Subscribe Feed (RSS)I’ve been saying for months now that Portland’s defensive problems are systemic in nature and a lot of people have trouble understanding what I’m talking about. They want to blame it on youth, inexperience or just a lack of talented individual defenders.
I hope they were watching the Spurs dismantle the Blazers last night.
It’s not as if San Antonio is laden with defensive stalwarts. The Spurs’ best defender is Bruce Bowen and he’s nowhere near what he once was and more of a bit player these days. The rest of their players, particularly with Tim Duncan out of the lineup, are not defenders. But San Antonio has a great defensive system in place that allows its players to maximize their ability to guard any team in the league.
It’s how all the good teams play defense in the NBA.
For several seasons, the Spurs have thrived with the philosophy of defending three-point field goals and the basket area, but allowing teams to take long two-pointers. They provide great help, too, on penetrations. Brandon Roy couldn’t find an easy shot all night — no matter how many people he beat off the dribble, someone else stepped in on him.
Meanwhile, Wednesday night, the Blazers were allowing open threes and penetration all night long. Tony Parker shot a dead-cold, wide-open layup with about three minutes to play in the game. Help was always a second late on Parker. There just doesn’t seem to be an understanding of responsibility at the defensive end for the Blazers.
You can beat the Clippers and the Timberwolves and the Grizzlies and a lot of other NBA teams playing the way Portland plays. But you can’t consistently beat the good teams unless you have a better plan and execution of what you want to do.
You think Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge and Steve Blake and Joel Przybilla and Nic Batum can’t defend better than the aging journeymen in San Antonio uniforms Wednesday night? I believe they can.
Instead, you get confused looks as Portland players look around trying to figure out what to do. Hey, if you aren’t able to stop Parker’s penetration with late-arriving help, stay home on the shooters! Don’t give Matt Bonner, one of the best three-point shooters in basketball, wide-open looks with the game on the line. Parker didn’t kill the Blazers, all those other guys did. And they feasted on a lot of open shots.
Hey, nobody in the league can stop Tony Parker one-on-one. Forget about it. Impossible. But his defender should know which direction to force him and where the help will come from. And the help should force him to give up the ball or at least force up a shot under duress. You think that’s impossible? Well, then you didn’t watch the Spurs defend Roy.
It was all there on the floor for anyone to see Wednesday night. And for Blazer fans, it wasn’t a pretty sight.
Tags: Brandon Roy, Dwight Jaynes, LaMarcus Aldridge, Portland Trail Blazers, San Antonio Spurs, Tony Parker
yes you are right. and this will never get fixed with nate as our coach, sad.
I urge patience. Good teams are very hard to watch by knowledgeable fans when they get to the point where our expectation is for greatness. A reminder from the last “great” blazer team:
1985-1986:40 wins, 86-87:49, 87-88:53, 88-89:39, 89-90:59, 90-91:63, 91-92:57
You’ll note a steady climb to greatness except for 88-89, a tumultuous season, the year of the Schuler/Adelman coach change and Paul Allen as new owner.
Also, it’s playoff intensity time and I hope blazer fans did not really expect two teams fighting for a playoff spot to blow a home court advantage.
Patience.
Dwight,
There aren’t many journalists covering the team anymore in my opinion. I respect your insights and in this case it seem like you are a lone voice calling out the defensive ineptitude of the current squad. I dont happen to see the press confereces after the game but are the reporters asking questions about these problems? After the article in which Nate blatantly misrepresented the defensive reality of his team (switching on screens is for emergencies only) has anyone hammered him to explain what we are seeing? It seems like the blazersedge crowd, while an excellent site and I read daily, seem hesitant to ever really criticize the organization/Nate to strongly perhaps because they profit from access, Podcast, radio appearances, etc? I think if this was NYC or Philly Nate would be challenged more forcefully. To be fair the team is on schedule as far as wins but like you say always falling back on youth as an excuse is getting old.
nate was outcoached the entire game
All true Dwight, but I’d like to add that Nate’s cookie cutter substitution pattern sometimes just makes him look foolish. Right now Parker is logging big minutes and is taking a ton of the scoring load on his shoulders, and S/A like the Blazers were playing the 2nd game on a back to back. None of the Portland gaurds can stay in front of Parker, but the one guy that could have made him work on defense never got off the bench. Going into the game I thought Bayless would play around 20+ minutes because he can get to the rim on anybody, including Parker and he had fresh legs. Blake, Rudy, Roy brought very little energy last night, and again I thought Nate looked out coached and unable to, or unwilling to adapt.
The Blazers looked like a lottery team last night. IMO their defense is a problem. We’ve seen it from other teams as well, guards are able to get to the rim too easily. Parker exposed them last night. I don’t know if it McMillan or the players just not doing what they are told, but something has got to change or we will be in the lottery once again.
I think it’s time for Nate to go. A lack of motivation and intensity (not to mention still looking lost on defense, as Dwight points out) is a coaching issue. And honestly, his coaching is predictable. It’s no wonder other teams have us figured out.
All he needs to do is get into Brandon Roy’s face about his lack of intensity (at times), and his shortcomings that hurt the team, and I guarantee that will carry over into the rest of the team. Nate has nothing but praise for Roy. He’s great and all (I love his game), but he’s still fresh in the league and has a lot to learn. He’s not going to learn if the coach isn’t calling him on his deficiencies.
If Nate can’t break these guys of their bad defensive habits, he simply needs to go.
Offensive execution stinks as well right now. When a team stops their primary option, the Blazer run around like a chicken with its head cut off. There’s no poise and ability to recover for a quality 2nd shot.
I commend you once again Dwight for intelligent posts.
Nate needs to go, but there is too much support from the local media. Much like the days of when Mo Cheeks was our head coach.
Jason Quick, is technically an employee of the Portland Trailblazers. How do you think he is going to write? In what favor? He will absolutely not write a negative thing about the coach or team. If anything, he will write a negative story about a player he wants gone – to get the support of the local readers.
John Canzano, nobody takes him seriously and he cannot articulate real basketball “speak”.
Sean Meager, let’s face it – he is young. He is not going to go with the anti-positive direction. He is new to the job and role and WILL NOT take chances.
Mike Barrett/Mike Rice, while you can hear them question things someties – they are employed by the Blazers and need the fan base to be successful.
This results in the TRUE UNFILTERED news coming from Dwight Jaynes, Blazers Edge and 3rd party sites.
Anyhow – props to Dwight for spending his personal time writing this stuff up to discuss.
Sometimes I just want off the roller coaster. I think some fans forget after getting the three wins last week how poorly the defense has looked on a consistent basis. Memphis, the Slippers and ATL (descent but struggling as the season has progressed) are not a good measuring stick. Expect to see more of the same as the season ends, a lot of losses on the road and some nice wins at home against good teams. I still believe we will finish at about the 48 win range or a game or three in that range. This is what happens when you don’t add a vet to the mix and want to let the cake bake some more…..which is fine if you are willing to go through growing pains.
Nate is a good coach….not a great coach. that really shows at times against certain match ups.
Dan -
“Nate is a good coach”
Please explain, based on these items:
1. His defensive scheme doesn’t work.
2. Players aren’t listening to him.
3. He requested veteran leadership in a trade, so the team would listen to him.
4. His offensive game plans are dull, boring and ineffective.
5. He doesn’t get the best out of his players. (AKA having Rudy sit at 3pt line ALL DAY).
6. Sub patterns are not based on how they are playing or the hot hand. It’s based on minutes.
7. Improvement of record each year correlates with acquisition of talent.
Sooooooo…..He is a good coach because?
Well as usual you are spot on. I have a question, since I’m convinced Nate isn’t capable of getting this team to play defense, who of potential available coaches do you think the Blazers should get to coach this team? I’d actually like to see what Avery Johnson could do with this team.
My best recommendations of available people at this point, in order are:
1. Avery Johnson
2. Steve “Snapper” Jones
3. Jeff Van Gundy
Hi Dwight,
I believe that the Blazers would benefit from watching this game tape. D needs to come first. I am amazed at how hard the team has to work to dig out from their first quarter deficit. The team energy is already expended when you need it most in the closing minutes. Not enough effort. I wish that Nate had gone to his bench a little more. Maybe we could have gotten a W. Go Blazers!
MVP,
easy there brother, I will buy the first cup of coffee for you
I see that you are very passionate about your dislike for Nate, I respect that. I think you mistake my comment as that being a Nate lover.
While I do support many of your arguements, I think it is easy to put things onto Nate that he cannot control as far as from a management decision. Here are my OPINIONS to respond to your OPINIONS.
1. I agree for most games.
2. Unless you are there everyday in practice and travel with the team or know one of the players personally it is debateable. Although usually, not always the longer a coach is with an Nba team the more likely they are to get tuned out (yes I know POPS and JaX).
3. I think he asked for a vet because, frankly they need one, and a vet or two would help in a playoff situation.
4. I agree, I heard someone either here or OLive call it the prevent offense, I thought that was funny, but true.
5.I agree for the most part, but time will tell with Rudy, he needs to do somethings to improve his game for the NBA, left hand, strength….this time next year will be a better gauge for him. I would say this, Travis (while overrated) is better now than before, LMA has improved every year, brandon has etc. Yes part of that is a natural learning curve, but talent has to be developed to some extent. Nate is not a wizzard of development, I get it.
6. I agree, but I also understand his reasoning for doing what he does….I don’t agree with it for the most part, but to each his own.
7. True but again talent can develop with experience but I don’t think too many of us know what goes on in developing an NBA player, I think that if the improvement wasn’t happening Nate would be gone.
One could argue that Nate is a good coach even with talent acquisitions, the acquisitions are young and lack experience, experience is highly valued in the NBA. After last night you can see why.
Another way to look at it is how many currently emloyed NBA coaches would you rather have than Nate? My list would look like this;
1. Phil Jax
2. Pops
3. Byron Scott
4. Stan Van Ron Jeremy Gundy
5. Jerry Sloan
6. Mike Brown (product of LBJ?)
Not necessarily in that order and I may have missed someone inadvertenly.
To me would put those guys at the top IMHO. Those are the great ones right now let’s say. Nate is in the top 10 despite the chinks in his armor that we have pointed out. thus you could argue good vs. great.
I have said this before, I don’t know that Nate can get the Blazers to a championship, until this team shows that it stalls in the playoffs or tanks in the year you are stuck with him. Plus if you get rid of him you should have the man lined up to take you to the next level and not another MO Cheeks.
Sorry to all for the long post!
Avery Johnson flamed out quickly in dallas and nearly had a players revolt, graded on the players was what the stories were reporting. Jeff Van Gundy maybe….anything to not have him on telecasts, he is psycho on those.
Dan -
Good post. So it seems that there aren’t many benefits and highlights as to why you believe Nate is a good coach?
The record improvement each year hasn’t been huge. About 8 games. That to me, correlates with talent. If we didn’t have Outlaw last year, would we have had a better record than the previous? I just don’t buy that. Take a look at his Seattle records, they speak for themselves. Ups and downs and was 90% of the way to being fired PRIOR to his fluke season. That’s when he refused and extension and flipped to Portland.
As far as coaches, I agree with most of your list – but I was talking about AVAILABLE coaches
.
As far as Rudy, I am sold. Watching him in the preseason shows me what Nate does to a player.
1. Rudy plays logical defense. Believe it or not, he is probably Portland’s second best defender. He helps weak side properly, he moves through the picks, etc. The only time he is flawed is when he makes mistakes under McMillians ludicrous Defensive scheme, which is against EVERYTHING you ever learn about basketball.
2. Rudy is equally a penetrator as he is an outside shot. McMillian plays 2 guards as a “sit on the 3 point line player” … Martell, Jones, Udoka, Jack (when playing 2) … I can go on and on.
3. Rudy doesn’t have a single play called for him. Sergio makes his own plays for Rudy against McMillian. If Rudy actually had set plays, how would he be?
I will argue to my death almost any downside of Rudy. I think he is 100% upside and better than he is playing today. The only fault is the sometimes questionable passes. Most of them are really good and on point, but players don’t expect them. Sometimes though – there is a more simple play. That’s my own flaw.
As far as Avery Flaming out, I don’t buy it. Lot of egos on that team. Avery demands respect and attention. It’s hard for that team to look at a former teammate that was not as good as the rest and having him lay into them. It was an ego thing. It would be perfect for these PDX players..
A coaching change is not going to make this young team suddenly into a good defensive team–only experience will do it–in a few years if the commitment is there to improve in enough players to make a difference. I believe we have enough of those kinds of players on this team.
I read all the above criticism and it’s all related to young players who are not yet able to recognize what needs to be done defensively fast enough to make a difference–only playing experience will teach them that. Of course it’s true that some will NEVER learn, but who knows with certainty who those players are? Many fans say they know. I don’t–not yet.
It seems to me that the “2nd season” in the NBA year after year is about turning up the defensive intensity–this young team simply does not know how to do it on a consistent basis and it’s hard to watch, I grant that.
It’s good that our expectations have gone up but it has to be tempered with a good dose of reality. Keep in mind that this is the time of year when teams play more games within their Division and Conference. The teams the Blazers are battling with for the playoffs will have to take some loses because they will be playing each other.
The argument of experince will fix all our defensive woes if fairly weak. How many teams magically mature into great defensive teams without major trades (Celtics, Lakers, Rockets)?
We missed out chance ot make a move this season and now were are stuck with a coach who’s the wrong fit for the job.
Matt,
I think the key to what you said is the trades. Celtics were horrible until kg got there. Lakers reacquired Fisher and it helped them, the rockets added artest. Other players either bought in and improved or sat.
RipCity Peru-
I continue to disagree with the experience factor. Aldridge and Roy have received enough playing time through 3 years to figure it out. Blake, Outlaw, Pryzbilla are all veterans of our team and the NBA. Batum is a great defender already.
So I just named our starting 5 and first sub – soooooo?
The fact is Nate has had this same team (granted 3 news players) … Oden, whom doesn’t play that much. Batum, who is already a good defender…And Rudy, who plays decent defense…. Sooooo?
The team has shown zero improvement and has actually regressed during the season… soooooo?
If I saw little tiny improvements, I would give Nate the benefit of the doubt – but that is not it. Do you think next year it will click overnight?
Dan,
Exactly. I think the only great defensive team that did it w/o trades was the Spurs (who have the greatest PF of all time to build around). Cavs, Lakers, Celtics, Magic and Rockets all made trades to bolster their defense.
If KP thinks we can follow the footsteps of the Spurs, he’s sadly mistaken. LaMarcus is no Duncan.
Matt,
The spurs also had David Robinson and Avery and Sean Elliot to build around tim’s rookie year.
mvp,
Were you serious about Steve Jones as a coach?
twolves is a loss, count on it!! after that then the real meltdown will begin.
Inexperienced team on the road vs experienced team. I don’t wanna hear how Brandon and LA have three whole years in the league…whoopee… Until they get some hard doses of playoff ball and learn how to operate under those conditions, we will remain an inexperienced team…
Last night was a playoff type game. The guys with the champinship rings were at home and they won. Portland had a more talented group on the floor, but the spurs have been there time and time again.
In your own job, life experiences, and even war, experience counts. Nate or any other guy you want to bring in here cannot deliver that. Only time can
Portland had many good looks but shot horribly. San Antonio shot 53%
Our more sesoned point guards are continually getting lit up on defense. Blake and Sergio cannot defend. and it is putting alot of pressure on the rest of the defense. Granted, Parker is a stud, but he also sees our glaring weakness at pg and exploited it fully. This helped to set up other players and keep SA in a rythmn…
We don’t have to gut the team or for that matter sling the coach. Our main problem is we still have alot to learn. We went up against one of the most experienced teams in the league last night. They know the NBA game…one we have yet to fully learn
We will though…all in good time….we truly will get there…that I firmly believe
We need a new starting point guard. One that isn’t a defensive liability, and one that is a scoring threat. I do believe Bayless will be the eventual answer, but we need some experienced leadership now. Hopefully, this offseason they can find it
good post panama
Some folks here seem to believe that there is a magic “defense” button that Nate is unwilling or unable to push.
To all the Steve Blake lovers out there. The last two games is why I maintain he would be best served as nice, steady perhaps great backup. The 2 most important games of the season on the road so far and Aaron Brooks abused him (sergio only got 5 min) and Parker torched everybody on him (Roy, LA, Blake, Sergio) for 39 points.
But as the starting PG of a playoff caliber team (Blake) you can’t have your starting PG go 0 for 9.
Of course listening to Mike and Mike will make everybody fall madly in love with Blake.
Panama -
We can continue to disagree.
Pick and roll defense of fighting through the pick versus switching. If this is so difficult, why can first year players in college do it so successfully?
Our PG’s being blown past is not just a PG problem. Take a look at our bigs, they do not fight through the screen – JUST AS OFTEN as our PG’s.
Again, I don’t buy into the aspect of “experience”. Experience in playoffs have nothing to do with Pick and Roll defense schemes. Experience in the playoffs have nothing to do with weak-side help. Experience in the playoffs have nothing to do with boxing out. Experience in the playoffs have nothing to do with player substitution patterns. Experience in the playoffs has nothing to do with a lack of standing up for your team. Experience in the playoffs has nothing to do generically with defense.
What EXPERIENCE IN THE PLAYOFFS has to do with is being (i hate this phrase) “Mentally tough.” You will get hotter players, how do you tighten and lock them down? When your under tremendous pressure, how do you prevent that penetration.
We show the same glaring weakness every game and it is REGRESSING, not PROGRESSING. It sounds like you have bought into the Blazer employees exuses of McMillian and JQuick.
Prime example. Youngest team to win an NBA championship, with ZERO playoff experience, never finished ABOVE .500…. Your 1977 Portland Trailblazers. Seems like they didn’t need the “experience” for defensive flaws.
Also, please let me know WHY you felt the Sonics lost, in the last year with McMillian in the playoffs. They were offensive beasts, but trying to outscore their teams. ALA no Defense. Why do you think McMillian had all TEAM USA players switching? haha. It’s laughable!
And to Dan who asked about Steve Jones, I am VERY serious. Steve knows basketball, top to bottom. Very accurate, razor sharp and won’t settle for mediocrity. He would have game plans and would be a great X’s and O’s coach.. Unlike McMuffin.
ALL – BY POPULAR DEMAND
We are going to do a little schooling session on defense of the pick and roll. Take a look at the articles below. Oddly enough, I just picked the four top articles in google.
EVERY single one of them says switching is the last resort. Why is that our primary resort 90% of the time? This has NOTHING TO DO with experience. You fight through it, EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME.
Sooooooo… why do we switch 90% of the time? Players aren’t listening to the coach or that’s the game plan. Either one, will resort back to a problem with the coach.
Enlighten me McMuffin supporters.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2066771_defend-pick-roll-basketball.html
http://www.hoopsvibe.com/basketball-coaching/defense/defense-on-a-pick-n-roll-ar400.html
http://www.guidetocoachingbasketball.com/play3.htm
http://www.82games.com/pelton10.htm
Steve Jones has repeatedly said he has no desire to be an NBA coach. And “knowing basketball”, while a necessity, is not sufficient to excel at coaching.
mvp,
just out of curiousity, not trying to be condescending (spelling?). does steve want to coach, and if so, why isn’t he? I noticed he was dropped from national telecasts….the reason again I ask is that I am curious as to how you bring him up with Avery Johnson and Jeff Van Gundy. Vinny Del Negro from what I understand was a great broadcaster and now look at him having a rough time. Do you know snapper personally?
EngineeringScotty -
If just having knowledge isn’t sufficient at coaching, what credibility does Nate have?
Steve Jones said he wouldn’t mind, but not dealing with a lot of the EGO’s of the players on a team. He was referring specifically to the JailBlazers at that point in time, as PDX would be the place he would want to coach.
The Blazers are no longer EGO maniacs and he has been gone for a year or two – he might want to relive the life.
And he does more than just know… he borderline would be coaching the team from the sidelines… he would at least call out the coaches and what they SHOULD be doing.
Yeah– I can’t see Portland ever playing Spurs level D under Nate. The youth excuse can only go so far. I think Nate deserves some more time, but if there hasn’t been substantial improvement on D by midseason next year, it will be time for a new coach, perhaps Jeff Van Gundy.
Thank you Dwight. I appreciate the fact that you actually point out people’s glaring weaknesses. People around this team are stupid, plain and simple. If you think Nate McMillan is a good coach, look at his record. You can say he’s coached young teams and blah blah blah, but the fact of the matter is the man is a sub .500 coach. He is a loser as a player and a coach. The people in Seattle were screaming for him to lose his job before his lucky run to the playoffs. And what happened after that run? Oh that’s right, he turned his back on the one team that had been loyal to him for his whole career.
Nate is a liar straight up. He’s contradicted himself in talking about what the fundamentals of their defense are. Remember when he said “well we’re doing a lot of switching because I want Greg and LMA to be able to move their feet and keep up with smaller guys.” Then less than a month later he says “well we only switch on emergencies.” He’s a flat our liar, right to your faces people yet you take it with a smile. Open your eyes, Nate is a loser. We won’t win anything with him as our coach. I mean the one time we went on a run in that game was in the 4th quarter where we went on an 8-0 run. We get another stop and what happens? Nate calls a timeout. Why? Don’t you typically call a timeout to coach your team up or tell them what they’re doing wrong? That was the only 2 minute stretch the WHOLE game we played decent and he killed our flow by taking a timeout. How stupid can he be? Popovich should have called a timeout, but Nate did him a favor and killed our flow for him.
While Nate might be a good assistant coach (and well honestly I could be a good assistant coach with the Olympic team) he’s not even a decent head coach. The time has come to cut the ties with him. Get rid of the dead weight Portland or he’s going to make us losers like he did to Seattle for 20 years.
I agree to disagree–but not about everything.
I believe it’s a general rule that time and experience make for good team defense at the NBA level. Of course there are exceptions to all general rules.
Learning great team defense doesn’t happen overnight or by magic; it happens by repetition the same way all excellance in human endeavors happens. This takes time.
I can’t comment on specific coaching suggestions because I don’t know crap. Nate McMillan, however, is coaching basketball at the highest level of his profession. I trust he’ll learn from his mistakes.
I think the decision to “go to war” with these young men is the right decision because they’ll learn a great deal from this stretch run–we fans may not like the results, but they’ll learn a great deal and what they learn has to be experienced to do any good.
If they flop, I’ll be sorry but I’ll go have a beer and say, “wait till . . .
How about Rick Adelman? Does anyone do better with adjusting to his personnel?
Don’t laugh. Bill Laimbeer just might be the man for the job. He has coached the Detroit Shock to three championships and played a significant role on the “Bad Boys” Detroit Pistons. Its OK that everyone in Portland hates him. You just know he wouldn’t take any crap from his players.