Blazers Pre-season Woes Stem from Perfect Storm of Distractions
After last night's embarrasing performance (combined with a relatively lackluster preseason), I can sense that Blazer fans are starting to panic a little bit. There's no question that the Blazers are not playing anywhere near the level of the their peer teams right now (LA, SA, Den, Utah). It's always hard to know how much to read into a team's preseason performance, but this year that task is particularly hard due to a veritable "perfect storm" of distractions. Consider this:
- All of the games have been refereed by replacement refs who call the game very differently than the players are used to.
- The primary guy orchestrating the offense (Andre Miller) is new to the team and new to McMillan's system
- Another major rotation player (Martel Webster) hasn't played competively in well over a year.
- There have been a ton of small injuries that have kept the Blazers from playing in consistent lineups
- McMillan's decision not to name the starters and to experiment with lineups has also kept the team from playing a consistent rotation.
- Two other major rotation players (Batum, Fernandez) have been playing Euro-ball all summer with different teammates, different rules, and different roles.
- The Blazers are still a very young team and have traditionally taken a while to find their stride.
All of these factors, when combined, make it very near impossible to tell how the Blazers will actually play once their lineup is set and they are playing real games with real refs. They could be bad. They could be great. We just don't know.
My hunch is that the Blazers will start off slow--as they usually do--but find their groove as the season progresses. What will be interesting to see, though, is how the rotation solidifies as the season progresses. Barring injuries, there aren't going to be nearly enough minutes for all of these guys and so some of them are going to get relogated to spot duty.
Though no one seems to be saying this, I think the guy that should be the most worried right now about his long term playing time is Martell Webster. So far, at least, he's not really bringing anything to the table (offensively or defensively) that someone else can't provide better. Batum will likely start and get at least half of the SF minutes. And in order to get Rudy more playing time, I suspect we'll see a fair amount of the three guard lineup where Roy plays the 3, especially in the 4th quarter. That doesn't leave much time for Webster. Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if Nate gives Howard some of the PF minutes and lets Outlaw play some SF minutes, where he's clearly more comfortable. That leaves Martell as the odd man out.
One other thing I'll say: *if* the Blazers preseason struggles carry into the regular season (at least significantly so), I think Nate McMillan will soon find himself on the hot seat. Though, he's done a great job building this young team and making them competitive, I get the sense that, among those who follow basketball the closest, there's a nagging belief that McMillan doesn't get the most out of the talent he has, that he doesn't coach to his players strengths. The Blazers are one of the youngest, fastest, most athletic teams in the league and yet they get precious few easy transition buckets. They are also one of the tallest and longest teams in the league, yet they can't seem to play pick-and-roll defense or get their hands in passing lanes. At some point, if the Blazers don't improve in these areas, all the fingers are going to be pointing at McMillan.
I'm still optimistic, though, that this team will begin to click again soon like they were toward the end of last season. If they can consistently play at that level, the doubters and worriers will shut up, at least until the playoffs.
4 recs |
55 comments
Comments
I tend to agree with you
Sometimes I am so sure that Nate is the right coach for this team, but his constant failure to get these players to buy in on defense will at some point be his downfall.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 21, 2009 8:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is "buy in" the problem?
I don’t think that Nate’s defensive failure is “buy in”. I think his major inadequacy is the type of pick and roll defense he is using (and perhaps transition defense, but I believe that is just a preseason mental lapse). UDUB said it well with this…
“They are also one of the tallest and longest teams in the league, yet they can’t seem to play pick-and-roll defense or get their hands in passing lanes. At some point, if the Blazers don’t improve in these areas, all the fingers are going to be pointing at McMillan.”
We are too long, athletic, talented and hungry for this trend to be anything other than defensive strategy problems (which would seem to rest on Nate’s shoulders).
I do, however, agree that defense could be his downfall.
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe it has to be something
either the players not buying in, or the Coach not being able to teach it the way he knows it has to be played. Nate was a good defender as a player so I believe he knows what needs to be done, but I don’t know if he is able to teach that to players. There was an article this preseason where Nate discussed what he wanted to see from the team on pick and rolls. In that he said he wanted the 4’s to push out on the pick, disrupting the ball handler, then retreat back to cover their man who is rolling, once the guard recovered onto the ball handler. But he wanted the 5’s to guard the lane more than push out on the ball handler. So far I havn’t seen much of either of those types of defenses of the pick and roll from the Blazers. I have seen Joel switch and try and guard a no-name Denver Nugget player, who drove past Joel and dunked the ball, during a time of the game, (4th qtr less than 1 min to go) where the Blazers defensive attention should be at its height. Why did they switch? Nate has stated he doesn’t want them to switch, but that in “emergencies” they can switch.
All of this points to Nate not being able to get his defensive scheme’s across to the players in practice.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 21, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think
that is a coaching problem, player inability or a “buy in” problem?
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think
it is a bit of all of them. 1st we have to understand that Nate is not Coach Pop or Jackson, in that he is a very young NBA coach, so he is still learning on the job. But right now it is pretty clear that he has some weaknesses, and teaching a young team how to defend the pick and role is one of them. I would be willing to bet my very small monthly salarie that if the Blazers replaced Nate with a veteran NBA coach like Van Gundy next summer that the Blazers would be a remarkably better defensive team next year. (I am not calling for Nate’s head here, just saying there are better defensive coaches out there) So part of it has to be Nate inability to coach these guys.
However, Nate isn’t working with 10 all-world defensive players here. Some have very bad defensive instincts, or very little understanding of their role in the teams defencive scheme. Travis still gets lost, Bayless is over active, Rudy is a gambler, Roy saves energy and floats on defense, LMA doesn’t use his length like he could, etc, etc, etc… So some of it has to be on the players as well, Nate can’t go out and play for them after all.
The Players love the coach, but that doesn’t mean the agree with everything he is trying to do, so “buying in” could be a problem if they think they know a better way. Even from this group of choir boys, it can happen.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 21, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes I feel like Nate's "Sarge" mentality,
tight grip and micromanagement style that helped our young team mesh so well on things like half-court offensive efficiency is somehow retarding the team’s ability to take it to the next level.
And related to this post.. I wonder why it doesn’t seem to help with our defensive schemes. I’ve loved Nate up to this point (and don’t doubt that we will improve this year), but coaches usually have a distinctive style. Can Nate adapt to this team’s needs?
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tom Thidodeau
When the Blazer’s poor PnR defense was discussed last year, I suggested that the team hire a superior defensive assistant coach. Any team with Paul Allen as the owner certainly has the “resources” to make this happen, the only questions are: would Nate accept the front office mandating a change in his “lead assistant coach hierarchy” and would TomT accept a non-head coaching role to leave Boston?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 21, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate's defensive coaching was good enough for the Gold Medal
Listen to LeBron, Wade, Carmelo all talk about defense and walk the talk for the first time last year following Nate’s coaching. Nate was primary on defense as Mike was primary on offense. Coach K is also more offensive minded. Jim B was also there for defense – but zone defense and how to attack zone defense. The man defense was reportedly all Nate’s.
We are selling him short if we expect him to be dominant on defense using guys with 200 or fewer NBA games in their career.
That the Blazers have the most efficient offense is a huge credit. But the defense will continue to improve with Greg starting. That one factor will become huge so long as he continues to improve on not fouling. The other factor I anticipate is Bayless’ progress. With Greg, Bayless and Batum on the floor this can be an excellent defensive team within another year or two.
The best games the Blazers played last year all had dominant defense in the 4th quarter. It is consistency that will come with experience.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Oct 21, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you're right
But Nate and Brandon have been talking about improving the team’s defense since camp opened, and so far it hasn’t translated very well, out on the floor
Portland has 3 above-average individual defenders on the roster (Batum, Przy and Oden) The rest are either going to need to communicate well and work together as a unit to “wall off” penetration and rebound, or the Blazers won’t be going to the finals
On media day KP told Ben that the final roster spot would be filled with a defender. That obviously didn’t happen. It encourages me that KP is at least thinking about increasing the ratio of solid defensive players on his roster. But so far he hasn’t been drafting much with that end of the floor in mind (with Nic being the lone exception)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 21, 2009 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate's been an NBA head coach for almost 9 full seasons
I don’t think the “hes a young head coach” argument carries any weight at all.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Oct 21, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, maybe not
I would be interested in seeing what the avg coaching career is for “Championship coaches”. For example, how long has Phil Jackson been a head coach, assistant coach, at all levels. How long has Pop been a head coach or assistant coach at all levels, what about Larry Brown, or some other “good” coaches like rick adelman or VanGundy.
My guess is they have alot more than 9 years of coaching experience. Nate is a good coach in my view, but I am not convinced he is the coach to take this team to the promise land and he definitely has major flaws as a coach.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 21, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
doing my own research
Phil Jackson – First NBA job in 1987 as an assistant with the Bulls, promoted to Head Coach in 1989. But he also had some coach experince before that time, the dates are unsure, but he coached in the CBA winning a CBA championship with the Albany Patroons, as well as coaching in Puerto Rico.
Gregg Popovich – First assistant coaching job in 1973 at the Air Force Academy. Head coach in 1979 for Pomona-Pitzer. Assistant Coach under Larry Brown for the Spurs in 1987. Took over head coaching duties for the Spurs in 96 and has done pretty well.
Larry Brown – First coaching job in 1975 for the ABA’s Denver Rockets. Coached UCLA from 79-81, the New Jersey Nets from 81-83, and University of Kansas from 83-88. Coached several NBA teams since then.
Jeff Van Gundy – First coaching job at McQuaid Jesuit High School in 1985. Then Providence College under Rick Pitino, then moved to Rutgers as an assisant. Became assistant coach for the Knicks in 1989 under Stu Jackson, John Macleod, Pat Riley and Don Nelson. Promoted to Head coach of the Knicks in 1996, left in 2001. Head coach for the Rockets from 2003-2007.
Stan Van Gundy – First assistant coaching job in 1995 under Pat Riley for the Miami Heat. Promoted to Head coach in 2003. Head coach of the Magic from 2007-present.
Rick Adelman – Coached for Chemeketa Community College in Salem, Oregon from 1977-1983. Hired as an assistant coach of the Blazers by Jack Ramsay, and promoted to head coach during the 1989 season. Head coach of the Warriors from 1995-1997, then Kings in 1998 until 2005. Current coach of the Rockets.
Coach Nate – Assistant Coach with Seattle in 1998 after retiring. Named interim head coach in 2000, giving full job in 2001. Left Sonics for Blazers in 2005.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 21, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pop was SA General Manager before he drafted Timmy - then hired himself to coach
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Oct 21, 2009 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes he was
but that was not the point of the research. Pop had a pretty long history in coaching before that move.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 22, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we should get Adelman back here.
If, of course, Nate doesn’t work out. That guy is solid.
by Blazin' on Oct 21, 2009 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"buy in"
seems to cover it, but it presumes that the players’ loyalty exists independent of managerial decision-making. Which, if the Blazers are going to be any good, we had better hope is not the case.
In other words, players buy in to a coach not just when he is a good salesman, but when he makes good decisions and has a solid plan for success.
Because ultimately, on championship caliber teams, the players begin to innately understand what works and what doesn’t. Teamwork becomes pre-cognitive or instinctive. A good coach steers them in this direction.
by Blazin' on Oct 21, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is a problem but not causal
First off look at the losses we have LAC, ut x2, Phx, what do 3/4ths of those teams have i common? Some of the best P n’ R offense in the league.
Sloan and the jazz are famous for their P n’ R execution and Steve Nash with anybody is difficult even against the most seasoned D teams, and we are doing it with 2 new rotation players, neither of whom have EVER been lauded for their D presence.
Yes Roy has sometimes looked bad on the perimeter, but he has been flanked by Webster and Miller most of the time. Yes Blake is not that much better but at the least he and Roy knew how to play with each other and where they would be.
Adding to that the P n’ R is one of the simplest plays to learn but most difficult to master on both sides.
Young players and poor defensive PGs against 2 of the best P n’ R teams in the league does not bode well for us either way, especially without our best wing defender being replaced with Webster.
Case in point http://www.nba.com/video/games/blazers/2009/10/18/0010900082_den_por_3play.nba/index.html?ls=gt1hp0010900082
Granted we need to improve on D but once the roster shakes itself out and guys get used to playing with each other it will come together.
I further agree and hope that Webster will get the short end of the stick and that Batum and by default with Roy @ the 3, Rudy will get those minutes. I just do not see how Webster or even Outlaw (even though I am still a bit bullish on him even though no one else is) should cause Rudy or Batum to get less than their 25 and 18 mpg they got last season.
Lastly, I was reading the BDL season preview and Dwyer prefaced the entire thing with
“Portland fans probably won’t like the win total listed at the bottom of the preview”
but I could not agree with him more.
I see us having a lot of trouble in the early season figuring our rotations and learning to play with one another leading to about the same amount of wins if not a few more. I would honestly be shocked if this team won 60+ games, in part because I do not feel that we are vastly superior to every other team and can turn it on and off, but rather we will come up like the Spurs and focus on the more important thing in the playoffs. Use the end of 200i9 to get everything set and blow 2010 out of the water.
We need to start looking at the bigger picture and past this meaningless stuff and start thinking of bigger things. Yes take every game as it comes but do not worry as long as we are playing 70%+ ball in March, April and beyond, that is all that matters
by SpyderRyder on Oct 21, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed on all points except one
the point about the refs being different should affect the Blazers no more than any of their opponents. So the new refs cannot be said to have an adverse impact on t he Blazers’ performance.
Your point about Nathaniel is well taken, however. The team’s deficiencies in fast breaks and p & r defense are patently attributable to Nathaniel McMillan.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine, US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)
by Love on Oct 21, 2009 8:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the refs
It’s true that all of the teams have been subject to the bad refereeing, but it doesn’t follow from that that all teams have been equally affected. The replacement refs call games differently; they change the game. That change will help some teams and hurt others depending on their styles of play and their personnel. It’s possilbe that—for whatever reason—the Blazers are more affected by this than some other teams. We’ll only know once the regular refs are back.
by UDUB on Oct 21, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have read this opinion a few places and tend to agree with it.
In addition to this, I have read and agree with the opinion that replacement referees would tend to benefit less talented, non playoff caliber teams because of, if I remember correctly, a lack of calls going to better players that are often deserving of them- among other things.
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A team that is in synch and functioning well
will be less affected by things like refs than a team that has other things going on.
You can compensate for one thing, two things, maybe three things, but when there’s a perfect storm, it hits you.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 21, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the replacement refs
are an issue, they make the game difficult to play, and difficult to watch. 70+ FT’s in a game is crazy, both with the stop and start nature of free throws, and the extended time they add to the game. I don’t think this effects the Blazers more than other teams, but it does effect them.
The minor injuries have effect this preseason more than the refs though, Nate has not started the same lineup once, some of that is his doing, some of it is injuries. Nate should have had a starting lineup figured out by the 2nd or 3rd preseason game as far as I am concerned, then used every game after that to get the team use to his rotations and playing with each other. Instead a combo of Nate flipflopping on the lineups and injuries have led to no one feeling comfortable with their roles on the team, something that they had last year.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 21, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's something to be said for a team hitting a groove before the season starts.
I don’t see how that can happen without some semblace of rotational consistency (at least during the 1st and maybe even the 4th qtrs).
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
And though I think the introduction of Andre Miller is a factor (it can take time to adjust and build chemistry), it’s not always that way. If I remember correctly, Boston’s Big Three, though new to each other and to Doc Rivers system, crushed their preseason opponents in 2007 and when on to dominate the league from the get-go.
by UDUB on Oct 21, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IS IT THE 27TH YET?!!!!
I’m tired of worrying and ready to dominate!
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I object to this post
I want to PANIC! It gives me an adrenalin rush to PANIC and RANT about how terrible things are!
Nate’s a great rebuilding coach. We’re about to find out if he’s a great contending coach.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 21, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The same can be said about KP as a general manager. Both are new to the job of "contender".
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 21, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And they have well earned the right to grow in that role
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Oct 21, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It isn't like Utah or Phoenix has anything more to play for than we do.
Two points scored by GO’ = "thunderdunk"
by T$ 225 on Oct 21, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What seems so bizarre to me
is that these are, with only a couple exceptions, the same players we had at the end of last year (and last preseason, for that matter) when they looked so good. At the Coliseum game we used the same starting unit, but bore no resemblance to a 54 win team.
All of the differences you mention are true, but just don’t seem to paint the whole picture. Especially since I would characterize some of those differences as GOOD things – getting Martell back, upgrading Sergio with Miller, Oden evolving, Batum and Rudy staying fresh in the off season…
I wish I could say it was just preseason lethargy, but the Blazers have looked horrid in EVERY home preseason game. After 4 games, it feels more and more like trend, rather than an aberration.
Two points scored by GO’ = "thunderdunk"
by T$ 225 on Oct 21, 2009 11:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
that is the blazers fans greatest fear
they looked decent against the Kings, (who will be the worst team in the league this year) but pretty bad against everyone else. Like Coach said, they can’t just flip a switch.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Oct 21, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They need to flip the switch
Brush up on it, tease it… something! It’s time to get into regular season gear.
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A big part of it is shooting
The blazers are—to a large extent—a jump shooting team. They shoot from outside a lot, especially from 3-point range. But if you look at their preseason stats, one thing that jumps out at you is that they have been absolutely horrendous at shooting 3s. They’re ice cold. That should change eventually and when it does, they’ll suddenly look a lot better.
People often don’t appreciate what a big difference long range shooting makes in the course of a game. Every made three pointer significantly alters the momentum of the game and many missed three pointers lead to easy buckets on the other end.
by UDUB on Oct 21, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
another good reason to get Miller meshing NOW
He has a good track record of getting the people around him the easy baskets that, even though we had a good record last year, we haven’t really seen since Porter was dishing.
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
since Porter was dishing
Rod Strickland is the most recent Blazer PG who Miller reminds me of
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 21, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right. That was still a decade and half ago. I'm getting old.
…and I did a little digging. The following comparisons are of Miller’s last year with the Sixers (per 36) and an average of Strickland’s 4 years in Portland (also per 36):
Pts: Miller- 16.2 Strickland- 17.6
Ast: Miller- 6.5 Strickland- 8.8
Reb: Miller- 4.5 Strickland- 4.7
Stl: Miller- 1.3 Strickland- 1.8
TO: Miller- 2.4 Strickland- 3.3
He definitely had his best years as a Blazer… on a deep, talented team. I wouldn’t be totally surprised if Andre had his best year this year- on a similarly deep and talented team.
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Rod couldn't shoot a 3 pointer to save his life, either
but it didn’t matter, Strickland and Sabas had some great chemstry
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 21, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be nice for Oden to have some chemistry with someone
I can’t count how many times I tried to count how many times (chew on that) I screamed at the TV because GWayne was seemingly wide open on the pick and roll and not getting fed by our guards. GO can finish and if someone can find him it’ll be Miller.
by rpresto2 on Oct 22, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You observations about Webster and Outlaw
along with allocating major minutes to the bottom 5 is “spot-on”.
How do you establish and maintain "rhythm " when those players can’t bring-it.
Both Roy and Przy alluded to it in an article in today’s Oregonian.
Looks like the Blazers will have to lose a few games at the start of the season to build it back.
That WILL be the result of Nate’s experimentation.
by spencerbutte on Oct 21, 2009 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nah...
All teams suffer from injuries, inconsistant lineups and lack of chemistry due to new players. These are excuses which might make you feel better about the losses, but its not the losses im worried about… im more worried about:
1- Roy’s play (which might be affected by all of these reasons you stated above.. but then again this is what differenciates a star from a superstar..its the ability to adjust to different situations and perform great
2-McMillian’s coaching (any coach in the league would have a hard time splitting minutes between the Blazers and keeping all of them happy.. other than that, Oden and Miller clearly deserve to start and starting anybody other than them is a waste of our cap space and experience in Miller, and a waste of our talent and not to mention a number 1 pick in Oden. )
3-LaMarcus’s contract (GET IT DONE ALREADY )
We’re headed to a slow start, but last year our go-to guy was drilling 30 footers for the wins at the begining. This year our go-to guy has yet to score 20 pts in a game. I have a feeling Oden will be our go-to guy for the first couple of weeks, to the surprise of the rest of the league.
by jbm01 on Oct 21, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Oden will be the "go-to guy"
But I do think he will be difference maker.
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what i meant by go-to guy
is exactly the role he filled in at the end of the nuggets game… if he steps up when the blazers are in need, we’ll hang in there when roy’s not producing
by jbm01 on Oct 21, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we mean the same thing
I’ve just always thought that a “go-to guy” was who you tried to get the ball to when the game is on the line. I don’t think Greg has the offensive skill set for that yet.
by rpresto2 on Oct 21, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greg should be a consistent offensive option
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Oct 21, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes - the inside out offense should be the staple with either Greg or LMA -
during the 1st and 3rd quarters. The offense changes at the end of the 2nd and 4th when it is Roy time. But Greg forces the double team and opens up the shooters.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Oct 21, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy will be fine
And LaMarcus will be signed this week (I predict). I agree that the decision not to award the starting spots to Miller and Oden is somewhat baffling. They both clearly deserve it and the longer the uncertainty lingers, the harder it will be for guys to build chemistry.
by UDUB on Oct 21, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
roy will be fine..but
the question is: Will he be fine without the ball in his hand all the time ?
by jbm01 on Oct 21, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon has a job this year that will determine the results
He is the guy who has to get in guys faces when they lose concentration and he is the one who has to be the fire to drive them after every lose ball and on every play, even from the bench. It is his team. It has to come from the players now.
I think he has figured this out and I think he will do fine in accomplishing it.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Oct 21, 2009 9:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
5 minutes of invisibility in the locker room
is all I’d need to get a read on these fellas.
It would help if I could watch the games too!
The reported disarray on the court could just be the Blazers digesting some necessary changes that Nate is trying to introduce.
Or it could be drama playing out over the “team first, but we got no minutes for you business.” People respond to that sort of pressure. To a point. And for a while. But it is like running on adrenaline. Not good for the long term. Security and a sense of belonging bring better performance ultimately.
I do think Nate is lousy with the press. Some of the things that come out of his mouth make me think he’s a control freak and lacks any subtle understanding of how to work the ego of a young mega-star. Not an easy assignment by any means. But announcing that Steve Blake was your starter days after signing Andre Miller was pointless and stupid. Nothing to be gained. Plenty to screw up. That’s when you keep quiet.
But the proof’s in the pudding. There have been warning signs with Nate. But the record he’s compiled in Portland remains impressive.
Time will tell.
by Blazin' on Oct 21, 2009 9:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nate's greatest strength
is that he’s got Brandon in his corner. I listened to Roy’s post-game interview after the Utah-slaughter and it was just like listening to McMillian, just from a younger, more upbeat source. As long as #7 is happy, Nate will have the head job. The best coaching upgrade Blazer fans can hope for is at the assistant level, similar to when a popular baseball manager is forced to replace his favorite pitching or hitting coach due to his team underachieving
Tom Thibodeau >>>>>> Dean Deopoulos, Monty Williams, etc
Im just sayin’
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 21, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
makes sense
that Brandon really does have that much sway with this organization.
However, given that it’s a young coach and a young player, it concerns me. Don’t want them to be co-dependent! Cause I don’t think Brandon is past needing some tough love sometimes. Often it is the guys who “do the right thing” that carry secret burdens…
by Blazin' on Oct 21, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















