Why don't the Blazers play good Defense?

Their young...it's well known young players in the league don't strive to play defense.

 

Aldridge is not quick enough on the rotation, much like Landry at times.

Oden would shore their front line up immensely, but he can't stay out of foul trouble, just like in College.

 

http://www.82games.com/0809/08POR14.HTM

That they don't play Przybilla enough? His defensive +/- was impressive. This is raw number, so there is a lot of noise. However, he is a pretty savvy frontline defender, probably a lot less mistake prone than the guys who tend ot play when he sits (Oden, and when they go small, Travis Outlaw at the 4).

Here, by the way, is an article which said the Blazers players were angry at the lack of defense last night:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/10/houston_111_-_portland_107_lac.html

Missed rotation was mentioned.

 

Here's my take:

Roy - has never been known for his defense. He is extremely saavy on the offensive end, but his slow lateral footspeed severely limits his defensive potential.

Steve Blake - Is a pretty poor defender. Aaron broke his ankles about twice last game.

Outlaw - Is another athletic "jumping jack" type of player who doesn't actually have that same explosive movement on the ground. He can use this ability to rise up for blocks or to pull up for jumpers, but he doesn't have great defensive movement.

Aldridge - Is not much of a banger or a defensive presence. With his size and ability, he should shut down Scola and Landry better than he has. He was often cited as being soft in college, and these issues continue.

Oden - Is unaware defensively. He's got amazing tools, but he just simply lacks the basketball sense to use them. I don't know if these things are taught, but he should get better over time.

Bench - Really Andre Miller should start to give them better defense. Miller does have a tendency to hold onto the ball alot, but he'll fit in with time and shore up defense on the PG position.

Martell Webster has some good defensive potential, but he's more of a SG than SF, and it's kind of hard to pair him with Roy for defensive purposes.


This team could've really used a Paul Millsap type of banger to simply toughen up their squad. There is a definite lack of physical play on the Blazers, and I think this also carries over to the defensive side.

 

Very good question and I don't have an easy answer. They are still the 4th youngest team in the NBA and that has to be part of it. It's frustrating to watch them sometimes. I have a feeling they will figure it out during the season and tighten up. They have basically added 2 new rotation players (Miller & Webster) this year and are having a rough time getting their chemistry flowing. IMO, it will be while before the Blazers jell on either end of the floor.

 

Coaching can't do everything. Pritchard has been drafting and trading for mostly offensive players so you can't expect Mcmillan to just make miracles.

I would blame a great deal of it on Lamarcus Aldridge. He's not a force on the boards which (with his freakish length and athleticism) shows me that he isn't doing a good enough job boxing out his man. If he isn't doing that then he probably isn't paying enough attention to his man off the ball and anyone can see he doesn't do a great job when his man has the ball. I have always believed that post defense is more important than perimeter D. If Aldridge could just become a solid defender then it would change the whole teams defense. Then, perimeter guys who always get beat can start shading their man to LA and get stops. That is what most of the top defenses do.

Oh, and how does that effect a defense? I think people often reach to make it seem as though a "knucklehead" has a negative effect on the court. But, defensively, I just don't see it. Rasheed Wallace, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Dennis Rodman, etc. In their prime, all good defenders. In the end it comes down to what a player can and can't do. Just because the blazers have a bunch of "good guys" doesn't mean they're more likely to learn great defense or improve in anything a great deal. It just means...they're good guys.

 

Good question. They have enough offense to beat any team. But their defense is their weakness.

I would say that the biggest reason is probably because none of their front line players is good team defender. People often mistaken "defensive talent" with athleticism and quickness. But being court-aware is as much, if not more, of a defensive talent as physical abilities.

Team defense is certainly teachable. Look how JVG's teams defend. But there is an innate awareness, kind of like court vision in offense, that cannot be taught. That's why guys like Battier and Hayes are so good on defense, and guys like Landry is not.

And their best two players Roy and Alderidge are not known to be good defenders. Roy is tough. But Alderidge, as someone has pointed out, is soft.

 

If JVG or Thibodeau was the coach of that team, they would be a top 3 defensive team. So what's the difference between those two and Nate? Nate like a JVG/Thibodeau team has a slow paced offensive team but on defense JVG/Thibodeau would instill into the team attention to detail, discipline, and defensive drills/rotations in practice that probably Nate isn't doing. Shame too, because they may the only team that gives the Lakers fits in the playoffs.

 

Just because Nate was a good defender when he was in the league doesn't mean he can put a good defensive game plan together. I think Nate is overrated as a coach. He's never really overachieved with any of his teams. He's slightly above average, but he is not Adelman, Jackson, or Brown. He's not even Flip Saunders.

 

because they have no quickness laterally, they're all length and height and the guys who have speed have it going forward, so they can't contain the perimeter guys, therefore allowing jumpers and penetration, the big men, especially Prz can defend, but they can only do so much, doesn't help that Oden is foul prone so eventually he's backing off instead of contesting.

 

i don't think the youth has much to do with it.....batum is just a kid and still probably their best wing defender. so his being out injured is probably part of the problem for them.

additionally, neither of their point guards can stay in front of brooks or even lowry for that matter. our pg's were penetrating into the paint at will last nite.

furthermore, i think we all underrate just how good ariza's first step is. his handles are below average and once he gets in the paint he makes terrible passing decisions. but nevertheless, he can still get by the initial defender whenever he so pleases.

lastly, did i mention that miller/blake don't have a chance in hell of staying front of quick-as-a-hiccup brooks??

 

my guess is that they lack leadership

brandon roy is not a vocal leader.

and because of steve blake

 

my question is that how come whenever the game is on the line, Aldridge always shoot that 20 footer and usually misses. oh well works for us

 

Talk about a team that NEEDS Shane Battier.

 

Totally, completely and absolutely agree. Getting rid of a dimwit like Outlaw and adding Shane would take the Blazers to another level.

 

I think Portland is drooling over Battier, especially after the last playoffs, and Morey knows it. Pritchard is probably too smug to succumb to Morey's demand for trading Battier.

I'd ask for Rudy Fernandez and another good role player for Battier, and Portland probably wouldn't bite.

 

Point 2 & 3 below are just my opinion; #1 is not debatable.

1) Outlaw has mush for brains.
2) The Blazers won't trade Batum. He has serious long-term potential.
3) Switching Lowry and Blake is a lose-lose for both teams because each guy fits where they are now. Blake would be worthless on almost any team besides the Blazers. He's in a situation similar to Damon Jones when he played next to Wade. On another team, Blake would be a 10th man, but he "fits" next to Roy and Roy likes him on the court.

The reason I mentioned Shane for Outlaw is both sets of fans have discussed it for 2 years.