Give Nate time

by FromAfar on Nov 26, 2009 12:49 PM PST

On the Blake vs Miller debate. A prevailing sentiment is that Nate is withholding the obvious for perverse reasons. Hey, what if he's just as frustrated as us? What if he too, has a vision for a promised land, but is finding it hard to get us there? Or maybe he's just more practical and knows where he wants to go, and is being deliberate in getting us there.

PRE-SEASON STARTS: Lousy pre-season. Brandon is coasting. LMA distracted by contract issues. Batum and Rudy are resting. Cant seriously practice with the RAMBO unit. Young team thinks we can could flip a switch and be back to "a 54 win team".
PRE-SEASON MIDDLE: Play RAMBO starting unit. Its a disaster. The high expectations dont automatically fall in place. Second unit is totally stuck. What a mess. How to straighten out a mess? Go back to what you know works. Joel and Greg were pretty much interchangeable, so its not a big switch to start Greg. At least get the team back to last seasons model.
SEASON START: Aaaaand Batum goes down. Fine, lets put Martell in. But Martell is real rusty. Our defense has gaping holes. Our bigs (all three Greg, Joel, and LMA) are getting in foul trouble.
GAME 6: Lets try three guard. Phew. Little better. Might not be ideal, but let out a deep breadth, its working for now. Lets get back to business of the promised land.
GAME 11: Aaaaaand Travis goes down. Now our tried and true "starting line-up for the fourth quarter" is disrupted. GoshDangIt! That was one staple we could rely on. How are we supposed to develop any continuity? Lets stick with three guard. We're starting well, building strong leads with our first unit, but our second unit is stagnant, we're having fourth quarter issues, and an undermanned GSW team tears us apart. Coises, foiled again. [Nate's hair isn't even long enough to pull out in handfuls.]
GAME 15: Put Martell back in as starting SF, he's shaken off some rust. We still need lot of three guard because we dont have a backup SF. Travis used to be our backup PF and we would play small ball. Juwan cab be a replacement for some matchups, but he is too slow for faster teams. Can the rookie Dante step up? Hey, look Dante's worked for a couple of games. Will he still have it, once opposing teams have scouted out his primary moves? [Nate's fingers probably hurt from keeping them crossed aaaallll the time]. And look we actually get to squeeze in some time for Roy and Andre to play together, even if its only with Roy as SF.

When do we get to do what we really want to do?

Designs look great on paper. But players are not plug-and-play parts. They are not automatons that are casually switched around and everything falls in place. Change takes time.

Early last year, it was a similar story. Nate's plays were predictable. The fanbase was imploring Nate to grow some imagination. It was about this time last year, that I made the appeal to BlazersEdge to give Nate time, that he was a young coach and learning in a lot of ways; that the team was young and they too were learning sets for the first time, given that they did not have the luxury of having learnt them with other teams; that there is very little time in between games to groove new plays.

When the season ended last year, we were top in offensive efficiency, we were blowing out top teams. We might still have been predictable, but it was winning predictability. Even the Lakers could not overcome the predictability. Very few had realistically put us down for 54 wins. Give Nate credit for having a vision of what he wanted to accomplish and making it happen. [It might not be our vision, we were last in fast breaks, etc etc, but it was a winning vision].

Still last year, we did not matchup well against some teams -- GSW, PHI, DAL, HOU. And we got caught like deer in the headlights in our first playoff experience. We needed to improve to advance to the next level. Our mantra was defense. Dont look now, but aren't we Top in Defensive Efficiency, Top in Opp FG%, Top in Def Rebounding. True the competition hasn't been the best. But, once again give Nate credit for having a vision and driving to it. You can bet that Nate knows that last years team was good, but not good enough.

Nate has a vision for the promised land, and it is not the same starting five as last year. But it will take many small steps to get to the desired end result. Change takes time. Give Nate time. And while Nate is young as a coach, and does not have a resume ala Phil, Pop, or even Adelman. Give Nate credit for what he has accomplished. And give Nate time to show you what he will do for you next.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 5 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I feel much better about Nate than I did at the start of the season, for sure...

He’s REALLY slow to play rookies, and it was infuriating that The Inferno was relegated to the 12th man role, while Travis was being played out of position as the backup 4. His overuse of his Binky at the expense of Andre was also aggravating, as was a rather mechanical use of Oden, who came out slow and stunk it up for half a dozen games.

The move to the 3 guard opened up a little time for The Rex, which needs to happen this year.

Travis went down and nature took its course between the Inferno and Juwon.

And Nate is showing signs of really understanding how to stagger Oden’s minutes so that he’s effective and on the floor when he needs to be.

It takes Nate a while, but never let it be said that he does not learn and adjust as he goes…….

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Nov 26, 2009 1:45 PM PST reply actions

More to it than meets our eyes

As fans we often view players with rose colored glasses, mostly seeing the good, when we like a player; or view players with opposite-of-rose colored glasses, mostly seeing the negative, when we are negatively biased towards a player. Nate has to see the totality because he is responsible for results. As fans, we can walk away, and shrug, oh well that didn’t work. But its Nate’s job, and he bears/accepts responsibility for the results. Can we really fault him for being deliberate? That is his trademark. This trademark also manifests in our strengths, low turnovers, high efficiencies…

Secondly, I think that we dont have privy to the extent of attention during practices and tape-reviews. Nate’s comments indicate that practice sessions are a large part of the determinant. Nate felt that Dante was ready to be inserted into the lineup based on practice workouts. We might never know, whether Dante made specific tangible progress during practice sessions, to allow Nate to make his determination. It might be incorrect on our part to assume that Dante had the sufficient package when he first showed up.

by FromAfar on Nov 26, 2009 2:18 PM PST up reply actions

There's no way Cunningham was "ready" when he arrived at camp

Nate isn’t that different from other NBA coaches, he only plays rookie 2nd round draft choices when he “has” to. There was a lot for Dante to learn about the Blazer’s system and the NBA in general and to his credit he’s been a fast learner, plus he isn’t afraid to stick his nose in there, and that’s won him points with the coach.

It’s also good to hear that Roy has taken DC under his wing, that can only help his adjustment period. But make no mistake, if Batum and Outlaw were healthy, Cunnngham wouldn’t see the light of day, and that’s as it should be. Also, don’t expect Pendergraph to “jump right in there” and be productive during his first couple of months “back” from injury. He’ll have to go through the same learning process as Dante, and there won’t be nearly as many practices for Jeff to “get his feet wet” in January, like there were during camp and preseason back in October.

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 26, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions

Agreed

I think that we forget (or discount) that it takes a lot of effort to get a college rookie ready for the NBA (or even sophomores especially if they did not play 4 years of college ball). We get frustrated and storm the airwaves calling for more PT for our favorite rookie du-jour. Nate is more deliberate than most, but we’ve got to give him time to bring young kids up to speed.

82 games are played out over approximately 160 days, leaving about 80 practice days. Assume 20 days lost travel time (41 games are away games, shorter if not no practices) that leaves 60 days and even less if you consider the odd holiday here and there (Thanksgiving, Christmas). When lineups aren’t settled (or even preparing for exigent circumstances), we could halve the sessions available per-lineup, which leaves about 30 sessions per lineup (maybe even less).

If the playbook has just 16 plays, there are less than 2 sessions per lineup per play over the entire season. If you set aside time for drills, per play per lineup time drops even further. If you consider that rookies are not highest priority in the coaching totem pole, they have even less opportunity to learn.

At this point of the season, excluding pre-season, Dante has had at best half session per play with playbook of 16 plays. Assume that a session is about 4 hours (work outs, dead legs, film review, …), that would be at best 1 hour of total time per play per lineup. Amazed that anybody can be competent in this type of work environment.

by FromAfar on Nov 27, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions

I don't get the "he doesn't play rookies" contention.

How many good teams have a rookie in the starting lineup all year? There were 3 rookies, in terms of NBA experience, who were allowed to make significant contributions in the Blazers’ rotation last year. Bayless was the only guy who didn’t get much time and that was because there were two good shooting guards ahead of him on the roster and another point guard who ran the offense better and had chemistry with Rudy. Overall, I’d say they all got the playing time that their physical health (in Oden’s case) and competence warranted.

Keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed.

by Benjamanic on Nov 27, 2009 8:39 AM PST up reply actions

Maybe Timbo is strirring up discussion :-)

by FromAfar on Nov 27, 2009 12:49 PM PST up reply actions

I'm sure it won't matter... and you probably won't care but...

In my opinion you are far too gifted and respected by other readers here to use a sophomoric insult like this…

His overuse of his Binky at the expense of Andre was also aggravating

Just calling him Blake would have conveyed that same message without the blatant slam of a guy I respect.

Blake doesn’t make the line up why is it necessary to make him the butt of a joke aimed at Nate?

by Ilikeemall on Nov 27, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions

Just for the record

I penned this post before Brian T Smiths article was published, and I had no idea that he was working on this piece. Indirect Link.

by FromAfar on Nov 27, 2009 12:48 PM PST reply actions

Good Post!!!...

All along I’ve had either a suspicion or blind faith that has told me Nate knows what he’s doing and that the line up thing will all work out.

So far our evolution has been slow and deliberate but very successful in my book.

Thanks for the entertaining post!

GO BLAZERS!!!

by Ilikeemall on Nov 27, 2009 2:13 PM PST reply actions

And when you factor tiredness, its that much more to consider

Was noticing that defense against the Nets was awful (even though per the metrics we’re the best defensive team in so many categories). We looked like we were not moving our feet on the perimeter and the guards were getting by so easily. But Nate mentioned in his post-game comments that there were tired legs out there; and that certainly made sense.

Thanks for the appreciation.

by FromAfar on Nov 27, 2009 7:10 PM PST up reply actions

TO screw up

I don’t think so.

by VinnyB on Nov 27, 2009 9:38 PM PST reply actions

Nate is too stubborn to learn

and is way over-rated as a defensive coach. Even as a player, he was vastly over-rated. How can he like Blake so much when defensively they are complete opposities? Blake is a streaky shooter and nothing else. Streaky shooters should never start. They are completely unreliable. Guys like Blake and House should not start but come off the bench. Consistent players should start, guys that have more to their game than scoring cause when their shots are not falling then they have something to fall back on. How does Blake get 24 minutes and go 0/3 fg, 0/2 ft, 0/2 3fg, 2 reb, 2 ass and 0pts ? And Miller got only 21 minutes when he had 3/9 fg, 6/8 ft, 1/1 3fg, 1 reb, 2 ass and 13pts.

by VinnyB on Nov 27, 2009 9:49 PM PST reply actions