19 days ago
thomasikehara
51 comments
11 recs |
Email
PrintComments
...
I agree.
-brandonmitchell.org
by brandonmitchell on Oct 31, 2009 8:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Chemistry...
We cant keep shaking up the lineup, Brandon likes Steve and what Brandon likes, Brandon gets. Miller is a very good second team leader because he is used to playing with second tier type players. Look at the teams Miller has been on previously.
by DankBlazer24 on Nov 2, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Makes you wonder if Roy will ever be able to play with a pure and/or ball
dominate PG ever in his career, doesn’t it?
Portland's PG of the Future - MORE John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
by Net Ranger on Nov 6, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Free Bayless
Just wanted to be the first one to say that this year.
by MadBlaze on Oct 31, 2009 8:59 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
One of the biggest mistakes in signing Miller...
Is we delay the opportunity so see what Bayless can do / delay his growth.
I'm calling for 57 wins this season.
by 123_G.O._RipCity on Nov 1, 2009 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would suck to start a PG who can create his own shot while drawing fouls or soak up O boards. then again no 3s from the 1, not that Blake has been hitting them so far…..
by Omgcoffee on Oct 31, 2009 9:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Start...
Trying to lure Adelman back to Portland. McMillan is showing himself to be the weakest link on the team. OF COURSE Miller should be starting and also playing 32+ a game, but McMillan’s lack of marbles causes this team to be stagnant playing Blake instead of Miller is like giving Outlaw more minutes than the starting 3 oh wait…Thats happening too. I don’t like McMillan’s offense its too old for this evolving game, Miller is throwing it back in his face when he stays on the perimeter and shoots threes just like Blake would because that offense does not work and Miller is quitely trying to tell “coach” this. Ahhhhhhhhhhh, what a terrible day to be a Blazer.
by broyandgo on Oct 31, 2009 9:19 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
beginning to think Nate
is a great coach in certain ways, BUT…
I hate his system. Offense and defense. It’s boring, terribly predictable, fairly ineffective defensively, and while the offense may be “efficient”, it’s not one built for deep playoff runs.
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 31, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Nate McMillian = Ernie Kent?
Tom Thibodeau = Mike Dunlap?
(make it so, PA)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Nov 1, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You left out "successful" and "teacher" and that the team has every year exceeded expectations
Every basketball analyst and writer I read last year said a team as young as Portland has to mature before it can go deep into the playoffs. That proved to be the limiting factor in actuallity. The system has not been tested yet in the playoffs (except for its success with the Sonics where is was successful).
Nate appears to be exceptional teacher. He is also a learner. I think I can see his growth through the past several years, some of which came from his Olympic experience. He was asked to coach on that team for his NBA defensive ability and he produced magnificantly. The core talent each realized an improved commitment to defense the following year and several have credited their experience at the Olympics as the reason.
Do you really want Doug Collins to coach the Blazers? The available tired retreads in the coaching ranks might well be instrumental in choking the future development of these young players.
I believe they have a number of years to develop this core together. Unlike Dallas, San Antonio, Boston or LAL this team is not and does not need to be a one-more-year, all-in this year situation. It is said to be built on a foundation of young players growing together. Defense is part of that growth. Until Nic gets back we are limited in perimeter defenders but maybe that is a good thing because it forces everyone else to get better. These are mostly young, mobile athletes who are buying into becoming better defenders. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen did not appear to buy in to defense until 2007, at an advanced stage of their careers. now they form 2/3 of the core of one one of the best defensive teams in the NBA. This year may well prove that it is not the system but the commitment that counts and the experience and drive to dominate. Does the coach effect that? Absolutely. Until it appears that the team is tuning him (and that happens to most coaches eventually) I dispute that he is not the right guy to be where he is.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Nov 2, 2009 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The team was not ready at the start of this season
and may still not be ready …..why? You can probably name several reasons…..but it doesn’t matter….it is the coaches job to have them ready at the start and not try to figure out what they are doing wrong as the season progresses…..You should at least have your team fundamentally sound and it’s been pretty basic fundamentals that have contributed to poor play.(this is always something good teams fall back on when shots aren’t falling or key players are injured)…..It doesn’t matter how good a teacher you are, if it doesn’t get translated out onto the floor and become a way of life, then either your students aren’t listening or your not that good a teacher….
The issue of the stagnant offense is correct and also that it is very predictable…..It is my opinion that if and when a championship comes to Portland, Nate will not be in the Photo……
by WyEast on Nov 3, 2009 5:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No Offense but I totally disagree with broyandgo
First of all Nate is doing a fine job. 54 wins with high schoolers is an amazing thing. He doesnt get enough credit.
Second, Miller has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to prove he should start. Hes shooting 27% and hasnt had a decent game yet. Maybe the first game could be argued as decent, but other than that, you play Blake because he has way more familiarity with everyone else on our team and their style of play. Maybe eventually Miller will run the show in Ptown but UNTIL he gets comfortable in our system, learns our players nuances, learns our playbook and system, you have to go with Blake. Miller is here for 1 thing to pass the ball, so I do agree with you on the shooting 3’s—I dont wanna see that from him either.
The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!
by cavejunctionblazer on Nov 3, 2009 12:36 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
10 more games.
If Blake can’t prove himself as a solid starter in 10 games. START MILLER
by Iwvelez on Oct 31, 2009 10:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
10 GAMES?? Tomorrow at 4:00pm is more like it.
by broyandgo on Oct 31, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I concur
I am going to have to Nate about this
the NBA: Where Pritchslapping happens
by kevin pritchard on Oct 31, 2009 10:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dude I nated last night, It was great.
by tevisthe4th on Oct 31, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh no! You'll go blind!!
To the obvious.
by FlyingOutlaw on Nov 1, 2009 3:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only for a moment?
Sadly then it is over
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Nov 2, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm far from the fire Nate bandwagon.
So far this year though I’ve been far from impressed with his coaching. He’s too stubborn in his plays and rotations. Let Miller and Aldridge/Rudy/Webster run the break. Give Oden the ball more when it works instead of forcing him to grab a rebound if he wants to score. Tell Brandon and Aldridge to be aggressive and win the game from the inside (paint) out. We are relying far too much on midrange jumpers so far while other teams beat us inside and get our bigs in trouble.
He’s just far too stubborn sometimes, but I’m willing to be a bit more patient. And yes, start Miller. If Blakes going to play bad anyways let Miller and Roy get used to each other during this season starting slump. This is going to be an interesting year that says a lot about the future of the team, lets make it look bright.
And on that note time to go back to celebrating the Ducks win!
by Bskey on Nov 1, 2009 12:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
DNP - CD Miller
Not really, but seriously starting him would be a bad idea.
I'm calling for 57 wins this season.
by 123_G.O._RipCity on Nov 1, 2009 2:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you want GO...
Starting Miller is the exact RIGHT idea… Unfortunately, with Greg starting and Dre not, we’re not seeing the pick and roll…
Course, I want Rudy on the court too…
Hmm… so this is my new fave starting lineup (while Nic is out): Miller, Rudy, Roy, LMA, Oden.
by Visionary2 on Nov 1, 2009 8:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Start Miller, Rex off the bench, trade Blake.
3.5 ppg. for Blake after 3 games…
Why is he playing again?
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Nov 1, 2009 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Agree 100%.
Maybe Nate thought giving Blake the nod would fill him with confidence, but the opposite has happened—Blake looks totally out-of-sorts on the court, and getting benched early and often will only make things worse for him. Meanwhile Miller has looked far from stellar, but entirely competent, and I would wager giving him the starting nod might add a little more spring to his step. And Bayless in that second unit? Let’s give it a look see. Buh-Bye Blakey.
the poster formerly known as sergioftw, in recovery
by NoLook on Nov 1, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here are a couple reasons not to be concerned with Miller.
- He always starts slow. I don’t know why, but it’s what he does.
- He’s learning a new system.
- He’s coming off the bench for the first time in ten years. That might take some getting used to.
Blake on the other hand…
- Came off a “career” season at 28. Probably more of an outlier than any real indication of future performance. Blake will almost certainly dip back down closer to his mediocre past. I said the same thing about James Jones. When an older guy has a stellar season there’s a very good chance it was a fluke. Not always, but it’s usually the case.
by Nick Van Excellent on Nov 1, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Another reason why that expiring contract
has to be looking like good trade bait to KP…
by Visionary2 on Nov 1, 2009 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's proven himself over a longer period of time than 3 games
Many players slump for three games here and there, and are otherwise consistent.
Rushing to judgment can either make you look prophetic or nuts.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Nov 2, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That said, I'd like to see what Bayless has
as he was hyped as much as Oden this preseason and I couldn’t see it.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Nov 2, 2009 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
MILLER TIME!
Nate needs to make up his damn mind. Miller is obviesly not happy and rightfully so. It’s almost a insult.
by blazermania92983 on Nov 1, 2009 10:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Really, he hasn't even outshown Blake this season
He’s been incredibly disappointing. If you can’t dominate the teams 2nd string, why should you start.
He’s better than Blake, but they’ve both sucked enough this year that the question of who starts hasn’t been a factor yet. It may be why Miller’s playing without passion, but that would just show he’s afraid of competition and prove we shouldn’t have signed him.
For the record, I like Miller and I liked the signing. I’m just saying that given the evidence we have for this season, the question of him starting or not isn’t a top concern, as both our PGs have sucked mightily (Blake’s offensive game last night excluded).
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Nov 2, 2009 9:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Shhh - they don't want to hear facts!
The team is one game better than last year (1-3) at this time. They are integrating two new starters already and a revamped second unit. Miller is playing more minutes than Blake. And we simply need to be patient with the team, the coach and both point guards. If Roy shoots well this team can beat anyone. When he doesn’t even the poor teams can win. That is not on Blake or the lack of Miller, imo. He is going to be fine. When Brandon is on his complete game every other player becomes complimentary. As I see it, Blake is a shooter and Andre is a scorer. There is need for both and both can help Greg in different ways.
"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster
by lee3022 on Nov 2, 2009 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i think coming off the bench is a bigger ajustment than people realize.
when you start for 10 years, you may struggle off the bench. Not everyone is travis outlaw
bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo, blake
START MILLER
by thomasikehara on Nov 2, 2009 1:13 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Nice.
Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
by FiveOhThree-RipCity!! on Nov 2, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Miller has done little except take the ball to the basket,
which is good, but more valuable when Roy is off the floor (i.e. in a reserve role). He hasn’t run the offense well and hasn’t shot well. He had 2 assists and 0 assists in the last two games. Where are the pick and roles, the lob passes, and the fast breaks he was supposed to provide to “make everyone better”? When he has played at the end of games he hasn’t contributed. in Houston he missed an 18-ft shot and committed an obvious offensive foul trying to force the ball to the basket while Brooks hit a 3 and a 2 to stretch the lead from 2 to 11 and put the game away.
But Miller’s biggest problem has been his defense. He plays worse defense than the mediocre Blake. His trademark so far has been to lose his man and then to jump in the air and sail past him as he fakes or shoots. It’s the “Flying None” defense. With that defense he will be lucky to finish games, let alone start games. He finished the OKC game on the bench for the last t5 minutes.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 2, 2009 1:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Blake starts...
just to boost his value as a (starting PG) in a trade at the beginning of this season? An early trade leaving Miller as PG1 and Bayless finally gets his chance to handle the second team. I’d like to think that Bayless is a better athlete and player than Sergio or Blake, then why didn’t/doesn’t he play.
Give the kid a chance… he’s rotting on the bench!
by The realist on Nov 2, 2009 11:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wrong
In the three games I’ve watched, Miller has looked awful playing with Brandon. He looks far better with the second unit. Steve Blake hasn’t played great, but he helped us win 54 games last year, and he compliments Brandon’s game much better than Andre. You don’t just take Steve’s job away after a 54 win season. People need to calm down and let the team get going.
"I been ridin' the midnight train, got ice water in my veins." -Bob Dylan
"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice
by koyote on Nov 3, 2009 7:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
START MILLER!!!
It’s what he wants and rightfully deserves it over blake. For those who say it’s not who starts but who finishes… finish with him to of course
by blazermania92983 on Nov 4, 2009 7:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Miller should be starting. Look at the stretches he’s played in, that’s when the Blazers have been going on runs.
portlandmenonsports.blogspot.com
by Derek @Portland Men on Sports on Nov 6, 2009 9:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nate needs to quit babying the players
wahhh I want minutes… well this isnt first grade. There are grown men being paid big money. Not like they get less money for not playing. We pay them to be able to use them in a way thats best for the team.
by blazermania92983 on Nov 4, 2009 7:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Start Miller or trade him
What’s the point of signing a big contract free agent if you’re going to bring him off the bench and give him limited minutes? Miller is a valuable player, and maybe another team could value him more than us.
To be honest I really think we should start Miller and just let him and Roy figure it out as the season goes on. I know they don’t play well together right now, but they are both very intelligent and talented players who want to win. The team probably wouldn’t look less fluid or organized than it does now with Blake starting.
by BangDownLow on Nov 6, 2009 9:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Why do we need Blake's 3-shooting anyway? We've got Rudy and Webby, BRoy and Outlaw
I’m so ready to see Blake grab some bench. Start Miller, Nate.
"I didn't know I was going to score 52 so I didn't think to Tivo it or nothin." -B Roy
by Dodoh on Nov 6, 2009 4:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Miller started, and we killed the Spurs.
’Nuff said.
by sabonis11 on Nov 7, 2009 11:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
