Portland Trail Blazers Offense: Better or Worse?
by Dave on Jan 30, 2011 10:10 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintThis isn't a full mailbag but I wanted to address separately a question that's come up a few times:
Portland's offense seems better this year, particularly without Brandon Roy involved. There's more ball movement, more people getting shots, and a faster pace. What's not to like? Would you agree that a Roy-less offense works better?
The assertion of a "better" offense depends on definition. I'd agree that the eye test could support your assertion, if not exactly your Roy conclusion. I actually remember plenty of beautiful offensive games with Roy involved before his knees went bad. But we see more alley-oops than ever before, a quicker tempo, and more guys touching the ball. The stats bear this out too.
- Portland's 2010-11 Pace is 91.4, up from 90,2 a year ago.
- Portland scores 10.7 fast break points per game compared to 9.5 in 2009-10.
- Portland scores a very nice 41.1 points in the paint per game when compared to last year's 36.2
- The Blazers' assists are also up to 21.1 from 20.4 a year ago.
Faster play, more score-creating passes, more easy-type shots...as you say, "What's not to like?"
Better rein in the horse a little, Kemosabe. As it turns out, more than meets the eye. Check out the stats that don't go in Portland's favor:
- Points per Game down to 95.4 from 97.8
- Field Goal Percentage down to 43.8% from 45.9%
- Three-Point Percentage down to 33.4% from 35.6%
- Free Throw Rate down to 20.9 from 24.5
- Effective Field Goal Percentage down to 47.4% from 49.7%
- Turnovers per Game up to 13.1 from 11.5
- Offensive Efficiency down to 103.3 from 107.4
The ball may be moving more, faster, and to more people but it's not going through the hoop more often. The Blazers get nice looks sporadically but on average, they're worse off this year than they were last. They're not making jumpers. They're not drawing fouls. They're not producing points in bulk. It's hard to gauge exactly with the personnel turnovers due to trades and injuries, but least some of this is attributable to the absence of Brandon Roy. He draws both fouls and attention, making life easier on everyone around him. He may not create as many alley-oop opportunities but he does allow teammates more open three-pointers and he does pour in 20+ points night in and night out.
The distance shooting thing is huge, I believe. Wesley Matthews, Nicolas Batum, and Rudy Fernandez should form among the best three-point brigades in the league...more so since Portland's points in the paint have risen. In theory that inside pressure should be freeing easy triples. Instead teams are free to double-team LaMarcus Aldridge--the Blazers' only dominant solo threat--sporadically and keep their men home on most possessions. Of Portland's Big Three shooters, only Matthews has maintained a consistent percentage from the arc (.382 last year, .381 this). Fernandez has gone from a mostly-passable .368 to a terrible (for him) .333. Batum has fallen off of a cliff, dropping from .409 to .330.
The lack of threes and free throws more than compensates for the extra points scored in the paint and on the break. The Blazers sorely need another self-made point-producer to pressure the opponent and no amount of alley-oop highlights can camouflage that. I'd actually settle for fewer people touching the ball if it meant each player got it in situations targeted to his strengths. Right now that's not happening and the Blazers are suffering for it. In most ways Portland's defense is better this season than it was last but the Blazers are losing games because they can't score the ball.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As they say in the recording industry "we'll fix it in the mix"
Which is to say: time for a new head coach. The old one is fresh out of innovative ideas.
I do think Paul Allen and the RG faithful are enjoying themselves watching Rudy and Patty play more this season, though. Those 3-goggles are so hip
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Somebody needs to auto-tune that three-point shooting
like it was T-Pain.
—Dave
"Anything for you, Dave." --Roybot
Hey, that's why they drafted Luke "Dougie" Babbitt, wasn't it?
BASF doesn’t make the players, they make the players look nervously towards the bench after their shots go clang
Missing 3s is vote of no-confidence. Coach to players; players to coach. You get out what you put in
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Channing Frye gave credit to Alvin Gentry
for giving the Sun’s players confidence to always shoot 3 pointers when open and not worry if they missed
the contrast to McMillain (who Frye played for, before Gentry) is obvious
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
It's a different conversation when you're talking about a big like Frye who wants to be on the perimeter
that may be ok in Phoenix, but it’s not ok for a lot of systems in the NBA. Players should not feel like missing a 3 will get them pulled though…especially the Patty’s, Rudy’s, etc…If they do then that is certainly on Nate and it is a problem. Portland also has a better record than Phoenix though, so even though Frye is experiencing more success, it may not be the best approach for a team to encourage its players to shoot open shots indiscriminately.
"If I had a dime for every basket I made today, you'd still suck!" - from the book 'John Dies @ the End'
by sammymohawk on Jan 31, 2011 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
If you're open, shoot it
the whole point of the offense is to find an open man, preferably near the basket area
now, players like Miller and Przy will be left open intentionally by the opponent out on the perimeter, so they shouldn’t burp up the jumper unless the shot clock is at :01
but what I’m referring to is a mindset, and it’s no different than being a running team. If the coach wants a team to run, he has to emphasize that from day 1 of training camp and not allow the players to dog it. Same thing with shooting, if the coach inspires confidence in his shooters they will relax and shoot better.
If players who have shot well in the past see their percentages drop at alarming rates, they’ve lost confidence. Some of this could be due to the offense, their shot attempts are coming from different areas on the floor than before, or they’re “less open” than in the past, etc.
Ultimately, it’s up to the coach (and the PG) to put players into a position where they can succeed. Nate’s done that well with Roy in the past and with LMA this season. The rest of the players since 2005? Not so much. It’s a team game and an offense is much tougher to defend when there is more ball movement and a variety of options to cover
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I agree
I just don’t know if Channing is the best example of this. Wes seems to do pretty well in our system, and despite being the 26th team in the NBA in terms of 3 pt %, we are #16 in 3 pt attempts. So for me it’s not that we’re not shooting open threes, or that Nate is discouraging open threes…it’s that we are shooting like poop this season. If you need to hit open threes to win (which we do most of the time given our talent level) and someone isn’t hitting, you have to find someone who is. That’s just basketball.
"If I had a dime for every basket I made today, you'd still suck!" - from the book 'John Dies @ the End'
Channing's the perfect example
because he struggled with his outside shot while with Portland, and was never encouraged to extend his range by the coaching staff
then he went to Phoenix and starting knocking down treys, the improvement was night and day
and he credited Gentry’s confidence in him as the reason
Monty Williams is gone, now the Blazer shooters are in a rut. I don’t see that as a coincidence. Don’t replace all the players for underachieving. Instead, consider how much superior coaching actually matters
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
In his time in Portland and NY .....
…Channing never gave any indication he could shoot threes…at all. none. He shot a lot of long 2s…but no threes. And of the 3’s he did shoot (70 over 4 years) he only shot them at a .285 clip. At that rate i wouldn’t have wanted him to shoot threes either. So….any chance it was just a little something he added to his game in the offseason (of his free agency) just like a lot of players do?
Harry Bosch: "Everybody counts....or nobody counts."
by 92wastheyear on Feb 1, 2011 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
cart and horse
the Suns wanted CF to shoot 3s, Gentry encouraged CF to shoot 3s, CF started knocking down 3s, which built up his confidence to shoot and make more 3s
it’s not like the corner trey isn’t a big part of Nate’s system, but CF was never encouraged to develop that shot while in Portland. So he shot the lower-percentage 20 footer instead (LMA’s range) and the Blazers missed out on an opportunity
Coaching matters. Monty is missed, just like we thought he’d be. The 3pt% numbers aren’t pretty because Williams provided the hands-on coaching and encouragement that Nate never will and (so far) no other assistant coach has picked up the slack
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
One sided analysis leads to erroneous conclusions
Coach Nate for two years has begged management for shooters. Matthews is a help but he is the only one in two years while trading two that he had (not that it was a bad trade of course). This team is only competitive because of the coaching staff. Rudy is getting similar minutes from last year while Batum is up by 5 minutes per game and Wesley is up 8 more minutes per game. They are not getting yanked but if we do have a rare hot hand that player gets more minutes that game – simply good management.
As for Luke, he is a typical rookie. Whether he pans out or not will begin to be seen next year. This is not a negative reflection on the coaching staff.
They are not getting yanked but if we do have a rare hot hand that player gets more minutes that game – simply good management
I’ve seen various players removed based on their poor shooting and decision-making over the last 5 years. I’ve also seen a hot shooter removed from the game because he pre-determined “shift” was over
The Blazer players won’t fall apart when Nate is gone, they could actually thrive under a new head coach. It will be Paul Allen’s call, not mine or any media member’s. But I’m certainly not scared of a McMillian-less Blazer future
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Agree
There were many times when Jerryd Bayless would get pulled after a turnover, to a point where it seemed, early on, he was afraid to play his game for fear of getting pulled. I think the same happened to Armon Johnson. A shortage of healthy players is preventing him from doing the same to Patty Mills.
I’ve seen him be a little more tolerant of shooters, though. However, there were quite a few games in the last year or two in which Nate would take out a guy who was hot because he was substituting by the clock, instead of riding the hot hand a little longer.
Huh?
The old one is fresh out of innovative ideas.
I feel like Nate has had plenty of innovative ideas this year, but there’s only so much he can do. I know you’re predisposed to want him gone, so no sense arguing about it I guess, but I don’t think you’ve given him enough credit for the job he’s done or the caliber of coach that he is. I’ll take Nate over the unknown 10 times out of 10.
"If I had a dime for every basket I made today, you'd still suck!" - from the book 'John Dies @ the End'
by sammymohawk on Jan 31, 2011 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
worse.
as hard as it is for some fans to swallow entertaining doesn’t equal good.
people are glad to see LMA finally show what he is capable of doing
since BRoy went down, and LMA 2.0 has entered the picture, at least our big guy is giving us a glimpse of what we have been missing all these years
Win the day!
"The Blazers sorely need another self-made point-producer to pressure the opponent and no amount of alley-oop highlights can camouflage that."
Indeed.
This is the biggest need on this team, not PGOTF or depth at 5, IMHO. Even though Aldridge has stepped up and made another leap, there is no question that he needs to be paired with a premier perimeter scorer that can get his own shots. We’re going to be mediocre as long as this problem isn’t addressed. While I like Batum, if trading him can get us one of these, we need to explore that option.
The cake was a lie.
I agree in theory
Except for trading off Batum. A player as young as Batum needs time to develop his in game shooting, plus many player has much more value then just shooting.
LMA committed to going inside more doing the off season, before BRoy was injured, it just took a while to get it working for him. He surely gets more shots with BRoy out but that was by design not BRoy’s injury, Camby contributed to that a lot because of his ability to pass. That forced opponents defense to pressure the ball more and less attention to LMA or BRoy.
Long/short, the theory of LMA finding his game in BRoy’s absence, IMO, isn’t completely accurate. he became the number one option, which means he gets more shots, but my theory is that LMA will have the inside presents now that he discovered it, with or without BRoy. In fact If BRoy can get his shot back, and learns to watch for pick and slips or pick and rolls and not so much on the pick and pop, that will make LMA easier shots.
hg
by BBK on Jan 31, 2011 5:26 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Batum just doesn't have the first step to be kind of guy that can create his own offense.
He could become a better scorer by incorporating more back to the basket moves, but beating guys off the bounce isn’t one of his skillset. While his game valued and helps teams win games, he just does not have what it takes to be a volume scorer from the perimeter, which is what this team needs more at this point. Batum can become a very good role player, but isn’t someone you build a team around. Plus, we already have someone in Matthews that fill much of the same role that Batum does and does it better.
While change in LA’s game, going more inside as opposed to outside, would have occured with or without Roy, I doubt he progressed as much with Roy. There is something to be said about getting touches and developing confidence through increased touches and being the focus of the offense. With Roy, I doubt LA shows the advances he has shown since Roy has gone down, as LA won’t see the kind of looks and touches that he has been getting in Roy’s absence.
The cake was a lie.
the primary aspect of the offense that we've been missing is our closer in roy
how many games have we lost when leading in the fourth quarter?
Jeff Pendergraph:
FGM - 3
FGA - 111
Min - 30
Reb - 10
by Tofu Anonymous on Jan 30, 2011 10:49 PM PST reply actions
how many games have we lost when leading in the fourth quarter?
A good chunk of those 4th quarter collapses this year happened back when he WAS playing:
OKC 11/4
OKC 11/12
NJ 11/28
Phi 11/30
Was 12/3
Mem 12/13
Without Roy:
Uta 11/20
GS 12/25
Pho 1/14
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
yeah, I am wondering about the "last year" "this year" comparison
in deciding how our offense is lately…. Are we talking last year totals vs this year totals, including all the crappy games with maimed Roy this year ?? If so, hardly a fair comparison. Anyway, people can generally cherry pick stats to support what they want. Yeah I enjoy the style of play since Brandon’s injury break. The inconsistency is frustrating. Maybe, with time, if available, the consistency will improve. i think there is a value to time playing together.
Anyway, ultimately I fault the coach over Roy for the excessively Roy centric team of last year, which wore Roy out while failing to adequately engage the rest of the team. This has been debated ad nauseum. People have their ‘sides’, and so be it. But when we see “unknown” talent emerge once we stop playing “Roy ball” it reveals that there was more to utilize all along from my point of view. More versatility, less predictability has always been a better idea. Team ball is more resillient, and yes more fun, and can certainly be winning ball. Not saying it is the only way, but certainly a way, depending on the talents you have to work with. I’m glad we are through building around Roy.
If Oden does not give up on the Blazers, we should not give up on him.
In that part I totally agree,
I love BRoy’s shooting threat over inconsistant shooting, I love his game, I just think we should be able to keep the versatility and less predictability with BRoy if the coaches designs plays as such.
hg
But in all those games
BRoy was playing injured and couldn’t come off the dribble or get his legs under him for consistent shooting.
If you are saying without an Injured BRoy, I would agree, with a healthy BRoy, I disagree.
hg
agree with Dave and I also think that ultimately, players - not coaches - dictate the efficiency of an offense
To me the polarizing opinions on Nate McMillan’s offense always come down to a simple “coach vs. player” question. Those who criticizes Nate generally overstates the importance of a coach’s set plays and systems to his team’s offense.
However I think the modern NBA is a players’ league where, like it or not, talents trump everything else especially on the offensive end. In most cases, players should be much more responsible for team’s success or failure than coachs should.
Of course I like the way Blazers play right now. But I chuckle every time I see how pundits like Dwight Jaynes claims this is “the right way to play basketball”. Because as right and entertaining as they play, their offensive rating is 106.8 – a far cry from last 2 seasons and even lower than ‘07-08 (107.5). They went from a brilliant to a mediocre offensive team in a season and that’s not surprising at all considering Roy’s injury.
This might be the “right way to play” according to basketball purists, but it’s definitely not the way to the championship in today’s NBA. You need superstar talents who can score at will in one-on-one situations. Great offensive schemes and team play isn’t enough because the great defensive teams know how to turn up a notch in key moments, they would bump your cuts, fight through your screens, deny your passes and drag your beautiful half-court sets into to a mudfight. That’s when your best player has to step up and take over the game by himself.
So this is a question of balance – you want to have the best players in the world but you also need an adequate system to integrate him into the team. Ideally I want to have the healthy Roy as the No.1 guy to play in the new post-Roy system where multiple role players could flourish. But the million dollar question is – does he really fit into in this system?
As a case in point, let’s look at LaMarcus Aldridge’s recent surge. Part of the reason why he reduced his outside shot attempts so much is he now plays a lot less pick-and-pop than he had before. When he played with Roy, their so-called “bread and butter” 2-man game would generate tons of inefficient 20-ft jumpers for Aldridge.
Did the coach or Aldrdige prefer that shot? After his recent strong plays and how well he and Fernandez ran the pick-and-roll, I am more convinced now that it’s Roy that wanted Aldridge to play pick-and-pop. Roy just wasn’t good at making interior passes and he valued “spacing” so much that of course he wouldn’t want Aldridge to roll into the paint and “get in his way”.
I don’t think Aldridge really liked shooting long jumpers, but he had to take those if he wants to play with Roy.
Not saying it’s all Roy’s fault, but Roy does have his limitation. I just don’t see how he fits into the way Blazers are playing right now before he fixes those. Therefore it’s not hard to understand why Nate would design such a different system when Roy was healthy. However it’s a moot point anyway now that he is unlikely to get back to his superstar form.
I don't entirely disagree
with your assessment of needing a superstar take over the game but there are plenty of games where this backfires. The game today between LA and Boston showed a team winning as a team against Kobe Bryant and his 41 points.
Good analysis of a lot of points
Last year I thought that Nate McMillan was holding the team back with his insistence on a slow pace. Looking at this team’s roster, I recently went through player by player, and the only guy that was better in that style was Roy. Everybody else I thought would do well or better in a more up-tempo style.
This year, the Blazers’ problem is really quite simple: they just aren’t that good. LaMarcus Aldridge is having a fine season, but he has now tapered off the last couple games. Can he get it going again? Andre Miller is a very good, but not great point guard. Everybody else is strictly a role player and has issues with consistency. (I’m not including Camby because he is hurt.)
The Blazers clearly need another guy who is as good or better than LMA at getting his own shot and making it night in & night out. They also clearly need a center who can contribute at both ends of the court. It is easy to double team Aldridge because the Blazers have no real 3 point threats and no one else who can score from the post.
Nate McMillan coached at a very slow pace in Seattle, too, and is still coaching the Portland Trail ...
Blazers at a relatively slow pace — albeit not down tempo enough to satisfy me — while Brandon Roy is on the proverbial shelf.
In order of most to least regarding what coaches can control pertaining to pace, offensive efficiency, and defensive efficiency, I’d argue strongly that pace is clearly in the coach’s hands, defensive efficiency has a lot to do with coaching, and offensive efficiency is mostly up to the players themselves.
Without a healthy Brandon Roy or a healthy Greg Oden, this team is composed of a variety of inefficient players — which includes LaMarcus Aldridge, who’s got a substandard TS% this season (53.0%) for a frontline scorer — thus, as usual, my main objection with McMillan has been with this team’s mediocre performance on the defensive end.
This squad of so-so players being average on offense is to be expected, but there’s never any excuse for coaching an absolutely ridiculous defensive scheme (i.e., SOS pressure defense) — and, in turn, underperforming apropos of defensive efficiency — at the NBA level. To me, that’s the fireable offense.
Shoot, when I see that the Trail Blazers are 14th in defensive rating (i.e., 106.4 points allowed per 100 possessions) and the New Orleans Hornets are 3rd in defensive rating (i.e., 101.9 points allowed per 100 possessions) on the season, it makes my blood boil.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Coaches, without question, have more impact on a team's defensive efficiency than its offensive efficiency.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
without question?
Coaches can’t shoot the ball – but they can coach players on which shots to take and how to get them. You underestimate the need for effective play calling, definition of roles within a offensive set; designing offensive strategies for player strengths; etc. etc.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 31, 2011 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
There’s no way Portland’s offense is better without Roy. Prior to his injury, he was a transcendent talent who made those around him better, put constant pressure on the defense, and won games with his clutch play. We have no one on the perimeter who comes close to replicating this. Contending teams must have this. Wes Matthews is a fine role player, but he cannot touch what Roy brings to the game. Watching Matthews try to score against a great defensive team like Boston helped illustrate the huge gap between the two players. Batum has potential as a wing scorer/creator, but he appears to be too passive to realize it. Pre-injury Roy was a special, Top-10 talent who has been disparaged too frequently by online fans this season.
Right, and how do measure killer instinct?
You can’t but you could see many times when Roy “put the hammer down.” Lights out. That ability to close out the opponent is a rare thing.
Who came up with this observation?
My eye test and the numbers clearly show that Portland’s offense is way better with Roy.
The problem was Roy was getting worse and worse on defense, making our defense much better without him.
I don’t think it is fair to use Roy’s stats this year for anything but to show that he is badly injured.
I also think it is lame to blame Roy for Aldridge’s outside play. Aldridge should have been rolling, not popping, and that could have been done just fine with Roy on the court. It may not be Aldridge’s fault, maybe it was a coaching flaw, but it certainly shouldn’t be blamed on Roy.
Proud to be a Republican.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
"eyetest" might be the single greatest fallacy used as "evidence" for player or team analysis
you may like the style more – but it is not more productive – and the offense is clearly worse without Roy. Worse, you claim the numbers support your argument – even when numbers (like 97 > 95) should be beyond debate.
Worser yet (yeah – I said it), Roy’s defense was measurably better this year – with last year the only defensive anomaly (worse defense with Roy on the court vs. off) of any season.
However, I agree with the sentiment of your last paragraph – it was a detriment to both Roy and Aldridge that he popped 99% the two were in a high P&R. Coaches should have mitigated this weakness. I think it disingenuous of McMillan to claim that he wanted Aldridge’s current game all along – but somehow was unable to make it happen until Aldridge wanted it to happen.
Let’s not forget that Aldridge’s commitment to scoring more inside started at the beginning of the season – with Roy playing regularly.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 30, 2011 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
That is true.
But, LMA’s pick and pop was designed for Greg (or at that time ZBO) posting up and BRoy cutting down the lane to receive the pass, but that very seldom materialised, I don’t know the reason.
hg
I would say the offense is better
The execution is worse
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 Jan 31, 2011 12:03 AM PST reply actions
You can't base the numbers this your only on offensive style
Last year we had a starting line of Camby, LMA, Batum, BRoy, and Andre Miller….you have broy and miller driving to the hoop getting very high% shots and you have Camby with high% put backs. Batum and LMA are your only 2 starters that you might call “shooters”.
This year we have, Miller Wes$ Batum LMA and Camby. Miller LMA and Camby….and shooting pretty high%. Wes$ shooting great from 3 but not so well closer, Batum is kind of mediocre this year on offense.
The difference in most of those stats are the bench difference in this year from last.
We went from Rudy, Bayless, Outlaw, Martel, Pryz/Oden/Pentigraph(all played little minutes) Cunningham Steve and mills.
We now have Armon mills Broy(very limited minutes with poor numbers) Rudy Cunningham Babbit.
I think you can contribute most of the decline in stats to the lack of production coming off our bench, as you can see I’m not putting any numbers into this because it’s too late and I don’t want to spend the time. But if you are interested take a look at the bench production differences from last year to this year. Don’t forget that last year our bench was also the “up tempo unit” which you would expect to have more turn overs then the starting slow pace unit. Add last years bench numbers with this years starters numbers, and you might be suprised with what you find.
By the way I am a 100% supporter of BRoy being our 6th man should he ever return, but in no way should he be a starter till he proves he can improve our current starting unit’s production more then our bench’s.
The offense works better now in that we have more balanced scoring. The pace is much more exciting (our fastbreak can still be a mess though).
Our poor shooting concerns me. Makes me remember the efficiency of a Blake and Roy backcourt. Better ball movement and easier inside buckets seem to balance out the lack of outside shooting. Is our offense still not able to open up the outside game? So inconsistent there. It is puzzling.
by BBlazer on Jan 31, 2011 12:24 AM PST via mobile reply actions
"The pace is much more exciting."
It’s comments like these that make me think I’m the only one who wishes the NBA would go to a 35-second shot clock.
"They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory."
Does this filter out the 20 games we played with Roy earlier in the year?
If so, I’m surprised we’re doing so poorly. If not, those games have got to be hurting our numbers I would think.
25-22. That is our record. With a majority of remaining games against teams with an above .500 record.
To date, we are 6-16 versus teams with a record of .500 or above.
Don’t lose the forest through the trees. We are not as good without a healthy Roy. Period.
A little while back I responded to comment....
….that contended that the Blazers are better off without even a healthy Brandon Roy. I don’t want to call out that particular poster since there have been a few expressing the same sentiment. Instead I just wanted to re-post the response because it is on-topic for this thread.
I think [what] you are trying to say that this team is better without Brandon Roy and even if the 2008/2009 [version of ] Brandon were here today, you still think the team would be better off without him…..
……LMA is playing great….he is not stuffing stats…they are legit. I am rooting for him to succeed. I think that if he does succeed, the Blazers will make the playoffs (prolly 7-8 seed). That being said he is not as good as 2008/2009 Brandon Roy…and it isn’t really close.
LMA has turned a corner this year….but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the absence of Roy. It has to do with LMA finally getting it. He isn’t getting any more touches early in games than he was with Brandon. He is just getting deeper post position….and using it more effectively. The way the team played with Brandon in the lineup didn’t preclude him from doing it before…he just didn’t. And if he had….they would have just kept feeding him the ball. I promise you that.
As far the supposed "iso" offense that the "coddled" Brandon gets criticized about really only happened [during] the 2nd half of the 4th quarter….and was effective. Just look at how many close games we won …in large part because the ball was in Brandon’s hands. For the rest of the game the ball did go through Brandon a lot (as it should have…he was getting doubled all the time)…but didn’t end there. The 5 assists per game that he averaged (for his entire career) says that. The whole Brandon is selfish meme came from the acquisition of Andre Miller…..and the bad stylistic fit that it was.
The most telling stat of all is this: Brandon Roy led the Blazers (many of the same ones that are still with the team….but all of them 2 years younger and 2 years less mature) to 54 win season. And followed that up with a 50 win season without any Centers, and with Nic and Rudy missing half the season. As great I think LMA is playing ….he will not be able to do either of those things .
This year’s team in not better than the 2008/2009 team. The reason why? No Brandon Roy…that’s why
Harry Bosch: "Everybody counts....or nobody counts."
by 92wastheyear on Jan 31, 2011 9:26 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I don't think anyone seriously believes we are better without a healthy BRoy
I think what people are really trying to say is this:
the motion/team oriented offense we are playing now, with the addition of a fully incorporated and bought in BRoy is long-term going to be more effective then the 2007-2010 offense could hope to be.
From there, many people have concerns about Roy’s willingness or ability to fit into this style. And now of course, you have the health/effectiveness question on top of that.
So, the optimal is a team offense with Roy integrated into it, and having him go into “Iso” mode on much rarer occasions. Also, actually put effort on defense. Many people believe(d) this optimal was not a realistic option, and thus it became a choice between two inferior options: the iso-heavy offense which teams have figured out, or the motion/team offense, which is at least more fun to watch.
"I want to be traded to a contender" is almost always code-speak for "I'm a loser."
-Dave, 2/5/2010: http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/2/5/1297509/no-amore-for-amare
I have seen people saying it...and when questioned about it...hold fast to their opinion
I don’t think anyone seriously believes we are better without a healthy BRoy
Harry Bosch: "Everybody counts....or nobody counts."
by 92wastheyear on Jan 31, 2011 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
You raise a good point
There are really two questions here that are being confused:
1) Which offensive system is better for the Blazers (motion vs. iso)?
2) Is the offense better this year than last year?
Dave has pretty conclusively answered #2 in the negative. But that doesn’t mean the motion system wouldn’t be superior given, as you say, “a fully incorporated and bought in [healthy] BRoy.”
Of course, that raises the question to which many have assumed an answer: will Roy buy in, can he fit, and will the rest of the team be negatively impacted by his presence (e.g., LMA reverting to his more passive self)? I’m not sure anyone has an answer to that final question, and it surely has a lot to do with how much game Roy recovers. I think we can say this, however: the extended, relatively successful run the team has had without Roy has allowed this team to forge a new identity. Hopefully that identity will survive the eventual reintroduction of Roy.
"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave
Offensive style is fundamentally seeking efficiency
Points per 100 possessions are most often used to assess this efficiency. As Dave pointed out above the offensive efficiency this year is down from last year. It is even more evident from comparison with two years ago. Per Basketball-Reference in that year (2008-2009) the Blazers were 1st in the NBA in offensive efficiency @ 113.9. In 2009-2010 that dropped to 7th @ 110.8 and now to 15th @ 106.8. Nate’s offense was tops in the NBA two years ago and that fact short circuits the attempts to scapegoat the coach over the offensive style. It is not about pace but efficiency. You will know that the time to replace the coach has come when the players tune him out and stop giving full effort on the court. That time does not appear to have come.
So what can the Blazers do to halt their decline and begin improving? In my view that is already happening. The development of core players to maturity is needed before a championship is realistic. LaMarcus is certainly doing that. Wesley and Nicolas are also learning and gaining from the increased reliance on them. Brandon is learning to reinvent his game to match his knees. Greg is stilled in his body’s learning but gaining the emotional maturity to become dominant. And Greg is still the key to becoming a champion. This year is another year to enjoy good NBA basketball while observing these developments. Will Patty and Armond mature to be adequate point guards for the future? Will a trade at deadline improve the future without sacrificing the growth? These are the legitimate questions before us. Not the offensive style.
Funny thing about that 2008-2009 season.
We had both great 3pt shooting and great offensive rebounding. Blake and Outlaw were both performing at a very high level that year, something we really haven’t seen since from either of them. Pryz was in peak form, Oden did actually play a bunch of games that year and did actually snarf down a lot of rebounds in that time. That was Rudy’s stellar rookie year as well.
In the two years since, due to injuries or trades that were driven by injuries (Blake/Outlaw for Camby), we’ve basically lost our dominance in both of those categories. So I think it’s fair to say that coaching has absolutely ZERO impact on the decline in our offensive officiency… at least this time around.
"By the transitive property of General Manager idiocy, this means the Blazers traded Deron Williams for next year's heavily protected 1st Round Hornets pick plus the rights to Joel Freeland..." - Timbo
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
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Patrick Patterson wants urine test prep
- Video: Please enjoy Jeremy Evans, dunk contestant
- Jeremy Lin finds himself a nice hotel to stay in, complete with a BLT bar
- Video: The Chinese Basketball Association’s All-Star game has the worst highlights ever
- Jeremy Lin scores his second straight Sports Illustrated cover, joining some lofty company
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.
