Why the Blazers Will Do Well Part 4: Deeee-Fense
by Dave on Aug 19, 2010 11:00 PM PDT
in News
Email
PrintFor all the success the Blazers have had the past couple of seasons one area of their game has remained sub-par: defense. In fact sub-par doesn't do it justice. At times Portland's defense has been downright painful to watch. They've been saved from statistical nightmare status by their glacially slow pace, but low points given numbers can't disguise the weakness. The Blazers seldom if ever win games with their "D". Your heart is always in your throat if the opponent has any kind of coordinated attack. Portland may be able to take the star player out of the equation but somebody else is going to sneak through for a shot or a foul. The only thing the Blazers have done well--and this is both to their credit and a reason to believe in their commitment--is get back down the floor before the opponent preventing easy buckets. Other than that their efforts have gone unrewarded.
For years Portland has tried to disguise the weakness with a variety of schemes. These have been foiled by a number of factors:
- The individual defense in the backcourt hasn't been solid enough to contain any reasonably-skilled opponent.
- Help rotations have been confused, slow, and intermittent.
- The interior defenders haven't been able to handle the increased pressure caused by 1 and 2, leaving the final defensive choice between giving up an easy bucket or fouling.
- Lack of confidence and coordination team-wide has forced individual defenders to play back, preventing disaster, instead of playing up to force turnovers and inhibit opponent possessions before they even start.
The organization has shown that they understand that a surfeit of offensive potential without the matching defensive prowess won't get the job done. The last two major acquisitions--Marcus Camby and Wesley Matthews--are defensive players. Camby's tenure, like Miller's, won't be long enough to make the ultimate difference, but it's a start. Matthews, on the other hand, addresses the first and biggest weakness we just mentioned. The Blazers now have a couple choices for defense on problematic opposing guards in Matthews and Nicolas Batum. It's not a foolproof design. We don't know that either could play 35 minutes per game playing backcourt defense and still scoring, but the options (and thus the situational permutations) just doubled. Once these players mature fully they may indeed be able to play long minutes, at which point the Blazers become a scary defensive team.
Speaking of maturing, Greg Oden also brings interior defense to the table. The Big Backstop has shown himself capable of stopping those pesky drivers who slip by the guards. One of Oden's particular gifts is changing the look of the opposing offense by his presence alone. When he was cranking early last season you'd see two blocked shots in the first six minutes of the game and a gun-shy opponent thereafter. Combined with the guards giving him fewer opportunities to bail them out, his growth should allow him to be one of the most menacing players in the game.
I'm not saying it would be practical, but theoretically the Blazers could throw out a lineup of Oden, Camby, Batum, and Matthews...a menacing thought to be sure. At no time since the Roy-Aldridge era started have the options been that plentiful.
Increased defensive potential plus the recent coaching changes should bring out another development: fewer misdirection schemes (which are only marginally effective against professionals anyway) and a more streamlined, simple, and hard-nosed defensive game plan. It's easy to point to lack of defensive commitment and skill as a cause for Portland's woes. There's been some of that, and will continue to be. The Blazers' best players aren't their best defenders. But they don't have to be if the team can coordinate on the defensive end. Youth and a lack of understanding have inhibited that coordination so far. But these players are getting older, more used to the league and each other. Any coordination that would have developed last season was obliterated when the team was forced to used approximately 6,200 different lineups because of injuries. If that happens again nothing the Blazers do or don't do will matter. But assuming things go normally for once, the Blazers should be primed for a better defensive season already.
Portland should be able to further foster the necessary coordination by making each player's responsibility more focused and consistent. If you can't depend on Player X to stop anybody, if he allows the opponent to do any of a dozen things on a given possession, it doesn't matter if you play a zone, man-to-man, or matchup hybrid. The permutations and possibilities are too great to compensate for. You'll stop two options and leave ten. But if you can depend on your wings to stay in front of their men and you know your big guy can take care of most mistakes you don't scheme against a couple options instead of a dozen. You need 2 zones, not 92. You can spend a lot more time in man coverage. In that environment everybody becomes a better defender simply because they know what their job is. All of a sudden those slow, confused-looking rotations seem quick, devastating, and automatic.
The increased defensive presence inside and out and a simpler game plan should instill more confidence in Portland's defenders. This is the last key to success and an important one. Good defense is like attractiveness. Which guys and gals are the most sexy? What does it really take? Yes, there are physical standards but usually the people with the most charisma are the people who feel sexy themselves and are comfortable in their own skin. I've seen plenty of non-attractive people (in the stereotypical sense) take over a room and have everyone therein chasing them while the more stereotypically attractive people sat on the wall and wondered what the heck just happened. It's all about the confidence. That's defense as well. If you think you're a good defensive team and you get just the barest amount of reinforcement and positive results you'll become a good defensive team. Given the building blocks, I'd expect that to happen to the Blazers within the next couple of years. And once that confidence takes root and becomes part of the culture the team will start to attack rather than react on the defensive end. That's when you'll see guys like Oden and Batum in full flower. That's when you'll see the running game take off. That's when you'll see opponents not wanting to play Portland anytime, anywhere.
A couple individual defensive holes will remain no matter what the Blazers do. But what team doesn't have those? Despite a weak link or two, the Blazers have a legitimate shot to address almost every flaw in their systemic attack on the defensive end. You can't say that of most teams. Typically it's a matter of forfeiting an offensive player in order to get more defense. That's not true in this situation. If they're able to use all of their personnel odds are fantastic that Portland will get at least to acceptable defensive status (at a faster pace and without losing the offense) and odds are decent that Portland could become a formidable defensive team. If they work hard, simplify, trust, and attack everyone will like the results.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
143 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
the single greatest hope for a championship in the near future
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
How many lineups do teams usually use during a season?
l
ast season was obliterated when the team was forced to used approximately 6,200 different lineups because of injuries.
I love you, Dave.
Please keep bringing the sunshine. This series has been awesome so far.
"One of the bright spots of the young season has been rookie point guard Jonny Flynn, whose name sounds like he should be the lead character in a Broadway Musical. "What are you doing here, Jonny Flynn?" "Why I'm here to court trouble, and woo a girl, and build the most fantastical contraption the world has ever seen!" -- Dave, Game 7 Blazers versus Timberwolves preview
"It was bad reffing...but not rip apart the fabric of time bad." -- The Arkitect, Game 79 Blazers versus Mavericks Post-Game Thread
Sub-par?
Really? I think you’re overstating your case here. In the last two years, Portland has been slightly above average defensively (ranked 12th in Defensive Rating for 2008-2009, and 15th in 2009-2010, a year which of course gets the “no center” asterik, which actually makes a decent achievement). That’s not sub-par.
The only reason they are ranked that high
is that they play at Roy a snails pace
We went like this, he went like that. I say to Hollywood: Where'd he go? Hollywood says: where'd who go?
The ratings he's referencing are per possession so pace isn't a factor
I know this because i was about to post the same
But you will hear announcers saying,
“The Blazers give up the second-fewest points per game,” or “The Blazers have the league’s third-best defense,” based on points allowed per game. Which is simplistic, obviously.
Correction
Blazers were ranked 13th (out of 30) in 2008-2009.
So they average out to 14th overall the last two years. Not great by any stretch, and certainly not good enough to compete for a title, but hardly sub-par.
Sub-par for contenders
Sub-par for playoff teams.
Sub-par for the dream they are chasing.
Sub-par for exploiting their “window”.
Sub-par.
In KP I trusted!
by LaoTzu on Aug 19, 2010 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If the Blazers give up more than 72 ppg, that is sub-par for most games
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
That's about right
Average isn’t good enough.
We have players who play defense now, look out!
Thank you. And it even goes a little deeper than that
Like Gargen I was thinking the exact same thing when reading Dave’s post.
Being around 12th or 15th in the league isn’t terrible. It’s not good for a team with championship aspirations, but it’s not awful, especially considering the context. As mas pointed out, last year’s team had no center and played noted terrible defender Juwon Howard and undersized rookie Jeff Pendergraph major minutes at the position, which is the most important position for defense.
But the previous year, it should be noted that over the first half of the season the Blazers were in the 20s somewhere in defensive efficiency. They really were sub-par back then, but then in the second half they played well enough to bring the average up to 12th for the year, which means they were a top 10 defensive team for the second half of the season (and probably top 5, although I don’t have the numbers to parse it out). That was the year the team learned to play D. It just shows what they are capable of when healthy, and although some players have come and gone since, the core that remains and fairly good defenders that have been added, so I think they have the potential to be even better.
All about expectations....
Did the Blazers LOOK good on offense? Confident, crisp rotations to the wing? Stifling interior D? A D that makes teams cringe when they come into your crib?
No.
Has the Blazers D in the BRoy era EVER been championship caliber?
No.
Does the D need to improve to win a championship?
Yes.
Is it sub par? Well, I guess that depends on whether your shooting from the white tees or the gold…
Me? I want a title. So yes, Nate’s D is very Sub-Par….
The biggest concern I have about our future defense
Is that our 2 best players seem to be indifferent/confused by off-ball rotations. Brandon is a decent 1 on 1 defender but has a lot of trouble paying attention off the ball, and LaMarcus seems to lose interest after the first rotation. I appreciate your optimism though and agree that the rest of our roster is primed to make huge strides in team defense
Hopefully that will change
I read an interview early this summer in which Roy stated that both he and LaMarcus have to commit themselves to defense. So I suspect we’ll see it more from Roy, but not Aldridge. LMA’s biggest weakness as a defender is that he plays a position in which defense requires physical contact, something LMA tends to avoid.
Bill Bayno was interviewed yesterday by Wheels. Bayno said that LMA has been working
with him and that LMA is up to #260 lbs. Bayno said LMA has added strength without losing quickness.
Here is the link to the show:
http://www.955thegame.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4875245
(Bayno’s interview is about 2/3 of the way through. You can move the “grey line” with your mouse.)
Rec Dave
I know you were staying on the positive side. For negatives, let’s start with those players you didn’t mention, and what the team can do about it.
First, Roy. Last year he announced his commitment to become a defensive stopper. That stopped when some of our offensive threats went down. Let’s hope that the team stays healthy and Brandon can make good that promise this year. And let’s hope that with Matthews coming of the bench, instead of “La Matedora”, we will have someone to stop the bleeding while Roy is catching his breath. Heck, Nate might end up routinely going to Wesley for end of quarter situations when the other team has the ball.
Second, Aldridge. LMA is not a wide body. He is lanky, with a high center of gravity. Physics says, that without compensatory skills, he is easy to body around, maybe even somebody you can go thru. Camby, although a more skilled defender, especially a help defender, shares that lanky body type. LMA should be tasked to improve his interior defense. We don’t have a classic banger PF to match up against an Amare. Or do we? A healthy Greg Oden should be able to dominate wide-bodied PFs. That leaves us with Camby at Center, which is perfectly fine in most cases. Or LMA can take the opposing center, which is good or bad depending on matchup. Or we might see a return of the twin towers with Greg and Joel that was so effective two years ago. Dave is right that Camby and Oden in the mix down low changes the front court defensive situation completely.
Lastly, Miller and Bayless. They have different strengths. They also have different defensive weaknesses. To maximize the good in this, the coaching staff will need to match these players against those they play against most effectively. Sometimes a quick guard will be beating Andre. Okay, but can he handle Miller on the low block? Sometimes a team will put Grant Hill on Andre to body him and keep him out of the paint. That’s when Bayless can shine—at least forcing the opponent to switch for a quicker guard.
Dave is right that the team as it’s presently constructed should be able to play more straight up defense. He is also right that the ability to give different looks on the defensive end will provide most of the tools needed to become a very effective defensive unit.
The wild card is coaching. Nate is very effective at doing a lot with a little. Let’s hope he can do even more when he has a lot to begin with.
In KP I trusted!
If what Bayno said is true
And Aldridge really did put on 20 pounds to take him up to 260 we will most likely see improvement. At the least he will be harder to go through.
Yeah, I just posted and then went and read that!
If a lot of this muscle is in his lower body, that would give a lower center of gravity. Like a Brian Grant, who stopped the Mailman cold in at least one series.
In KP I trusted!
The best part of what Bayno said
wasn’t the weight and strength gain, but that he is working on parts of his game that don’t come natural to him. The means physical contact.
Great players improve their weak spots. When Michael Jordan was drafted, the knock on him was that while he could score, he wasn’t a particularly good defensive player, and he didn’t have great range with his jump shot. Well, we all know what happened. He worked on his defense enough to become one of the top defenders in the league, an absolute stopper at his position. And, of course, he developed his 3 point shot to become very effective from there, as well.
It was that willingness to develop the aspects of his game that most needed development, rather than only continuing to improve what he was already good at, that made him the great player that he was. Let us hope that Aldridge has truly learned that lesson.
But, we have all heard these off-season reports before. It is one thing to push Bill Bayno around the court. It is entirely another to push Amar’e Stoudemire, Carlos Boozer, Tim Duncan, etc., around during a game.
there are different ways to defend folks
In the playoffs last year, we saw Pau Gasol give both Amar’e and Carlos Boozer fits despite his rather lanky physique. Marcus Camby also frustrated Amar’e when he was in the game (which wasn’t often enough). I’d dispute the idea that LaMarcus needs to have a Boozer-like physique (or even a different physique than he already has) to guard someone like Boozer. He just needs to use his length more effectively.
by atomiccafe on Aug 20, 2010 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec
I think it was True Hoop that linked to something earlier this year that basically said the same thing (I couldn’t find it again to link here). It noted that Gasol, Odom, and Bynum use their length to make opponents’ shots difficult without picking up cheap fouls, and that this could be seen in the L*kers defensive statistics.
I think that’s exactly how LMA (and Camby) should guard guys like Boozer, Amare, Z-Bo, etc. Move your feet and use your length to make it difficult and live with the results. That, and try to draw the charge when they get frustrated and try to go through you.
by MDBlazerfan on Aug 20, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't disagree with you
its just that LMA typically has tended to shy away from physical contact. He doesn’t need to seek it out — that isn’t his game — but when he encounters a physical player, he tends to get taken out of his game.
Plus, he is a Power Forward. That means, like it or not, he needs to share the burden of rebounding. Too many times I see him only getting 5 or 6 rebounds in a game. At 6’11", he should get that many by accident! Sometimes, you just have to muscle your way to a rebound. A stronger physique and greater determination to mix it up should help him.
Defensive boards thats definately true
He’s told to box out his man and let the C get the rebound, but he has to box out and then go after the rebound as well. On offensive boards, I’ve seen him beasting out there a few times, maybe not consistently, but I’ve seen him basically take the ball out of GOs hands and stuff/ flip it in.
Portland could coast along with their superior talent and stay right with us. Now that Portland woke up, the hammer cometh down.
Bayless > Daffy Duck after 3 cans of rockstar
by Batumshakalaka on Aug 20, 2010 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
You will probably notice A lot less attempts
of backing LMA down when Oden is waiting on the other side of the key. What Dave said about Greg changing the other teams offensive stradegy is true. If he plays siginificant minutes that is. I think Roy’s defense will look better this year as well because he shouldn’t have to guard SF’s nearly as much this year. If Batum can play significant minutes as well….
\same words,different order, different meaning...
Nate is very effective at doing a lot with a little.
Did you mean:
Nate is very effective at doing a little with a lot.
Cuz then we agree…
50 wins with 1/2 a roster
is a lot with a little.
If Luke Babbitt and Jerryd Bayless played a game of table tennis I'm not sure who would win but the ping pong ball would lose no matter what. - Ben 7/16/2010
My goal for the Blazers
Is to hold Pheonix to 89 points or less in the season opener. To come out and hold what’s left of the team that beat you in the playoffs by running up the score to the 120’s would signal to the rest of the league, the fans and most importantly the players that these Blazers are committed to defense and thereby playoff success. Going into this season a lot of players will set personal goals.. Or team team goals.. Like making the WCF.
In my opinion holding The Suns to a point total in the eighties for the season opener is the perfect goal. It is specific, achievable, has a time, is measurable and has a reward.
The reward is the fans and players get to turn on the swag and talk up the teams promising future. The reward is to take out all the frustration and aggression pent up from the lost season and dissatisfying playoff exit that has festered and boiled all summer long.
The team must adopt this goal. They should put a target on themselves. We should want the whole Suns organization riled up to prove us wrong. Because they have a chip on their shoulders too, what with the loss of Amare and the return of Turkyglue to Portland, they will want to prove they are still the better team. That’s why it will feel all the better to take their best shot when the season starts and still be standing, on the the battlefield, bloodied and bruised, triumphant, over an enemy defeated.
by Oden Mad, Oden Smash! on Aug 20, 2010 1:42 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
What does a fast pace have to do with anything regarding defense?
Heck, let me give you a few recent counterexamples.
2003-2004 Houston Rockets w/ Jeff Van Gundy (25th Pace & 5th Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2004.html
2003-2004 Toronto Raptors w/ Kevin O’Neill (27th Pace & 7th Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/TOR/2004.html
2004-2005 Houston Rockets w/ Jeff Van Gundy (24th Pace & 4th Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2005.html
2004-2005 Memphis Grizzlies w/ Mike Fratello (25th Pace & 5th Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2005.html
2005-2006 Houston Rockets w/ Jeff Van Gundy (25th Pace & 6th Defensive Rating)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2006.html
2005-2006 Memphis Grizzlies w/ Mike Fratello (30th Pace & 2nd Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2006.html
2006-2007 Houston Rockets w/ Jeff Van Gundy (21st Pace & 3rd Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2007.html
2008-2009 Charlotte Bobcats w/ Larry Brown (27th Pace & 7th Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHA/2009.html
2009-2010 Charlotte Bobcats w/ Larry Brown (26th Pace & 1st Defensive Rating):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHA/2010.html
The Portland Trail Blazers suck on defense mostly due to the flawed SOS pressure defense scheme — which relies heavily on switching, worked better in the days of the illegal defense rule, and is explained in detail here: http://hooptactics.com/Free_Area_Basketball_SOS_Defense — that’s implemented by Nate McMillan. Bob Ociepka’s heavy use of trapping on the pick-and-roll won’t help matters, either. Here, too, is an article in which Ociepka explains his defensive philosophy: http://www.fiba.com/asp_includes/download.asp?file_id=424
If the Trail Blazers hire a coach who’d implement a strict man-to-man defense and keep the offense going at a slow pace — yet make it more power-oriented (e.g., Hawk offense, pro-style pick-and-roll basketball, et cetera) — then I’d expect to see better overall results.
At no time did I say a faster pace would make the defense better
I said a better defense would allow a faster pace.
—Dave
I bet he misread this part (emphasis mine)
They’ve been saved from statistical nightmare status by their glacially slow pace, but low points given numbers can’t disguise the weakness
Plenty of people and an annoying amount of announcers/writers are mislead by looking only at PPG against, but not at pace. The Blazers often got listed as a great defensive team because they only gave up 94.8/game last season (3rd best). If the Blazers had the league average pace and kept the same defensive efficiency they would have given up ~100 ppg. If the Blazers had played at the Warriors’ pace they would have given up ~109 ppg (GS gave up 112). There was some masking (from a raw stats POV), but there wouldn’t have been any “Warriors lite” labels.
Can I get an Armon?
No, I'm referring to this comment by Dave.
“If they’re able to use all of their personnel odds are fantastic that Portland will get at least to acceptable defensive status (at a faster pace and without losing the offense) and odds are decent that Portland could become a formidable defensive team.”
I’m too lazy to do it, but someone who’ll put out the time and effort should make a smart, statistically based argument regarding how coaches have a firm control of their team’s pace. Maybe Basketball Prospectus has published article about that up sometime in the past, but I’d’ve missed it if that’s the case.
Okay, then it seems you're implying that a ball hawking team with a high opponent TOV% -- so long ...
as it’s also good at defense overall — will play at a quicker pace. That’s not necessarily true, though, as is noted by several examples of teams with different styles from last season.
Slow-Paced, Ball Hawking Teams w/ Good Defensive Efficiency:
Boston (23rd Pace, 2nd Opponent TOV%, & 5th Defensive Rating)
Charlotte (26th Pace, 3rd Opponent TOV%, & 1st Defensive Rating)
Milwaukee (20th Pace, 4th Opponent TOV%, & 2nd Defensive Rating)
Miami (28th Pace, 8th Opponent TOV%, & 6th Defensive Rating)
Slow-Paced, Ball Hawking Teams w/ Poor Defensive Efficiency:
Detroit (29th Pace, 5th Opponent TOV%, & 26th Defensive Rating)
Philadelphia (21st Pace, 9th Opponent TOV%, & 24th Defensive Rating)
Slow-Paced, Non-Ball Hawking Teams w/ Good Defensive Efficiency:
Cleveland (25th Pace, 25th Opponent TOV%, & 7th Defensive Rating)
San Antonio (19th Pace, 28th Opponent TOV%, & 8th Defensive Rating)
Slow-Paced, Non-Ball Hawking Teams w/ Poor Defensive Efficiency:
Washington (22nd Pace, 22nd Opponent TOV%, & 18th Defensive Rating)
Fast-Paced, Ball Hawking Teams w/ Good Defensive Efficiency:
Utah (9th Pace, 6th Opponent TOV%, & 10th Defensive Rating)
Oklahoma City (12th Pace, 7th Opponent TOV%, & 9th Defensive Rating)
Fast-Paced, Ball Hawking Teams w/ Poor Defensive Efficiency:
Golden State (1st Pace, 1st Opponent TOV%, & 29th Defensive Rating)
Fast-Paced, Non-Ball Hawking Teams w/ Good Defensive Efficiency:
Los Angeles Lakers (14th Pace, 20th Opponent TOV%, & 4th Defensive Rating)
Fast-Paced, Non-Ball Hawking Teams w/ Poor Defensive Efficiency:
Phoenix (4th Pace, 30th Opponent TOV%, & 23rd Defensive Rating)
Toronto (11th Pace, 29th Opponent TOV%, & 30th Defensive Rating)
Sacramento (6th Pace, 23rd Opponent TOV%, & 20th Defensive Rating)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html
Portland, of course, was last in pace last season, albeit middle of the pack in both defensive rating and opponent TOV%. In addition, the team most similar to Portland was clearly Atlanta.
Last season, Boston, Charlotte, and Milwaukee and Miami were all slow-paced, ball hawking ballclubs that played great defense.
you are still inventing an argument
the ability to run isn’t predicated on ball-hawking – it is predicated on rebounding – which is predicated on defense stopping the offense and creating opportunities for running.
Whether the Blazers actually force the transition game remains to be seen, of course.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 20, 2010 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Why, if "it is predicated on rebounding," did the Portland Trail Blazers finish 7th in DRB% as ...
a team last season and were still 30th in pace factor?
Golden State, by the way, finished dead last in DRB% last season — and also by more than 2% behind the 29th place team in that category (i.e., Phoenix) — but were nevertheless first in pace.
Pace has nothing to do with DRB%, TOV%, et cetera. Rather, it has to do with coaching scheme. That aside, though, I’m a huge fan of slow-paced, down-tempo basketball — which explains my respect toward guys like Jeff Van Gundy and Mike Fratello — but abhor Nate McMillan’s Charmin soft, jumper oriented high-low zone offense with a passion.
the argument is that defense improves opportunity for pace
more defensive stops = more opportunities to run – doesn’t say they will run. But the idea that Dave was implying that high TOV% correlates to increased pace is simply not true. Which is why I brought up rebounding – it is just as invalid to claim that I was implying DRB% correlates to increased pace.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 20, 2010 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Even a low team eFG% allowed -- which is what I think you mean by "more defensive ...
stops = more opportunities to run" — “doesn’t say they will run,” as you said above. Pace is controlled by the coach — with the slow pace in the instance of Nate McMillan probably being due to his aversion of turnovers — and that’s that. Now, some coaches coach at an slow pace — while openly admitting it, too — due to them wanting to heavily dictate the play calling with methodical half-court basketball (e.g., Mike Fratello, Doug Collins, et al.).
A big example of how coaches control pace was when Fratello got fired due to a mixture of Pau Gasol being injured early and young guys (e.g., Rudy Gay, Hakim Warrick, et al.) wanting to play at a faster pace during the 2006-2007 season. After Fratello was wrongly canned, Tony Barone came in and implemented a sloppy, streetball esque run-and-gun system to appease lunkheads like Gay.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2710622
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/3646/walking-in-memphis
I, however, am baffled by McMillan, who occasionally mentions that he wants the team to run—in spite of that being the opposite of his actual coaching style. To me, that indicates he’s someone who doesn’t fully grasp his own scheme; it’s either a type of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty on his part. Either way, though, that’s a negative quality and a sign of insufficient intelligence.
Harsh, but plausible
The Blazers are bit of a mixed-bag. I see the McMillan-emphasis on running to be an opportunity issue – run off rebounds and turnovers, but not off made shots – and pull back if you don’t have the advantage.
Teams like GS and Phoenix will run on any possession and more importantly – will take outside shots 1 on 5 if that outside shot is open. In this regard, I don’t anticipate any significant changes.
However, when you have a PF that can beat any other PF in the league up the court, you should make that option #1 on any given play – go see if LMA can get an easy shot or create an opportunity for a teammate by being a threat. This kind of approach is like a secondary fast break or simply transition offense to take advantage of a defense that isn’t set.
I’d love to see more of that – along with more running off of rebounds and turnovers. Pace would also be increased by offensive sets that do not take 23 seconds to execute. Too many Blazer possessions go deep in the shot clock when option 1 or option 2 is taken away. That may be the biggest McMillan pace-factor of all.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 20, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
You are a bit more generous to Nate than I am
He talks about wanting to run and have ball movement, but then calls an iso-heavy set of plays. Then he says after the game — this happened on more than one occasion — that the players didn’t do it. In short, at times he appears to be throwing his players under the bus.
He’s also got to understand that when you run, there are going to be more turnovers. But Nate is so fearful of turnovers, and he has some of the players — such as Bayless — so fearful of them, that they wind up being reluctant to push the pace. If he wants his players to run, he can’t yank a guy like Bayless or Batum out everytime they turn the ball over.
Last years dip in defense and offense ratings
are most likely a direct result in our decreased rebounding effectiveness. Which is of course related to seemingly everyone taller than 6’8" not named Lamarcus or Juwan getting injured.
Just having our bigs healthy and a consistent lineup will dramatically improve the Blazers at both ends. Especially defense and rebounding. A few more defensive boards are gonna lead to a few more fast break points by ACCIDENT one would think.
O.R.
health
it isn’t any more complex than that single factor
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 21, 2010 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions
How can you tell that McMillan's lying?
His lips are moving.
I’ll be here all week, folks.
by howlingfantods on Aug 20, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Totally over the top.
I’m pretty ambivalent about Nate’s approach to the game. But calling him a “liar” is just offensive. He is a cautious, hardworking, stand-up guy who is good at motivating his players. I don’t think he is very creative or very good at on the fly adjustments. But where does your comment come from?
by upper left corner on Aug 21, 2010 4:23 AM PDT up reply actions
agree 100%. Hope the new coaching staff is better at all that Nate lacks.
AND I hope that Nate allows input. A LOT of input.
Uh. It's a joke.
The “I’ll be here all week” thing is kind of a tipoff.
by howlingfantods on Aug 21, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh. I don't get it.
Even now, after you clarified your intentions, I don’t get the joke. Perhaps my funny bone is dislocated, or perhaps it just wasn’t that funny to start with.
Oh well. Glad I ended my reply with a question. No harm. No foul.
by upper left corner on Aug 22, 2010 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh ok dude, you don't think I'm funny.
I never claimed to be a comedian. Just an insanely handsome and brilliant amateur basketball analyst.
by howlingfantods on Aug 23, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I, too, don't think that Nate McMillan is intentionally disingenuous, but I do ...
believe he’s lacking a keen, sharp basketball mind. To me, McMillan is kind of a dullard and also seems to lacks an understanding of the implications of the high-low zone offense — which is perplexing — as hercher noted in his above reply to blacknoiseNW.
Most coaches who implement a slow-paced offense (e.g., Mike Fratello, Doug Collins, Jeff Van Gundy, et al.) articulate their reasoning for such a philosophy — which I personally support as a fan of methodical basketball — yet, on the other hand, McMillan blabs about wanting to run and have off ball movement, although his scheme is heavily predicated on half-court sets featuring a lot of ball reversal, the occasional pick-and-pop, some drive and kick, and many 1-4 iso sets.
So yeah, the communication between McMillan and a few of his players has gotten lost in translation. That, along with Kevin Pritchard filling the roster full of some guys who were clearly poor fits with McMillan (e.g., Rudy Fernandez, Sergio Rodriguez, Andre Miller, et al.), has caused somewhat of a disconnect.
I think the best quote here is "Correlation does not imply causation."
Which basically means a slow pace does not equal good defense. But slow pace helps defense by “uglying up” the opposing teams offense which limits easy buckets and forces bad shots. The bad shots + TOs + BS = fast break offense / easy buckets for us. Easy buckets = High FG% which means less fast break attempts for the other team, which means ugly offense etc. etc. It’s a vicious circle, but there it is.
Portland could coast along with their superior talent and stay right with us. Now that Portland woke up, the hammer cometh down.
Bayless > Daffy Duck after 3 cans of rockstar
by Batumshakalaka on Aug 20, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Yesterday
All I read was the high expectations of how far the Blazers should go to be successful. Today i hear that we can’t go very far because of the lack of D. My question is, how can the fans expect the team to go to the finals one day and say they don’t play good enough D to get out of the first round?
hg
I think the D can be good this year
A healthy Greg Oden goes a long way to improving the defense. We know Batum is a very good defender who is versatile enough to defend 3 positions, depending on the matchups (SG, SF, PF on guys like Nowitzki). Roy should be a good defender if he commits to it, as he has said he will. His primary backup — Matthews — is known to be good a defense. If the reports about LMA are accurate, he should be improved. Plus we have Camby who can backup at that position.
All other things being equal, it appears our biggest defensive weakness is at PG.
When talking about the PG
I made up an imaginary line-up of
PG-BRoy
SG-Batum
SF-Matthews
PF-Camby
C- Oden
for a defensive unit. I will still stick by it
hg
that hypothetical lineup will struggle to score
because even though Brandon is an excellent scoring guard, he hasn’t shown that he can run an offense and set up his teammates in the halfcourt offense on a consistent basis.
I’m hopeful that Batum will grow into a playmaking/facilitating point forward in the future, but it’s a little early to expect that out of Nic, this year
Miller needs to be out on the floor, and Bayless is the backup PG at this point in time
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Why
would you put 6’-9" Batum at SG and 6’-5" Matthews at SF?
If Luke Babbitt and Jerryd Bayless played a game of table tennis I'm not sure who would win but the ping pong ball would lose no matter what. - Ben 7/16/2010
To more effectively use Batum to guard the opponents PG
Besides that would be like using a three guard line-up. I can see your point, but Nate uses the 3 as a corner 3 on offense almost exclusively therefore using Batum more of a facilitator on offense.
Of course that was a lot of day dreaming and little BBIQ.
hg
What do you think about individual defense at the PG?
Suppose Andre Miller is out of the picture in a year. What would the future look like?
We keep expecting Bayless to become a great defender because he “has all the tools,” but as of now I mostly see him get beaten up trying to get over picks.
Meanwhile, Armon Johnson seems to be a very good defender already, but he lacks experience and seems destined to ride the bench all year.
Is any of these guys the solution, or does the team go looking for someone else — who’s unspectacular (therefore cheap and an easy fit) but is a good defender with a jump shot? (*cough * Kirk Hinrich * cough *)
I feel like Armon Johnson + two years’ experience + a better jump shot is going to be the answer, but it’s hard to pin your hopes on a second-round rookie.
I know you hate the way Andre Miller fits on this team, but I’ll take the worst fit who’s a top 10 PG over the best fit who’s a bottom 10 PG. And if we pick up Andre’s option he’s 3 million cheaper than Kirk. After we let Andre go, then we can talk about Kirk, hopefully at a reduced price tag.
by atomiccafe on Aug 20, 2010 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The time to get Kirk Hinrich is now for the next two seasons.
Stylistic fit is a very real and important thing, as noted by how Brandon Roy and Andre Miller had trouble meshing as backcourt teammates last season due to their respective skill sets clashing.
Kirk is not a bottom 10 PG
He is a bottom 10 SG, where he has been forced to play for the past two seasons. Before that he was a top 10 PG.
Food for thought.
| #11 | #7 | #9 | #15 | #52 |
by MadBlaze on Aug 24, 2010 6:01 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Quick said that Portland talked to Chicago re: Kirk (again) this year around draft day
but the two teams couldn’t decide on the trade pieces. It will be interesting to see if Cho is a fan of Hinrich’s game, and (if he is) if Rich will have better success bringing Cap’n Kirk to PDX
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
?
We keep expecting Bayless to become a great defender because he "has all the tools," but as of now I mostly see him get beaten up trying to get over picks.
Meanwhile, Armon Johnson seems to be a very good defender already, but he lacks experience and seems destined to ride the bench all year.
Will Armon be any better at getting over NBA picks? Bayless’ issues were more about consistency than ability – his one on one defense has immense potential. Ditto Armon. But Armon’s one on one ability still has to pass the same team defense test that Bayless has been subject to.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Pick and roll defense is probably the most difficult element of NBA basketball a young player has to learn. And every player has to learn it—pick and rolls aren’t run as frequently or as effectively in college or in Europe. Finally, if we want to pick on Bayless (or any player) for having trouble vs. pick and rolls, we have to look at Batum, who consistently gets hung up in no man’s land on screens.
Plus, Batum's has fast feet
So when he does get hung up on screens, he recovers quickly, lessening the blunder.
I'm really not complaining about Bayless
I don’t see him as a bad or good defender at this moment. I do kind of wince every time he gets knocked around by a pick. I hope he’ll achieve his potential, the same word you used.
Bayless needs to take a fall when picked
that’s how you get those bonus fouls on opposing bigs for moving picks. Floperino.
by NWfan on Aug 20, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bayless just needs to watch some Lakers film. Fisher is an all star at flopping.
Personally I am sick of the floppers and wish they could be penalized.
I only hate the flop when opposing players do it and when our players do it poorly.
Even when they do it well I feel a little guilty and embarrassed. I’ll still take the turnover or free-throws.
Come to think of it, I can’t recall any of our players flopping. They prefer to yelp and whine, especially B-Roy. Does anyone remember a good Blazer flop last season?
by MiledAnimal on Aug 23, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
from what I saw of Johnson in summer league
he’s a better ball defender than Jerryd, already
Armon needs reps, and (unless Miller or Bayless are hurt/traded) he’s not going to get that opportunity in his rookie year. Hopefully Portland will send him to the D-League for extended shifts, this season. Then AJ could be ready to go after the lockout. He needs to show a consistent jump shot and play regularly against tougher competition than he faced in the WAC
the raw material is there, though. He could become a steal for a 2nd round pick in years to come
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yeah, I agree about Armon in the D-League
It would be a shame to waste him, but it’s better to let him dominate people and develop his shot in the D-League than get 1:20 at the end of blowouts in the NBA. I feel like he’s just a little bit of experience away from breaking into the rotation.
Am I being too simple?
But it seems to me when you look on paper and you say, we should add Wesley Matthews, a full season of Camby and (hopefully) Oden and yes we will improve defensively. I expect an increase in Batums role and playing time as well. I would expect our defense to improve.
Seems to me we actually have the talent to do so, in the past lip service was always paid to the “idea” but I thought we didn’t have a lot of players inwhich that was their strength. Now? We’ve got the personel that should be able to play a good defensive game.
I thought it “interesting” that one of the minor stories of last season was how once Camby arrived he got The Blazers communicating with one another on the floor. That’s great, that’s experience…and that helps with team defense. BUT trying NOT to jump on McMillan when I heard about that I had to wonder why it took the arrival of Camby to the team for that to happen?
In anycase, I do go through the roster and see reasons to believe our defense will improve. At the least their is no excuses for it not being decent.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
by Krang on Aug 20, 2010 7:43 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I remember that Nate was preaching to Greg
about communicating with the rest of the players on D. After his injury Howard did quite a bit of communications, I think the only one that didn’t was LMA when he was playing Center. Maybe he is not a good leader or would rather be a silent assassin.
hg
Just replacing Rudy minutes
With Matthews minutes and Howards minutes with Oden’s minutes makes them a LOT better defensively.
People (Dave included) are talking about broad ideas about defense, sweeping changes, different mindsets about defense, and upgrades across the board.
I only want ONE thing from the Blazers defense this season. I think this ONE thing would instantly improve our overall defense in almost every area. I believe our defense, and the game overall would get so much easier if could do just this one thing…of course I’m talking about FIGHTING THROUGH A SIMPLE SCREEN.
I feel like this one thing has destroyed us over and over and over again in the Roy / Nate era. The Jazz give us fits with their off the ball screens. The Suns dominated us with Amare / Nash screens in the playoffs. Scola screens made LMA look foolish. It’s a problem we see every year, every playoff series, every game, almost every defensive series.
Nate claims the defense is designed that way, but then praises players for fighting through screens in post-game interviews. Miller tries to fight through the screen every time and is probably the best guard we have at fighting through. Why are players allowed to try to fight through if the defense is designed to switch Nate? Is is simply that he doesn’t practice HOW to fight through a screen in practice? Is it that he has tried but our players truly are soft and are unable? I don’t know.
With Batum and Matthews on the roster now, this should help our problem with the screen a little bit, but it’s not good enough. I am hoping with our new coaching staff, who have gotten some praise and some naysaying on here, that they can at least impress this one critical piece that we are missing, because I don’t see this team EVER making a deep run into the playoffs until we can properly defend the single most run play in the NBA. The screen is killing us.
"What people need to know is that those pictures were taken a year and a half ago, and I've grown since then." - Greg Oden
Or simplify that even further
We need to get tougher all the way around. Very rarely, if ever do you see a true champion not have that swagger and toughness needed to be successful in the NBA. Its hard to do when you core players are younger but that isnt the case here anymore. Its time to play this way for 48 minutes.
More importantly we need to set this tone very early in season and in each game. The other team needs to know this. If done correctly this becomes andadvantage. If the opposing team knows that they arent going to be able to push you around both physically and more important mentally then you are already ahead of the game.
Juwan Howard did a great job of this last year IMO. And Im not talking about being dirty or thugs which Im sure some people think of with tough teams. Its about sending a meessage with attitude. This would help the offense and defense. Teams needs to look at the schedule and dread playing us because they know that they are going to be drained at the end of the night both mentally and physically.
by Boise Blazer on Aug 20, 2010 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
right on
If I can only have 1 improvement on D next season, I want a better ability to fight thru screen for everybody.
Not only in the P&R action, lots of time a simple off-the-ball screen would free up a player and cause defense to scramble.
Nate never said people are supposed to switch on every play
He just said that switching is part of the system, and those are two very different things. I’m sure he’d love players to do a better job fighting through screens and leave the switch as a last resort as it is intended. And I think part of what looks like champions having “swagger” and appearing tough is created in large part by the fact that they are winning games. The cause and effect there goes both directions.
If the coach "can't get" his players to switch, who is responsible for that?
Nate is not the great communicator.
In KP I trusted!
Wha?
I don’t really understand what you are saying…
The problem isn’t Nate failing to get players to switch. If anything, it’s that he can’t get some to fight through screens hard enough and that they are overly reliant on the switch,
So bench them. You are the coach.
If they WON’T do it, bench them. If they CAN’T do it, you better find a better way.
In KP I trusted!
What's that "better way" exactly?
Almost every coach would like his players to fight through screens harder. Sounds like you think there are easy answers to making that happen, or that there is some unspecified “better way” out there. That’s all really easy to say from a message board I guess.
I have specifically heard him say that players are asked to switch.
I remember Greg’s rookie season, Nate said in and interview that the guards were instructed to switch so that the centers could learn to guard smaller players.
"What people need to know is that those pictures were taken a year and a half ago, and I've grown since then." - Greg Oden
by dario argento on Aug 20, 2010 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions
On every play?
No. That’s just not how any system works, and I really doubt your recollection is accurate. Or at least, there is some major context missing. Switching is what happens when the small defender gives up trying to chase the ball handler through the screen. The only question is how more or less thoroughly screened you have to be to give up. It’s arguable when the best time is, but the most important thing is that both defenders know to switch at the same time so they don’t leave someone open, and no system has bigs switching to smalls as a standard practice, or just to teach them some kind of lesson. If the defenders are roughly the same size or can both defend the guys with the ball, or if the screen is anticipated and they pre-switch so the switch actually leads to a normal pair of matchups, that’s a different story. But as much as people complain about the Blazers switching too often, you can’t watch a full game and say that they honestly switch on every screen. It’s only a fraction of them.
We also have Armon Johnson's D to look forward to in coming years.
AJ, Wesley, Nic—That is going to be an awesome perimeter D team.
Rich Rolled
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Aug 20, 2010 8:12 AM PDT reply actions
Counterpoint: Nate McMillan
who has never managed to coach a halfway respectable defensive squad in 10 years in the league. He may one day back into a respectable defensive team but won’t be due to anything he contributes.
We all know
that Nate has just been saddled with terrible defensive players in his entire coaching career and that no one could formulate an effective defensive scheme with them in the lineup. Don’t you know that he’s the defensive coach for team USA?
(, in case that wasn’t obvious).
#52
don't forget EW
Another addition to the roster who may provide a little more beef on the defensive end is Elliot Williams.
have a feeling the rookies aren't gonna get enough PT to make a significant impact
No room at PG, no room at SG, no room at SF, no room at PF, no room at Center.
Rookies are practice-team fodder.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 20, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Blazers are going to play good defense this year???!!!
Awesome!!!! Maybe Lebron James won’t go for 20 pts in the first quarter on us next year then!!!!
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.
Dave invokes the Tao of Steve
I’ve seen plenty of non-attractive people (in the stereotypical sense) take over a room and have everyone therein chasing them while the more stereotypically attractive people sat on the wall and wondered what the heck just happened.
Like the Whos down in Whoville they did it without boxes or ribbons or bows, they did without centers or posting down low. They won without All-Stars and Spaniards and Frenchmen. They won with old geezers and sub-par defense-men. They won playing rookies from deep off the benches. They won with their grit and their guts in the trenches. And some who observed them have been known to say that their hearts grew three sizes (at least!) on the way. One hopes with their poise and their passion now proven that once they are healthy their game will be groovin'. -- Dave
Thanks Dave.
I couldn’t agree more. I often cringed watching this team fumble through rotations, and laughed when people equated their low opponent ppg with good defense. Nate and Dean’s smoke and mirror tactics were highly effective. For smoke and mirrors…
Offenses explode when they only need to cover seventy feet per possession rather than ninety.
-t
Can anyone identify what's making the following defenses so good ...
I remember the opening game of 2008, where it seemed like the L*kers had three men within reach of the ball at all times, and still never left anybody else open. And last year, there was at least one game where OKC also shut down the Blazers, with the Blazers’ top threats double-teamed and people like Ibaka blocking everything in the lane. I felt like those two teams really had a system and were extremely frustrating.
Any comments on them? Is there something they are doing better than Portland?
Effort, organization, anticipation and moderately good athleticism
That’s about what makes a great defensive team, and you can lump organization and anticipation together. Last year the Blazers suffered in that aspect from roster turnover, and lacked size and athleticism from the center spot for major parts of the year. If the team can stay healthy though they should be pretty god on D this year.
that year, Rambis implemented the strong side trap/zone
if an opponent had 2 players on the weak side, LAL would bring one of their defenders into the paint. maybe that’s why it always seemed like there was a lot of congestion for Portland.
as for defending the pick and roll, drew and pau always attempt to show hard. when it works, they force the ballhandler to use up his dribble, and use length to force a high-trajectory pass, which gives them time to recover or gives them a chance to pluck the ball out of the air.
another tactic LAL likes to use is funneling the ballhandler into help. Fisher gets a lot of flack, but he is still very good at something like this, where he can he use his strength and low-center of gravity to ride his man.
boston’s D is brilliant. their organization is something to behold. at times they’re, like, of one mind.
unlike LAL they’re very aggressive, expertly trapping ballhandlers. where they excel is recognizing that the ball has stopped, and then defending the passing angles.
the problem with boston’s defense is that sometimes there’s so much movement, it’s difficult for them to get a body on opposing bigs. this is why they’re not a good defensive rebounding team. same thing with OKC.
OKC plays defense with a lot of confidence. it seems like they know that somebody has their back, and will cover for them.
imho, Portland seems like it is thinking too much, instead of intuitively reacting.
in oden’s case, he hasn’t yet grasped the nuances of team defense. he’s trying to make the brilliant individual defensive play, instead of the simpler, less flashly one—the one that stops a ballhandler in his tracks, as opposed to spiking the ball into the seats.
they just need more experience. it’s a matter of time before it becomes second nature.
"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."
In Oden's case,
he’s trying to make the brilliant individual defensive play, instead of the simpler, less flashly one…
If there’s one thing I never hope to see this year, it’s Oden guarding guards on the perimeter. It was said that Nate told him to switch onto guards, which is crazy and led to many quick fouls. Let’s keep Oden at home on centers this year!
That would be a fun coaching change
Brandon and LaMarcus wouldn’t know what’d hit ’em!
| #11 | #7 | #9 | #15 | #52 |
The Blazers will be top 10 in defensive efficiency this year
If Miller, Roy, Matthews, Batum, Camby and Oden each play >80% of the available games, and even if one misses more than that, the Blazers (as coached by Nate McMillan) will be ranked in the top 10 in terms of defensive efficiency by the all-star break.
Would anyone bet against that?
8 paragraphs from Dave about Blazer defense
and 80 responses so far
and not once do I see the name Joel Przybilla mentioned to any meaningful degree
Tsk, tsk
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
up until last December, Przy was considered the backbone of Portland's interior defense for the past 5 years
and today he’s not even a footnote in a Dave-post about Portland’s hoped-for defensive improvment?
Out of sight, out of mind—that’s #10
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
People are still used to the mindset that he won't play for awhile.
Even if we’ve heard differently lately. Better to let ourselves be pleasantly surprised.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
Not only that, but Two4 answered his own question in his complaint
The article is about improvement. That implies something new either in the form of new players or growth, neither of which we have seen before. If Joel has been the “backbone of Portland’s interior defense for the past 5 years” he fits neither of those criteria.
—Dave
Not to mention
the likelihood of Joel being traded or released is high. The Blazers are going to be pinching pennies. He’ll not play for $1.5 million per year. I don’t see how they keep him, Camby, and Oden providing all are healthy, as the query assumes.
—Dave
It will be a big loss if he goes away
Joel is a glue guy, a stabilizer. At interior defense he’s excellent. Rebounding he’s excellent. Offensively he’s our best pick setter (a much under-appreciated skill) and has improved his free throw shooting immensely. He’ll even shoot a high percentage while not taking shots from those who need the ball. He would make a good starting center for a scoring-heavy team like Miami. Unfortunately, Miami we are not.
If Luke Babbitt and Jerryd Bayless played a game of table tennis I'm not sure who would win but the ping pong ball would lose no matter what. - Ben 7/16/2010
Joel Przybilla might be traded, but releasing him isn't a viable option.
If I’m Przybilla’s agent, there’s no way I’d let my client agree to any type of buyout; instead, he should demand his entire salary.
He could get his entire salary for this year
and then be released, as his contract ends after this season. Demanding a decent salary (as he should) is exactly why it will be difficult for the Blazers to re-sign him.
—Dave
We'll see
I expect the Blazers to make Joel a fair offer, and he’ll accept it much in the same way that Camby did, last April
Much depends on how the season unfolds. Oden’s health and impending extension. How far the team advances in the post season and how the front office feels about Przybilla’s contributions.
Just remember, 12+ months ago I was the guy who was predicting that Fernandez would going to go public with a trade demand, and that it would be expedient to flip him, last summer. Joel is the anti-Rudy, in regards to what kind of role and (how much PT) he thinks he “deserves” and how he feels about being a Blazer for the duration of his career. #10 is precisely the kind of guy that the Blazers should pay luxury tax money to retain, if they’re really serious about winning a championship
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
The key is to not let a healthy Joel go to a Western Conference contender
He is a solid NBA center. He would make a lot of teams better. NO for instance would love Joel. I could see him being the last piece for a team like LA, insurance if Gasol or more likely Bynum goes down again.
I see us keeping Joel if we can get him around $7M for say 2 seasons with a team option 3rd. Unless we are able to wrap him into a deal with Rudy or Cho gets really creative. I saw a poster offer Joel, Rudy, Batum and Miller for Melo, for instance, although I don’t see how makes sense for both teams, or anybody without an extension.
BTW — I understand a little why Dave did not mention Joel. It would have been nice giving him a nod anyway, as his return from injury should improve interior defense which was sorely lacking in the centerless middle of last season. I noted him in my post above. Winning so many games by such close margins was exhilarating, but losing so many due to a lack of shot-blocking big bodies got old.
In KP I trusted!
The article is about improvement
The title is “why the Blazers will do well on defense”. Leaving Joel completely out of it is a faux pas on your part, IMO. I expect Przy to pick up right where he left off on opening night, after the doctors and the coaching staff handles him (and Greg) conservatively during training camp and the preseason.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Would love to see him in the mix
I’m one of those who have that mindset. I love what Joel does, but hearing about breaking the knee twice had me literally cringing just thinking about it, and wondering if he would come back
But yeah, good point, lately we’ve heard good things about his rehab, and some discouraging things about Greg’s. It’s interesting that we’ve kind of written off Joel, but he could plausibly be our starting center…
I've only seen him go down when Oden's out.
He’s batting 100% for playing health AS GREG’S BACKUP.
His injury risk is like Aldridge’s insufficient post play: a byproduct of Oden being out.
I think he’d be VERY valuable as part of the squad of bench bigs,
paired with Camby as the backup PF/C pairing.
And add him to that 4-man defensive-possession lineup:
C – Oden
PF – Przy
SF – Camby
SG – Batum
PG – Matthews
I’M on board with that.
Do it! Do it! Do it 'til you're satisfied!
defense?
Didn’t read all these posts but some mentioned that to help improve defense that the team needs to learn to fight through screens. I don’t feel that is always the problem. It is okay to switch as long as the “switch” happens. Two players need to be involved. If a player is screened the player guarding the screener picks up the the ball then the first defender stays with the screener.
Somebody explain this to Rudy and he will still be a valuable player to have around. This is why I won’t miss Outlaw or Webster.
Also if Aldridge were to learn this concept he would increase his blocked shots as he would be defending a guard most of the time this happens. His habit is to watch the play until it is too late.
Still worried
I don’t need to sift through 30 pages of stats (sheesh, some of you guys need to find a hobby) to figure out that the Blazers have been a horrible defensive team under Nate McMillan. And don’t tell me that injuries cost them last year. They give up open shots when everybody’s playing, they give up open shots when Roy’s on the bench and they give up open shots when three or four players are out with the flu. It doesn’t matter who’s on the floor, the Blazers struggle to keep opponents out of the paint. This weakness became even more glaring last season after Oden and Pryz went down. Figuring out how to guard the pick and roll would go a long way toward fixing this problem. I hope that happens because that Blazer team of the early 2000’s was a lot of fun to watch on the defensive end. Also, great defensive teams rarely get blown out, and with Roy, I always like our chances in a close game.
Objective reality is objective reality
the Blazers have been a horrible defensive team under Nate McMillan.
This is simply not true. As the discussion above demonstrated, the Blazers have not been horrible, they have been mediocre: 13th and 15th in defensive efficiency for the last two years. As was noted above those stats hide the fact that the Blazers were top ten in defensive efficiency during the stretch run in 2009 after Oden returned from the cracked knee cap.
And don’t tell me that injuries cost them last year.
This is sort of like saying “don’t confuse me with the facts.” The correlation between injuries and the ups and downs of the teams defensive efficiency last season was obvious to everyone. We lost both our defensive centers and our rebounding and interior defense fell apart. Juwan Howard is not Greg Oden, nor is he Joel P.
Once we acquired Camby, we returned to being competitive against quality teams. The Blazers were ahead of Phoenix by 12 points in game five when Camby picked up a second foul with about 4 minutes to go in the first quarter. Our lead was down to one by the end of the quarter and we were down by nine before Camby came back in.
If the Blazers are healthy, they are going to be a very good defensive team this season. It will start with outstanding rebounding, excellent shot blocking, and improved perimeter defense.
by upper left corner on Aug 21, 2010 5:06 AM PDT reply actions
Uh, no.
The Blazers rank near the bottom in opponent’s field goal percentage, and that’s the most telling statistic (that’s, of course, besides the fact that anybody with at least one functional eye ball can see that they give up a ton of wide open shots).
The most telling statistic is defensive efficiency
Flat out. How many points does the team give up possession. It’s a great measure of pure defense that includes almost everything, and conveniently you don’t need to sort through 30 pages to find it. IT’s just one stat…
People say all the time the things they see are obvious, but stats are often a great way of testing whether those things are right, and in defensive efficiency, the Blazers were slightly above average. And as if to reiterate the point about whether you should trust your eyes or the numbers, the Blazers were not near the bottom in opponent FG%. They were 13th from the bottom, which is just below the median. On 3 point shots, they were very good, ranking 8th best in both opponent % and opponent attempts.
So added up, they don’t give up a ton of wide open shots like your lying eyes tell you.
And FYI: the Blazers are my hobby, and that information is all on one easy to find page.
This is a good response
Check the stats with your eyes. Check your eyes with the stats.
by Kaboomm on Aug 21, 2010 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd for the motto.
“Check the stats with your eyes. Check your eyes with the stats.”
Do it! Do it! Do it 'til you're satisfied!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blazer's Edge
Related FanShots on Blazer's Edge
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
- 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
- The Facebook campaign to hire Will Ferrell for All-Star Game player intros is underway
- Video: Meet the infamous bearded guy that goes nuts by the 76ers’ bench
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.
