Nate Knows What He's Doing
People need to realize that you almost never put your top 5 in the starting rotation.. It’s even more important for this team to split them a bit. Anyone that cannot see how much better the team is with Miller running the bench squad is blind, stupid, or both. No offense to someone who’s actually blind. Brandon, Lamarcus, and Greg, will be fine without Miller starting. (he will still get plenty of minutes) and the bench will be way better with him.
1. Blake, Roy, Batum, LA, & GO (great balance & chemistry)
2. Miller, Rudy, Webster then come in and play with LA & GO for a couple minutes
(Great scoring and fast-breaking unit that plays a zone defense.)
3. Then bring Travis and Joel in with Miller, Rudy & Webster for a few more minutes.
4. Then bring Roy in for Webster or Miller (Brandon & Rudy get their time together)
5. Then bring Batum in for Rudy for a quick stint.
6. Then finish the last 3 or 4 minutes of the half with Miller, Bayless, Roy, LA &GO
2nd half is pretty much the same as first (but fininsh the 4th with Miller, Brandon, (the SF having the best night or match up), LA and GO….Except for the games that they have a big lead in at the end, (there should be many) Then Bayless, Cunningham, Travis, and Howard get some mop up time with Joel.
We need to take advantage of our depth, and our ability to have balanced starting and bench units. And nate knows this.
0 recs |
10 comments
Comments
"People need to realize that you almost never put your top 5 in the starting rotation"
who besides the Spurs and Mavs do this?
I guess last years Blazers could be thrown in there with Travis coming off the bench, although we all know why he did. The lakers had Odom come off the bench for a bit as well. Even if we use them all that is 4 of all the teams in the league, which is hardly “almost never”.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 18, 2009 8:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
who besides the Spurs and Mavs do this?
Indeed. Good question.
by Marvin100 on Oct 18, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get your point, believe me i do........
but i have said for months now that we need to trim the “fat” so to speak. I do not see how all of these talented players will be happy. If it isnt Blake, or Outlaw, or webster, someone will be unhappy with there PT. We just have to much, and to make things worse we dont need anything.
It would be better if we had a glaring need but we dont. PG? check: ’Dre Miller, Blakey, SG? check: Roy, Rudy, SF? check: Web, Batum, PF? check: LMA, Howard, etc. C? check: Oden and Prizy. Note who was left off, Outlaw, Bayless, My intention is to point out that with a combo of Trout, Blake/Bayless, one of our impressive rooks, and our first round pick(should be a late rounder) we could possably leverage a “players + 1st rounder for an early lottery pick” type trade.
There would be a ton of different factors at play in this scenario but even if we did say trade Outlaw, Blake, Pendergraph(for example) and our 1st rounder for a lottery pick one could see Bayless upset, or Rudy upset he has to spilt his bench minutes with Webster, or Rudy upset he isnt the main guy off the bench. I guess what i mean to say is i am concerned with the start and direction this year.
Last year things just seemed to fall into place, this year is seems to be a struggle to put things together. My thought is that with this young, talented team, they need as much time as they can to gel. Get them into a groove rotation-wise and coach them through the chemistry issues. This just seems that Nate is trying to find “what works.” Coaches are paid to take what they have and to mold it into a machine, to me it seems as though Nate wants to go with what has worked instead of coaching into shape what could work BETTER. I hope its just growing pains but its concerning from my angle.
P.S.: I could not be a bigger Nate Mac fan, but at some point one has to question those they revere.
by blazerbeliever97504 on Oct 18, 2009 9:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
careful, folks
“Hurricane Rick” is currently blowing through the East Pacific, it’s the second strongest storm on record for that area of the planet
Is the fact that Rick_D is copying and pasting the same take on various BE threads during his namesake storm merely a coincidence? You be the judge…
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 18, 2009 10:47 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
i am/was pissed that nate took greg out and didnt let him foul out
but in retrospect im glad he did. nowdays i go to watch G.O. period. if the scrub refs are going to cut the show early. screw it let them do it. yeah greg played alittle sloppy at first but more than half his fouls tonite were crappy calls. put it on the refs. especially on all the nationally televised nites. let him foul out in the 1st quarter. i do wish we had another big like the birdman backing us up.
by riccc_l on Oct 18, 2009 11:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm in the Stupid Category
I’m glad you’re not coaching. Coaching calls, after all, are made in real time in a game in response to the conditions at the time. If Blake is ice cold as he sometimes is – you play Miller – like last night. If Oden has to be conserved due to fouls, you play Pryz. Until you need Oden – like last night.
I for one don’t necessarily agree with your pespective – so, given I’m not blind, I guess I fall into the stupid category.
For example, what makes you think Blake can’t be a very effective second team point guard? Or, for that matter, why do you assume that once Miller learns the playbook, that both he and Roy won’t adjust their game to each other? Both players, after all, are very effective at moving with or without the ball, and both can create their own shot and score. So who cares which one delivers the assist? And Miller’s interior passing makes both Oden and Aldridge better and more dangerous players.
You tend to view players as being static. They can’t or won’t change. Miller is a classic point guard – therefore he can’t adjust to playing with Roy, a suberb player who can also deliver the ball.
Blake has chemistry. Except, I guess, when trying to thread the needle inside.
We’ll see. But my bet is that you’ll eventually be a little disappointed in the fact that professionals like Roy and Miller want the same thing – a champtionship – and they’re smart enough and skilled enough to make each other better – not worse. And you’re implication is the exact opposite.
by Eben Calder on Oct 19, 2009 7:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nobody on this planet knows what they are doing...
however if the question is whether or not Nate is doing a reasonable job at coaching than yes, I would say, for the most part, he is doing a good job.
Also part of the human condition is being blind and stupid. This is a evolutionary and genetically hardwired trait of our species as a requisite defense against the cold, brutish realities of consciousness as we hurtle towards death.
But hey, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you’re the one person that gets it. Seems to go hand and hand with that “trait” I mentioned before.
wow, I’m off to a good start this morning…
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Oct 19, 2009 4:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















