !
Rec, agreed
It makes me freaking nuts to see people call for nates job. For god sake he is rocking it as our coach. Question: with Nate as our coach have we progressed or regressed? No need to answer. We have an EXTREMELY young team and our two best players have 3 years experience. 3 years! Defense = fundamentals, ask yourself “why does Roy allways seem to come up big defensively?” He is fundamentally sound. Ask yourself “why does Trout do stupid crap defensively all the time?” He is not fundamentally sound. This team will learn those fundamentals, but ONLY with time. Imagine: Roy is at his peak(who knows how high that is), LMA is at his peak(I.E. Kevin Garnett), and G.O. is at his peak (I am hoping for Deke Mutumbo with alot more offense personally) lol. Thats gives you a Gaurd who does LITERALLY everything and two “bigs” who effect the defensive end heavily. Our D will be top 5 in the league then i promise you. This time is not now but in 3 or so years we will be laughing at our fellow fans who question Nate. Lets not forget it was K.P. who hired him, and continues to employ him against some fans opinion, are you saying you dont trust K.P.s judgement? Silly blasphemers.
by blazerbeliever97504 on Jan 27, 2009 9:30 PM PST reply actions
Yall realize that the Clippers are the worst offensive team in the league, right?
Being able to play a little defense on the worst offensive team in the league, who was missing two of their only good offensive players in Zach and Baron is nothing to be that proud of.
RE: howlingfantods
You are a funny guy, You honestly think effort can be taught? A coaches system can augement a players game to get max results either offensively or defensivley. EX: NY Knicks, Mike D’antoni, and Chris Duhon. Duhon has no business averaging the assists he is averaging. D’antoni’s system does that. Same goes for Scott Skiles or any other coach even Phil Jackson himself. There is a laundry list of players who have never played defense no matter who coached them. Effort can NOT be forced. A person either gives it or they dont.
by blazerbeliever97504 on Jan 27, 2009 9:48 PM PST reply actions
Uh yes. have you watched Charlie V or Redd or Ridnour ever play defense before?
They would’ve made everyone’s short list of worst defenders in the league before this year.
What do you think accounts for them suddenly playing respectable defense now? Maybe being forced into it by a coaching staff that makes it clear that it’s mandatory for them to see any playing time?
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
redd
Redd was a defense first player when he came out of collage. and who said luke play’s D
"I like whatever metric makes a Blazer look better." jonestr
Interesting connection
Redd played on the Olympic team Nate helped coach…I wonder if Redd would credit him for helping him buy back into defense as well as Skiles??
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
seriously grasping at straws here folks.
and honestly I don’t recall what redd was like in college – I’m shocked that anyone does since he wasn’t a major star and was obviously not heavily scouted for the draft. but if he was a defender in college, he hasn’t played any defense for a decade now.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:31 PM PST up reply actions
I... was saying *you're* grasping at straws.
I mean seriously, you think Redd’s going to be like, “Oh yeah, I was a terrible defender before, but my few weeks with an assistant coach in an all-star team where our team has 10x the talent of our competition has totally inspired me! Nate has allowed me to sip from the cup of wisdom of Bill Russell!”
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
Dude
Calm down…I was saying that i was having fun with the comment…you know like something to read and go, “You know, if Lebron credits him…maybe Redd would too.” And not credit him as if Nate taught him everything he knew about defense. Maybe he was an inspiration for the guys on that team to play hard on the defensive end and showed them some different ways to approach that side of the court.
Geez…
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
So he's capable of inspiring Michael Redd
but not LaMarcus or Travis? What’s the basis for this conjecture, exactly?
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:56 PM PST up reply actions
I always thought that Michael Redd was nothing more than a one-dimensional spot-up ...
shooter coming out of Ohio State, with Morris Almond being the most similar comparison to him in recent years. As a result, I agree with you that Redd’s forte has never been defense.
Redd was a major star
At Ohio State, an All-American that fueled a final four run when his best teammate was a guy named Scoonie Penn. He was also an offensive-oriented player in college.
Just because a player wasn’t drafted in the correct place doesn’t mean they weren’t a productive player playing for a big-name program. Ask Carlos Boozer (Duke, 2nd round) if you have any doubts about the veracity of that statement. Or don’t, since he’s an ugly two-face who gets his kicks by lying to blind philanthropists.
Travis Outlaw is an alien, but in a good way.
Awesome Graphic was provided by CIC, because he felt like he should be hazed.
by Clevelander among roses on Jan 28, 2009 12:39 AM PST up reply actions
Umm no
Team defense is alot different than individual defense. Please help me understand something.
C Villanueva: 44GP 16GS 23.6MPG .455FG .375 3PT .851FT 2.20OReb 4.30D Reb 6.40Reb 1.5APG .52SPG .75BPG 1.75TO 3.10FPG 14.4PPG
Redd : 33GP 32GS 36.5MPG .455FG .366 3PT .814FT .70OReb 2.50Dreb 3.20Reb 2.7APG 1.06SPG .06BPG 1.61TO 1.40FPG 21.2PPG
LMA: 44GP 44GS 36.3MPG .483FG .188 3PT .741FT 2.70OReb 4.00Dreb 6.80Reb 1.8APG .98SPG .98BPG 1.39TO 2.80FPG 17.5PPG
B-Roy: 40GP 40GS 37.1MPG .467FG .359 3PT .819FT 1.50OReb 3.30DReb 4.70Reb 5.2APG 1.25SPG .40BPG 1.90TO 1.80FPG 22.6PPG
Umm statisically ill take our two any day, where do you see that they play better indivually? it looks to me to be a better team defense. But yup thats all about the indivdual. Good call
by blazerbeliever97504 on Jan 27, 2009 10:04 PM PST reply actions
wow. show me where I argued that I'd rather have Redd or Charlie V over Roy or LMA?
They’re maybe two of my least favorite players in the league, and I think Redd is wildly ludicrously overrated. That’s why I’m so impressed with Scott Skiles for squeezing any halfway respectable play out of them.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions
Doc Rivers
Is he a good defensive coach? Interesting how the addition of Kevin Garnett made all the difference.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 10:10 PM PST reply actions
My point is...
a good defensive record does not make a good defensive coach. Bad defensive coaches have good defensive records and good defensive coaches have bad defensive records.
It’s about the coach not the record.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
That is the exception not the rule...
9 years into his coaching career, we pretty much know what he is. He certainly doesn’t overachieve on that end. My biggest problem is your title to this thread. You call him a “Defensive Genius”, when there are at least… AT LEAST 10 better defensive coaches. Even if you put Nate at #11, a rank he hasn’t even in the slightest way earned, he’d still outside of the top 33% of the NBA. It’s ridiculous, and you know its ridiculous.
Well...
Lebron called him one of the best defensive minds in the league. Other players, coaches, and pundits have echoed similar sentiments. It’s generally excepted by people who are directly involved in the league that Nate is one of the best defensive coaches around. That puts him near genius territory in my book.
I think his strategy against the Clippers was brilliant.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
His strategy versus the Clippers wasn't anything special...
Given what was left to work with for them last night. They scored 88 points on 80 possessions for an offensive rating of 110.0. That’s among the best offensive ratings in the league, and they did it with essentially half a team.
You simply can’t ignore 9 seasons of ineptitude on that end by one coach throughout his career. It’s laughable if you let one summer with DOMINANT talent dilute what he’s done in NBA basketball.
You really need to adjust how you look at defensive basketball. You’re just not getting it. You can’t simply say, you can’t judge defense by looking at stats. Guess what, Cleveland, Boston Orlando, Los Angeles and San Antonio have the best rated defenses. Sounds pretty accurate to me.
The only problem I have with using defensive stats...
to judge Nate over the past three and a half years is that this team has been rebuilding. Let’s not forget that when he was hired, the plan was a five year plan to get the team back to respectability. To judge his effectiveness as a defensive coach by defensive stats since he has been here is a bit disingenuous.
Nate practically begged for veterans his first couple of years here and has been rewarded with young, project players every year of his tenure as coach of the Blazers. When he has had a full year with returning players or veterans in his rotation, I think we will see a marked improvement on the defensive end. If not, then I will start questioning his ability to put a good defensive team out on the floor.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Excuse?
I was making a point.
FINE !! Nate sucks. Is that what you want to hear?
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
There are coaches that get much more out of much less than Nate
Nate has NEVER in the NBA got more than what was expected out of his defenses. He has however gotten less. For the most part of his 9 years in the league, he’s been getting less. The idea that you’re willing to just completely dismiss three and a half seasons is absurd. Most coaches are hired and fired in that time.
Didn't I address that?
KP has always talked about the future while Nate has at times wanted to bring in veterans to help the team be more effective now. Why fire a guy because the GM wants to build slowly?
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Who said anything about firing him?
For as much as he has underachieved on defense, he has overachieved on offense. Although for a single season I’d prefer a guy like Larry Brown or Stan Van Gundy, if we want to keep the stability that KP seems to covet, having the younger McMillan has its purpose.
i... think you're assuming things.
I know I’ve never said fire Nate, and I don’t recall seeing as11osu or blzrfan say that either.
I’d like him to improve the defense sometime in the next couple of years, since I think we’ll get bounced quick in the playoffs with such a terrible terrible defense.
But I don’t think being patient is the same thing as being in denial, and claiming that he’s a great defensive coach when he’s demonstrably not been one yet is at best wildly untrue.
It’s a truth claim, that I engage with to evaluate the accuracy of, dig? I’m not saying “nate’s a terrible defensive coach, thus we must fire him and try to hire a better defensive coach like skiles”. I actually think skiles is a weirdo freak and wouldn’t want anything to do with the guy. But you can’t deny that he’s a true defensive coach, and nate’s proven himself to be anything but.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 12:12 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
rec
I actually think skiles is a weirdo freak and wouldn’t want anything to do with the guy.
That is funny.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 12:22 AM PST up reply actions
Another thing
I talk a lot about JVG, but I’m not sure I’d want him either. Love the man, but dude didn’t care enough about offense.
The thing is, I like nate, but I’m not sure I trust nate. I think he’s made mistakes, but he’s doing a nice job of bringing roy along, and he seems to be getting through to greg. I think his treatment of sergio’s been pretty strange-o but i can’t deny that he’s getting some nice play out of him. I think our offense is built to feast in the regular season but i’m not sure it’s a playoff offense. and obviously we’re going nowhere in the playoffs with this defense.
I don’t want nate fired. I want nate to start fixing the things that be broke.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
Here is what I don't get.
People who say they don’t “trust” him. What trust is it you are placing in him? That he won’t screw up the Blazer’s chances of becoming a dominate team and bringing home one or more titles?
Based on performance to date – on what grounds do you lack faith? The team’s record has improved every year. Further more it has improved at a pace faster than expected by most basketball observers. It is hard to make an argument based on the team’s performance that fans should have reason to doubt McMillan.
Do you base your lack of trust on “mistakes”? What mistakes exactly? Where is the evidence that McMillan regularly makes mistakes? Sure, we can acknowledge he most likely makes them. Name a coach in any sport (or better yet name anybody) who doesn’t make mistakes. So what if Nate has made a few. I have yet to see anybody lay out a cognitive case for McMillan being a mistake machine as an NBA coach.
Is it based on how he’s dealt with Sergio? Just how much do any of us really know the dynamics of that relationship? I’d venture the answer is little to none. And you acknowledge that Nate is getting some nice play out of Rodriguez. That’s evidence to his being a good coach, not one to have doubts about.
None of us have to be that great at observing the Blazer’s to realize that they a still lacking at being a well oiled machine that performs at an optimum level, with good odds at advancing in post season play. Guess what, Nate keeps telling us that after every game. I’m pretty sure he points it out to the players as well. In the end, there is only so much he can do. These rest is up to the players. He and his staff can guide, teach and mentor. But that’s pretty much it. And by all accounts, McMillan is a very good teacher.
Rather than worry about whether McMillan is a good enough coach to guide the Blazer’s deep into a playoff run, lets see this team actually get into the playoffs. So far, Nate appears to be doing a pretty good job of accomplishing that goal. Criticizing him on how he might accomplish goals beyond that doesn’t make sense. We might as well start calling Obama a failed President, since he’s been in office over a week and hasn’t solved the economic downturn (he hasn’t even managed to get a stimulas package out and signed into law) or ended our involvement in Iraq.
hakkaa päälle !
Sorry, I think I phrased things unclearly.
I don’t distrust Nate b/c of his mistakes — I listed those things as not big deals and things to notice but not freak out about.
What I don’t trust is whether his preferred style of play is built for playoff success. The offense is very impressive, but to me it looks like it’s a little too one-dimensional for post-season success. The defense is weak. But it’s weak in a way that’s not as noticeable as the GSW defense is weak, and I’m worried that Nate doesn’t seem more alarmed about going into postseason battle with what we have.
Given how similar his Sonics squads were in terms of system and styles of play, I’m worried that we’re playing pretty much the way he wants us to play, and I think it’s hard to imagine us winning many titles playing this way.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, I get the lack of playoff caliber defense.
I’m missing the one-dimensional offense part. To me, Portland’s offense is rather varied, with multiple guys who can hurt you as an opponent. We sort of demonstrated that with having everyone but Aldridge in the starting lineup miss time due to injury. We may not have the low post game operating at peak efficiency (or even close to it) but it is hard to argue that is due to Nate’s offensive style. I have to wonder about anyone who wants to claim that Nate wants his guys relying on the jump shot.
So leaving the offense aside and looking at the defense, what exactly would you propose McMillan do? You mention you don’t think he show’s alarm. Ignoring for the moment that McMillan happens to be the sort of person that keeps his emotions in check and therefore making it tough to determine whether he’s alarmed about something or not, what exactly is served by learning that he is alarmed? What would you expect him to do different? Play Batum and Joel longer minutes? Insist Pritchard trade for a first class defender? Suit up and get on the court?
If you could have any coach you wanted, what do you think they would do to improve the defense to your satisfaction? For me, there is little solid evidence that Nate is not a defensively oriented coach. One can point to all the defensive statistics they want. None of them directly correlate to the ability of the coach. That’s because it is up to the players to actually play good defense. What you can look at is how does a coach compensate for having poor defenders? (Although I’d argue in Portland’s case it is more having inexperienced defenders) McMillan’s insistence on controlling the pace and on improving rebounding are two ways to do that. His extensive use of zones last season is another.
In my opinion the fact that Nate is a first rate NBA coach and perhaps one of the best in the league is so obvious that it isn’t even debateable. That’s why I want to see supporting evidence from those who believe otherwise. I know I can’t erase your feelings of doubt. But hopefully I can get you to re-evaluate the reasons for that doubt.
hakkaa päälle !
Yes.
Coaches who want their teams to play better defense do things like play their better defenders more minutes, tell their guys who are slacking on defense that they have to try harder or lose minutes, call out their stars, not just their scrubs, for playing poor d. You know the script; the same thing that JVG or Pops or Phil have been doing for years.
In my opinion the fact that Nate is a first rate NBA coach and perhaps one of the best in the league is so obvious that it isn’t even debateable.
I wouldn’t go that far, but again, I think you’re missing the point. I’m not making a qualitative assessment of Nate (“nate’s garbage”), I’m making a stylistic assessment (“nate’s an offense first coach like dantoni, not a defense first coach like van gundy”).
So responding to my point, “nate’s an offense-first coach” by saying “nate’s a great coach” is just not relevant, dig?
by howlingfantods on Jan 29, 2009 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
Looks like we differ on the point of ..
.. Nate being an offensive verse defensive oriented coach.
I don’t agree with you due to my belief that coaching an NBA team is not so black and white. As Tag puts it below, it’s about winning games. In McMillan’s case there is the added responsibility of developing a team. I don’t believe you can simply draw inferences on coaching style based on things like whether Nate gives more or less playing time to his best defensive players. At the start of the season, Joel was clearly the better defender at center. He probably still is. But as much as I love Joel and want to see him get minutes, there really isn’t any arguing against what McMillan is doing. Would you really sit Oden for most of the game? Play Joel 30+ and Greg 15 – 20 minutes? Oden is the future of this team. Nate knows that, the Blazer organization knows that and so do a majority of fans.
Name any other player on the team you consider to be a good defender – shouldn’t take long, as there aren’t that many. Batum? You might have a point here. But then you have to consider that Portland is a team with a lot of young talented players whom Nate is trying to bring along. He has 5 guards who all have cases for PT and thus employs 3 guard lineups. He has Travis, who ends up with minutes at Batum’s position. I have to believe that Nate still wants to see improved D out of Outlaw, which means he needs minutes on the court. But still, I’ll give you this one.
How about Bayless. There seems to be wide opinion he’s the best defender among the PG’s. Assuming this is true, then by your reasoning the fact Bayless hasn’t seen court time until recently is because Nate values the offense of Blake and Sergio more than Jerryd’s D. The problem there is that Bayless isn’t quite yet a PG. He’s not ready to run the team on the floor. What’s Nate supposed to do? Say, "Hey, I believe in defense foremost, therefore I don’t care if the offense doesn’t work as well with Bayless at the helm. I want his pressure D in there. " That recalls the old adage of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
In other words, I wouldn’t worry about McMillan not being interested in defense. If this team fails to improve on the defensive end and that results in the team plateauing out, McMillan and Pritchard will likely look to change the mix of players.
hakkaa päälle !
What’s Nate supposed to do? Say, "Hey, I believe in defense foremost, therefore I don’t care if the offense doesn’t work as well with Bayless at the helm. I want his pressure D in there. "
A defense first coach does exactly this – sacrifices offense for defense. That’s what we mean when we say someone’s a “defensive coach.”
I’m not saying that’s what he should be doing. Again, I’m cataloging typology, not making qualitative assessments: nate’s an offense-first coach, and you illustrate that point beautifully.
Just because you agree with the offense first approach doesn’t mean Nate’s no longer an offense first coach. It just means he’s the right coach for you.
Whether that’s better or worse than offense first coaches isn’t really my bailiwick – I like Dantoni and I like Jeff Van Gundy. My whole point is that Nate, despite having the reputation of a Van Gundy, is really more of a D’Antoni.
by howlingfantods on Jan 29, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions
OK.
I think that if you are placing him on a sliding scale with those two guys at either end, he’d be in the middle.
I tend to agree with Tag that Nate is more about winning than he is about being tied to a certain philosophy or style of play.
hakkaa päälle !
Sorry to you and as11osu
I was having a bad night the last I chimed in and the comments maybe came off more negative than they were and I was just tired of people not seeing the forest and focusing in on the trees. The comments you have added since, though I may not agree with all of them (I am more in line with TMG’s thoughts), are well thought out and worth taking a look at.
Thanks for commenting and sorry I was not at my best. It was probably Nate’s fault…(joke in case it isn’t funny enough to appear to be one.)
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I think it's actually fair to say
“I know we’re bad, but there’s a lot that Nate has to work on to improve the team, and I believe he’s had to make choices to focus on other things this season (bringing along Oden, continuing to develop Roy, etc) and I have faith that he’ll focus on fixing our terrible defense in the coming years.”
But not to say, “mcmillan: defensive genius”.
See the subtle difference between those two statements?
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
I did not call him a genius
I actually agree with some of the things you and ass11osu are saying but both of you have a real attitude about the whole thing and are hell bent on “proving” that Nate is a horrible defensive coach, not just that he isn’t a genius. There is some evidence that points to a different conclusion but you guys don’t want to see it.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Jan 28, 2009 12:03 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Read the title of this thread again.
You can look at the top of your browser window. Go ahead. We can wait.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 12:04 AM PST up reply actions
Are reading what I am writing?
I said that I did not call him a genius. That would be me and not the author of the thread.
You guys are unbelievable.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Don't lump me in
You said to discount three and a half years of basketball. There are things you learn about your coach in that amount of time.
Dude. Clippers are one of the worst offensive teams in the league
and most of their starters are injured. What we did against them last night wasn’t brilliant, it was actually pretty godawful defense on a team we should’ve crushed wire to wire on both ends.
I mean, we were playing against the clippers bench. Keep in mind that these guys aren’t good enough to start for the clippers
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:37 PM PST up reply actions
You keep referring to 9 years of evidence.
How about sharing some of that with us.
For example, are you talking about a 21 win team that featured Zach Randolph, Darius Miles and Sebastion Telfair?
I watched the Sonic team that almost took out the Spurs in the playoffs. Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis and Vlad Radmanovic were (nor are) known for defensive prowess or effort. I’m trying to recall anyone from that team, besides Collison, that showed any interest or talent for playing defense. A coach has to go with what resources he has. If you have poor defenders who can score, you do what he did. You try to make the offense as effective as possible and control the pace to cover for your defensive liabilities.
hakkaa päälle !
not really.
but Tom Thibedeau is, and doc’s done a great job of delegating.
KG’s influence can’t be overstated, and he is an inspiration to his teammates, but Thibedeau put in a brilliant defense that maximizes both his great and poor individual defenders.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
Ah ha!
you just proved my point, the coaching scheme maximizes. Anyways “i was my hands of this wierdness”
by blazerbeliever97504 on Jan 27, 2009 10:19 PM PST up reply actions
... I have no idea what your point is.
But I’m pretty sure whatever you’re arguing doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m arguing.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions
Never said that u wanted them over our guys...
was just using the example you used to show that it really does boil down to coaching schemes(see my D’antoni reference) My point is, he does tolerate bad defense. Its not like Naye goes through his days going “la la la la, Offense” ofcourse it makes him nuts, doesnt it make you nuts? He just understands it takes to and teaching and it wont be overnight. He, and all of us are going to have to go through some tough times before we see the promised land. But unlike any time i can remeber i am sure we will get there. With Nate in charge.
by blazerbeliever97504 on Jan 27, 2009 10:12 PM PST reply actions
There isn't actually any evidence that Nate is a good coach of NBA defense.
Praise from players is somewhat noteworthy, but, when it comes right down to it, we’re 24th in the league in defensive rating. That’s horrible. None of Nate’s Seattle or Portland teams have been good on defense. How long do we have to wait before Nate’s the problem?
We are 20th in defensive efficiency.
Considering that it takes eyeballs (not stats) to determine good defense, I would say the word of coaches, players, and pundits is a better barometer to determine Nate’s defensive coaching chops than anything else.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 11:19 PM PST up reply actions
Right....
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2009.html
I’d love to see a reference for that 20th.
In any case, how do you justify saying that we’re a good defensive team because of “eyeballs”? What coach/player/pundit has said we’re a good defensive team? And how is some subjective measure more effective than the actual ratio of points per 100 pos?
Sure.
I don’t think we are a good defensive team. I think we are a mediocre defensive team that would be, if not for McMillan, a terrible defensive team. He has an unbelievably weak defensive lineup to work with.
Good defensive players on the Blazers:
1. Batum- 19 year old offensively challenged rookie. Plays about 18 minutes a game.
2. Joel- Second string offensively challenged center. Plays about 24 minutes a game.
That’s it. Everyone else is at best average. Nate has done wonders with what he has.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
But I thought according to everyone on this website here
that LMA is the second coming of KG, or at least Sheed, and Roy can do no wrong, and Oden is Bill Russell reincarnated, and Steve Blake is a quality defender who puts our backup pgs to shame defensively.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:46 PM PST up reply actions
I never said that.
LMA is an average defender at best. Roy is a mediocre defender most games. Oden is still a rookie who is trying to regain all his quickness. I didn’t know anyone who thinks Steve is a good defender.
I think Milwaukee has about the same level of defensive talent on their roster. It probably helps that they have a bunch of veterans though. Less errors are made and the team can execute the coaches defensive schemes more consistently.
Skiles is another good defensive coach who has coached teams with terrible defensive numbers. Currently his team has about the same defensive efficiency rating as Portland with about a 2% difference in rating.(103.5,105.8) If it’s all about the numbers then I guess Skiles is a terrible defensive coach as well.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 27, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
2.3 points per 100 possessions is *huge*
If Milwaukee could improve their defensive numbers by that gap, they would be the fourth best defensive team in the league. With that kind of differential boost, you’d expect them to go from around a .500 club to around a .600 club.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 12:03 AM PST up reply actions
And, again, I'd love to hear an argument for our guys
being worse individual defenders than what Skiles had to work with in Milwaukee.
by howlingfantods on Jan 27, 2009 11:49 PM PST up reply actions
Holliger is using a different formula.
Defensive Rating != Defensive Eff. Not that I’m endorsing either one, I can’t find a formula for either; which annoys me. They both claim to measure points scored per 100 possessions, but, come up with different numbers…
I would give him two or three more years
Honestly, the Blazers are on an upward trajectory with teams that have added rookies into key roles the past three years. Next year will be the first time in Nate’s tenure when the team’s rotation players will either be the same as the year before or they will add a veteran presence instead of rookies. I think this has more to do with the struggles on defense than Nate’s coaching at this point. If they are still #20 or higher in defensive effeciency in two years, I will have to start taking the Nate is a bad defensve coach line of thinking more seriously.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
A year and a half
is more reasonable, I’d say. If he can’t improve our defense by the end of next season, it’d be hard to seriously expect the Blazers to be a contender the next season—which is the season our championship window should really open.
Three years would be a year of expected contention down the toilet; we’re not even sniffing the finals with a #20 defense.
I think you may want to point to a different game for defensive evidence
Clippers efficiency season average = 100.3
Clippers(w/out top 4 rotation players) efficiency against the Blazers last night = 110.0
Blazers won because of offense, not defense last night. In fact, you could easily argue the Blazers played a bad defensive scheme against the Clippers.
I cannot call Nate a defensive coach for the following reasons.
- Plays a gimmick zone that gives up open lanes and open shots
- Allows players to dog it on the defensive end, especially Outlaw and LMA
- A defensive scheme that allows switching to occur too frequently or inability to stop his players from switching.
- Coached several bottom 5 defenses with different rosters and never coached a top 10 defense.
BINGO, BANGO, BONGO
That’s a young Nate McMillan wearing a suit of armor… obviously.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 1:53 AM PST up reply actions
Just a quick thought to Howlingfantods
You used Redd, Charlie V and Ridnour as examples of improved defense with the Bucks. I have to say that these players still are some of the worst individual defenders out there. When the Bucks were 5th in defensive efficiency earlier in the season, Villanueva sat on the bench. Now that he has been starting (due to injury) they’ve plummeted to twelfth. Also, word is that with Redd out, they expect to make up some lost ground on the defensive end. Ridnour’s actually been okay this year. Not great, but okay.
Your argument is kind of like saying that since Portland is a great offensive ballclub, that means that Travis Outlaw is not taking ill-advised shots, or that Nicolas Batum and Sergio Rodriguez are high-volume scorers. Redd and Charlie V. are pulling Milwaukee down in the defense department (they play because SOMEONE needs to score the ball). Bogut has been very good this year (when he’s played) Mbah a Moute has been a phenomenal defensive pick up for them. Jefferson does well at the defensive end most of the time. Charlie Bell is an above average defender for them. The rest of the Bucks keep that team together defensively, despite the holes created by a couple of players.
If you want to argue that Nate’s not a good defensive coach, I’ve got no problem with that. But using Redd and Villanueva as your examples to say that a coach can get players to play defense is self-defeating.
Current Titles:
Official Blazer's Edge Poet Co-Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
Official Blazer's Edge Ambassador to the Milwaukee Bucks
Unofficial Blazer's Edge Grammar Magister
Unofficial Blazer's Edge Grumpy Ol' Curmudgeon
Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Jump-Pass Memorial Fanclub
You're kind of proving my point, man.
Those 3 guys have played a third of the overall minutes for the Bucks. Explain to me how Skiles can manage to hide these 3 terrible individual defenders on defense enough to squeeze respectable defense out of his crew, but Nate can’t hide Outlaw or Frye or Blake or Sergio (who collectively take far fewer minutes than the Bucks bad defenders) on defense.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 8:13 AM PST up reply actions
It's the rest of the Bucks team that absorbs the deficiencies.
And they are players that are already good defenders, or have become good defenders. Dumping Yi Jianlian, Mo Williams relegating Charlie V to the bench helped the Bucks defense considerably by placing adequate to amazing defenders into all those spots. Ridnour has been at least trying for Skiles. I wouldn’t list him as a good defender, but he’s not downright terrible anymore.
The Blazers have the following individuals who are good defenders:
Joel Przybilla
Nicolas Batum
…
Anyone else?
Oden’s not there yet (though I think he could be before the end of next year)
Roy can be that in bursts, but not consistently.
…
And that’s all I’ve got. Przybilla and Batum don’t get the greatest minutes either. I’m not necessarily trying to argue for or against Nate as a defensive coach, it’s just you seemed to be trying to be making the point that Redd, Villanueva and Ridnour were making Milwaukee’s defense happen. Maybe I read you wrong. Yes, the coach does have some influence, as in Ridnour’s case, but he can’t make them play defense.
Current Titles:
Official Blazer's Edge Poet Co-Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
Official Blazer's Edge Ambassador to the Milwaukee Bucks
Unofficial Blazer's Edge Grammar Magister
Unofficial Blazer's Edge Grumpy Ol' Curmudgeon
Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Jump-Pass Memorial Fanclub
Again you're kind of proving my point, man.
One of the ways to see whether a coach focuses on defense or offense is to check out their rotations decisions. If according to you, we have but two good defenders, and Coach only plays them two very limited minutes because they kind of suck on offense, that means Coach is an offensive coach.
Did you ever see Jeff Van Gundy playing his best defenders limited minutes? Hell no. He based his playing time decisions on who played the hardest on defense, and he figured he’d get enough scoring somehow or another. Which made his teams incredibly hard on the eyes, but they did play some phenomenal defense. Mbah a moute is getting lots more PT than Batum because Skiles cares about defense.
Nate is clearly exactly the opposite. He bases his PT decisions almost entirely on offensive performance. His squad knows this, and the “stars” only really tries hard on the offensive end. Even Greg is getting worse defensively and better offensively in the limited time he’s been under Nate’s guidance.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
Somehow I don't think coaching is simply a matter of ...
… pulling out a template and fitting it to your team.
It is not as if you can directly compare Van Gundy’s Knick teams to this Blazer team. Even the Bucks don’t compare well with us. You also have to take into account differing objectives. The Bucks are not exactly a rebuilding team. It could be argued that they revamped their team by getting rid of Williams and bringing in a veteran player like Jefferson who might mesh better with Redd, in order to compete for a playoff spot this season. Portland, while having achieving the playoffs as a goal, have other overarching objectives as well.
Your argument also ignores the concept of working with what you have. Give a guy like Skiles a bushel of apples and he’ll make apple sauce. Mix in a dozen pears and he’ll give you pear flavored apple sauce. Make it a variety of fruits and you’ll get fruit sauce of some sort. Do the same with McMillan and you probably find that he gives you award winning apple pie, pear tarts, blueberry scones, cherry turnovers and orange – mango smoothies.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jan 28, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
rec
I enjoy the fruit references.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, again, I'm not saying Nate's wrong for focusing on offense first.
But I do think folks who think he’s doing a great job with the defense is really misreading the situation. I’m not calling him the ayatollah of horrible defenses and we ought to burn him at the stake. But let’s not all kneel down and worship at the shrine of Nate’s defensive prowess until he, you know, actually delivers a good defense.
I mean, seriously, the reactions yall have. I’m not even really criticizing the man. I love d’antoni and he’s an all-offense/no-defense coach too. But Suns fans weren’t writing rapturous love odes to d’antoni’s defensive genius the way yalls do.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions
I have no frame of refernce on those sonics teams
But since he has been in Portland Nate has had at best flawed crews.
I love him to death but Steve Blake and “Defense” are not two concepts that go together in any sort of matter. I think offensively he is excellent, plays off Roy very very well, but on D he justs gets victimized (the best example I can think of this year was him trying to defend Barbosa)
To make matters worse on this end Greg picks up a foul as soon as he is withing 3 feet of a guard, and neither Brandon nor Lemarcus have been consistent enough to really be leaders on that end of the floor.
These types of issues have also seemed to exist for this team for the last few years. Off the top of my head the only players we’ve had since 2005 or so have either been very limited in other capacity’s(namely offense) on teams that couldn’t afford such, or simply were surrounded by a sea of (at best) mediocrity, and oftentimes downright dreadfulness: Ime (let him go due to age), Jack (too hot and cold on offense), Joel (O, though I do love the guy), and now Nic (seemingly a combination of Jack and Joel, though I think he will get much better on O).
Now, this is not to say Nate is blameless with regard to our situation on D. His coaching is somewhat responsible for how we (specifically Roy and Aldridge) play D. I do think it’s a bit of a cop out though to just assume since his teams haven’t produced (particularly this blazer team) that he is a bad defensive coach.
Hubris
I think those who are critical have a point up to a point. Despite Nate’s rep as a defensive minded player and coach his teams actual track record have not been that great. But, and this is a huge but, there is no way that Nate would have been chosen as the lead defensive coach for Team USA if he was not widely respected as a defensive oriented coach.
Those in this thread who have argued vociferously that Nate is a lousy defensive coach have engaged in the worst sort of hubris; you have put your opinions and perceptions ahead of a lot of folks who have forgotten more about basketball than most of us will ever know. That is hubris.
Rather than just trashing the guy based on one general measure of defensive efficiency, why don’t all you geniuses actually do something constructive and actually share your wisdom. Tell us what changes need to be made to our defensive scheme to improve our team defense. What personnel would you keep? Who is lousy and needs to be traded away? Share your bountiful wisdom.
by upper left corner on Jan 28, 2009 7:33 AM PST reply actions 8 recs
No, you're right.
Now that we’ve gotten our coach to have an honorary title babysitting a bunch of pampered superstars in summer camp, I’m definitely ready to call “mission accomplished” and I can stop worrying about how vulnerable our team looks for the playoffs and about how badly we need to get avoid getting beat by for our inevitable playoff defeat to not be humiliating.
Hang on, let me write some taunting emails to my friends who support the celts and lakers.
Hm, wonder how Kobe decided Nate was a brilliant coach.
Phil in the playoffs versus Celts: “Kobe, what the hell was that? You’re a pansy and a disgrace to the game. MJ could’ve destroyed you with an eyepatch on. In fact, you want me to call him? I have this eyepatch handy right here.”
Kobe (grumbling): “ok coach, I’ll try harder.”
Nate at summer camp: “kobe, you’re a credit to the game. I sure wish we could clone you and send one of your clones to Portland. I’m not sure there’s been a better player on both ends of the floor and I admire that you still play several minutes of defense a game since you’ve been acclaimed as the best player alive. I loved that steal you got that one time.”
Kobe (thinking): “… this man is a GENIUS”
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
Howling, I don't think your comment is helpful.
When you get really worked up about something, and someone comes along and says, “Hey, I think you are digging yourself a pretty good hole.” The recommended response is to STOP DIGGING, rather than dig harder.
Did I, or anyone else, suggest that the Blazers defense is above reproach? Did we say that there is no reason for concern? You are making a “straw-man” argument against an assertion that was never made.
What most have argued is that the Blazers defensive struggles are primarily the result of a couple of realities:
A) The Blazers are very young, inexperienced, and trying to integrate FOUR rookies into their rotation. Young guys make more mistakes and lack of familiarity causes miscommunication. Add injuries to this list, and it isn’t surprising that the guys are not playing like the Celtics.
B) Many of the Blazers players are not great individual defenders. I would break them into five groups:
1) Pryz, Batum: guys committed to defense first with good defensive skills;
2) Oden, Aldridge, Bayless: guys with the physical tools to play good defense, but lack knowledge and experience;
3) Roy, Rudy, Outlaw: guys who play decent defense in spots. Roy conserves energy on defense, Rudy is active but lacks strength, Outlaw makes some great plays, but also screws up at a truly alarming rate;
4) Blake, Sergio: guys who try hard, but lack the physical tools to play good individual defense consistently;
5) The rest are either lousy defenders or unknown.
This list suggests to me that the Blazers are going to get better, but that they do not have the personnel to be a top defensive team. Oden already makes a big difference by his work on the boards, but he is not yet the player he will be next year or in two years. He is struggling to stay on the floor. Once he figures that out and gets a little more latitude from the refs, he is going to make a huge impact. Batum has great physical tools and a great attitude; he will only get better. Aldridge has the tools but he is still learning how to use them. Whether or not he will develop a killer instinct on defense is still an open question. Bayless is going to be a good defender. He has the strength and quickness that Blake and Sergio lack, but he is very green.
I would say that we need a good back-up 4 who plays stellar defense, and another decent perimeter defender. I hope that Martell can fill the bill. Otherwise, we need time and stability.
There is a summary of my thoughts, how about yours? I do respect your opinions, that is why I asked you and others to make positive suggestions and evaluations of our personnel. Grumbling about Nate, without making specific suggestions for improvement, seems pointless.
by upper left corner on Jan 29, 2009 8:42 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting
It’s weird how in football, this argument rarely comes up. In football defensive and offensive minds are recognized for their talents, even though team performance more often reflects the talents of the players.
John Gruden, is recognized as an offensive coach, yet coached good defenses and terrible offenses in Tampa.
Tony Dungy is recognized as a defensive coach, yet coached excellent offenses and mediocre defenses in Indiana.
Since basketball is even more personnel driven than football, the players on the floor will have a far greater impact on the defensive rankings of a team than the strategies of the coach. No amount of coaching is going to make Steve Blake a lock-down defender.
At this point we have 3 players underperforming on defense, LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy and Travis Outlaw. Nate could be responsible for these three. Although LaMarcus is the only one that I think that might be mishandled. Roy carries too much of a load to perform well on defense all the time, and he ups his intensity when it’s needed. Travis seems difficult to coach, and may never get it.
We’ve also got two players over-performing on defense, Blake and Rodriguez. While they are not lock-down defenders, they are all have been staying with their men a lot better than last year. They have improved on the defensive end. They are never going to be great but I think Nate get’s a little credit for their improvement.
by boppitywop on Jan 28, 2009 8:23 AM PST reply actions 8 recs
Sergio.
His improvement on defense is unbelievable. He was probably the worst defender on the team last year.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
Can't one only be a genius in math or art/music?
wait a second, basketball is all of those things.
Reactivate Shavlik Randolph
All in all, being 2nd in offensive efficiency allows us to get away with
being 20th in defensive efficiency…
BUT – - I think that the players should get more pressure to perform on the defensive end…
"..[Travis Outlaw] could jump, grab a rafter, eat a sandwich, and then dunk.."
tmundal 12/30/07
The jury is out for me...
Young players, especially highly touted ones (hmm, do we have any young, highly touted players? Let’s see… BRoy, LMA, Gregory Wayne, Rudy, Sergio, Bayless, Nicolas, Martell… yeah, we have a few) want to come into the league and make a mark, make a name, court the shoe companies and the sport drink companies, get PAID. The quickest way to do that is to end up on SportsCenter. The quickest way to do that is by scoring points. Defense will get you noticed 0 times out of 10 .
Being known as a defensive guy doesn’t happen over night. It takes a few years for that rep to develop on a nationwide level. Not many young players have the patience to wait for a payoff that will take a few years when they can go for the quick score by being an offensive dynamo.
My question then is… what young players have come into the league and been known as above average defensive players within their first few years? If you’re successful thinking of a few, feel free to find me a team full of players with 5 years of pro experience or less that can claim this. Then we can fairly discuss Nate’s ability or lack thereof.
If this team doesn’t get into the top 10 in key defensive statistics within the next year and a half or two, I will be alarmed. Until then, it’s a team of young ‘uns that just don’t quite yet have a veterans knack for what’s going on, when to rotate, where to be, why it works, and how to read what’s happening.
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 28, 2009 9:54 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Okay players that were known defensively quickly
Wilt Chamberlain/Mutombo/Manute Bol/Shaquille O’neal
Tim Duncan/ Kevin Love
Ron Harper
Chris Paul
I’m having a hard time thinking of small-forwards because they get recognized sooner for the offensive end.
Love?
Really?
I’ve not heard that. I know he rebounds like a motha’, but good at defense?
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 28, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
apologies up front...
but I’m so used to reading negative comments by you I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or being facetious.
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 30, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah. Players want to play offense and don't innately care as much about playing defense.
That’s why we pay a guy a lot of money to try to focus their attention on doing things that will make the team better. This is someone that we usually call a “coach” and the idea is that they’ll get their players to do these things they believe will make them better; we usually call this “coaching”.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
what are you suggesting, hft?
Is what I said not fair? Is it wrong for me to correlate that as we have a team average of less than 3 years of pro experience that our defense may suffer? Do you think we should judge off of the results we see midseason with this super young team, a team whose goal isn’t to win a title but to get to the playoffs?
Realistically, we’re winning. We’re getting better every year. We’re in the hunt.
I don’t think we can have our cake and eat it, too… not just yet.
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 28, 2009 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not really disagreeing with you.
I don’t think it’s terrible to focus on improving the offense first.
But it’s hard to feel as sanguine about things as you describe when all the young guys we have are getting worse on defense, not better. LMA has clearly gotten worse than his first season. Travis at least used to pretend to try on D last season, and lately he’s not even going through the motions. Greg started the season authentically kind of intimidating and I don’t see him doing any intimidating just a couple of short months later.
So yeah, I’m not calling for any heads or anything. But I’m worried as hell with these trends, and all yalls being in denial and writing posts about Nate’s defensive genius isn’t helping me be any less worried.
by howlingfantods on Jan 28, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
I'd be interested to see the stats that indicate a decline in our players defensive effectiveness...
if you can find any.
I don’t think anyone is getting worse on defense. LMA was a backup going against backups his first season, and as someone bound to be a starter it was natural for him to abuse them. Now he goes against the best players in the league regularly. Can he improve? Certainly. He definitely needs to establish better position before the ball is swung in on offense and defense, but I think his on ball defense is better than average.
Greg wasn’t scouted at the beginning of the year; no one knew what he was going to do. After seeing a few games, teams had a plan for him. Now he’s adjusting and starting to show some real dominance. He keeps his arms up better and is moving his feet nice… he’ll have bad games still for sure, but he’s improved hand over fist.
Travis… I can’t defend his offensive defense. I have no idea what goes on there. Travis is the ying and the yang. I don’t think his weaknesses are such a liability that we lose games as a direct result. Sometimes he makes amazing happen. Sometimes he makes me-yelling-at-the-TV happen. It is what it is.
I can totally understand why you would hesitate to drink the cool-aid, as that’s the same reason why I hedge my bet by saying that we better improve within 2 years. It seems we have much to be excited and happy about right now, yet you seem pretty down on our prospects. In reality, our team isn’t only young but inexperienced.
"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 28, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
How can you forget
Scottie Pippen?
Also, Dennis Rodman sometimes played SF in his career, and at least in the early years was an excellent defender. Later, he stopped bothering on D and focused on getting rebounds, but when he wanted to he could play nasty D.
by EngineerScotty on Jan 28, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
I don't remember Scottie early on being known for his defense
I thought it took 5 years or so before people recognized Scottie’s D. Of course I was young during the Bull’s heyday and not paying much attention to fundamentals.
I just don't see it.
Yes I’ve heard how much of defensive guru Nate is , but I just don’t see it on the court.
Just look at a teams like Boston, and Cleveland, and they play at higher level of intensity then Portland does, and I put that squarely on the Coach.
Nope
Garnett and Lebron have upped the intensity.
Most of this thread
is coming perilously close to violating the Snot-Covered Cheetos Principle.
Some free advice: Try talking to each other instead of at each other or, failing that, just leave the topic alone. The words you’re using say “basketball” but the context and tone say “bickering old biddies”.
—Dave
by Dave on Jan 28, 2009 1:30 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
had to google biddies
"Only dunk and go to the defense." Rudy Fernandez
by Sabonis4Ever on Jan 28, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
Thank you Dave
I get what I deserve. I deserve what I get. I have it so I deserve it. I deserve
it for I have it. I get what I deserve. What I deserve - what I deserve what
I get. I have it so I deserve. - Gentle Giant
Ugh.
Snot-Covered Cheetos Principle
That made my stomach roll as I was just enjoying a rare treat of crunchy style Cheetos. Serves me right for indulging in junk food. Dang it.
"Aneurysm".
When Outlaw wins a game on a last-second shot, it’s called an "annthefaneurysm". QualityPie
i sort of forgot that principe, what was it again?
if there is a hot girl around let your friend look bad? i suppose i’ll search for that instant classic to re-read.
Reactivate Shavlik Randolph
freudian
Hopefully that will change by the trade dreadline.
Some people dread the trade deadline. If I could still grow dreads, I might. – Elgin
I get what I deserve. I deserve what I get. I have it so I deserve it. I deserve
it for I have it. I get what I deserve. What I deserve - what I deserve what
I get. I have it so I deserve. - Gentle Giant
Take the sf away from the equation and most jump shooters are not that good of defenders, first off jump shooters are playing basketball lazy. They do not like the physical contact on either end of the court so they are reluctant defenders.
A player like Roy who will drive to the basket and draw fouls and shoot the jump shot is imo a unique talent in the nba. When Portland commits to points in the paint I think we will see the attitude change defensivley on this team thats going to take awhile.
Portland is so young that they are still trying to find themselves as nba players noone but Roy is truely established and where is his true peak at this point in his career. It will come via growth which will take a couple more season or via a trade for a defensive minded vet.
Its all good and better then it has been for a long time.
I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.
""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."
Blazers currently in the rotation who usually avoid contact on the offensive end:
Blake, Batum,
Outlaw, Sergio, Rudy, Pryzbilla (doesn’t avoid contact, but doesn’t create it while shooting generally).
Blazers in the rotation who look for (or don’t shy away from) contact while scoring:
Roy, Bayless, Oden, LMA , (sort of 50/50, but attacking and drawing more fouls now).
Maybe this is why Bayless is good for the 2nd unit; I like how Nate has changed his rotation a little to give Bayless opportunities with both units, and in both guard positions. Sorry to veer off of the defensive topic, but you got me thinking of aggressiveness in general.
Reactivate Shavlik Randolph
When trying to find a cure
we have to look at the source of the problem, this is purely my opinion and I can not base it on anything other then my own beliefs in how hoops should be played. Portland being more of a jump shooting team then a post team is already putting pressure on there defensive unit by playing offense. Hoist up a three and the opposing team is geared up to run it back at you, players are sprinting down the court for a fast break or at the very least the opposing team gets a quick miss match on the other end.(Portland is forced to pick up the closest player to them regardless of size or position)When Portland grinds out a possession and works the ball through the post the other team is forced to play with in there own D and has a hard time leaking out on the break.
I guess the point Im trying to make is when work on offense for higher percentage shots it allows us to run back defensivley and be put in a better position to defend.
I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.
""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."
I think you're right...
but dude, you have to cite your sources. (Didn’t you learn anything in college?)
Otherwise, I can just do this:
“Nate McMillan is the worst defensive coach I’ve ever seen.”
—Michael Jordan
“That guy still has a job in the NBA? He should be selling shoes.”
—Larry Bird
“Nate McMillan had better learn to coach defense before he dies, is all I’m sayin’”
—God
Yes, I did learn things in college.
Did you want that APA or MLA?
This is not a classroom or a news journal. It’s a sports blog. It’s not exactly a bastion for intellectual thought and journalistic integrity. I wouldn’t sweat it.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 28, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
Um...yes, it's exactly that
Not that you have to cite using academic format, but don’t be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
—Dave
Sorry.
When I said “sports blogs” I was referring to fan sports blogs. These are called “fanposts” after all, which I assume is a different category of writing unto itself, and not exactly held to the same standards of journalism as the articles on the main page. Blazer’s edge does contain some great examples of sports journalism, just not from me. I did add links to the quotes though, so maybe that will help.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 29, 2009 2:26 AM PST up reply actions
It helps when debating
After all, the point of this site isn’t to regurgitate random thoughts. it’s been to share the love of the blazers, share information, and have fun friendly debates. Sharing information and debating are always at a higher standard when sources can be supplied.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
