Game 12 Recap: Blazers 95, Hawks 99
by Ben Golliver on Nov 16, 2009 9:09 PM PST
in News
316 comments
Call the police! Somebody broke into Steve Blake's kitchen and stole all his daggers!
Unfortunately for the Portland Trail Blazers, that somebody was Atlanta Hawks guard Joe Johnson, who outshot both Blake and Brandon Roy down the stretch, guiding the Hawks to a second half comeback and eventual overtime victory over Portland 99-95.
Despite being the only loss of the team's current five game road trip, tonight's game was by far the trip's most entertaining. The cold shooting, slow starts and weak opponents that made some of the games earlier this week nearly unwatchable were replaced by a fast start, an insanely hot first quarter and a quality opponent that refused to lay down in front of their empty arena home crowd. Good times.
The Blazers played a marvelous first 12 minutes on offense and needed to, as the Hawks pounded the ball inside -- scoring their first 14 points of the game in the paint, I believe -- with great success. The Blazers countered by establishing Greg Oden (11 points, 7 rebounds) and LaMarcus Aldridge (18 points, 9 rebounds) early and then hitting the open shots that resulted when Atlanta was forced to help. The first 12 period was capped off by a buzzer-beating 3 from Rudy Fernandez (more... much more... on that later).
Things really started clicking early in the second quarter, when the Blake/Fernandez/Webster/Aldridge/Przybilla lineup pushed the Blazers lead to double digits. The Hawks pulled the game closer when the Blazers subbed Andre Miller and Juwan Howard into the game but Miller soon threatened to blow the game wide open, making consecutive open jumpers, stealing a pass and taking it the distance for a layup and then making a sweet backdoor feed to Brandon Roy, who found Juwan Howard for an easy layup. The Blazers lead was again in double digits and the game seemed firmly in control; the Blazers switched to a zone defense look and the Hawks couldn't hit their perimeter shots or convert on their offensive rebounds.
Things changed in the second half, as Atlanta looked to exploit the Joe Johnson and Andre Miller mismatch, pounding Johnson in the post and getting him off to a quick second half start. The lead shrunk to 50-47. But just when you started to get the feeling the roadtrip was catching up with the Blazers, Miller again provided a spark, scoring four straight and then assisting on a Blake 3 pointer, pushing the lead back to double digits once again.
With the Blazers leading 61-49 halfway in the third quarter, this game was right there for the Blazers taking. The Hawks settled for four jumpers in a row -- missing on all of them -- yet the Blazers simply couldn't blow it open. A few sloppy turnovers, a wide open three missed by Steve Blake, and then some more careless turnovers in the quarter's final minutes left Atlanta within striking distance entering the fourth.
That's when the Blazers offense started to stall, with Martell Webster missing a jumper, throwing up a wild shot in traffic and then forcing a pass that was deflected out of bounds (eventually resulting in a hopeless attempt to beat the shot clock buzzer). The Hawks, finally ready to capitalize on the Blazers' evident fatigue, pounded the ball to Al Horford (15 points, 10 rebounds), Josh Smith (20 points, 16 rebounds) and, of course, Joe Johnson (35 pounds, 9 rebounds), their comeback complete when a Johnson 3 pointer tied the game at 72-72 with six minutes left in the fourth quarter.
The final six minutes were played to a draw, and thus overtime, thanks to a second buzzer-beating 3 pointer from Rudy Fernandez. On the final play of regulation, Rudy inbounded the ball on the side to Greg Oden and then smartly received a return pass on the move near the top of the key, his long step-back jumper forcing overtime.
That 3 was the emotional high point for the Blazers and it would also mark the moment they really, truly ran out of gas. With Brandon Roy doubled over with his hands on his knees, having played nearly 43 minutes total, Joe Johnson took over in overtime, driving the ball repeatedly and getting virtually any shot he wanted. He made a layup, he made a pull-up, and the Blazers were staggering. Al Horford added a bucket for good measure and the Hawks dominated overtime, the final score of 99-95 looking closer than it actual was thanks to yet another buzzer-beating 3 pointer from Rudy Fernandez.
A tough, exhausting loss but certainly a loss Nate McMillan can live with.
Individual Observations
Steve Blake had four opportunities to seriously swing the momentum and result of this game and, unfortunately and uncharacteristically, he was 0-4 in those opportunities. With an 11 point lead in the third quarter, Blake sized up and missed a wide open three that would have given the Blazers serious momentum. With 1:36 left in the fourth quarter, Blake missed a three with the Blazers down 81-80. Roughly 34 seconds later, the score the same, he did exactly the same thing from the same spot. Down 91-87 in overtime, absolutely needing a basket, Blake misfired on a short baseline jumper. On the night, he shot 3-11 for 8 points but chipped in an awesome 11 assists against just 2 turnovers. One of those turnovers, however, came with less than a minute to play in overtime, the Blazers down 4, as he decided to honor the legacy of Jarrett Jack by stepping on the sideline while holding the basketball.
All of that aside, some of Blake's assists were of the tantalizing variety, including multiple lobs to Blazers big men and a nice alleyoop to Martell Webster.
Brandon Roy finished with 17 points, 9 rebounds, 4 assists and, as mentioned above, simply ran out of gas in overtime. He did hit a number of big time baskets in the end of the fourth quarter and had an incredibly heady offensive rebound after Greg Oden missed 2 free throws in the final minute of the fourth quarter. He immediately converted the rebound into two points with a basket going to the rim. Add another chapter to the Roy/Johnson rivalry, with Johnson the victor this time around.
LaMarcus Aldridge did a nice job of showing more than just the fadeaway jumper, giving as well as he was taking from Josh Smith, who is a physical monster. Aldridge played 45 minutes -- the most of anyone on the team -- and was called in quickly a few times when Nate McMillan started feeling antsy with Juwan Howard in the game. It was one of the more physical games we've seen from Aldridge overall this season. An inspired Smith won their matchup in the end thanks to his all-over-the-place game-changing defense, but it was close.
Andre Miller gives and Andre Miller takes away. He keyed some runs with smart plays and gave away points with some dumb ones and his inability to check Joe Johnson at times. 14 points on 4-10, 3 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, 3 turnovers. Just up and down, up and down. Blake/Roy/Fernandez ended up playing most of the minutes that really mattered for that reason.
Greg Oden got off to a hot start, did a very nice job of avoiding fouls in the first half, and then got dinged with some questionable calls (one in particular that had the Blazers bench heated) down the stretch.
When the Blazers switched to zone, the Hawks succeeded in picking it apart pretty well in the second half, even getting some easy buckets close to the rim due to slow rotations and the like. Oden did a nice job on the boards but in the second half, when a few defensive rebounds would have saved the team's legs and shortened the game, the Hawks beat the Blazers to the ball time and again. Of course this doesn't fall solely to Oden (indeed, it might be more fair to blame the guards for not boxing out religiously) but one or two extra boards would have made the difference. Rebounding out of a zone can be incredibly difficult.
One other minor Oden note: his point guards need to do a much better job coming to him when he inbounds the ball and when he is looking to outlet. Multiple times Oden was standing there looking for someone (anyone!) to get the ball to and at one point he actually dribbled to halfcourt by himself. Come on, guards. Make his life easy.
Hopefully, the two missed free throws in the last minute of the fourth quarter aren't eating his soul right now.
Rudy Fernandez finally really, truly, showed up for a game this season, knocking in 4-6 three pointers, hitting a beautiful tear drop in traffic, and even nailing the first midrange jumper he's made since 1947. He was active defensively with 4 steals but also a little careless with the ball (3 turnovers). Overall, you love his 19 points in the wake of Travis Outlaw's injury and you absolutely love his energy at the end of the road trip. On defense, the Blazers shifted to the zone with him in the game and he more or less did his part.
Martell Webster showed why he isn't starting, looking inept on the offensive end during the fourth quarter as described above. His alleyoop dunk in transition was vicious, though. He looked lost at times on defense and it's amazing he played just 11 minutes in a 52 minute game. Tonight, Nate McMillan rode Rudy's hot hand instead. Hopefully tonight serves as another wakeup call for Webster to bring the consistency and focus he showed in "Oklahoma City."
Joel Przybilla had a quiet night. Too quiet. he had just 3 rebounds against an Atlanta team that outrebounded the Blazers 47-37. He did have a nice block but didn't attempt a field goal. This is Greg Oden's team now.
Juwan Howard played seven minutes and even that felt like 3 or 4 too many. He had a great run-out dunk that earned an and-one but he gave it back to Josh Smith on the other end almost immediately. With Travis Outlaw injured, Howard has to play but it's unclear how long the Blazers can manage with him in games against quality competition and physical front lines.
Jerryd Bayless came in briefly to spell the point guards and to help slow down Hawks rookie backup Jeff Teague. He drew a foul right before halftime and made a free throw. That was about it.
Final Thoughts
The road trip ends at 4-1. A very impressive trip to say the least.
There were some questionable calls by the referees down the stretch but, after watching the game a second time, they absolutely did not decide the game. Feel free to disagree with that; I'm sure many of you will.
In case you were wondering, I subbed in on the recap for Dave tonight because he was called in by the team's medical staff to rub ointment on Travis Outlaw's foot. Updates to come, surely.
-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
0 recs |
316 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
LAWL
In case you were wondering, I subbed in on the recap for Dave tonight because he was called in by the team’s medical staff to rub ointment on Travis Outlaw’s foot. Updates to come, surely.
Trade for Luis Amundson!!Do it KP!!
I didn't notice this was Ben instead of Dave until the end.
What does that mean?
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
3's a crowd.
it did seem strange though at the begining so maybe I noticed but not enough to make me go confirm my suspicion and I was still mildly suprised when I got to the end.
The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.
Tough loss
but a lot of us were prepared to be blown out. The Blazers showed some heart out there even if they couldn’t get the job done.
the refs
While it’s certainly true that the Blazers had many opportunities to win despite the atrocious officiating, that doesn’t diminish the atrocious officiating down the stretch of that game. To my mind the worst calls were:
1) missing the obvious over-and-back by Atlanta near the end of regulation. That was obvious and had it been called, the Blazers would have won.
2) Putting Oden on the line when Fernandez was clearly the person who was fouled. Luckily, Roy got the rebound so this bonehead call didn’t end up costing us.
3) There were at least two completely phantom foul calls on Oden toward the end. They were pure reputational fouls that would not have been called on anyone else at that point in the game.
I forgive them for the Blake stepping on the sideline call. That was a close one.
www.blazerguy.com
by Blazer Guy on Nov 16, 2009 9:22 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
As you said, the refs didn't cost us the game
1) Roy deflected that ball. Not an over-and-back
2) Oden was hit on the head. He was fouled harder than Rudy.
3) I am not sure what calls you refer to, but I didn’t see any bad foul calls that cost us.
And yes, Blake was out of bounds.
Sloppy play and dumb turnovers cost us tonight.
rudy was fouled on that play - not Oden (hint - the guy used as a stepladder shoots the FTs)
the goal tending not called for Rudy’s 3 was not a mirage
Sloppy play (which includes dumb turnovers), missed shots and a bad zone defense (no rebounding and open J’s for JJ) cost the Blazers the game.
That doesn’t absolve the refs for some truly hideous calls that affected the outcome of the game.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Clearly correct
Even if roy had deflected it, possession was re-established before crossing the half court line. Oden being hit harder doesn’t matter, the play was over when he climbed Rudy. It was a foul, the clock should be stopped. If they want to call another foul after the clock is stopped that is questionable, but the initial foul was on rudy. He just happened to foul Oden after the event. Goal tending on the three. A bad call against Oden when the two players were tied up. It was very poor officiating. I didn’t have high enough definition to see if blake was out of bounds. The front of the shoe was in, the back was up, where the rubber bent around the ball of the foot would be the determining factor. I couldn’t tell for sure on slow motion, and there is no way the ref could have seen conclusively unless he is an android. If he’s an android, he is the most pathetic and ugly android I’ve ever seen. Yes it would be the first, but it would still be a disappointment.
Even if roy did touch the ball it should have been a turn over
because the player who retreived the ball caught it before the half line but his momentum carried the ball halfway over the line. That should have been our ball. And rudy should have shot the free throws but that ended up not mattering.
Speaking of rudy shooting, He has shown way more ice in his veins than any other person on our team other than Roy and maybe outlaw. He should be getting those open looks that blake was getting.
And Ben, while rudy hasnt come to play as we remember him from last year he has done small things well in most games that have helped us win. But In our most important games so far this season (tonight and vs the nuggets) He has played awesome and I remember his midrange jumper was on against the nugs as well.
If this were NBA Jam rudy would have a clutch factor of 9. He plays up to the big games. see gold medal game USA vs Spain.
by tevisthe4th on Nov 16, 2009 11:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, the refs DID cost the Blazers the game.
Recall: Rudy Fernandez tips a loose ball off a Hawks miss out of the grasp of Zaza Pachulia, then taking the rebound for himself. Instead, the refs decided to call a foul on Rudy. Furthermore, the refs decided, eventhough Zaza never actually had POSSESSION of the rebound, had he taken possession, it was going to be a catch ’n shoot. Zaza is awarded 2 free throws. He makes both.
Josh Smith travels, uncalled, leads to a Hawks bucket (2 or 3 I cannot recall).
That’s 4 (possibly) 5 points the Hawks never should have had.
Refs bad but not the cause for the loss
The Blazers should have been up 20 in the third quarter and not left it in anybody’s hands but their own. Still, I was expecting a let down and was happy to see them power through even though they didn’t have enough to win it. A couple more defensive boards down the stretch could have sealed it too.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I don't like
when people say, well the Blazers shoulda done this, blah blah.
The Hawks missed plenty of shots too. They missed more open buckets than Steve Blake. They COULD have been leading the entire game. But they weren’t. They didn’t make their baskets, just like the Blazers didn’t make some shots the COULD have. Or didn’t execute some passes like they COULD have.
It came down to a non-call CLEAR travel on Smith at midcourt (the one where Rudy COULD HAVE tried to draw a charge as well), and it came down to a Rudy tipped rebound that turned into two Zaza Pachulia made free throws.
Responsibility
To me you take responsibility for what you can control and then you don’t give the refs an opportunity to screw the game for you. Why live life blaming others for your shortcomings.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
the blazers probably do
take responsibility for the fact that they missed shots, made careless turnovers, dropped rebounds.
the referees however, ruined that game’s outcome.
I don't like
when people say, well the Blazers shoulda done this, blah blah.
The Hawks missed plenty of shots too. They missed more open buckets than Steve Blake. They COULD have been leading the entire game. But they weren’t. They didn’t make their baskets, just like the Blazers didn’t make some shots the COULD have. Or didn’t execute some passes like they COULD have.
It came down to a non-call CLEAR travel on Smith at midcourt (the one where Rudy COULD HAVE tried to draw a charge as well), and it came down to a Rudy tipped rebound that turned into two Zaza Pachulia made free throws.
Turnovers, turnovers, turnovers.
10-12 turnovers in the 3rd quarter and the start of the 4th spelled our doom. We had a chance to not only win, but blow it open, but blew it instead.
My biggest disappointment in this game was absolutely Brandon Roy. Tired Schmired. He’s our best player and should be taking it to the other team all game long. He woke up a little in the 4th, but we needed him to wake up in the 3rd when we were letting them back in. Instead he played passive basketball and committed several costly errors. If he had shot more and passed less, I think we would have won. I know he scored big a couple times earlier in the year, but he just does not look like last year’s Brandon right now. he often gets lost in the game, going several minutes without a significant touch. I hope he figures this out soon, because tougher teams than Minny and Memphis await.
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
You are totally right about blowing our chance to put the clamps down on them.
You could see how it was gonna play out.
Yeah we lost this game in part to Roy passing up some shots but I think he is thinking long term when he does that. He doesnt have a problem scoring ever. But he knows his scoring alone wont take this team past the first round. He is trying to build up his team so that they can help him out when the games really matter, in the playoffs. We are gonna get there the question is what can we do when we do.
by tevisthe4th on Nov 16, 2009 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
When you've played 40 + minutes in an NBA game or carried your team (any team)
on your back, then perhaps you may be qualified to sit in judgement of someone like Roy.
I’m sure that day in and day out you give optimum performance at your job (or if you are still in school, I’m sure you have never failed a test and turn in only the highest quality papers and error free homework).
It’s one thing to offer your opinion that Brandon should have shot more. But to criticize the guy for being tired is plain bs.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 17, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
These are NBA players!
They should be able to run all day and night and not get ‘tired’. LMA played more then B-Roy and he wasn’t ‘tired’. I am ‘tired’ of hearing how B-Roy gets ‘tired’. That is plain BS..
"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman
My point was
Why is Brandon always singled out as the one getting tired? Rarely are other guys mentioned but Brandon seems to get mentioned consistently throughout the season. He got all of 12 minutes more playing time than LMA this road trip which isn’t much. And how many timeouts were taken in overtime? It’s not like they were running the whole time. Between TOs and FTs, there seemed to be plenty of time to catch your wind.
"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman
I know this sounds like something I'm not suppose to say but...
…have you ever played that level of Basketball?.. I haven’t that’s for sure but I did play for years at a much lower level and it’s easy to lose your legs. I know, I know they’re professionals and should be capable of playing 48 min per game 4 days a week against the elite athletes of the NBA… but they are human.
Comparing Roy to LMA makes sense until you take into consideration that Roy has been playing out of position but if bfan would have made the same accusation of LMA as he did to Roy it would have elicited the same response.
We can’t have it both ways. On one hand you have people saying we’ll never win a playoff series with an isolation, one dimensional offense and on the other you have a post like bfan’s accusing roy of not shooting enough and saying tired shmired… (Please remember Brandon didn’t use that excuse…a write did)
Playing out of position has nothing to do with it...
If anything, he has had the ball in his hands less and is thus exerting less effort on the offensive end. And the argument that he is also defending out of position fails because he was still guarding Joe Johnson plenty.
But the bigger point is the fact that Roy has repeatedly been accused (by fans, mostly) of being tired. Disproportionately more than anyone else on this team. Heck, even the Mikes talk about Roy getting tired but not really anyone else very often. Sometimes they mention the team as a whole (during road trips) but rarely anyone else other than Roy is singled out. So is there a kernel of truth to it or is this just an excuse fabricated by the fans (and the Mikes) that is repeated over and over again?
Personally, I don’t believe he is getting tired. You don’t hear about James/Bryant/Wade or any other top tier players who carry their teams getting tired so why should Roy be getting any more tired? As you mentioned, he doesn’t use it as an excuse. BTW, he is ranked 24th in minutes/game (36.7) and has logged more total minutes (440) than anyone else due to the number of games played (12).
"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman
Maybe the Glass is Half Full...
Isn’t it possible that Brandon has matured to the point , and knows his body well enough, that he is simply still playing himself into shape. Many veterans (think Andre Miller) are savvy enough to rest their bodies over the off season and use the start of the regular season to play themselves into shape.
I prefer to hope that this is the case and that because of it Brandon will be fresh and strong going into the playoffs. After all aren’t we to the point where just getting there isn’t enough?
At any rate it seems like people are in a cycle of questioning Brandon. If he shoots too much he’s selfish and our offense in predictable. If he doesn’t shoot enough he is tired and going at half speed. I guess when you are a 2 time All Star you get put under the microscope… that reminds me I gotta go vote for the All Star team… again!
GO BLAZERS!!!
So ...
If you don’t run a lot in the NBA you can’t criticize a player for being tired?
By that logic none of us can comment on anything any NBA player does—good or bad—because we haven’t done it.
I disagree with that logic. These guys get paid millions of dollars to be ready to do whatever it takes to win the game. If they aren’t ready, then I am disappointed. Sorry if my frustration doesn’t compute with your established rules of critical thinking.
BTW, I don’t expect Brandon to do everything right all the time. In this particular case, though, he could have done more, and that is what is frustrating for me.
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
First off, how much NBA players get paid has no real bearing on the issue of performance.
Their pay is based on scarcity. The fact that only a limited number of people can do what they do. Whether they are earning league minimum or making 8 figure numbers, the level of effort should be the same. For that matter, if someone is paying you $10 an hour to dig a ditch, you should be doing the best job of ditch digging that you can. And if you are, I’ll guarantee you would get pissed off if some jackass came along and told you you weren’t doing it right or should have gotten at least another 20 ft dug by now.
Your criticism of Roy flys in the face of facts as we know them. By all accounts, Brandon takes his profession and his role of team leader very seriously. He is also reported to be one of the hardest working Blazers. In otherwords, he has earned his reputation. What have you or any of the other critics here done to earn a reputation as a knowledgable observer of the NBA?
When was the last time you had to push through fatigue? When you told your legs to move and it seems like seconds before they get the message and respond? When all you wanted to do was find a place to lay down and close your eyes? The easiest thing in the world to do is to criticize others. You don’t even have to know a thing about what you are criticizing either, that’s how easy it is. Producing an all-star level performance night in and night out in the NBA might be just a teensy weensy bit higher on the difficulty scale.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 18, 2009 7:16 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
which do you prefer?
One game BRoy is shooting too much and not looking for his teammates, another game he’s not shooting enough and passes too much. He just can’t please everyone.
I would prefer ...
that Roy start to assert himself earlier when it becomes apparent that his team about to piss the game away.
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
I am not complaining, but think the
asst coaches need to help Nate better manage the minutes on such a road trip. Nobody should be out of gas, especially Roy, on a road trip’s last game. Could they have played Rudy another 2-4 minutes per game, each game? Probably. Would it have made any difference. Quite possibly just enough tonight.
"I won't back down." -- Tom Petty
"You have to know the past to understand the present." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
very disappointing loss
Roy’s got to be better. Oden and LA have to rebound more. Too many sloppy turnovers. Kudos to the Blazers for playing hard in a game they easily could have mailed in. Makes it a tough loss though as it was right there to be had.
by jksnake99 on Nov 16, 2009 9:32 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
oden and LMA werent the problem
as much as the 4 combined boards from howard and joel imo
cash rules everything around me CREAM get tha money dolla dolla bill yaaaaallll
by staceyaugmon4HOF on Nov 16, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
I'm just glad you included Oden
LA tends to take the heat for the lack of rebounding and rightfully so at times. Both seemed to have trouble getting to the ball, but the zone defense may have had something to do with that. They need to find guys to body up and then go hard after the ball if they want to keep using that zone.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Nov 16, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's time to take the gloves off now
I like Blake, but it’s time for him to start coming off the bench now.
Roy and Miller are fairly comfortable with one another on the floor now and we need to start playing a SF again in the lineup (Marty, that would be you).
I liked the 3-guard lineup because it was exciting to watch the first couple times. The 5-1 record on the 3-guard lineup proves it has served it’s purpose.
Now let’s take the next step.
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Nov 16, 2009 9:36 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I know Miller was having just an okay game but so was Brandon.
So why did Blake play the entire over time period plus the end of the game and Miller rode the pine?
Blake was doing a lot of things well
His shot was off and my guess is Nate thought he would eventually hit a couple.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
That said...
I was surprised to see Miller sitting. I thought we signed him to take some of the pressure off of Roy being the only creator of the offense??
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Martell is not playing well at all
I can see an argument for Rudy starting but Webster has been a dissappointment so far. Maybe you could argue that with more minutes he will break through but it sure doesn’t look like it right now. I like Webster but he has not earned a starting role.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
He'll break out of it
He just needs to get a better chance.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
I would love to see him do something good...
…break out of his funk and get on a roll. I have always liked him but he can’t just keep getting free passes to get a bunch of minutes. It may just take him some time to get back in the flow of an NBA season. It has to be tough to miss a year and then try to get it going again.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
abysmal intimates playing time
hard for some players to look good with limited time – and Webster’s play good or bad has little or no impact on his playing time.
His reduction in playing time follows excellent contributions, and his reduction in effectiveness directly correlates to his inexcusable lack of playing time.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
playing well didn't give McMillan reason to keep him on the court, either
the better Webster played, the more irrelevant McMillan made him. This one is on the coach.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 11:41 PM PST up reply actions
Not seeing this...
He started off well and hasn’t produced. He gets his shot in the rotation and doesn’t do anything with it. I hope he steps up and forces Nate to keep him on the court.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
You have made this statement several times. I disagree
Martell’s contribution is primarily at the defensive end: his defensive rating is 95 vs. Blake’s rating of 103.
Even on offense, Martell is struggling, but no more so than Blake. Martell’s PER is 13.2 to Blake’s 8.9.
You seem to be making a very subjective statements w/o much to back it up.
by upper left corner on Nov 17, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Subjective statements without backup is the ...
… bread and butter for a lot of people here.
hakkaa päälle !
You expect some stat from me
I don’t see them as the end of the story. Blake is basically missing shots that over the course of the season he will make again. Martell especially last night is all over the place. One game he plays well and one game he looks like he doesn’t know what is going on.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Nov 17, 2009 12:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Juwan Howard does good chest bumps
Seriously awesome.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
FYI Comcast has discount tix to some of our upcoming home games
Including Weds. More info at http://www.comcastnw.com/trailblazers
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Write it down
Blazers will never be a championship team as long as Steve Blake plays a prominent role. He may be the best we’ve got in Nate’s eyes, but unless we find someone better we won’t be going too far.
"Avery Johnson will never win a ring." --Damon Stoudamire in 1998
Johnson’s Spurs won the NBA championship the following year.
by MiledAnimal on Nov 17, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
we wouldve won with outlaw
cash rules everything around me CREAM get tha money dolla dolla bill yaaaaallll
by staceyaugmon4HOF on Nov 16, 2009 10:06 PM PST reply actions
In that type of game
He probably just would have fired up more ridiculous shots.
It wasn’t his kind of game.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
true
but there were stretches of stagnent offense where they needed someone to step up and hit a shot, espescially late, and he wouldve been nice to have. plus even when it isnt his type of game id rather have him out there then juwan howard or a passive, out of sync looking martell webster
cash rules everything around me CREAM get tha money dolla dolla bill yaaaaallll
by staceyaugmon4HOF on Nov 16, 2009 10:19 PM PST up reply actions
Blake sucks
I think we have a really shot memory as a Blazers fans, remember all the dumb plays that Blake made against the Rockets? Now we have Miller on the team, yet we have to sit and live through horrible shooting nights from this guy and Nate insists on playing him major minutes.
How could anyone forget with BE posters reminding us every third post?
Can we move on from last year’s playoff loss? Blake was not the reason the Blazers lost that series. It takes 15 to make 16 but apparently only one to blow the season.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Nov 16, 2009 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Yes
Blake is awful this year. He should not be getting these minutes, and Nate needs to get over this 2-PG thing. Creates mismatches for the other team right away — at least with teams like Atlanta.
Perspective
Those mismatches really cost us in the first quarter, didn’t they?
Fact #1: We just played a road game at the team with the best record in the NBA.
Fact #2: We were tired, it was our fifth road game in seven nights.
Fact #3: This horribly mismatched lineup took them to overtime.
Fact #4: Blake had 11 assists and only two turnovers. That is not awful. No one said Miller was awful when he had a bad shooting night and a lot of assists a few games back.
Facts about the opponent:
1. They have won five straight.
2. They are undefeated at home.
3. Their only losses are at the L@kers and at Charlotte after a cross country flight on their fourth road game in six nights, dealing with fatigue and jet lag.
4. When our division rivals, Denver, played at Atlanta, the Hawks put a 25 point pasting on them.
5. They beat Boston by 11 in Boston when the Celtics were rested, on only their second game in six nights.
We lost this game to a very strong team on a hot streak in their building for one reason — we got worn down. We owned them for more than half the game, but fatigue caught up to us. That is life on the road in the NBA.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
by jscot on Nov 17, 2009 12:38 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Widen the perspective
Why is Blake the scape goat?? How has he been any different than last year? Shooting. What is the one thing we can be reasonably sure will improve with him as the season progresses? Shooting.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I would have liked to have seen Miller on the block against Bibby
I also thought we signed Miller to be out there in that situation so I kind of agree. But I think Nate thought he would get at least one of those threes from Blake and he wanted to spread the floor and let Roy go. He relied on what worked last year and I can’t blame him for that.
What I keep seeing in the offense when Miller is out there with Roy is that the defense packs it in and gives Miller the outside shot. I am not ready to call the signing a bad one this early in the season but there are some things that are problematic with having Miller out there running the same sets as Blake, namely he doesn’t hit that outside shot. Nate still needs to figure out how to use Miller and Roy together.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
A good point
Nate still needs to figure out how to use Miller and Roy together.
My answer to that would be use Rudy as the SG with Miller at the 1 and Roy at the 3, especially in the endgame. Martell could be in the mix as well once his shot gets right. It’s not a Blake bashing thing, I but think the things the other three options (Miller, Rudy, Martell) bring to the table are of more value, used properly than Blake’s shooting unless he’s having a great night.
I hate Comcast
Card carrying member of Team Bayless
Start Rudy
by blazeraddict on Nov 17, 2009 7:00 AM PST up reply actions
Miller hasn't been finishing games on the bench until this one
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
But do you really want Miller in there when the blazers are spreading the floor for Roy iso's?
And to go a step further, do you want to take the ball out of the hands of Roy with 3 minutes left in a tight game and put it into Millers? To me, close, late game situations come down to two options, 1) let Miller run the offense, 2) let Roy run the offense. Playing Miller late in games means you had better go with option #1, cause god knows the D won’t respect him as a shooter. If you want to go with option #2 and put the ball in Roy’s hands, the smart move is to put shooters in each corner to spread that D and provide Roy with his safety outlet should the defense collapse.
I was happy to see Miller on the bench once it turned into Roy time, he hurts Roy’s ability to do what he does best, which is take over and win the blazers ball games…
RUDY > MJ
There are ways to make it work with both of them
The Sixers didn’t bench Miller when it was “Iggy time”. The Nuggets didn’t bench him when it was “Melo time.”
We could have him initiate the offense with Roy postups, or Roy off screens. It doesn’t always have to be a Roy clearout. If we want to run a couple Roy clearouts with Blake in the corner, fine, but that should be the exception. You have to find ways to get your best players on the court— make the plays fit the personnel instead of vice versa.
I agree with this
Miller and Roy need to find a synergy that makes them effective together in crunch time. Run Brandon off screens and have Miller get him the ball in mid-range jumper position, rather than up top. Brandon will be even more dangerous if he gets the ball in shooting range without having picked up his dribble.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Why?
Why go away from what Roy does best when its late in the 4th and every possession counts? How many games has Roy won in his short tenure as a blazer with his ability to iso up top and make plays for him and his teammates? Do you really want to change the thing that has made Roy a superstar just so 55 year old andre miller can be in the game and run the offense? Crazy talk.
Do you run Wade off of screens late in games because their playmaking point guard is better than their jump shooting point guard? Maybe if the playmaking point is Chris Paul, otherwise I think I will put the ball in Wade’s hands and put players on the floor that give him the best opportunity to succeed, even if a more talented player, but a less optimal fit is left sitting on the bench…
RUDY > MJ
Who is talking about going away from Roy?
I’m just talking about using Miller to get him the ball in better position, which will make him even more dangerous.
Run him off the screen to get him the ball 15-18 feet from the basket, instead of 40 feet from the basket. Then, let him operate.
Oh, and if in the meantime, Greg breaks free under the basket and Miller finds him for an easy dunk instead, we’ll take that, too.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Its a great idea in theory
but it is something that hasn’t happened since Roy and Miller started playing more together. Roy isn’t a good off the ball player, yet. Sure, he hits some spot up jumpers, but his overall play suffers. I hope he gets better at it, I think he needs to get better at it, but so far, it just hasn’t happened. I actually consider it a pretty big weakness in Roys game(relatively speaking), he is too dependent on scoring and creating off of the dribble.
Besides all of that, do you really think that having Andre pass Roy the ball at 15-18 feet, just so Roy can do his normal one on one iso is actually better than Blake’s ability to bail out double teams against Roy by hitting open threes? Whether Roy gets the ball from 40 feet away, or 15-18 feet away won’t change the fact that Millers defender is a prime candidate to clog up the paint with little to no consequences…
On the Greg thing, yes, Miller is better at getting the big men involved than Blake is. Through the first 3.5 quarters, that is a reason to give him significant PT. But, the last half of the 4th belongs to Roy, its not about getting Greg touches, its about putting your superstar in the best possible position to win you the game. Roy also happens to lead the team in assists, I guarantee you if Greg is left all alone under the basket, Roy will find him, its not like Miller is the only blazer to ever get Greg an easy dunk…
RUDY > MJ
OK, I'll go through this
Currently, what happens? Brandon walks the ball up court, dribbles the ball out front for a few seconds or ten, then breaks his defender’s ankles and drives or pulls up for a jumper. Everyone else gets out of the way and hopefully pulls their man away.
Here’s an alternative. Miller brings the ball up. Rudy and Brandon are on the wings. Greg and LMA set a double screen, and Rudy cuts through around the screen and shoots off to the three point line. Miller’s man has to stay on him, or Andre is going to the hoop, baby.
If Rudy is open, we’ll take a wide open 3 for him every time. But as he’s heading out to the 3 point line, Brandon is coming off the same double screen from the other direction. Andre still has to be covered, so does Rudy, and Brandon is coming off the screen.
As he does, Greg rolls to the hoop, and across to the other side of the key if he doesn’t get the ball, and LMA pops out to the high post. If Brandon ran his man into that screen, he is either open at 15 feet on the win, or Greg or LMA’s man have moved to deny the ball, and they are open, LMA for an easy 15 foot jump shot or a drive down the lane for a dunk, Greg for a dunk.
Presumably, Brandon will get the ball. Every defender has been pulled away except his own, and his own defender is likely out of position. If Brandon quickly takes it to the hole, or pulls up for the open shot, there is no way for help to arrive in time, it’s one on one. Brandon hasn’t even used his dribble yet.
In addition, since the big men are on the move, there is a good chance that their defenders are either A) out of position to deny them the ball or B) out of position to rebound if Brandon puts up a quick shot. Moving defenders around always creates pressure on defenders and opportunities.
Should we be running this kind of play at the end of games right now? Not necessarily. Should we be working on developing these kinds of plays, and building the comfort-level with them, so that eventually we can use them in the end of the game? Without a doubt.
And yes, I do think that a quick hitting one on one move starting at 15 feet from the basket is going to be far more effective. The only reason the 40 feet away iso is any good is because Brandon is a phenomenal talent. If that talent is utilized in a way that actually makes it easy for him, it will be even better.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
So basically....
You are advocating more off the ball movement and developing a way to get Roy easier shots? Sing me up, I agree totally. I don’t think there is a BEdger alive that wouldn’t want to see better player/ball movement out of the blazers. It just sucks that even though the offense has looked better and more fluid with Miller handling the ball more, it has arguably come at the expense of Roy. I guess my point is that until the “new”(Miller as a primary playmaker) offense learns how to consistently get Roy touches, it can’t be relied on in a one possession game with 2 minutes left. What can be relied upon is the offense that Nate has used to win the majority of close games over the last couple of years. And that offense is give Roy the ball, spread with the floor with shooters, and let our superstar be a superstar. Roy has won way too many games for the blazers using this strategy to change it because we finally picked up a more talented point guard than Blake. Ultimately, you are right, the blazers offense is too predictable. But there are still way too many kinks to work out for Andre to get the call as the late game, offensive initiator.
There was nothing wrong with the let Roy take over offense tonight anyway, once Miller went out, Roy scored 8 points on 3-4 shooting in the final 5 minutes. He also got Steve Blake two open corner threes that could have been the difference between a W and OT. Unfortunately, he missed both. His shooting percentages suggest that 9 times out of 10, he will hit one of those 3’s, tonight was that one time out of ten that he misses both.
The blazers inability to get stops late lost the game, not the lack of player movement on offense. Now, if you want to argue that Miller is a better defender than Blake, that might have some merit. Your argument thus far has been purely from an offensive standpoint, and there was nothing wrong with our offense tonight, except we didn’t take care of the ball well enough…
RUDY > MJ
by Rudiculous on Nov 17, 2009 4:41 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I have little disagreement here
Here’s my original comment:
Miller and Roy need to find a synergy that makes them effective together in crunch time.
You said this:
I guess my point is that until the "new"(Miller as a primary playmaker) offense learns how to consistently get Roy touches, it can’t be relied on in a one possession game with 2 minutes left.
I don’t have any great disagreement with that. I’m saying we need to find that synergy so we can use them together.
In my dream world, a moving offense orchestrated by Miller is getting easier shots for Brandon, or LMA, or a dunk for Greg, or finding Rudy for the open 3. If Rudy is shooting our 3s in that game, he nails one of those that Blake missed, and we win the game. He’s a late-game assassin.
I’m happy with that game. We played a strong game against a very tough team on their home court, when we were tired at the end of a long road trip, and we battled them down to the wire. If we hadn’t run out of gas, we win. Even after we ran out of gas, we kept battling and took it into overtime.
We ran our offense, and got decent looks that just didn’t drop. It happens. It’s a long season, you lose games like this.
It was neither an offensive nor defensive failure, nor a coaching failure, it was fatigue catching up to us against a very good team.
That doesn’t mean there weren’t mistakes, and bad calls, and other stuff. None of it would have mattered if fatigue hadn’t caught us.
If anything, we may have lost it because key players played too many minutes earlier in the road trip.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
That's not what I'm seeing
I’m seeing an offense that moves when he’s in the game, good spacing, and doesn’t when he isn’t. I’m seeing the ball getting into the post more when he and Miller are in the game. I’m seeing his role in excellent team defense. We held these guys to 85 in regulation at home. They’ve not been under 100 at home this year until this game.
I’m seeing bad shooting, but all the things that don’t show up in the stats are good, good, and more good. Right now he reminds me of Battier. And it is showing up in plus/minus.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
wow.
His assists are way down (understandable— his role has changed). His turnovers are way up (not understandable). His turnovers don’t take into account his copious “flaming bag” passes. His ball handling has been bad. His shooting has been bad. His defense has been the same.
I do not see any Battier in Blake. Plus Minus tells us little to nothing with such a small sample size.
His turnovers are due to a different role
There is a focus on getting the ball into the post that there hasn’t been in the past. He’s not yet as comfortable with that role.
I didn’t have the time to watch much of the first six games. In the last five, I’m not seeing what you are seeing.
This team has gone from a mediocre (at best) defensive team to one of the best in the league. We held three of our last four opponents under 80 points on the road. The other got 84. Fools gold because of bad opposition? No.
Memphis was averaging 106 per game and was held to 79. That’s 27 under their average. They put up 123 at Denver. Even at LA they put up 98. and then they come home and we hold them to 79? Pace doesn’t explain that.
We held Minnesota to 10 below their average.
New Orleans was not racking up the points, but they scored 100 a game at home until we arrived. They managed 87 at Boston, but only 78 against our defense. I watched the defense in that game. We gave them nothing, nothing at all. They had to earn almost every bucket, and if Thornton hadn’t been hot in the first half, there might have been some kind of team defensive record.
Charlotte? Charlotte can’t score, so holding them to 74 means little, but the fact remains we gave them little, and if the refs hadn’t taken Greg out of that game, we’d have held them to 59 like Boston did, and done it in Charlotte.
The proof that those performances are real? The Atlanta game, obviously. We went into the house of the team that is currently strongest in the NBA, and held them to 85 in regulation.
Oh, and before that, we held the Spurs to 84. In fact, the highest 48 minute score we’ve allowed with the current lineup is 93, and that was because it was garbage time for the last three quarters or more. After that, it was 85 on the road to the hottest team in the league.
Now, you simply cannot play phenomenal team defense (and we are) unless every guy is doing his job to perfection. And that is what is happening. Miller, Blake, Brandon, LMA, and the centers have a great defensive synergy going. Rudy is just starting to click into that, too. When he does, he’ll take more of Steve’s PT, and we’ll be better for it, because he’s more athletic, longer, a threat to take it to the hole, etc.
Right now, Blake is not a good team defender, he’s a great team defender. So are the other starters. Watch the defense. Watch the schemes we are using, and watch how every single guy is positioning to cut off angles, get in the passing lanes, denying the ball in good position, helping out, etc.
Blake is 20-57 on 3 pointers. If three of those misses had dropped, he’d be at 40%, and we’d say that’s a good percentage for a volume 3 point shooter. Three misses. If one of the misses in regulation had dropped in this game, we win. If one of the misses against Denver had dropped, we’d have won that one, too. The problem is simply that his shot isn’t dropping right now.
His assist/turnover ratio is 2.5/1. That’s not great, for Blake. It’s pretty good for a SG, which is his role much of the time now. It certainly isn’t horrible.
Plus/minus doesn’t prove anything, but it matches what I’m seeing on the court. We have phenomenal team defense and generally good ball movement with Blake in the game, and that is why the plus/minus is showing what it is showing.
I would rather see Rudy starting and getting those minutes, because I think we’ll get that synergy with him in that role more quickly if he actually starts playing that role more consistently. But I see Blake doing a lot of good things on the court.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I don't think we're playing phenomenal team defense.
I think we are playing solid team defense. We have been getting very lucky with opponents missing wide open threes and our “FT D” has been well above average also. If we regress these two factors to the league average, and adjust for pace, we’re in the upper half but probably on the border of the top 10. I’ll do the analysis sometime soon.
We’re better on D this year, but not as good as it seems, and the improvement is largely due to Oden.
Well, you may be right about the FT D
But even if you add a couple made 3s in each game to change the percentages, it’s still an outstanding defensive run.
Remember, we’re talking road games here. Teams usually shoot better at home.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
we are at 103 if teams would make their threes at around last year’s league average. Definitely good, but not absolute light and day improvement.
i cry for nic
OK
At what point does one decide that some of the 3 pointers missing is because of good defense?
Probably way too early to draw that conclusion. But not all missed 3s have been wide open.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
yeah, but right now we’re allowing 31% on threes. Pretty sure that isn’t sustainable. Only one team allowed under 34.2% last year, with the league average at 36%.
There is a bit of fool’s gold there. Add in the low opposing FT and you have in the range of a 103 drating, depending on how you view the threes so far. SA probably missed about six wide open looks.
i cry for nic
I couldn't watch the whole SA game
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
OTOH
I see a TON of wide open shots being missed by our opponent… I think our vaunted new D is this: rotate so slowly that the opponent, shocked to be so open, bricks it…
Forget it.
All the fingerpointing at Nate’s lineup or at Blake is the result of one of two things.
Either people are far more uniformed about the game than they think they are,
or
they have predetermined prejudices.
I won’t assume the first, which leaves the latter. And since they must therefore be prejudiced, no amount of reasoned explaination on your part will work to change their minds. You will just confuse them with the facts.
hakkaa päälle !
alternative hypothesis
you are wrong. Nate naysayers are correct. Blake really isn’t all that good.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
That's possible.
But unlikely. Experience has taught me that I tend to be right far more than I’m not.
And when it comes to evaluating the performances of the Blazer players and coaches, I know enough to realize I’m not a qualified judge of said performences and also am smart enough not to pretend I am. Not sure that holds true for a lot of people here.
Here is what I do know:
Portland has one of the best records in the NBA right now.
Portland just came off a 4-1 road trip.
Portland came close to beating perhaps the hottest team in the NBA, on the road, in the final of 5 games, holding them well below their season scoring average.
Steve Blake has more experience winning basketball games than anyone here at BE. Probably more then everyone here at BE.
No one here at BE has ever played a single NBA game, whether at home or on the road, and therefore has exactly zero experience regarding the level of fatigue the players experienced, nor how it impacted their game.
I could go on, but I’d be here all day. How about I ask if just one person who has so easily found fault can show even the slightest evidence that they actually have a clue what they are talking about. I can think of a couple, but I’ll note that they happen to be making many of the same points I am, namely that those playing the blame game don’t know what they are talking about.
I don’t mean to come down on you personally. It is simply that too many people here forget that they are talking about real people. Dave tries had to prevent attacks on one another while posting. Don’t you think the same rule should hold true when discussing the players?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Nov 17, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
sorry
but I have professional experience as a physical performer under high stress conditions – and you would probably be very surprised at how many people do.
I personally haven’t weighed in on the “tired” debate – but I could with authority if anyone here knew anything about me in the real world. You don’t, no one else does.
That leaves us with evaluating the merits of the discussion based on the content of the discussion itself.
We can observe, we can analyze, we can conclude. Assuming that we lack the technical faculties to question anything about how the professional game is managed, coached and played would be a gross underestimation of our powers of observation, analysis and decision-making.
This is a social network – largely anonymous. Logic still applies. Logical fallacies still apply. It is a logical fallacy to attack the credentials of the analysts (posters) in an effort to discredit the merits of the analytical results. Multidisciplinary teams tackle much tougher problems than the Portland Trailblazers every day – with measurable success.
This forum is populated not only with fans loaded with common sense, it is loaded with professionals highly skilled in technical problem solving in disciplines that require far more effort, precision and overall critical performance than shooting a 3-point jumper.
We can see what is going on on the floor – and understand it. We can probe the leadership and coaching abilities of Nate McMillan because many of us have been there, done that. Not in the NBA – but in professional capacities no less rigorous.
There are no mysteries in this game – and the wisdom of the masses – especially the extraordinary masses that congregate here – cannot be marginalized by arbitrarily dismissing our professional knowledge of the game.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
Yep, Portland was certainly at a diasadvantage all night ...
… with the mismatches created. Even a blind man could tell that from all the double diget leads the Hawks had through most of the game.
Wait, Atlanta never led by double digits, did they? That was Portland. My bad.
A combination of fatigue and playing on the road against one of the hottest teams who also mirror Portland in being a young, talent laden, up and coming squad, flavored by some borderline officiating was the reason the Blazers lost. Trying to blame Nate’s coaching or his lineup selection only illustrates a prejudiced viewpoint in this instance.
hakkaa päälle !
he doesent suck
he was the starting point guard on a 54 win team, he had eleven assists tonight with two turnovers, and this is the first time the team has lost with both he and miller in the starting lineup. all he did wrong tonight was miss too many open jumpers which happens to everyone from time to time. even to people who shoot over 40 percent from beyond the arc season to season
cash rules everything around me CREAM get tha money dolla dolla bill yaaaaallll
by staceyaugmon4HOF on Nov 16, 2009 10:15 PM PST reply actions
this was meant as a reply to the abover comment
my bad
cash rules everything around me CREAM get tha money dolla dolla bill yaaaaallll
by staceyaugmon4HOF on Nov 16, 2009 10:16 PM PST up reply actions
Rule #1 of Blazer fandom
Everything, good and bad, is blown out of proportion.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Blake's stats this season
Amongst PG’s in the league he is
- 34th in assists
- 23rd in 3 point percentage
- 35th in points scored
He is at best, average!
and yet, better than Miller
both point guards have been terrible
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
by no means has he been better than Miller. That is simply not accurate.
The only thing Blake does better is shoot— and he’s not doing that well at all this year.
you are correct sir
Miller is scoring, assisting, and rebounding better.
They are both shooting like crap, but surprisingly Dre has a better FG% even though it seems he’s been in a bigger shooting slump.
Blake’s shooting better from 3, but still crap compared to others.
They both can’t guard quick PGs, though Miller’s length helps him get some steals. Miller guards big PGs better.
Other than 3pt shooting there isn’t any facet of the game where Blake is better. And Blakes 3pt% is reverting to his career mean.
If Blake was playing like last year, I’d say start him. He “earned it” as coach Mac says. Since Dre is clearly better, outperformed Blake in preseason, and has played better during the regular season Nate Mac looks like he’s spouting BS when he says minutes are earned.
by buck_goggles on Nov 16, 2009 11:00 PM PST up reply actions
well
it was a bit of an exagerration, and I apologize for that. However, by one means Blake is vastly superior (.072 points higher in adjusted field goal percentage). Given that Blake is so much better at shooting, yet has been by and large terrible in that department, Miller’s slight advantages in assist/TO ratio (2.4 – 2.2) and rebounding doesn’t really stand out as all that impressive.
I’m expecting much more from both, and haven’t seen it. Oh, and Blake also steals at a higher rate than Miller (surprised me at 1.23 vs. 0.91 per 48 minutes). That’s two means by which Blake has been better, vs. two means by which Miller has been better.
The overall point stands – both have been reasons for why it is more difficult to win any given game. They do not outplay their opponent.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 11:21 PM PST up reply actions
yet Miller and Blake have combined for the worst position on the team
the Blazers are beating their opposition at every position on the floor except point guard. They are -3.1 collectively in terms of Net PER.
It does appear that Blake is getting the lion’s share of the blame for this (82games.com), but Blake hasn’t been allocated any shooting guard time while Miller has been allocated 50% shooting guard time.
Regardless of allocation, Miller + Blake has been terrible – making this position more of a liability than last year, when the Blazer point guards were only -0.5 Net PER.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
I don't like Net PER, never have
Not eve Hollinger— Mr. PER uses this stat. PER is a decent stat for offense, but adjusted plus/minus (ie something that considers team defense rather than individual defense) is much better for defense.
I'd argue that Net PER is the single best stat for measuring which positions
are helping the team win the most.
However, to substantiate it, I would have to correlate – which I haven’t done. I don’t know whether Net PER correlates to winning better than adjusted +/-, but I can tell you that I believe people take Net PER out of context.
Net PER captures a little bit of defense, but really what it captures best is the net benefit a player brings and shows vividly where a team’s strengths and weaknesses are.
I think it would be a mistake to ignore what Net PER can tell us.
For instance, Webster’s PER, relative to his peers, is below average. His Net PER, however, shows that his opponents play worse than he does when he is on the floor – and that the difference is surprisingly dramatic.
Last season, Net PER showed that the Blazers were strongest at the 2 position (wonder why?), next was the 4 (hmmm?) followed by the 3 – all three positions above average and were the biggest reasons for the team’s success. Both the point guard and center positions were distinctly average/slightly below average.
This season, the center position has been dominant – a significant reason why the Blazers are even better this season than last – so far.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 1:59 AM PST up reply actions
with sufficient sample size you can quantify that assumption
using correlation.
It passes the eye test, however. The eye test is a simple review of the Net PER position rankings provided by 82games.com.
I’m not arguing that the stat is perfect, but I am arguing that it is an excellent metric. Saying that point guards rarely guard point guards is a justification for dismissing the utility of the metric is a gross over-generalization, in my unqualified opinion.
In an attempt to qualify that opinion, I’d hazard a guess that point guards spend most of their time guarding point guards, and very little of their time guarding centers.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 2:57 AM PST up reply actions
okay, there are more issues than that.
Say Channing and LaMarcus were in the game last year. Did they trade off guys on different possessions? who was the center? Who was the 4?
Say Brandon and Nicolas Batum were guarding Kobe and Ariza last year. Brandon gets credit for Nic’s defense and Nic gets credit for Brandon’s defense. fair?
Net PER has no way of defining which players are playing which positions and defending what positions at a given time.
i cry for nic
data quality is always an issue
However, 82games.com does appear to making a distinction between positions for individual players. I’m not sure how they are making that distinction.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:11 AM PST up reply actions
Miller hasn't been good
But Blake has probably been the worst rotation player on the team so far this year. Despite that, he is 3rd in minutes played (behind Roy and Aldridge). I can’t understand why Nate is giving him such heavy minutes when he hasn’t done anything to show he deserves them.
He's a great backup
but he should not start on this team
I hate Comcast
Card carrying member of Team Bayless
Start Rudy
by blazeraddict on Nov 16, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
who takes his place?
marty? not the way hes playing. rudy? gives up too much on d. bayless? HA. it may be by default that hes still in it at this point, but one loss isnt going to change the starting lineup
cash rules everything around me CREAM get tha money dolla dolla bill yaaaaallll
by staceyaugmon4HOF on Nov 16, 2009 10:34 PM PST up reply actions
Rudy is not worse than Blake on D.
You go with Rudy at the 2 if you want offense or Roy at the 2 and Webster at the 3 if you want offense. Based on Webster’s current play, I’d go with the former. In the end, I’m ok with Blake starting as long as his minutes get reduced significantly, especially at crunch time.
Rudy v. Blake
Rudy is probably a little better man defender, gives up less size anyway, and has good instincts and athleticism which gets him some steals. But Blake is a much better team defender at this point.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Come on
Rudy is a MUCH, MUCH better defender than Blake, a better shooter, and as good of a ball-handler. See my rant below about Blake.
Rudy made some bone-headed plays too
and sure, he made some great shots. But Blake has done that in other games too. Maybe Rudy is a net positive but I don’t think it is as overwhelming as some people make it out to be.
What we really need is a starting-quality small forward. That has been true for several years, although Nic made us forget that a little bit last year. Someone check on his recovery progress . . . .
put a body on 'em
and rudy gets blocks deflections, and IMPORTANT rebounds.
Not to mention he kills at the big 3. Blake can hit some dagger threes when there is not much pressure. Rudy can hit clutch, pressure, and dagger threes.
by tevisthe4th on Nov 16, 2009 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
Rudy creates a lot of turnovers
Not only is he getting steals at a very impressive rate, he also leads the team in charges drawn per minute so far this year. Rudy’s energy and athleticism allow him to make a lot of plays that Blake can’t.
Rudy isn’t a good enough defender to be considered much much better than anyone really, even Blake.
I'm on your bandwagon. Eating your nachos.
not true
the only place Rudy was weak (prior to the last couple of games) was his off ball defense and tendency to let his opponent get inside position. Lately, he has been fighting through picks better, staying in front of his matchup, playing the passing lanes, rebounding, etc.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 2:02 AM PST up reply actions
Thought I responded to this, but maybe I didn't
Simply not true.
Rudy isn’t a much better defender. He has the athleticism to become much better, but he isn’t as effective in the team schemes.
Rudy wasn’t a better shooter than Blake last year. He was certainly more effective in this game. He shows signs of becoming a better shooter.
His assist/TO ratio and my eyes tell me he is not even close to as good a ball handler as Blake.
If you want to convince people, ranting and making over the top criticisms won’t accomplish it.
Rudy is going to be a much better overall player than Blake. But that doesn’t invalidate the things Steve does better.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
his assist to TO rate simply reflects that he is a more daring playmaker. He is less of a ballhandler, but enough of one in a lineup with Andre and Brandon.
He is a much, much, much defender of NBA 2s than Steve Blake.
Rudy was a far better shooter than Blake last year. He shot 3% less while taking shots off of curls and the dribble. J.R. Smith is an incredible three point shooter who shot under 40% last year. Why? difficulty.
Rudy is a better player at the 2 than Blake is at the 1, most would agree. Yet this isn’t even about that… it’s about who is better at the 2. I can’t find an argument to support Blake there.
i cry for nic
I would agree hands down Rudy is a better player at the 2
Rudy is a better man defender of 2s, but he is not as effective in the team scheme. He just isn’t. I don’t know whether it is because he gambles too much or because he doesn’t have as much experience in Nate’s system yet, or what, but Blake is always in the right place and Rudy isn’t.
He makes up for it somewhat with steals, length, hustle, doing things Steve can’t do.
Sorry, I’m not going to say that a guy who shot 3% less was a far better shooter. Rudy got a lot of open shots, too. They are both great shooters, though Steve is in a slump right now.
The comment to which I was responding says Rudy is as good a ballhandler as Blake. You don’t agree with that comment, and neither do I. I agree that Rudy would be enough of a ball handler with Andre and Brandon, or with any other guard on our roster, for that matter. But we’re in bash Blake mode today with these guys, and so we’re in the process of denying that he actually does anything well, and it’s silly.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
by jscot on Nov 17, 2009 3:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Steve shoots set threes. At least a third to half of Rudy’s looks are very challenging, difficult looks. There’s a reason we don’t run that play for Steve last night: hitting threes of the dribble is incredibly difficult.
It is silly to dismiss that Steve has no good qualities. The problem is that he is (1) struggling from three and (2) an inferior defender at the 2. These two things= shouldn’t be getting 40 minutes, even in an overtime game.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 17, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
Rudy's turnovers are typically risk-based
Whereas Blake limits his turnovers by avoiding risk.
He does break out with some nice quarters once in a while though, like he did tonight.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:02 AM PST up reply actions
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) I couldn't watch the game.
Just by looking at the recap, the ESPN highlights and the gamecast play-by-play, I am severely disappointed in Brandon Roy.
He doesn’t seem to have his killer instinct, his usual ability to take a game over. If Brandon is going to be the unquestioned leader on this team, there are times when he NEEDS to get more touches. Hell, Joe Johnson started off ice cold, and finished with 30+ touches. HE did for Atlanta what Roy should have done for Portland.
This team feels like its starting to deflect its leadership a little too much on the court. Just a gut feeling, right wrong or indifferent.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
Agreed
I’m all for him getting everyone else involved earlier, but we call the 4th Brandon Time for a reason: because it’s his time. Don’t dish it out to your cold-as-ice-pg-turned-off-guard so we can watch some more bricks go flying, finish the job yourself superstar! This is something I’m used to seeing from budding stars fresh in the NBA who are reluctant to shoulder the responsibility of taking the big shots, but Brandon has already shown a remarkable aptitude for these situations so this regression is doubly frustrating.
“HE did for Atlanta what Roy should have done for Portland.” Couldn’t have said it any better myself. Here’s hoping Brandon gets his swag back. soon.
by SabonisBonus on Nov 16, 2009 10:57 PM PST up reply actions
i think you need to understand just how dead brandon roy was at the end of 4th quarter.
he did everything he could.
RIP CITY
by greatestfall on Nov 17, 2009 12:23 AM PST up reply actions
Right
Fatigue just caught up to us. It happens on the road.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Oden was fatigued, especially playing 32 minutes.
He only got 7 rebounds (5 defensive) in 32 minutes. Unfortunately Atlanta got 3 offensive rebounds and was fouled on a 4th offensive rebound attempt in the last 6 minutes of the 4th. They converted those rebounds into 5 points. Blazers got 1 offensive rebound (by Roy) during that time on Oden’s missed foul shot, which Roy converted into 2 points. So one less Atlanta offensive rebound in 4th quarter might have won the game for the Blazers.
In a game this close, there is no reason to scapegoat any one player. Lots of people could have made one offensive or defensive play that would have changed the outcome.
I was actually more pleased with our play in this losing game than any of the games we won on this road trip against the hopeless teams.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 17, 2009 1:10 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
If only your understanding and reason ...
… could be inculcated in others.
It surely gets tiring seeing all the fingerpointing and criticism.
hakkaa päälle !
Actually they iso'ed Roy several times and he couldn't finish
He was tired
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 17, 2009 6:59 AM PST up reply actions
Roy had 8 points in the final 5 minutes on 3-4 shooting
He also created 2 open 3 point attempts for Blake from his favorite spot in the corner, on most nights, one of those goes in. The Roy iso’s at the end of the game worked, the blazers just came up one stop short of a win in regulation…
RUDY > MJ
So sick of Blake right now
I like Steve Blake, I really do. I want him to stick around in Portland. As the backup PG.
Where do I even start? Ugh. He missed so many important shots in this game, and he has missed a lot of shots he needs to make during this road trip. His defense has been absolutely rotten. Against the pick and roll where Johnson went into the lane and scored late in the game, Blake didn’t even manage to slow him down. It was embarrassing. At least Miler slows Johnson down. Granted, I’m tired of seeing Miller take ugly, flat jumpers. Enough of that. Seriously, has his jumper always been THAT bad? I had no idea.
Blake’s D, though, ugh. I wish Nate would end the 2-PG starting lineup when the matchup calls for bigger defenders (Martell, or even Rudy). Tonight, Blake couldn’t check Johnson at all, and Williams used his size to post Roy and draw a couple of fouls on him. Simple solution there: start Martell at the 3 against Williams and play Roy on Johnson, as usual.
I’m happy that the Blazers won 4/5 on the road, but this game tonight was one the Blazers should have and could have won.
Please, someone, anyone, Ben, Dave, let Nate know that he’s got to get over this Blake thing! 40+ minutes for him tonight? What’s going on here?!
Blake is playing terrible
Ok. Let’s face it he’s not playing good and should not be playing 40 minutes over 10 more then andre when he is missing so many shots especially when it counts. He even stepped out of bounds near the end of the game give me a breack. He missed wide open shots that could have won the game. Ohh i forgot to mention his defence that was as pretty as his shooting and stepping out of bounds. He had 11 assists that’s the only good thing he did. He’s playing really bad, I say give miller those minutes. And bring Blake of the bench for 20 minutes, that’s where he blongs.
Makes sense to me
Since we all seem to agree on that, it would be nice to see Miller and Rudy eat into Blake’s minutes and let’s see where it takes us… We already know where Blake will take
us – not too far. And how about Rudy’s clutch shooting tonite, the guy has done it so many
times at various levels.
by pdxblaze on Nov 16, 2009 11:02 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
First of all, they showed the replay like four times. HE DID NOT STEP OUT OF BOUNDS!
It was one of many bad calls in the fourth quarter. His heel was over the line, but off the ground. The refs took the game from the Blazers. Remember Rudy’s three that was goal tended! I mean seriously, how obvious do they have to make it for you? It was decided the Blazers would not win. Of course they could have rebounded better during the game, or shot better, but that’s like saying Roy could have scored 50 points, and then we would have won. Lots of things could have been better, but in the reality of this one game, the Blazers were ahead, and then one foul call after another began, coupled with non-calls for things like the Hawks going over and back, fouling our guys, a shot clock that was mysteriously reset when it should not have been. A foul on Oden off the ball, when the replay clearly showed he was the one fouled. Suddenly the entire officiating crew lost the ability to to make any call in the Blazers favor no matter what happened. Again this reached it’s apex when the game was neck and neck in the final seconds. How obvious do they have to make it? The Hawks got at least four extra possessions off incorrect calls in the fourth and overtime. The ones in regulation definitely cost us the game. The point is, of course our guys could have played better, but they played well enough to beat the Hawks in any case, just not well enough to beat the Hawks and the refs. The refs beat the Blazers, because the Blazers didn’t score enough to keep the Hawks at arms length, and once they are that close, a couple foul calls and missing goal tending calls steals the game for the Hawks.
The refs clearly influenced the fourth quarter and OT to the Blazer's disadvantage.
Of course they could have played better, but like I said Roy “could have” scored 50 points to put the game away. The actions of the refs were decisive, in that they gave extra possessions to the Hawks, and literally took points away from the Blazers by not calling a clear goal tend, at a crucial time in the game.
Even the fact that Ben had to mention it in his recap shows that he knows how crooked, or at least how “bad” those calls were. Ben and Dave seem to feel it would be unbecoming to directly call out the officiating, which is a “cultural norm” handed down by Stern and the league, by making it taboo to question the officials, to the tune of fines handed out to coaches and players who do so.
I’m not one for the government interfering in frivolous things, but even so, I would love it, if there was a serious investigation that blew up sports officiating, and maybe even put it under serious oversight. Since cheating dose actually cheat gamblers in places where gambling is legal, because sports are supposed to be real and fair competitions, there is reason to verify that these sports leagues are more than just entertainment like the WWE. Of course this is a pipe dream, since the hearings on performance drugs in baseball have been a bit of a joke. Still, with the Donaghy scandal, we know for a FACT that NBA games have been fixed in the past. I would rather a light was shined on the situation and Stern, so we can see real basketball, decided by the players. I know to keep BE from becoming a “tabloid blog”, Dave feels it worth it to take the “high road”, but when it’s as clear as it was in this game, I think it would be better to start shaping a culture of dissent when it comes to things that damage the game. I mean think about it, if it became a STRONG general feeling among sports fans that the officiating is crooked, then the leagues might not be able to ignore the issue anymore. Kind of like how a lot more foods are “whole grain” now, or have had the high fructose corn syrup replaced, because a lot of people started making a fuss. However, as long as the NBA is allowed to fine people for questioning them, the fix will be in, if the press turns a blind eye.
Blake wasn't the only one who lost this game for the Blazers
That 3rd period was just plain rotten.
Was ATL bad? You bet. But we matched them and one-upped them. When that started happening my gut told me the game was over short of heroics by someone in red-n-black. However, it seemed clear that heroics wasn’t in anyone’s wheelhouse tonight.
Give the Hawks credit. Smith etc did a great job rebounding and getting fouls on the Blazers in the 4th. They made shots in the 4th and in OT. And they did a great job of rebounding. Face it – Atlanta is good. We’ve lost to them twice already. At least we don’t have to play them again this year even though I thought we were going to take it early in the 3rd.
The Blazers STUNK at those attempted “fancy” plays they are not used to making. Close-range hand-off/passes and passes where there used to be shots (see: BRoy under basket passing to LA in right corner who is completely not ready for BRoy to pass in that situation). And as much as I like Martell and want him to do well he was terrible when he was in during the second half – I was relieved when he went to the bench after only a few minutes. That is very disapointing for me – I though the had it in him to have a breakout year. Still early to give up after his year off but his decision-making looks worse than a rookie.
Anyway, it is still one loss. Hopefully we’ll learn from it. If we have to lose it might as well be to the eastern conference but we need to hone our game. Four crappy teams and four wins is great on the road. One good team and a chance to win on the road is a significant missed opportunity.
put a body on 'em
The refs were awful...
But they werent as awful as the Blazers in the 3rd quarter. The blazers win this game going away if they take care of the ball and shoot a decent % in the 3rd. Didn’t happen. Man, some of those calls really boiled my taters though….
RUDY > MJ
Why has Blake become the scapegoat??
Oden missed two free throws that would have helped tremendously. A defensive rebound by anyone in the fourth quarter could have sealed the win. Maybe a few less turnovers in the 3rd. I mean, this is really getting ridiculous. Blake dishes 11 assists with 2 turnovers and misses some shots he would normally at least make one or two of. Wednesday cannot come quick enough.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Blake isn't the only scapegoat
but 2-11 doesn’t help your case when any of those misses turned into hits could have changed the complexion of the game. For my two cents worth, McMillan’s coaching was to blame. The zone. Meh.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions
The zone is hit and miss...
I am not a huge fan of it in long stretches. I wonder if Nate was trying to make up for tired legs..? It seemed to make it easy for the Hawks to chase the ball off the boards with no one to keep a body on them.
My point about Blake is he has become the scapegoat for all that is wrong with an 8-4 team. The 3 guard line-up may not be a long term solution but it has jump started the team and is helping them find an identity on the defensive end. Blake is not the problem. His shot will return and he will continue to contribute on both ends of the floor until it does.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
i made this point above
but the point guard position has been the one position of weakness, so far this season.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 16, 2009 11:56 PM PST up reply actions
They aren't going to listen
There has to be a scapegoat for a loss.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I know...
I have been sitting silent for a while and for some reason tonight the Blake stuff is getting to me.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
It's worse than usual tonight
because we lost.
The fact is, Blake is doing stuff that doesn’t show in the stats, so those who are stats oriented don’t understand Nate’s decisions. And when people don’t understand, and something “bad” (a loss) happens, then they get upset.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
They seem upset even when the Blazers win
Stats can be useful but are not the final word for me. I see Blake all over the place making a difference so it is tough to understand how the perspective can get so altered by numbers. I understand his limitations and I think he does too which is part of what makes him a good player. He maximizes his talent by knowing where to be on the court and working his butt off.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Some people seem to enjoy tearing others down.
There is a lot of that here.
Others seem to think they are really knowledgable about basketball and want us all to know it.
Between the two groups we get lots of scapegoating, blaming and “expert:” advice on how the Blazers should be doing things. Makes one wonder where the enjoyment of watching our team has gone.
hakkaa päälle !
I am loving watching this team
I can’t believe how far they have come since I went to a game and watched Jack, Roy, Randolph, Magloire, Dixon, Aldridge, Sergio, and Joel from up in the 300 level and I felt the shift to something positive. I have enjoyed it ever since. The players have changed around and come and gone but I am just loving watching them figure it out as they go. They have an uncanny ability to overcome adversity and keep growing. I think Nate plays a big role in pushing these guys to get as much as they can out of their talent. I can’t wait to see where it goes this year.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Nov 17, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Blake would have to play a perfect game to not be the scape goat around here.
We lost the game for a lot of reasons, most notably the refs stealing it very blatantly, but that Tim Donaghy was just a rouge anomaly, they don’t fix games.
Anyway, Blake has yet to find his shot consistently this year, but he still does a lot a good things on the court, and the team had a good lead when he was in in the first three quarters of the game. The offense slowed when he was out. I didn’t think Bayless should have been in at all. The team ground to a halt with him in, when we should have been putting the game away. I think Miller should have been in at that point instead, pushing the lead to 15 to 20 points. I’m not blaming Bayless for the loss, just pointing out the point when we couldn’t score, and left the door open for the Hawks. Blake’s missed shots could have made the difference too, but the 11 assists mean a lot too. Unfortunately, Blake isn’t allowed to make mistakes, and everything he does well, like 11 assists, is brushed under the rug. I really hope he does start to hit his shots, not only because it will be good for the team, but just to shut a lot of people up, who don’t seem to understand that this is a team sport, and role-players are an important part of successful teams.
Why all the neagative comments about Blake?
Because he played poorly, and has played poorly this season. It’s not his fault we lost, it’s a team game. But he didn’t help the blazers win either. If you can’t facethefact he played bad and is playing bad your not following the blazers. I just want last years Blake back, maybe he will do better if he comes off the bench. Give miller a chance especially in the clutch. Maybe it would take some pressure of Broy especially when he’s exhausted.
by edawg on Nov 16, 2009 11:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I can deal with giving Miller a chance in the clutch...
but get over yourself with the about Blake being horrible stuff and the I am not following the Blazers garbage. He is shooting poorly right now. He has proven over time with the Blazers that his shot will return. He is a solid player who deserves his time and has earned it. You and quite a few others don’t feel that way. Fine. There are plenty of other issues to look at instead of getting fixated on Blake. Enjoy your night.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Please check the site rules
and refrain in future from these comments, which specifically violate what has been said:
If you can’t facethefact he played bad and is playing bad your not following the blazers.
If you can’t face the fact that people can watch the same game and intelligently come to different conclusions than you, you’re going to have a rough life.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Wow I didn't realize how sensitive people are on here.
by edawg on Nov 17, 2009 2:26 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I didn't make the rules, just mentioning them
From the site rules about “that guy”:
•He begins posts with phrases like, “If you had actually watched the game…” or “If you knew anything about basketball…” These are inflammatory and again unnecessary. It’s possible that people actually did watch the game and simply saw something different than you did.
I’d rather you not end up getting in trouble with the moderators eventually, that’s all. You’ve got worthwhile things to say, just say them with respect towards other people, even if they disagree with you, and it keeps it all a lot friendlier. We’re all on the same side, after all.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Don't Blame Blake
Add just 1 (ONE!) fourth quarter rebound and we win this game.
2010 IS OUR YEAR PEOPLE!!!
Blake doesn't like the pressure
He can’t play D on NBA guards, and he doesn’t like taking the big shots at the end of the game. Fernandez is a proven clutch shooter, let him team up with Miller, Roy, Aldridge, Oden at the end.
Miller is more reliable on D and handling the ball… but give Miller the RED light on all shots outside of 5 feet. Let him set up Rudy and Roy, and let him slash and dish.
Blake actuall D'ed up a few times last night and I'm a critic
That said, quick guards still blow by Blake
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 17, 2009 6:57 AM PST up reply actions
He looks way better on D when he is guarding a 2 on the perimeter
Its amazing some of those 2’s aren’t posting him up more…
RUDY > MJ
As sick as the feeling I got after losing this game
I began to think how blessed we are as PTB fans to have PA as an owner. We may have lost 1 game, but if we lose PA that will be an incredibly devastating blow to society. PA has contributed so many of his own dollars to building sport franchises, but that is petty compared to all he has done to fund medical research that benefits all of mankind and not just fans of the Blazers, Seahawks, and Sounders. It’s sad that as much as PA has done through his philanthropic efforts, people only seem to recognize him as a failed investor or owner of sport franchises. Its hard for me to dwell on this lone loss, or complain about coaching or certain peoples playing time, when one of worlds most generous person is fighting for his life.
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 16, 2009 11:55 PM PST reply actions 8 recs
Rec
As I was reading though the comments, I had the same reaction and was formulating a similar (less diplomatic) comment. I am far, far more worried about Paul Allen’s health than anything that came out of the game. Thanks, Philthy, for saying it so well.
An emphatic rec!
Perspective is needed here.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
I don't get why everybody is so down
That was the game of the season so far, at least as far as two good teams slugging it out against each other. Portland controlled the scoreboard for most of the game even while giving Atlanta plenty of chances to get back in it. The Blazers ran out of gas in the last quarter of a five-game trip and fell four points short in OT after giving all kinds of effort: mental, emotional, physical. They didn’t have an answer for Joe Johnson. That happens. That’s why he’s Joe Johnson. Other nights that’s been Brandon Roy and we didn’t pin it on the other team sucking. That was Brandon Roy.
Any flubs you point out for the Blazers can be balanced by the copious errors the Hawks made. All of them were part of the game flow. Both teams overcame their errors. Atlanta just had more at the end.
I agree Blake’s performance was unfortunate, but you can also look at Martell Webster (who seemed to inherit the bad qualities of Travis Outlaw and Rudy Fernandez all at once on a night when neither of the other two displayed those poor qualities) or at Greg Oden missing free throws…a lot of stuff happened. Besides putting Blake in the position of winning the game for us is like asking Taylor Swift to front Metallica. Good performer, wrong stage. Atlanta was willing to give Steve those shots until he made one. We didn’t have the gumption to fight them and he never made one. The defense got what it wanted. Had it not been Blake out there whoever was filling in for him would have been taking those shots. Martell? Bayless? Miller? Rudy was already in there as was Roy. What other option was left if the Hawks decided to go 5-on-4 and leave the corner open?
Bottom line: Atlanta, one of the better teams in the league so far, thought they were going to lose that game on their home floor. They were overjoyed to sneak out with the win. We played them tough. We did well. Time to come home.
—Dave
by Dave on Nov 17, 2009 12:40 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
Quit farting around, Dave!
Clearly you should be attending to Mr. Outlaw. That ointment isn’t going to rub itself!
I don't think people are down about the effort-- the Blazers battled hard out there
People are concerned about the offense continuing to flounder and Nate continuing to finish games with Blake.
I'm a little worried about Brandon not being able to get to the rim or to the line at the end. If he can
do it against the Rockets last year in the playoffs, why won’t he do it now? The Blazers are actually playing defense but not maintaining the scoring. We need Roy to be a little more selfish.
by BRoyInThe4th on Nov 17, 2009 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
yeah, Roy's relatively slow start is another reason for some concern. He'll pick it up, most likely.
He’s started slow before. His summer of “not touching a basketball” and losing all that weight is reason for some mild concern though.
Again...
Who else do you put out there to stand in that corner when Atlanta packed it in? Has to be a wing or point. Outlaw and Batum are out. Webster is having an incredibly spastic game. Bayless isn’t ready for that and probably can’t hit from that range. Miller’s jumper is pretty much the spawn of Satan. I won’t let my kid watch it. Had Travis been healthy he would have been out there but in this case I probably would have shrugged my shoulders and gone with Blake too.
—Dave
this is a case where you have to take advantage of your best talent
and involve Andre Miller somehow. He’s too good a player to waste in crunch time the way the Blazers did tonight. This is why coaches are paid the big bucks.
I just don’t see any reason for Blake to be logging the 3rd most minutes on the team, including all the crunch time minutes. He hasn’t come close to earning them.
I would like to see less Blake overall if someone else can manage to step up
but in this particular instance there was just nobody else late who could spread the floor. Atlanta made the decision that nobody was getting near the lane and they were WAY active in there late. I hate that we succumbed to that and couldn’t come up with anything better than Blake hoisting long shots. I would have like to see us fight the trend more. But the fact that we didn’t isn’t on Blake. It’s partly on the scorers, partly on fatigue, and partly that Atlanta is just an athletic defensive team when they want to be.
If Blake is passed the ball in that situation at that spot on the floor he has to shoot or we’re dead. I would be killing him right now if he put the ball on the floor or passed the ball back out. In the first case he would have been snuffed. In the second it would have been a turnover more likely than not. The only play there is to shoot before the defense can get out to cover you too. And nobody else we had would have had a better chance of hitting that shot save perhaps Martell and I wouldn’t have trusted him anywhere near anything important tonight.
In short, in general I empathize and perhaps even agree but in this specific case the generality did not apply. Credit the Hawks for being smart. Cry to the heavens that the shot didn’t go in. Wish that this was the second game of the trip instead of the fifth. But also realize that the technically correct strategy doesn’t always lead to wins. Sometimes you can do the right thing and still not see the desired result. That doesn’t mean another plan was sitting there which would have given you a better chance. It’s not like Portland can win every remaining game if they just think it out correctly. But if they play their remaining games like this they’re going to win the vast majority of them.
—Dave
I miss the old days, when BEdgers actually had a reason to complain about the team.
by MiledAnimal on Nov 17, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Celibrate the creativity of people.
Cause it takes a certain degree of it to find fault and complain about our team these days.
Unless one comes by it naturally.
hakkaa päälle !
I personally hate our team
Yeah, we’re 8 and 4 and STILL haven’t even played close to what we are capable of, but I still— I know what I knows and we is awful and I’m already getting my tickets to go watch the lottery.
HOWEVER— I too see some things that make me worry, because right now I have already moved past worrying about regular season wins… I am thinking about playoffs, and what will work there. I’ve complained about playing Blake as the 2/3 on offense because it simply isn’t sustainable (something we all mostly agree on), and it isn’t something we will do in the playoffs against Denver or LA. Those are the teams we are planning on dealing with to go all the way, so I want to do what will beat them.
I do understand the argument of not worrying about matching up with two specific teams when we got 75 games against the other teams… it is true. And we can do the three guard lineup against most of them and not even bat an eye. Roy can defend the SF when focused.
I still think Blake is a weak link if he isn’t playing PG. If he is playing PG I don’t have many complaints— he is what he is, a careful solid PG with a great 3 point shot but very weak playmaker.
His shot will come around, I don’t worry about that… but I do worry about his lack of good passing, especially into LMA and Oden, and how much he struggles to create anything. That isn’t a strong part of Rudy’s game either, but he’s a lil’ better, and Rudy is quite a bit better pick and roll guard, as good of a shooter, and a MUCH, MUCH better passer; especially into the bigs.
I wanna see Rudy passing to Oden more, and not see him passing to Joel as much.
You put Rudy in with Andre and Roy, you got a much more dynamic 3 guard lineup that can all really pass and create. And in the 2nd unit, you put steady Blake with Hot Head Bayless. You then let Bayless be a Roy Jr. in the 2nd unit, with Blake there to catch passes and shoot, or have Bayless not run the offense and let Blake handle that part, with Bayless attacking as much as possible.
Doesn’t that, to us, make more sense than having two sorta wild players like Bayless and Rudy together?
I think it works for both units, and I think we’ll eventually get to that lineup.
Rudy deserves to start if we’re going 3 guards, and Blake can really help keep our 2nd unit more consistent.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Nov 17, 2009 5:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Spot on, Mort...
I believe that Dre, Roy, Rudy, LMA, and GO are our 5 best players. And I don’t think anybody else (at least in the active lineup) is very close.. I expect this to be our playoff EOG roster… Except when the whistle blows and we need a stop, and we sub in Batum for Rudy for D.
So I, too, would like to see us start running that unit out there now, and get them used to moving the ball together. I think this unit could be just spectacular on the offensive end.
I know there are at least a dozen reactive posters who are hitting the reply button now to say “yeah, but that unit is weak on D”… Well OK.. But none of these guys (save GO) is a great 1:1 defender, so the only argument you could make is one that jscot and others have made, that Blake is currently playing better team D. And, I agree with that, with the small sample size we’ve seen.
But I counter that argument by saying: (a) Rudy is a smart player, and with more time on the court can certainly learn Nate’s system. (b) Rudy does so much more than Blake in terms of deflecting balls, getting in the passing lanes generating steals, © who do you want on this team long-term? Blake or Rudy? Rudy’s age, rookie contract, and upside makes him the clear winner to me…
So if we can get our best offensive unit out there now, playing together, learning how to play great team D – let’s do it!
I agree that we should be moving towards that lineup more
I don’t care so much about what we do at end of game right now, let Nate run the unit in which he has confidence. But that should be the target unit, and we should be running it enough so that Nate has confidence in it.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Make an argument that Miller is the better player.
He and Blake have different skill sets and in a particular instance one may be the better player to utilize than the other. But as Dave pointed out, the game circumstances did not clearly call for Miller. And it wasn’t Blake substituting for Andre, it was Rudy. The argument should be whether Andre should have been playing instead of Fernandez, if you want to argue the point at all.
hakkaa päälle !
I've presented the argument of Fernandez vs. Miller
the counter-argument was largely that it should be Fernandez vs. Blake, instead. Those supporting Miller getting more time focus on his ability to get into the paint and either finish or pass.
If you look at last night’s game, I think it is possible to conclude that late game defense against the Blazers focuses on keeping Roy out of the paint, which ostensibly makes Blake and Fernandez more important as outlet 3-point shooters. If either Blake or Fernandez get an open look at a three, that is a respectable and efficient scoring option.
The problem late in the game is when you HAVE to score. 3-point shooting is inherently low percentage – you have to shoot volume to make it effective. If you have limited possessions, the advantage switches to the defense if they can force an outside shot.
I’m warming to the idea that the Blazers can bust the crowded paint by running sets that make it easier for Oden or LMA to get close in shots in crunch time, rather than asking Roy to beat several defenders in a crowded paint. I am warming to the idea that it is Miller’s ability to attack the basket that will free up Roy, Oden and LMA to find space off the ball and be in a better position to finish a much higher percentage shot.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
I remember reading here some time ago the following:
The three point shot is one of the more efficient shots in the game.
If a player shoots 47% from the field, he will score 94 points over the course of 100 possesions. If he shoots 39% from behind the arc, he scores 117 points those same 100 possesions. That strikes me as a significant difference.
Whether you start inside and work out, or start the other way, I don’t think it matters much and which way you go probably is more a matter of your opponent on any given night and/or how your players are performing that night. The point is that one supports the other and you need both if you want to win a high percentage of your games. In the case of the Atlanta game, McMillan wanted at least two distance shooters. Miller isn’t one. As Dave said, Nate’s options were rather limited at that point.
hakkaa päälle !
it is a numbers game
The problem late in the game is when you HAVE to score. 3-point shooting is inherently low percentage – you have to shoot volume to make it effective. If you have limited possessions, the advantage switches to the defense if they can force an outside shot.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
bolded insted of blocked
but the volume requirement for a lower percentage shot is a real phenomena
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
That is correct
At least, in regard to the volume requirement.
Nevertheless, down 2, many teams will go for the 3, especially on the road. If you get an open 3, you’ve got a 40% chance of stealing the game, and that is better than a 55% chance of getting into overtime, especially on the road where many of the advantages in overtime go to the home team.
And if the other team is going to get time to put up a shot, many teams will go for the three when they are down 1, too. It is that much better to be up 2 than up 1 that it is often worth it if you have a good clutch 3 point shooter (like Rudy).
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
It may seem like a lot of complaining, considering the positive results so far
but winning this game would have been a little bit more validation that the Blazers are contenders. Personally, as a fan, I want to see the Blazers play their best AND succeed. I think expectations are up because we can all see that the Blazers haven’t approached their best yet – and these discussions are our attempts to understand why.
Basically – in spite of the success so far – I’m hungry for the Blazers to assume a position of dominance and assert their will on everyone – even the best of the best. In light of this, my focus is on what is preventing the Blazers from playing their best. Once they get past those, I see this team being something special, and it can and should happen this year.
Tonight’s effort was comendable – admirable even. I enjoyed watching the game – especially the second quarter. I think they could have won if they had been less fatigued, a little sharper. I also think that they could have won if the same issues that have been there all season didn’t rear their ugly head. The root cause of this loss wasn’t any different than the other losses. The Blazers have been playing ugly, lately, and tonight it wasn’t good enough to win.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 2:13 AM PST up reply actions
Contenders for what, though?
Championship? No way. Not this year. A good playoff seed? They’re in the running. This game doesn’t have a ton of bearing on their success or failure in that endeavor though. 4-1 overall on the trip is a better indicator even with the relatively weak opponents. You can snag a win against a good team on the road but if you go 2-3 on the trip while doing so you’re worse off than the team that took care of business when it was supposed to and finished 4-1. The old Blazers would have considered this a hallmark win. The new Blazers aren’t going to need it.
—Dave
Expectations too high?
Maybe. I had fewer expectations before I watched the Blazers this year. In spite of my nitpicking, I’m beginning to see that the pieces are in place for an excellent run, right now.
Small sample size, though. Small sample size.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 2:27 AM PST up reply actions
Atlanta just won in Boston by 11 when Boston wasn't tired
This was in Atlanta. There is a strong possibility that whoever wins the championship this year takes a loss in Atlanta. There is also a strong possibility that they take a worse loss there than we did.
A loss there means nothing, really. In a seven game series, there is a strong possibility that any team in the league would lose two games in Atlanta.
Even if you think we are a contender this year (maybe we’ve used up all our bad luck with the Nic and Travis injuries, and everything goes our way the rest of the year), we will still, in games at Atlanta, Boston, Orlando, Cleveland, LA, Denver, etc, lose more than we win. If we are really as good as I think we are going to be, we will win a few of those games. But we’ll lose more.
You just don’t win most of your games on the road against the elites, no matter who you are. To be elite, you grab a few of those, and win most of your other road games. This was our first game at an elite team, and we gave ourselves a chance. I can’t ask for anything more than that.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I don't disagree with any of your points
My argument isn’t that Portland had to win tonight to be considered “elite”. Rather, my point is that the Blazers are competitive in spite of not yet approaching their best basketball. My focus isn’t that they are doing pretty dang good, relatively speaking. I want to see what is preventing them from playing perfectly (absolutely) in order to ascertain the proper adjustment.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:07 AM PST up reply actions
we aren't playing point guard very well
and we aren’t making best use of personnel
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions
this is true. It would look a lot better if we would just make the percentage of shots we made last year.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 17, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
In terms of, we aren’t making best use of personnel when Steve Blake is playing large chunks of the game at the 2.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 17, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
This still absolutely baffles me on paper
Between Rudy and Roy, you wouldn’t expect any other blazer to get minutes at the 2 barring injuries. Yet, Nate is forcing Roy to play out of position so Steve Blake can play out of position. Hard to argue with the results though….
RUDY > MJ
That sums it up
Everything else is the normal imperfections of basketball.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
If you think Miller is going to hit more jump shots
then that would be an abnormal perfection of basketball
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:18 AM PST up reply actions
Historically
he’s been a decent mid-range shooter.
I don’t know if he has ever jumped on a jump shot, though.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
Good enough is all that it takes to win a title, with a little luck thrown in as well. Last night the Blazers came damn close to playing good enough to win, but luck (in the form of some calls that could have gone the other way) was not with them.
I feel a bit disappointed and even a tad bit depressed when I think of how close we came to a fantasic victory. But I then remind myself to put it into prospective. What I don’t do is go finding fault with the guys who put forth the real effort.
btw – name three people, teams or organizations of any sort that are perfect.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
hakkaa päälle !
my handle provides a clue on how to properly define perfection
suffice to say that perfection in dynamic systems is messy.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Three perfect people?
Me, Myself, and I.
The End.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Only because AK didn't think of it
and Morty was writing a novel disguised as a comment somewhere in the blogiverse.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
by jscot on Nov 18, 2009 12:37 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd argue that the closest AK has come to perfection ...
… is his having long hair like Jesus.
hakkaa päälle !
No evidence Jesus had long hair
but none of us have gotten any closer to perfection than AK.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I don't know.
I came pretty close once when I came up with a solution that solved 3 different issues and saved both us and the customer a bunch of money.
And again when I asked my wife to marry me. That one ranks pretty close to making the perfect decision.
But you are probably correct.
Again.
A near perfect record, so to speak.
hakkaa päälle !
LOL
Your decision to marry your wife wasn’t perfect. How do I know?
You choose to marry a fool, as demonstrated by the fact that she said yes.
I often ask myself how I could be so dumb as to want to marry anyone who would be foolish enough to marry me. It’s a real dilemma.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Seeing as I like you ...
… I will make you aware of the fact my wife is Korean. The reason I mention this is that you do not want a pissed off Korean woman coming after you. And indicating she is a fool is nothing to the implication that she may have made a mistake. Korean women do not make mistakes, nor are they wrong. Ever.
Just ask Tom.
hakkaa päälle !
Ah, you must have married one of those women
who knew what she was doing, and went into it for charity.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
That is a distinct possibility.
But I no longer try to devine the motives of women. I am learning that it is better to just do what they tell me.
hakkaa päälle !
They have the pieces
Just gotta cobble it all together.
I know most people point at the point guard play as the biggest one, but for me it is rebounding. OK, I know we have been one of the best on the boards this season, but it has been because of Oden and Pryz almost entirely. Aldridge has great board numbers too, the recipient of frequent advantage gained by two guys clearing out Joel and Greg.
The problem is our small forwards do not get nearly enough boards and they don’t block out well enough. Atlanta is the case in point. Denver got to us in that way too late int he game. Rebounding is a team effort and until we get that team effort working better we will get exposed from time to time. I am glad we have two of the best rebounding centers in the league, but they can’t pull down 50 boards a night.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Boo Dave!
Championship? No way. Not this year
No way, Dave? NO WAY? Then what the @#$ are we all doing here? For me, it’s championship or you’re just one of the 29 losers… Sure, you want to see improvement each year – but only because that gives you a better feeling about the probability of you winning it all next year!
I, for one, think the Blazers absolutely DO have a chance to win a championship this year! The window is OPEN! Let me put it this way:
1) Do you think we’ll make the playoffs? Me too…
2) Can we beat Denver, if we win the division and have home court? Absolutely.
2) Do we not play the Fakers tougher than just about any other team? Yes.
4) And this year, the East winner is not going to have it easy: Cleveland or Boston are the bets to play the ECF this year, and the winner will be bruised..
Well, those are the four series we have to win: a lower ranked playoff team, a team like Denver or SA, and the Fakers… Then, when we get into the finals, it’s right there for the taking.
Now, sure, am I taking some homeristic liberties? Is my glass half full? You bet. But this team absolutely has the talent to be able to win 4 out of 7 games against ANY team in the NBA. Especially if you fast forward our recent huge strides in development to May.
The Blazers are going to be a very tough out in this year’s playoffs, and I suspect that by the time we get there, nobody will want to play us…
So, for the first time in my short Bedge career, I give Dave a hearty BOOOOO!
Of course
I posted above some perspective about this game. This was one of the toughest games of the year, and we took it to overtime on the road in our fifth in seven nights, and just ran out of gas.
Typical post-loss sky is falling stuff.
Denver lost in Atlanta by 25. 25! They won in Boston by 11. Their closest home game before this was an 11 point win, and we had them on the ropes, and took them to overtime.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Agreed
And I’m usually the guy trippin’ out. Good road trip.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 17, 2009 6:56 AM PST up reply actions
I actually thought it was one of the best games they played so far as a team....
until they handed it over to Atlanta in the 3rd quarter with their 10 million turnovers. Up to that point it looked like they had it in the bag. I’ll take a 4-1 road trip everyday and twice on Sunday! It very well could have been a 2-3 road trip. But at least now we know that Rudy is clutch!!
This is a game the Blazers choked away. Honestly the should never have let the Hawks come back. Now
I know a lot of people have that blow up the team and fire Nate gut reaction but like KP says,“calm waters”. We can’t win them all, and this one just got away. A win against the Pistons and we’ll all forget this game.
I still wish Aldridge wasn’t so soft. Man how can a guy be that soft. Oden at least tries to get lay ups. Aldridge needs to start playing like a man.
I thought both of them struggled to assert themselves tonight when it mattered
Maybe the zone defense was a factor in keeping them from pulling down the important boards. Aldridge had some early games that the term soft could be applied to, Denver at home for one. But I don’t think this one fits the description. He pulled down some tough boards and took the ball to the hoop tonight in the first half.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
I love LMA and called him 'not soft' last game but he was soft last night
He couldn’t get anywhere near the rim and settled for some hideously ugly half-hooks
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 17, 2009 6:56 AM PST up reply actions
We are a good rebounding team because of Oden, Pryz and Aldridge
the rest of the tema tends to let them go at it. Problem is when you get a team like Atlanta, you are in a lot of trouble, our perimeter guys have to box the crashers out. It wasn’t a lack of agressiveness by our the bigs, it was 1 or 2 players on their 4 that was killing us.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Brandon seems to pull down a few, too
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Yeah, but...
aren’t a good portion of those off his own misses?
I’ve really noticed Roy on the weak side, and Dre seems to always be around both baskets, if not running the O…
I’ll have to pay more attention to BRoy on the D glass…
Play a point guard
at shooting guard and you tend to get a little sporkiness.
Nice imagery, Ben.
—Dave
(Don’t freak out, everybody: It’s not a real photo. I made it up. I know it looks real, but it’s not.)
"Quid, Me Anxius Sum?"
http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/Year5000
by Y5k on Nov 17, 2009 2:50 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
It's not real
There’s blue sky in the background
Blake
I Would like to see miller get more minutes and Blake come of the bench. Blames not playing well and neither is miller. Although I think miller is playing better. The team is just not jelling that well yet. Once they do everyone look out, they are going to be nearly unstopable. I just hope that comes sooner then later. The blazers are doing great so far 8-4, that’s a good start rember last year it took the team awhile to get rolling.
by edawg on Nov 17, 2009 4:54 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Best typo ever
Blames not playing well and neither is miller.
by tominhawaii on Nov 17, 2009 5:12 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rudy: "hitting a beautiful tear drop in traffic"
Dominique Wilkens in the Atlanta telecast called his tear drop “ugly”
Is there a way we could acquire Corey Maggette? I think he would make the team better and help our team going deeper into the finals.
throw in Steve Blake…yes Steve Blake, im frustrated of how many minutes he gets!!..outlaw, webster, cunningham, penderhraph or one of our keyplayers,, still dunno who?!
Good road trip, tough way to end it
The Blazers win if they don’t completely forget how to play basketball for about 8 or 9 minutes in the third. Mostly I think they just ran out of gas. Although being tired doesn’t explain some of those horrific stretches where the Blazers had no clue what they were doing.
Anyway, that would’ve been some win but going 4-1 on a roadie on the other coast is good even though the competition was weak.
The team definitely has some questions vs. the good teams though. You aren’t going to get away with crappy stretches of basketball vs. the good teams.
Blazer Fan
Blake had some terrible defensive possessions at the end of the game as well....
Lets not over look that. Why was Rudy not getting a look at the end of regulation? The plays where Roy passed to Blake at the end seemed almost obligatory. Forced.
Still, great trip. Atlanta always plays us tough. 4-1 is nothing to be mad at. We still have a lot of work to do though, these teams we beat are average to poor. It’s not time for jumping jacks of joy just yet…….
Go Blazers!
That was our problem last year, Blake looking kinda clueless when it mattered
That’s why we got Miller. Or at least I thought. Though I’ll admit Miller has looked really sloppy at times too.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 17, 2009 7:11 AM PST up reply actions
For the Ten Thousand time...
Dre starts slow… He’ll be fine come playoff time… (and, hopefully, in December we’ll start seeing what a true point guard can add to this team)…
Didn't get to watch the game
and now I’m kinda glad. Regardless of how they called it, I hate refs. Any ref or umpire or official, any sport, I hate them.
Sounds like our boys just ran out of gas. Understandable, but unacceptable. Against teams like this, they need to be on point and bring everything they have.
Overall I’m pretty happy about the road trip. 4-5 ain’t bad, but 5-5 would’ve been a lot better. Welcome home!
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
How has this thread gotten this far
And no one mentioned the fact that the lineup we were playing for the last two defensive possessions of OT required us to put Roy with 5 fouls on Johnson since he was defensively playing alongside Miller and Blake. What were the results of those possessions? Easy short jumper by Johnson as Roy had to play off him and a wide open dunk by a cutting Smith after Johnson broke down that moronic zone.
I get the arguments about defensive communication and all that for the Blake/Miller/Roy lineup (although Blake had a major defensive screwup earlier in crunchtime on hedging a Bibby/Johnson screen) , but with Roy on 5 fouls, you simply can’t play without a single half-decent perimeter defender on the court against a guy like Johnson, admittedly the lineup was Blake/Rudy/Roy for most of OT. We were calling timeouts after pretty much every possession anyways, some offense/defense subs would have made sesnse. As discombobulated as Webster may have been at the offensive end, he still would almost definitely have been more effective guarding Johnson than Roy was with 5 fouls.
A decent trip, but as has been pointed out by a lot of posters here, we were playing some real bottomfeeders here. The Hornets still have some name rec, but they’ve been simply awful all season and the Wolves/Bobcats/Grizzlies aren all going to be vying for some high lotto picks.
How many times are we going to see opposing wings simply lighting us up late in games before Nate realizes it might be important to put a decent defender out there?
Other than Roy we don't really have one at that spot
Quick, name the player on this team who can stop Joe Johnson
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Nov 17, 2009 7:16 AM PST up reply actions
No one stops him
but even an off Martell slows him down more than Roy playing him with kid gloves. At least Webster was fresh and didn’t have to play 10 feet off him to avoid fouling. Once Roy got his 5th, Atlanta had their two easiest buckets of crunch time, both due to us having to play defense to prevent Roy from fouling him. Even Rudy would probably have been a better choice at that point.
But Martell was simply bad in this game
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
That's why we have timeouts
and what offense/defense subs are for. I get it, Martell was not good this game. And once Roy had 5 fouls, he was playing defense like a rookie year Sergio. This isn’t a knock on Roy, since he absolutely could not get his 6th foul, and what it led to was Joe Johnson mopping the floor with him when we needed stops desperately. I can’t remember the exact defensive matchups while they were in, but Johnson shot 1-5 with Webster in the game so it’s not like he was having his way with him.
I mean, can’t we get past the point of benching a guy for the rest of the game if he has a bad stretch (which Martell definitely did to start the 4th)? Whether it’s Martell, Bayless, Rudy, Oden or whoever, it’s getting a little ridiculous that the coaching staff is completely unable to sit a guy down midgame and tell him to calm down and be ready because they’ll need him later in the game.
They seem finally willing to let Oden play some later if he has a rough start and he’s responded with some huge stretches of play. Is it unreasonable to think that other guys on the team could similarly bounce back?
Well, in this case I agree with you
I’m not usually a fan of one guy defense, another offense, it breaks your continuity too much. And you have the problem of the guy you brought in for defense getting fouled, etc.
But in this case, we didn’t have anyone who could play a semblance of defense, and they weren’t going to foul Martell intentionally to put him on the line, and if he got into a fastbreak, I like his chances of dunking on the other end even if he’s had an awful game.
So yes, I would tend to agree with you on this one.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
My issue is this
you posted in another thread about the Denver game and the merits of playing Martell, who was doing a decent job on Melo vs. Rudy, who was our main source of offense in that 4th quarter. Obviously this is a valid concern for a tradeoff, but at some point, don’t we have to give defense a chance?
Every time we play a decent wing these days, they pretty much light us up in the 4th quarter if the game is close at all. The worst performances being Durant (when Martell played nearly the entire 4th) and Johnson in Portland (7 pts, 3-5 shooting, 1 assist). Aside from that, Melo has exploded, Johnson exploded, Ariza’s had a great quarter. It’s starting to look like the elite wings in the league are respecting us as a team and bringing their A+ game in crunch time (which may not have been the case as much last year). If this isn’t a trend yet, it’s certainly starting to develop into one.
Now, this is an extreme comparison, but I’m sure the Spurs’ crunch-time offense the past few years would have been more efficient with a Parker/Finley/Ginobili backcourt, but they never played that down the stretch because they needed Bowen out there to slow down the elite wings. Martell is obviously nowhere near Bowen at his peak, but the fact remains that defense wins games, and before his benching, Martell looked like our best man defender out there. As things tighten up at the end of games into more iso situations and fatigue sets in, that ability to hound a guy and make him work for his points only becomes more valuable.
Yep
But to be honest, I haven’t felt like I’m seeing the same defensive performance out of Martell that we saw in that Denver game.
I actually suspect Martell is tired. He didn’t have that much time to get back in game shape. He was out a year. And I know he hasn’t played long minutes, but the biggest part of the fatigue of road trips is travel, different bed every night, changing time zones, etc. That affects the guys who don’t play a lot, too. The second biggest part is probably mental — you have to mentally prepare whether you play 40 or 15. The actual physical fatigue of playing a few more minutes isn’t the biggest part — guys that age can play for a couple hours a day.
Like I said in this case, I think I agree with you that it would have been better to go with Martell. But I’m bothered that he just doesn’t seem to have it together right now.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Maybe it's fatigue
maybe he’s reacting poorly to the benching and huge role reduction, it wouldn’t be the first time we saw a player respond poorly to a massive role change. Going into the Spurs game, I don’t think any of us predicted or thought desirous a massive reduction in Webster’s minutes, and since then, we’ve pretty much only played scrub teams (yes I count NO as one right now), so I’m a little leery of judging lineup effectiveness based on beating up the Wolves.
Basically, I don’t think the current situation is tenable. We’re going to win 9 times out of 10 against the Wolves regardless of whether Blake or Martell is starting, and I think it’s a lot more important for us to get Martell in a comfort zone with the rest of the team than it is to get Blake in a comfort zone. Even with Nic coming back at some point, I think Webster is more important for the short and long-term success of the team than Blake is (although both obviously pale in comparison to Roy/Oden/LA).
Nic went through some simply awful stretches last year, and we managed to survive.
Could be
I don’t think the drop off in the first few games were fatigue. But he’s actually looked worse, IMO, as the trip went on. The last two games were just bad.
I also don’t think we can reasonably play 3 guards all season. Well, let me change that. With Greg and LMA inside, we might be able to play three guards — but not when two of them are PGs. Our SGs are both big enough and good enough rebounders that going with three guards a lot isn’t too bad when two of them are SGs. But it’s just a gimmick.
Nate said at the start this was temporary, and I believe him, even though we’ve been successful. We’ve been very successful, four straight road wins is good against anyone, and we validated it by taking the game to Atlanta for 2 1/2 quarters.
But I’ll be shocked if it lasts.
And I also agree that getting Martell in a comfort zone is more important than Blake. I don’t think running Blake in these lineups is about getting Steve in a comfort zone, though. It’s about getting Brandon in a comfort zone.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Last night was hardly the end of the world
but it’s getting a little distressing to see us getting lit up in 4th quarter after 4th quarter. Sure, it was the last game of a long trip this time, but what was our excuse against Denver? Houston? So far we’re pretty much batting 75% on good wings lighting up our late game lineup in tight games (Gerald Wallace being the exception), and that Bobcats team is just awful at offense.
You don’t make decisions based on one game like this, but it’s just one more piece of evidence.
Thanks for the heads up
I hadn’t even considered factoring in our record into my opinion on the team’s play. Back to the drawing board for me.
LOL
When you come back from the drawing board….
Fourth quarter after fourth quarter? I think you just described the 2nd, 3rd, and 12th games of the season….
If Ariza is a good wing who lit up our 4th quarter defense in Houston, then he’s a good wing who didn’t do it in Portland.
Joe Johnson didn’t light us up in Portland. We had other problems, but he wasn’t the reason we lost. I didn’t see much of that game, so maybe I’m mistaken, but I think our problem was a PG.
Durant didn’t light us up.
I think you are talking about a legitimate problem, but overstating it. Maybe you need to go back to the drawing board again. :)
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
is there a common denominator to the (close) losses?
if it is only that the other team made low percentage shots and we didn’t – then all other factors will ensure that the Blazers win very consistently, and prodigiously – because we will get ours as often as we don’t.
However, if the root cause of the losses were that other teams were able to control the outcome, then those issues need to be identified and resolved to prevent recurrence.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 17, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
There are so many factors in a close loss
that you could come up with common denominators all over the place.
Everything else considered, if Blake makes one 3, we win in Atlanta. If Greg makes two free throws, we beat Denver. If Ariza misses a shot or two, we win in Houston.
I could make the common denominator of a couple of those losses to be Oden free throws. I could also make it the inability to defend an opposing wing who was on fire. Or the two Atlanta losses were a failure to control the boards.
But seriously, there are at least 50 plays you could point to in a one or two bucket loss and say, “We lost because of that play.” There is little profit in going down that road. There is no one reason for a close loss. One play going differently earlier in the game makes the end of game play that everyone focuses on irrelevant.
The key is to look at every play that didn’t go right and work on fixing as many of them as you can. That may mean personnel changes, it may mean working on execution, etc.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
c'mon, at least read the entire post
So far we’re pretty much batting 75% on good wings lighting up our late game lineup in tight games (Gerald Wallace being the exception), and that Bobcats team is just awful at offense.
A 20 point lead heading into the 4th qualifies as a “tight” game now? Forgive me for not thinking that the Rockets were selling themselves out to come back in a blowout in which Adelman didn’t make a single sub in the entire quarter despite the Blazers’ best attempts to give that game away.
Of our games going into the 4th that have been tight:
Den(up 5, lots of 3 guard, huge Melo quarter)
Atl (down 3, Johnson ok, 6 pts and 4 assists for Crawford)
@Hou (down 4, 3 guard lineup for all but 1 minute, big quarter for Ariza)
@OKC (up 3, we rarely see a 3 guard lineup, Durant is quiet)
@Mem (up 8, so borderline, Gay and Mayo are quiet)
@Cha (up 4, Wallace is quiet)
@Atl (up 9, Johnson explodes)
So, of those 7 close games, we’ve played 6 extensively with a 3 guard lineup in the 4th, and faced solid wings in all of them. Of those 6, Wallace and Memphis do poorly (although the game was a blowout by the time Mayo checked in in the 4th), Johnson does okay once, Ariza has one of his best quarters all year, and Melo and Johnson both explode once.
So the times we’ve been successful defensively against decent wings in close games have been when we’ve played awful teams and once against Atlanta. In the other 3 games against good teams we haven’t had an answer.
To quote myself again, you don’t make decisions based off games like this, but it’s just one more piece of evidence.
That comes out to 75%?
It looks to me like about half of those close games, an opposing wing had a big fourth. That’s not great. I said it’s a problem. But it isn’t as if a good wing lights up our closing lineup 75% of the time. That just isn’t the case.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
At your service.
And it isn’t that I think you don’t have a point, even if it sounds a bit exagerated. I just think people sometimes lose site of what is important. And for the purposes of discussing the loss to Atlanta and evaluating how good Portland is, the final arbitrator is the team’s record.
hakkaa päälle !
I don't disagree that it's nice to be winning games
but these aren’t exactly juggernauts we’re beating. A win over the Wolves means a lot less than a win over the Lakers. You can beat the Wolves playing bad basketball, you can’t beat playoff teams consistently playing bad basketball, and outside of opening night and a win over the shadow of a Spurs team, we haven’t beaten a team that looks like it will be in the playoffs.
Just as you think I’m discounting the team’s record, I think you’re discounting how easy our schedule has been.
You may be right on the discounting of ...
… the ease factor. Mainly that has to do with the fact that I am not going to waste my energy worrying about how Portland might perform in the playoffs at this point in the season.
The nice thing here is that time will tell. Either Portland has major systematic weaknesses and will struggle to make the playoffs or it is just working out the kinks as it undergoes qualification trials and will be steam rolling opponents come the second half of the season. Or somewhere between these two.
hakkaa päälle !
It was a juggernaut
that we took to overtime on their court. That wasn’t bad basketball in that game under any circumstances.
We’ve played them twice and given them more of a battle than Denver or Boston have.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
My issue is this
you posted in another thread about the Denver game and the merits of playing Martell, who was doing a decent job on Melo vs. Rudy, who was our main source of offense in that 4th quarter. Obviously this is a valid concern for a tradeoff, but at some point, don’t we have to give defense a chance?
Every time we play a decent wing these days, they pretty much light us up in the 4th quarter if the game is close at all. The worst performances being Durant (when Martell played nearly the entire 4th) and Johnson in Portland (7 pts, 3-5 shooting, 1 assist). Aside from that, Melo has exploded, Johnson exploded, Ariza’s had a great quarter. It’s starting to look like the elite wings in the league are respecting us as a team and bringing their A+ game in crunch time (which may not have been the case as much last year). If this isn’t a trend yet, it’s certainly starting to develop into one.
Now, this is an extreme comparison, but I’m sure the Spurs’ crunch-time offense the past few years would have been more efficient with a Parker/Finley/Ginobili backcourt, but they never played that down the stretch because they needed Bowen out there to slow down the elite wings. Martell is obviously nowhere near Bowen at his peak, but the fact remains that defense wins games, and before his benching, Martell looked like our best man defender out there. As things tighten up at the end of games into more iso situations and fatigue sets in, that ability to hound a guy and make him work for his points only becomes more valuable.
No trout...No dinner
Elizabeth had a partner and he had a rap from the cops, Him and Lenny Suckerpunch were just out Tooling around
by Lizzy Lowblow on Nov 17, 2009 7:20 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
We need more guys who can consistantly hit their shots in crunch time. When will we get a good scorer in portland?
i have faith in the growth of nic batum
Juwan Howard, drafted June 29th, 1994. Netscape first released November 14th, 1994
Wait, what?
You realize that we have one of the most efficient scorers AND best fourth-quarter players in the league, right? You know, that guy who’s the two-time All-Star and franchise cornerstone?
smh…
"One of the bright spots of the young season has been rookie point guard Jonny Flynn, whose name sounds like he should be the lead character in a Broadway Musical. "What are you doing here, Jonny Flynn?" "Why I'm here to court trouble, and woo a girl, and build the most fantastical contraption the world has ever seen!" -- Dave, Game 7 Blazers versus Timberwolves preview
by BlazersOrBust on Nov 17, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions
Coaching lost this game
Three times Oden’s man got the ball out at the foul line bringing the big guy out while the blazer’s were attempting to zone and he didn’t go back to protect the basket. Atlanta got some easy buckets from that set up. The coaching staff should have called a timeout and refreshed everybody’s mind about how to play zone. The coaching staff didn’t see what Atlanta was doing? I hope the player’s were making the mistake.
Roy should be passing Oden the ball on the post. When Oden get’s the pass, Miller should cut through the lane to open the head of the key for Roy if Oden has to pass back to Roy who could then shoot or take his man to hoop.
Isn't this fun?
1. Coaching on the zone lost the game.
2. Coaching on substitution rotations lost the game.
3. Blake lost the game.
4. The refs stole the game from us.
5. Greg missed free throws and lost the game.
6. Lack of rebounding from the centers lost the game.
7. Lack of rebounding from the small forwards lost the game.
I’m sure I missed something. I’d like to propose a new, radical, alternative suggestion.
We got beat by a very good team that played a good game on their home floor, stayed in the game and rolled with our best punch, then took advantage of our fatigue and some fortunate calls, and pulled out the win.
We did not “lose” that game. We went out there and played hard and did our best to win it. We got beat, but there were no real losers. It was a good, hard-fought, entertaining game. We showed them that there is more to the Portland Trailblazers than they saw in Portland. We took the game to them the best we could. If by some miracle both teams make the Finals, we’ll have a very enjoyable series, and they will be under no illusions that they’ll be facing the fight of their lives.
We didn’t win, but we sure didn’t “lose”. It was arguably our best performance of the first 12 games.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
by jscot on Nov 17, 2009 9:48 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Watching the NBA for 40 years
has taught me that teams win championships because they use what’s between the ears. And that’s true of the coaching staff as well. The Blazers couldn’t execute down the stretch. The team didn’t have any options to tax the defense of the Hawks during the end of the fourth quarter, and on defense we went to a zone that was easily broken and allowed Johnson to go one on one, essentially an iso against a man to man defense. The blazers need something extra on offense to test the opponents on defense. My take is that the coaching staff hasn’t done enough offensive work because they’ve been trying to figure out what lineup to use and protect Oden from fouling out. But that’s like a football team with a lead with five minutes to go and they go conservative on the offense against a good team. Is it a surprise they get beat? I’m not saying that the blazer coaching staff has done a good job, just the opposite; however, the Atlanta game shows that regardless of the lineup the blazers need an offensive plan for closing out games. They looked like “Hey, Roy win this for us we know you can take them one on five”.
I'm not disagreeing with your concerns about end of game offense
But that isn’t really why we lost this game, any more than our turnovers in the third, or anything else.
We went out and played hard and pretty well. We lost the game because they also played well, well enough to beat us. And they had the rest advantage, the home court advantage, the ref advantage, and all that gave them enough.
Is there anything we could have done better to overcome that? Sure. About 50,000 things. You can identify half of them and I can identify the other half. One shot, one call, one turnover, one defensive stop, better execution on one play, one rebound, and we win the game.
When you are dog tired, execution is hard. Experience helps with that — when you’ve executed 743 times before, you do it by habit even when you are dragging. Lack of execution in the first quarter is often a coaching problem, at least by the time you get 20 games into the season. By then, the wrinkles should be ironed out and there should be no excuse. But lack of execution in the fourth and overtime on the fifth in five nights on the road, when you are up against a quality team that is doing all they can to disrupt your execution? I’m not going to be quick to blame the coaches for that.
As for the “Hey, Roy win this for us” comment, if we don’t get past that by mid-season with the personnel we now have, something is wrong. It has worked many multiple times in the past, so I can understand relying on it until you have confidence that something better is working. But if we can’t get something better working by midseason with the players we now have, something is wrong.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
agree that we need more variety in late game offense
but still, there’s got to be some moments that we really need to say “Hey, Roy win this for us”. It’s just inevitable not only for Roy, but Johnson, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, CP3…,etc. That’s just the way modern NBA works.
It's not "Hey Roy win this for us" that concerns me
It’s that everyone stands around and watches him try to, instead of using a team concept to get him an easier shot.
And I don’t really care about how the modern NBA works. It doesn’t have to work that way when you have the personnel we have.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
My only thoughtrs
From the advantage point, in front of my radio listening to KRCO 690A.M., It was clear the Blazers was taken out of the game by the Refs. OK, so I am a little bitter. I will take the word of all the posters on that though.
All in all, if we look at the way the cards were stacked, we can feel darn proud of our team’s effort:
1. They lost a rotation player, Travis regardless of all the arguments was in the rotation.
2. They were in game 5 of a five game road trip. That is rough for any team regardless of the quality of opponents.
3. There were two back-back’s
4. Four games in five nights and the last game with one game rest.
5. Arguably, we were playing the second best team in the NBA at the present. the Trailblazers being the best. (homerism intended)
6. We were playing on the opponent’s home court where the calls usually go toward the home crowd. In fact it is expected.
7. Our emotions may have gotten in the way, Greg’s free throws, BRoy’s missed three, and maybe intimidation from Smith.
a. I wouldn’t have the emotional part any other way. that is what makes the team fight the battles from day to day.
8. We never gave up the ship. Although we were the losers in this close encounter, there will be many that goes in our favor.
These are my feelings; they are marred by homerism, no TV and just plain love for the Portland trailblazer team.
hg
Apparently you saw a much clearer picture of the game ...
… than a lot of folks who watched on tv.
Nice job.
hakkaa päälle !
They outscored us in the 4th quarter 27-18.
We had too many turnovers in the 4th quarter.
We really missed Travis Outlaw’s size on defense.
Some of the late game calls were bad, but not THAT bad.
That’s about it really.
Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team.
-- Scottie Pippen
this is ridiculous
wow this is clearly a non-story… an “insult to the city of portland” would be to openly trash the blazers/city, not imply we’d enjoy a book about basketball. as if people reading BE would write a 700+ world book w/out typos.
simmons has also regularly praised blazer fans for withholding our support until the jail blazers fiasco was cleaned up. god forbid that the guy roots for his childhood team (like others commenting on this post) and that he compliment blazers fans as knowledgeable, passionate fans of the sport. if you disagree don’t buy/read the book, but i say respect the guy as a true nba fan and show some class at the pistons game.
this post almost seems like a joke, to be honest i’m disappointed in BE. normally i come on this site to get away from rabble-rousing non-stories like this and read some objective basketball posts (& following my blazers, obvs)…
by chester a. arthur on Nov 17, 2009 3:17 PM PST reply actions
Don't you have a Gilded Age you should be presiding over, Mr. President?
"One of the bright spots of the young season has been rookie point guard Jonny Flynn, whose name sounds like he should be the lead character in a Broadway Musical. "What are you doing here, Jonny Flynn?" "Why I'm here to court trouble, and woo a girl, and build the most fantastical contraption the world has ever seen!" -- Dave, Game 7 Blazers versus Timberwolves preview
by BlazersOrBust on Nov 17, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
This is a game recap, chester
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Comments For This Post Are Closed
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
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
