Sarge is in charge?

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 10:05 AM PST Comment 55 comments

I have some major concerns about our head coach, I have bit my tongue in the past with his inconsistency and strange rotations because we were either expected to be terrible, so loses were no surprise or we were dealing with injury. However this little funk we are in shows the problems he poses for our team. First off his constant threat of adjusting the rotation causes confusion and tentative play by his bench. No one really knows what is expected from them aside from B. Roy, Blake and Joel. This is a major problem for me, the coach is there to provide confidence by putting each player in their role and helping them make the adjustments to succeed at it. I also hate his rotations, he plays certain players far too much, like his man love for Outlaw, and other players he continues to hold back despite their obvious improved play(Joel and Sergio). I think it is time to aquire a coach who could actually lead us to a championship. You look at Phil Jackson and he has so much confidence in his players he does not even call a time out when they struggle. You look at his players and they understand their roles and embrace them, even Lamar Odom who is an extremely talented player has flourished coming off the bench this year because Phil has stood firm despite his complaints and kept his steady rotation. Then you get to his offensive schemes, they are very easy to read and easily becomes stagnant. We rely on 1 on 1 offense instead of utilitizing the vast talent we have. Everyone talks about the amount of talent we have and yet the ball does not move. We also depend on jumpshots and threes to score, this is a losing formula, and surprise, surprise the same offense was used in Seattle. He is not adjusting for his personnel, he still runs the same offense. Personally I have had enought of coach Nate blaming his players for his poor schemes.

1 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Oh the humanity of it all.

Last I looked the Blazers were 18-12… that’s still the case, right? And you’re calling for the coaches head… why?

In all reality, don’t you think this is a bit dramatic?

Who would we even get? There are maybe a handful of coaches I’d rather (Pop, Sloan, …. …. ?) have than Nate, all of whom are currently gainfully employed. You can’t trade for coaches.

And honestly, I think Nate has made it clear what he wants: effort, energy, and hustle.

I don’t think any coach could lead this team to a championship… this year. You’re jumping the gun if that’s really your expectation. We haven’t even made the playoffs in 5 years!!! You can’t demand a championship yet.

"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Dec 27, 2008 10:18 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

yes we are 18-12 now

but how long will that last with our confidence shaken and no one to build it back. It is just like last year when during our 13 game win streak everyone believed the Playoffse were within reach. I have fears that we may be left out again and I would blame this entirely on Nate. We have all the tools to be a premier team.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

it will last until tonight

at which point we will be either 18-13, or 19-12.

by abdelnaby on Dec 27, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 7 recs

rec

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Dec 27, 2008 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Accurate Prophecy

I’ll be damned…

We are 19 and 2… Are you Nostradamus?

by Powder842 on Dec 28, 2008 12:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Winning coaches don't get replaced

KP and PA like Nate, the point is moot

Woof

by Charles Barkley McLovin on Dec 27, 2008 10:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

kinda like Outlaw?

Outlaw’s poor BBIQ has led to more losses than wins and yet coach still gives him free reign.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

careful talking about outlaw's bbiq

people might think you’re a racist.

The Blazers as a whole are far more like my wife than like me in the sense of their physicality on defense.
-Dave

by chrischa on Dec 27, 2008 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

or you could be just

stereotyping the southern mentality……you know…some southern people fish for catfish and others fish for Marlin….and Travis has already said he loves cat fishing…..

I thought the post (about Outlaw’s BBIQ)was kinda off the wall, personal, and lacked merit with plenty of loaded insinuations…….(a throwback bait and switch tactic that had an ulterior motive)……..Sad stuff

It's all about defense......

by 67 on Dec 29, 2008 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Outlaw has been playing well

Trout cannot do everything by himself. Although his shot has been off he has progressed considerably in otehr areas of his game. When Trout is in the flow of the offense he is phenomenal. It’s not his fault that the offense hasn’t been flowing lately.

And Trout’s defense has been better than average this year. He has a long way to go to become a true lock down defender. At this point he is better on D than a lot of starting SFs in the Association. And his oft-discussed “BBIQ” is ok too. “Bad BBIQ” is just a fancy way of saying “I don’t like him.”

The main deficiency in our defense is Oden. When he is not being slow and getting burned he is picking up fouls and sending the opponent to the FT line. Oden is a liability and so is our backup PF. Neither Frye nor Ike have done much on D this year.

The true meaning of Christmas is the celebration of a never ending love . Not the love we think of in desiring or possessing someone else, but rather the conscious unconditional love which seeks only the perfection of its object and is, at the deepest level, the underlying and uniting force of the Universe.

by Love on Dec 27, 2008 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bad BBIQ

Is a fancy way of saying he thinks slowly on the basketball court. I like Travis the person just fine, Travis the basketball player reacts slowly to situations. This is a reason he cannot start without it being a debacle.

by TSE on Dec 27, 2008 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

if his

defense is above average and he is smart on the court why is an unpolished rookie starting in front of the six year vet. BBIQ is most definitely a real thing it means good and quick decision making. Travis is notorious for his ill advised shots and forced passes. He has improved some in this area but that is not equal to his six years of experience. He is not smart on the court, hence bad bbiq. I will not argue the defense as I don’t think it is terrible but it is certainly not good and considering his length and quickness he should be great ala Tayshaun.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 7:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Balance

Travis gets to shoot more w/ the second unit and gives that group offense while Batum plays in a unit that needs someone who can play D but won’t look for his shot. Same reason you see Ginobli and other great players coming off the benches of other teams.

by Blindsteepler on Dec 27, 2008 8:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a hard time saying any one player leads the team to a loss...

he’s won a few games on last second shots (Atlanta and Memphis on the road last year come immediately to mind) but even then you can’t say any one player wins a game either (unless you score 100+ on your own which doesn’t happen much these days).

Ya he makes mistakes. I don’t think his mistakes are any more glaring than at least half the guys on the team in general. I think it’s worth noting that in his tenure on the team, he has made gains slowly but surely over time… and I think he has a lot of room to still grow.

by Blindsteepler on Dec 27, 2008 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Flip Saunders did

3 years in Detroit… 3 years playoffs… 2 Eastern Conf. Finals appearances… and then the pink slip. They realized Flip was NOT the guy that could lead a team to a championship and I feel the same way about Nate…

Let RudyMania Reign!!

by DowntownChinatown on Dec 28, 2008 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I know it’s not clear from the post title, but this discussion is already taking place in Blazersaurus’ post “Extra Hot Vent(i)”

by Corvid on Dec 27, 2008 10:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

i think it warrents its own discution, speshelly cuz i nevr look in post game threads =)

but who am i to say, lol

December 18, 2008.

"Roy is Roy, and if I were to bet my life on a game of 5-on-5, I’d bet on whichever team Roy was playing on." by HurraKane212

by maid tu rek on Dec 27, 2008 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

see that

never would guessed based on the title ;)

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I figured that was the case

Cryptic post titles are a pet peeve of mine.

by Corvid on Dec 27, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

c'mon dude

you can’t compare Nate to guys like phil jackson (when was the last time that guy HASN’T had a team full of veterans?) when Nate wouldn’t even compare himself to a guy like that. Personally, I like a coach who holds his players accountable. If they are playing like crap, they can take a seat on the bench. If they are kickin butt in practice, then they deserve a shot. Now you have to allow some players to make mistakes without being in fear of being pulled all the time but its tough when everyone is so young and the mistakes are boneheaded.

Nate is screwed either way with us. If he keeps a player in despite his mistakes for the sake of development, we go crazy saying we need to win now and that he has some kind of weird man-crush. If he pulls guys for sucking, we think he has a vendetta against that individual and that they will never get a fair shot.

The Blazers as a whole are far more like my wife than like me in the sense of their physicality on defense.
-Dave

by chrischa on Dec 27, 2008 12:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

thats true,

you kant compair nate to phil jackson… shame… and to the whole accountable thing, thats the part thats in question with nate, as it duznt allways appeer that hes holding the responsible party accountable. sure hes punishing somebody, but is it the right somebody? i have no way of nowing since im not privy to the five year plan, and dont get much locker room time, but with wut i DO see, its begun to leave me questioning nate. and for the record, i kinda like the guy, but i dont no how much i trust him. oh and i agree, right now, i do think we need a coach to call a timeout when it starts to get bad, i meen there proffetionals and all, but there hardly vetrens that have seen it all befor either.

December 18, 2008.

"Roy is Roy, and if I were to bet my life on a game of 5-on-5, I’d bet on whichever team Roy was playing on." by HurraKane212

by maid tu rek on Dec 27, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You make my point for me

he does not compare to top coaches in the league but he is coaching top talent. He would be great coaching the seattle…I mean Oklahoma Thunder.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

he's coaching talented players

but they’re the second youngest team in the league. I’m sure Nate’s job would be much easier if he was coaching less talented vets. Or at least he would look better and probably much more competent just from having players that don’t need to be taught fundamentals during valuable practice/scouting time. Players that know how to keep themselves in good condition, that don’t get intimidated, and know what it takes to win in this league always tend to make their coaches look much better.

The Blazers as a whole are far more like my wife than like me in the sense of their physicality on defense.
-Dave

by chrischa on Dec 27, 2008 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Journey Starts...

With small steps… Let’s be honest, 15 years ago Phil Jackson wasn’t being mentioned in the same breath as Red Arbauch. But where are we now?

Comparing Nate to Phil is like comparing Roy to Jordan. They’re different coaches, with different mentalities, with different levels of skill.

I’m pretty sure he coached us from one of the worst records in Blazer history to .500, and now as us at 19-12. That’s decent…

by Powder842 on Dec 28, 2008 12:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Phil Jackson does no display unfaltering confidence in his players.

He’s called radmanovich a “space cadet” and benched him without warning in favor of one of his favorite players, Luke Walton. He started taking away from Farmar’s minutes because he wasn’t performing up to his standards.

As far as offensive sets go, the execution comes down to the players. Look at the plays he uses when Rudy comes in. They’re simple offball screens that are designed to get him open on the perimeter. But the way Rudy uses those screens are what make the plays he’s involved in so useful. All a coach can do is teach the players and it’s entirely up to the players to actually perform. A coaches impact is really overrated. Has any team that fired its coach this year better?

by Jerb on Dec 27, 2008 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not*

Typo in the first line

by Jerb on Dec 27, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

difference between confidence

in players and blindly allowing players to screw up. I have seen radmonovich play, he reminds me of someone on our team…inconsistent poor bbiq. He shoots the jump shot well and that is it. Phil gets it. I would rather have Adleman than Nate any day.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the thing that Nate does

is to yank guys for errors. A real confidence destroyer. Phil Jackson appears to have a more secure relationship with his players.

by Blazin' on Dec 27, 2008 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Adelman loses his players in the thrid or fourth year of every gig. He always gets

off to a good start, but never finishes.

by raoulduke on Dec 28, 2008 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is getting funny.

Fire Nate! Hire… um… maybe… what about… Maurice Cheeks?

The Blazers are playing waaaaaaay above their heads. They should be 11-18.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 27, 2008 2:07 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

just because one

coach does not measure up, does not mean we should choose a more poor coach. I am not saying the change needs to happen today, but KP should be looking and looking for that coach that will lead this team deep in the playoffs. When it comes to game strategy he is crap and if you don’t have that in the playoffs by the third game the other team will figure you out and you will have no chance.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i would think that kp allready has an eye to the future,

but my fealings wouldnt be hurt to let this team as is get a year of playoff expirence before we derail with a new coach. but after this year, if this convo is still happening, then im all for it

December 18, 2008.

"Roy is Roy, and if I were to bet my life on a game of 5-on-5, I’d bet on whichever team Roy was playing on." by HurraKane212

by maid tu rek on Dec 27, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Over Reaction's

Let’s see. We’re out our starting SF, and have three rookies breaking into the lineup. Batum is a 3rd team SF starting because Webster is injured, and Outlaw never stepped up as the #2 SF needed to to take the #1 spot. His role is off the bench. So, we have a defensive hole – and whether you play Batum or Outlaw – someone is going to gripe. Then, we have the controversy over the guards. Blake is a solid #2 PG capable of giving decent #1 PG minutes – but not capable of very effecitvely guarding the #1 PG. Sergio and Roy are not a good fit (how many times do we have to point that out?). Roy is a combo who will control the ball and set plays for a good portion of the game, whereas Sergio is a PG who is a set up guy. Roy needs a good defender who can take the other teams lead PG, so he can defend the SG. So, is that defender Sergio? Not really, and that leaves us with another issue. Sergio is never going to start with Roy. Sorry. And then we have our erstwhile Center. He’s got a learning curve, and is also plagued by the lack many times of a decent perimeter defensive effort.

Right now we have two pretty solid starters in Roy and Aldridge, a future starter in Oden still learning – and with a ways to go, and then some second team players (Batum and Blake) playing on the first team. Pryz and Rudy are good backups – but one is a rookie. Frye and Diogu, in turn, are not that impressive this year, and Sergio is a backup PG beginning his 3rd year who did not have a good year his second year. So when everyone gripes an complains – just who are you going to pull of the bench? The only other player, after all, is Bayless. That’s it.

This team has talent – but it’s not an elite team. We’ve completely turned over in a little more than 2 years, after all. Sergio, Rudy and Batum were all taken at the bottom of the first round, and some of you act like they’re second coming of Rose.

And, this team has absolutely no experience playing together – on top of everything else. Did you see Oden, Batum, or Fernandez on the floor last year?

Rookies folks – love them or hate them. They’re inconsistent. Rose is coming off his early high, Beasley is now coming off the bench, Augustin has had some “dead” outings, Gordon is yo-youing up and down, and you wonder what the problem is.

Try getting Mac some steady vets. Then you might have a complaint.

by Eben Calder on Dec 27, 2008 2:30 PM PST reply actions 5 recs

+1

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 27, 2008 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

this is absolutely correct

with the majority of high lottery picks coming to the NBA after 1 year of college, most of them are raw and need a fair amount of development which normally takes years to show results.
when players like shaq, duncan etc were coming to the NBA most players were in college for 2-3 years, and their game was more developed because of that, and they were more likely to make a consistent impact straight away in the NBA.

from this years rookies only OJ mayo and rudy fernandez have been really consistent, and rudy has already been a pro for a few years. i suspect oden/bayless/batum wont be able to show their true skills for at least another season.

by Yawnie on Dec 27, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no one said

he has to play 10, I bet I could come up with an 8 man rotation that would limit the time of the true rooks, batum and oden. Rudy is not a rook by conventional standards he has been playing pro for 6 years. Batum and Oden are not the problem lack of leadership is.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Impressive

Anyone can come up with an 8 man rotation that would limit the time of the true rooks. Would we be 19 and 10 or better with that rotation though?

We’re dealing with an EXTREMELY young team. We need some time to adjust first. Anytime a coach is working with 4 rookies (yes, Rudy is a rookie, has he ever played a year in the NBA? No, then he’s a rookie) there are going to be struggles. Sometimes people need shorter leashes. Where is the benefit to sticking to an 8 man rotation? If we have 10 that can play why let a guy sit in there when he’s not being effective if we have a guy on the bench with similar skills?

Doc Rivers made some weird coaching rotations for a few years, and it happened to work to the tune of an NBA Championship. While I know we need 3 all stars and future hall of famers to make that happen, we’re not exactly too far away from that being a viable future.

Have patience. 2 years ago we were 21 and 61. Right now we’re 19 and 12. That’s two wins away from our SEASON TOTAL. We’re not a championship team, YET. But we’re working on it.

by Powder842 on Dec 28, 2008 12:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

Well said sir.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 27, 2008 2:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

the excuses for the coach are

ridiculous. You blame on players just like he does. We are clearly better than teams like Denver, Atlanta and NO but our record does not reflect it. Arguing we should be 11-18 with a superstar and the deepest bench in the league. 4 players at 7 foot and a boatload of shooters we must get it done, last year you could argue inexperience. Yes rookies are breaking in the rotation, but the only one averaging more than 20 minutes is Rudy who can hardly be called a rook. Chigity check yourself b4 your wreck yourself.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 4:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

lol, calm down, i think ur on tu something

but just cuz others dont see your version of the light, suznt mean you should further obscure your point with overly agressive comments.

December 18, 2008.

"Roy is Roy, and if I were to bet my life on a game of 5-on-5, I’d bet on whichever team Roy was playing on." by HurraKane212

by maid tu rek on Dec 27, 2008 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

I am just frustrated that people gloss over Nate’s deficincies so easily.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

im only begining to question nate myself,

if the questioning is truley warented, then more will do so

December 18, 2008.

"Roy is Roy, and if I were to bet my life on a game of 5-on-5, I’d bet on whichever team Roy was playing on." by HurraKane212

by maid tu rek on Dec 27, 2008 4:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

argh

ment as reply to ala Mode

December 18, 2008.

"Roy is Roy, and if I were to bet my life on a game of 5-on-5, I’d bet on whichever team Roy was playing on." by HurraKane212

by maid tu rek on Dec 27, 2008 4:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

BENCH ODEN!

START JOEL!

65.....

by JWise on Dec 27, 2008 7:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

can't argue

that one at this point. I was advocating his return to the starting line up earlier in the year but he has not shown any marked improvement with this time which should be the point of putting him there.

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 27, 2008 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I do find it infuriating how poorly we do all of the little things that suggest good coaching.

We turn 2 for 1’s at the ends of quarters into 1 for 1’s.
We let the ball roll halfway to the mid court line before starting the clock in the first half. When we’re down 6 with 2 minutes left in the game we take the ball straight in and take an extra long time getting to the half court set.
We waste time outs in the second half.

These are the things that leave me scratching my head….

The big tactical stuff is harder to judge because I don’t know the dynamics of the locker room nor how well these individual players would handle aspects of the game under a different system . But it looks like:

We make substitutions out of spite.
We are confounded by the pick and roll.
We still don’t have a team offensive identity.

I believe Nate’s strength is getting his players to overachieve. That is why I bristle to hear people (coach included) blame losses on a lack of effort. These guys try hard. If anything too hard. Smarter effort is what I want to see.

by Blazin' on Dec 27, 2008 10:53 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Bravo! Well said!

Here is a couple more:

When someone gets really rolling (the hot hand) they either get taken out of the game or his teammates stop feeding them the ball.

In some cases the exact opposite happens – a guy goes cold – so instead of finding someone else for offense – the cold shooter takes 8 of the next 10 shots trying to get out of their slump.

If Nate is such a great coach why doesn’t stop play and call these things to the teams attention?

No, I am not ready to fire Nate, but he is driving me crazy.

Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA is LaMonster!!!!!
37:52 Mins 7-13 FGs 7-8 FTs +21 1 Off 9 Rebs 2 Ast 2 Stl 21 Points - LMA vs Toronto 12-27-08

by LaMarvelous on Dec 27, 2008 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because then he would be wasting a time out we so desperately need...

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Dec 28, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is it waste if the team plays better after having their errors pointed out?

Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA is LaMonster!!!!!
37:52 Mins 7-13 FGs 7-8 FTs +21 1 Off 9 Rebs 2 Ast 2 Stl 21 Points - LMA vs Toronto 12-27-08

by LaMarvelous on Dec 29, 2008 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was pointing out...

that Nate is being criticized in this thread from Blazin’ that he wastes timeouts but you think that he should call timeouts. I thought that was kind of humorous.

Nate can’t win. If he calls timeouts he wastes them, if he doesn’t he isn’t communicating with his team when they aren’t playing well.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Dec 30, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

great post

this sums it up nicely. I just feel like game time decision making is mostly poor. Like the game we lost with Orlando, we were down 3 with little time on the clock. All we had to do was foul and send them to the line and the game was ours. Nate let them shoot the three and Hedo nailed a miracle bank. Why allow it? Why not get into a ft shooting contest with a 3 pt lead. It is decisions like this that make me question Nate’s ability. I was at that game and the 12 year old in front of me turned to his dad and asked “why didn’t they foul him dad?” all I could think was “from the mouth of babes.”

by The Natural ala Mode on Dec 28, 2008 9:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh huh

Blazers’ll make you crazy. Cause they do so much stupid stuff. Yet, somehow, they win. So maybe there is some secret anti-mojo that Nate is tapping into.

I’ve noticed that about hot and cold hands…As soon as Nowitzki picked up foul #4, Travis stopped driving on him. And he was having rare success doing so!

by Blazin' on Dec 27, 2008 11:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree. Fire Nate. He is a horrible coach.

He has been coaching terribly. Seriously! It’s not like he’s playing with very few veterans on the team. It’s not like he is playing 3 rookies very significant minutes. It’s not like he is coaching a team that is struggling to find their identity. It’s not like he is coaching a team that started with one of the most brutal early season stretches in recent memory. It’s not like he too is learning how to win with these players. Maybe if he led the team to a respectable record like say, 19-12 or something he would be worth keeping….( sarcasm font on obviously )

When analysts talk about the blazers one of the things they say about us is that we are “well coached”. Nate makes questionable decisions for sure, but he is still learning as well. He is growing with this team. Let’s be happy we have a coach that is able to consistently draw up winning game plans. Would I fire Nate to get Pop or Sloan? In a heart beat. It would hurt, but I’d do it. Those coaches, however are not going anywhere. Nate is the best available coach for this team RIGHT NOW and probably for the foreseeable future. Let’s enjoy watching him learn how to win along with the players.

by dario argento on Dec 28, 2008 2:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

i just can't see your point

i mean, haven’t you read this whole conversation! it has become so obvious to me that we need to fire Nate. It’s just all of these crazy homers that think he is such a great coach, honestly, if Nate was half the coach that everyone seems to think he is he would have been coaching the Olympic team or something.

The end is in the beginning and yet I go on....
-Beckett

by eyeotiger on Dec 28, 2008 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Firing a coach or benching a player is not the only way to resolve problems.

Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA is LaMonster!!!!!
37:52 Mins 7-13 FGs 7-8 FTs +21 1 Off 9 Rebs 2 Ast 2 Stl 21 Points - LMA vs Toronto 12-27-08

by LaMarvelous on Dec 29, 2008 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs