Blazersedge: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Voodoo Five for South Florida Bulls Fans!

Questions and Answers

As the afternoon progressed today I saw pairs of antelope, giraffes, zebras, hippos, muskrats, possibly-evil ducks and all manner of creatures filing past my mailbox as it became flooded with inquiries regarding the Blazers 2-3 start and its various permutations.  Once I shooed the beasts away I distilled the questions down to three which seemed to represent most people's concerns.

1.  How serious is the slow start?

That depends on how you define terms.

Compared to what is this start "slow"?  Frankly, this was the kind of start I expected last year when the opening schedule was so brutal.  We didn't get it then.  (Though we did start the season 2-3 we then went on to win 12 of the next 15 games which seems like a longshot for this year's club.)  The extra boost we got from winning some of those early tough games kept the Blazers high enough in the standings that, despite some so-so middle months, the incredible late-season run really created something special.  That led to a 54-win season and a corresponding raising of expectations.  Did I expect the Blazers to start by losing 3 of 5 this year?  No.  Am I aghast?  Also no.  Those heightened expectations shouldn't entirely mask that this is a start we accepted last season and could have been delighted with in seasons prior.  That doesn't mean we should like it or even be fine with it.  It does mean we need to realize that we're defining "slow" based on what we assume could be, not what is.   A rocky start was always a possibility with this team, particularly given the pre-season roster turmoil.  We're seeing exactly that...no more, no less. 

If you were expecting the team to win 60 and challenge for the #1 seed then yes, this is a slow start.  But what we're seeing is only partly a problem with the Blazers.  It's just as much a problem with forecasting improvement.  We always assume everything good that happened last year will repeat itself and more will be added because of progress.  That repetition doesn't always happen (e.g. coming out of the gate strong and always winning at home).  If everything that went right last year doesn't happen exactly that way again then the improvement due to growth gets tempered.

However if you're expecting the Blazers to be competitive in the conference and challenge for a decent playoff seed then this start isn't that bad.  The Nuggets have rocketed to a 5-0 record and we're 3 games behind them.  We'd be in the hunt at 3 games behind were this mid-March.  It's barely November.  In real terms we've barely started, let alone started slow.

Also what is the time frame for defining "serious"?  In the short term the team is facing some serious issues.  The San Antonio game won't be easy.  The Blazers embark on a five-game road swing next week and two of those games are penciled in as probable losses right now.  If the team doesn't find some continuity, energy, and execution we're looking at going 4-3 at best in the next seven games, leading to a 6-6 overall record.  That's still not a disaster but it's hardly healing.  In addition we're not looking at clear and simple fixes here.  The rotation probably needs to be shaken up and then streamlined.  The Blazers need to emphasize getting in the lane on offense and taking as much individual defensive responsibility as possible, particularly in the backcourt.  But beyond that we're really talking about trust, confidence, and experience together.  Those take time.  If there's going to be a revival soon it's almost going to have to come by going 4-1 on that road trip.  Failing that it'll be the end of November before the schedule allows us sustained potential wins.  But then again December gets harder and January's not that much better.  The Blazers' issues aren't going to be absolved automatically nor can they be swept under the rug.  In that sense they're serious.

However this start isn't serious at all over the long haul...at least not yet.  It's tempting to jump all over the first five games of the year as wholly indicative but truly in two months nobody will remember them.  Cleveland is 3-2 right now.  Miami and Phoenix are 4-1, both division leaders.  I wouldn't bet that those trends will continue.  The Blazers really will go on streaks this year that will make you think they're world-beaters.  This start doesn't change that nor does it cripple the team in any way.  No five games anywhere in the season could do that, save perhaps the final five depending on the standings.

2.  How much of this is Nate's fault?

Not as much as people are currently claiming, but more than he's ever had to deal with before as Portland's coach.

Let's look at the situation for a second, starting from training camp.  Nicolas Batum and Rudy Fernandez didn't play much of the pre-season because they played internationally over the summer.  Batum ended up getting injured and won't be back for months.  Martell Webster just came back from a year off, in essence never having played with this incarnation of the team.  Greg Oden is getting a do-over of his rookie season, trying to expand his role while operating on limited experience.  At the same time he's trying to stay healthy and out of foul trouble so he can actually play and get that experience.  Andre Miller is brand new to the team and is unexpectedly (for him anyway) coming off the bench.  Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge just signed HUGE contracts and, like it or not, that affects how you interpret the game and your role in it, adjusting to which takes time.  Travis Outlaw is in a contract year and has his own agenda and things to prove.  Steve Blake and Joel Przybilla are dealing with the possibility of lesser roles as each has a player fighting for their position who wasn't there last year.  Coincidentally each looks a little lost and is having a rough start.  Did we miss anyone in the main rotation?

When you look at the sum of all of that and then you hear that the team is having early continuity problems the response is, "Gee, really?  Ya think?"  The Blazers are dealing with issues that teams like the Nuggets and L*kers aren't in the same way.

That said, every team has these issues from time to time.  It's the coach's responsibility to focus the team in spite of the obstacles, the better to overcome them.  The Blazers do have a couple of glaring shortcomings that look like they could become chronic.  If they do become so, no amount of coaching will fix them.  It becomes a roster issue.  Other than that, though, Nate himself is describing the situation much as I have laid it out:  effort, trust, continuity, execution, focus, desire. 

Here's the thing.  You get to highlight those issues as a coach but you don't get to highlight them for long.  This is the first time in the Roy-Aldridge era that we've heard them brought up in a serious manner.  Fair enough.  But if we're still talking about them three months from now you start to wonder how much this is a player issue and how much it is a coaching issue.  It's never 100% either way, of course.  It's always a combination.  But you do start asking if this combination is going to work.  The moment Coach uttered the word "effort" his clock started ticking.  He and the players do deserve that time to make it work together as they have done so well in the past.  But the hounds will be let loose in mid-January if things haven't improved and the end of the season will see some serious soul-searching if the Blazers fall short of their goals.

In other words, we don't know how much of this rests on Nate's account...yet.  This is partially because we don't know exactly what's going on yet.  But the ledger book that has been solidly and rightfully closed during Nate's tenure here just opened.  This season will bring an accounting one way or the other.

3.  What's the fix?

The Blazers aren't necessarily running bad sets.  They're running decent sets poorly, with horrible spacing, seemingly in confusion.  How many times have you seen two big men trying to set an identical screen?  How many times have you seen open players missed?  How many times have you seen two defenders follow the same guy leaving somebody else wide open?  How many times have you seen players running, or worse standing, in no-man's land defensively, covering nobody effectively, able neither to stop penetration nor to jump out on shooters, the only recourse being a clumsy foul?   The fix to these things is more teaching, more effort, more attention to detail, and more time.

If you want to jump-start the offensive growth my initial inclination is to hand the ball to Andre Miller in most situations.  He penetrates.  He runs.  He knows what he's doing and he knows what the Blazers need to do.  Him being comfortable and in charge would go a long way towards bringing this offense the continuity it needs.  The fly in the ointment is whether Brandon Roy is comfortable with that idea.  Brandon trumps everything else on this team.  Without him the Blazers don't contend, period.  As much as you can, though, let Miller do his thing.  Watch and see if you don't get fewer awkward jumpers and more inspired play.

Defensively the Blazers have problems.  They probably need to zone more, run harder, and cover for each other better.  But the backcourt situation, particularly at point guard, isn't going away.  You know how in every Star Trek space battle the ship loses its rear left deflector so the helmsman can say, "If we take another direct hit on that side we're done"?  That's exactly how the point guard defense feels right now.  Zoning and rotating are attempts to turn the ship so the enemy's weapons hit a stronger shield.  But how much of that can you do when multiple Birds of Prey come knocking?  The lack of containment, the lack of ability to prevent penetration and still cover the outside shot...these are leading to too many easy buckets, too many fouls on the big men, and too many defensive stands that leave the Blazers staring at each other instead of pushing the ball down the court to score themselves. 

I'm pretty sure that every opposing team in the universe is circling the Blazer backcourt in red and saying, "Take it right at them."   I'm not sure a permanent fix is available right now.  Besides the trick defenses my guess is the Blazers will simply have to depend on scoring more to make up the difference.  Right now they're not demonstrating the ability to do that either but that may be the easier learning curve for them.

As we discussed on last week's podcast, if any ball-handler appeared that would let Rudy and Roy play together without a third guard it might be worth a try simply to see the scoring permutations increase.  Nobody could guard the opposing point guard still but the opposing point guard would have to take Rudy, Roy, or a small forward on the other end.  But alas, based on the dribbling demonstrations we've seen so far that eventuality doesn't appear to be on the horizon either.  Thus Miller is likely the best option for now.

I think that addresses most of what people were asking.  In the end these shortcomings, even should they endure, won't turn Portland into a bad team.  They'll make it difficult for the Blazers to stay with the league's elite teams though.  Here's hoping they're able to grow out of them.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

0 recs  |  Comment 225 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Good words of wisdom oh Wizard

The Blazers have lost 3 games to teams with a combined record through 11/4/09 of 12-3. Of the three losses those teams have sustained only the L*kers and Blazers have inflicted them (and Houston took them to overtime before losing by a single point).

I do think the effort issue is one that Nate may be waiting for Brandon to step into his desired leadership role. I am pretty sure Phil Jackson did not coach effort or even have to address it with MJ and K*be swinging big clubs. I remember Doc Rivers being fired for the team’s lack of effort in his previous position and KG has insured that is not a risk in Boston. Nate is wise to allow space for Brandon to operate.

Last year we were 6-5 after 11 so 6-6 may not keep us out of the playoffs. A lot to figure out.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 12:03 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

We were also 2-3 after the first five

but went on to win 12 of the next 15. I added that in, though I don’t think that will happen again.

—Dave

by Dave on Nov 5, 2009 12:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I will be surprised if we do also

I would take 12-8 after 20 as good.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 12:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

.500 is the tipping point.

Any team that’s good enough to stay above .500 while it is struggling, as the Blazers are, will make the playoffs as long as they put it all together by the All-Star break.

by MiledAnimal on Nov 5, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fair assessment

The problem some fans are having is the expectation or perceived need to have home court advantage in the playoffs. While this is a help it is not a season-breaker to fall short so long as you get into the playoffs. As I recall Portland had to win in Chicago, Denver, LAL and Philadelphia in 1976-1977 to win its first championship. If the team is peaking and confident going into the playoffs it just need to be better than the opponent in each series to bring home another one.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

home court advantage?

sure, the Blazers could make the playoffs as the 5-8 seed, but they’ll have to be really peaking as a unit (like they were, last April?) to advance to the 2nd round if they don’t have the home court advantage in round 1. Getting to the playoffs and getting knocked out in round 1 = failure, in my book. Unless there are injuries to key players

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Last year

@ L.A.
Home to S.A.
@Phoenix, back to back.
@Utah.
Home to Houston.

This year
Home to Houston.
Home to Denver.
@Houston.
@OKC, back to back.
Home to Atlanta.

I would say marginally easier. Last year, S.A. started poorly and Manu was injured. Denver and Atlanta are both very good teams that have started hot. Houston has started hot. OKC had won their first two and we were on a back to back.

I wouldn’t say this schedule was a lot easier than last year’s. To know for sure, we’ll have to wait a couple more weeks and see how strong these teams really are.

That doesn’t mean we are playing well, though. We obviously aren’t.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 5, 2009 8:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There you go with the facts again.

Keep it up and someone will have to flag you.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Should go 13 - 3

I think we should go 13 and 3, but that doesn’t mean we will. Also thought we should be 5-0.

by desperationshot on Nov 5, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right on point

This is the best analysis of the Blazers I’ve read this year - pre or regular season. I hope that Nate realizes sooner than later that Andre needs to be handling the ball with the starting unit. Never mind depth and this notion of a balanced “second unit.” There aren’t true second units anymore in the NBA, so let’s not kid ourselves. There are 8-man rotations that expand for a few minutes each game.

The point guard defense is a huge problem, and Miller is a step slower on that end than I realized when the Blazers signed him. Still, he’s about as strong as Blake and a step quicker, with good balance against smaller guards. Considering his ability to make plays on the other end, we need to see more of him and less of Blake. How many Greg Oden fouls begin with Steve Blake?

Anyway, I’ll just stop now on that. I’m tired of hearing Outlaw being made a scapegoat, and I’m tired of people freaking out over a 2-3 record. I won’t be freaking out if this team starts 6-6, or 7-7. Relax, Rip City.

by travis13 on Nov 5, 2009 12:16 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Well said on your part also.

I have to disagree with you on point # 5. Has miller even tried to post up small pgs? They dazzle us and take advantage of us, but I do not recall taking advantage of them. Sure we try shooting over them on a long bomb because they are shorter, but we haven’t tried to expose them with interior offense with posting up our bigger guards to screens and pick and rolls. Does miller try taking the fast little guard to the rim? Not often because the teams we play uses team perimeter d to stop that. If we are going to preach team d, and that trusts your fellow mates, then we should not point fingers at our pgs.

Have we ever tried punishing their pgs for exploiting our poor team d by being proactive on offense to exploit his lack of size? Not often.

hg

Everybody is up in the air about not being able to guard opponent’s guards. I agree it is a problem. But if we put Andre in and make their little fast super-hero’s post up a bigger wiser guard then if nothing else we will even out point guard production, and probably wear out opposing point guard

I think Andre would also utilize the rest of the talent on the team.

The role Travis plays is as a savior, the only thing he can become in that position is either hero or heel. We don’t use him until everything else has failed and then they put him in and say Travis save us. If he doesn’t then he is the heel. He is trying to get more players involved and passing out of a double team, but if they are all standing with their hands in their pockets they are no help.

BRoy and LMA are problems in individual games, but not in terms of being bad. I don’t think anybody is thinking Durant is bad because of bad play per game. He also will have many games when that happens. Oden anyone?

We are alright and we will always have problems one way or another, but right now we are letting the media and maybe the fans lose our focus.

We are focusing on team D which is ultimate important, but doing so we are letting the opponents off the hook as to playing d against our O. It appears to me that we hired all offensive players and now we are bitching because they are not defensive people, and by trying to force it they are becoming less offensive players. I don’t know if this is short term or long term effect, but we do need to get back to our offense to take some pressure off the defense.

Like you said the fans and the coaches and the team needs to relax and let it happen.

hg

by BBK on Nov 5, 2009 7:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Opps I goofed

I proof read in Micro soft and copied and pasted part of an other article, Pleas disregard

I have to disagree with you on point # 5. Has miller even tried to post up small pgs? They dazzle us and take advantage of us, but I do not recall taking advantage of them. Sure we try shooting over them on a long bomb because they are shorter, but we haven’t tried to expose them with interior offense with posting up our bigger guards to screens and pick and rolls. Does miller try taking the fast little guard to the rim? Not often because the teams we play uses team perimeter d to stop that. If we are going to preach team d, and that trusts your fellow mates, then we should not point fingers at our pgs.

Have we ever tried punishing their pgs for exploiting our poor team d by being proactive on offense to exploit his lack of size? Not often.

hg

by BBK on Nov 5, 2009 7:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have seen it a couple of times but it is not a staple

We already have too much Miller iso going imo.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It appears to me that we hired all offensive players and now we are bitching because they are not defensive people

This is a roster-building issue. Besides Oden and Batum, who has KP drafted or acquired with defense and rebounding in mind? (he “inherited” Przy, and wisely convinced him to stay in PDX)

3 defensive-minded players out of 15, and one of them is hurt? There’s your problem

Miller has had the reputation of being a good team defender on his previous teams. He studies film re: the tendencies of opponents and communicates this to his teammates while at practice and during games. Team defense is the best way to prevent PG penetration, but all 5 of the teammates need to work together, communicate well and be at the right place on the court for this to be consistently effective. Andre should become a catalyst for the team’s defense improving, even though he is viewed as a poor “individual” defender against quick PGs. But I suspect for this to happen more rapidly, Miller needs to start and play 30+ mpg. That’s completely up to Nate, and Brandon

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed, and I would add

that the Blazers apply no on-ball pressure in the backcourt, making it very easy for the opposing point guard to setup his team’s offense. Was watching the Celtics the other night, can’t remember who they were playing but the opposing team could barely get the ball up the court. Now, I’m no Celtics fan, but we could use some defensive minded guards on this team.

by hellsfrozenover on Nov 5, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Aldridge is becoming a pretty decent defender.

And Brandon is probably above average. Given a little time and more confidence in other teammates being able to take on the scoring role in crunch time, I foresee Roy becoming a defender in line with Byrant.

That’s 4 defenders by my count. 5 counting Joel and 6 counting Webster.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Aldridge has a block rate akin to that of David Lee. Brandon gave up the three pointer that broke our back in the Atlanta game by going under a pick against Joe Johnson. I find it impossible to believe that either of them qualfiy as anything other than mediocre at this point.

Kobe is a billion time first team all defense. Brandon is a lazy defender who doesn’t give much effort a lot of the time. There is no comparison right now.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 5, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Blocks are not that good of a stat for judging defense in my opinion ...

… and I did say I “foresee” Brandon as being a Kobe capable defender.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Roy, LMA amd Martell

Are offensive players who occasionally defend, not defensive-minded players like Batum, Greg, Joel and…Nate McMillian. I’ve been impressed with Webster’s new-found defensive commitment and energy, and I like the way that LMA strips the ball from shooters before they can get it above their shoulders. But Roy is just “meh” as a defender, and I don’t really hold that against him. I’d much rather see him work on distributing the ball to the big guys when he’s on the move towards the hoop than spending his energy becoming a defensive stopper. As long as he knows where to be in defensive rotations and keeps rebounding like he has, that’s OK with me.

My point was: KP needs to balance the roster with a few more defenders—especially on the perimeter. Who they are and where they’ll come from is anyone’s guess, but I’d be willing to sacrifice a little offense to tighten up the defense—because that’s what is seperating the Blazers from the elite teams, right now.

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 8:48 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah, one more thought:

I get a little uneasy when Brandon and Nate keep talking about effort being the problem, about passion and motivation. I think it’s execution, familiarity, reaction. I don’t question any one guy’s attitude or effort.

by travis13 on Nov 5, 2009 12:19 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

I said exactly that in yesterday's thread.

It is inconceivable to me that anyone could question these guys’ desire to achieve. Nate doing so makes me question his judgment in that area.

by MiledAnimal on Nov 5, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

Normally, both Nate and Brandon are right on point with their critiques of the team’s play. If they’re harping about effort and desire, I think they’re going to make some guys feel like they’re being called out. Every guy looks to be working his ass off. Confusion has led to easy buckets. Maybe familiarity comes with more focus in practice. I don’t know—that doesn’t seem to be the tenor of their comments, though.

by travis13 on Nov 5, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My thoughts while watching Houston (there) and Atlanta were that we were outhustled

Many times loose balls or rebounds were snatched by the opponent when we could have gotten them with a little more effort. Getting out rebounded by Atlanta (badly in the 2nd half) is a good indicator of effort.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I dont want to do the the hate Nate thing but

The fan base is frustrated and confused about his coaching[see last night],How do you think the players feel about it? Not panic time but if things are looking this chaotic in 2 or 3 weeks we have a problem.also I would like to say that the site has been working a lot better since the last tuneup,tell them I said that Dave

by southern oregon on Nov 5, 2009 12:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

All good points...

However, I disagree a little with your assessment of Nate in that I think you’re letting him off the hook too much. I understand that the chemistry we had last year is different this year and I know that the year just started so it’s too early to panic. That being said, though, Nate gives off the impression that he doesn’t know what he’s doing and that he’s just reaching for any answer that will give the team a win. When will the management start questioning his poor substitutions or the fact that he’s diminishing the value of both Blake and Miller?

"The two things you've got to do to give yourself a chance to win games. One, you've got to shoot the ball. Second thing, we've got to play defense."
- Nate McMillan

by ericking on Nov 5, 2009 12:38 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Why do you think you know what Nate's doing?

I don’t mean this to be insulting or to say that you’re wrong. I’m constantly bewildered by people that don’t try to explain what a professional does before saying that he’s clueless. There are a hundred possibilities for answers to the question of what Nate’s doing? Many of those answers have more merit than the idea that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

I think confidence is important

Nate sounds confident in his big-picture ideas but seems perplexed and even defensive when referencing specific coaching decisions regarding rotation management etc. Elite coaches establish certain tactics and then stick to their guns until proven wrong or right. With the exception of starting Blake (to mixed results) and pulling Oden after every 2nd foul for a season plus, and a 4th quarter offense consisting solo of watching our best player go 1 on 1, I don’t see a lot of that from Nate

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ironically, you described most elite coaches tendencies in your criticism of Nate

the problem is that it’s not working right now. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work in general.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'd rec this a hundred time if I could.

I still don’t understand how someone who has never tried doing a job in their life feels qualified to critique a person on that job who does it as their profession.

Just because you watch a lot of basketball doesn’t mean you have an indepth understanding of all the factors at play. Perhaps if you are perceptive, observant and do a lot of homework, you might develop a pretty good understanding of a couple of the factors at play. It’s sort of akin to saying you can compete in the Paris to Dakar road race because you know how a steering wheel and brake pedal work and have even been 4-wheel driving a few times.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It is plain to see

Tim – your logic is flawed.

I’m not a plastic surgeon, and I know that Sylvester Stallone got a botched face lift. Point being, some things are plainly obvious and do not require in-depth firsthand knowledge to judge.

Nate is making terrible decisions this year – even my 6 year old nephew was calling him out on the 12 line changes in the last 4th quarter of the Hawks game. Nate needs to own up to his part of these losses and make changes, or we should be looking for a new head coach.

Despite how it sounds, I’m actually a fan of Nate. He is a great guy, has been great for this organization and our city, but I think he might have hit his limit.

by anotherthought on Nov 5, 2009 1:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Using your example ...

… how do you know that it was the surgeon who botched the job?

Without being any sort of expert, it is my understanding that there is usually a very steep slope of diminishing returns with continued plastic surgury. At a guess, I’d bet that most of the horror stories we’ve seen all share one thing in common – they’ve had multiple jobs done. For all we know, Stallone shopped around until he found a guy willing to do it, even though the guy said it might not turn out the way Stallone expected it to.

In other words, without knowing all of the factors involved with Stallone’s last trip under the knife, we really can’t say for certain that his appearance is the result of poor performance by the surgeon.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This looks more like a case of ...

… not stepping away from the dinner table soon enough, rather than a botched face job.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not only that, but how do we know what Stallone was going for?

We have next to know information about it, and forming an argument leaves us hanging on quite a few assumptions. That’s flawed thinking. We haven’t even gotten to logic.

That said, if a 6 year old sees it, we must listen. Sorry, I’ve got to go, apparently Mr. Jiggles is thirsty and there’s a monster under the bed. I’m outa here man.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 2:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Antonio Harvey brought the effort point up as well, and I agree with him

Too often, coaches, fans and media pundits will invoke the specter of “effort” as a cure for all that ails. If the results are not good, then ‘effort’ can fix it. Harvey’s point was that players hear this all the time, but after a while the players start to tune the ‘effort’ message out and start to question the game plan.

I agree with Dave in that as soon as McMillan went there, he turned up the heat on the seat.

I have also been openly critical of McMillan and his coaching style. Coaches at the professional level have multiple tasks. They are teachers, leaders, motivators, and tacticians.

As teachers, coaches at the professional level often get caught up in the fallacy of fundamentals. The problem is that at the professional level, successful teams transcend fundamentals and use exceptional skill, cooperation and determination to establish dominance.

Nate’s problem? He is a fundamentals coach – and the Blazers need more than that to move on.

They’re running decent sets poorly, with horrible spacing, seemingly in confusion. How many times have you seen two big men trying to set an identical screen? How many times have you seen open players missed? How many times have you seen two defenders follow the same guy leaving somebody else wide open? How many times have you seen players running, or worse standing, in no-man’s land defensively, covering nobody effectively, able neither to stop penetration nor to jump out on shooters, the only recourse being a clumsy foul? The fix to these things is more teaching, more effort, more attention to detail, and more time.

Teaching isn’t going to make this happen. Neither is more effort. Time, however – with the right environment – is the key. The right environment is letting the players play, guiding with a subtle touch rather than a heavy hand.

When the problems succinctly summarized by Dave manifest itself in a group like the Blazers, it is because they over rely on thinking their way through the game – rather than playing with controlled abandon. They do that because that is the only way Nate knows how to coach.

To Nate’s credit, he recognizes that it takes players to make a system work. To Nate’s discredit, he really doesn’t know how to adapt his systems to his players.

I concur with the widely discussed view that Nate is a good coach to get players ready to win, but isn’t the right coach to get a team ready to compete at the highest levels. If the Blazers are going to be successful this season, Nate needs to step aside and let the players grow into a team.

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 12:53 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

I really don't even think as Nate as much of a fundamentals coach

more of a general motivator along the lines of Doc Rivers. If you look at all of the young players that the Blazers have had recently (Jack, Sergio, Roy, Aldridge, Webster, Nic, Jerryd, Channing, Oden, Outlaw), I think Roy is the only guy you can say who’s really thrived. LaMarcus has done well, but how much has he really progressed from his rookie or sophomore years? He still hangs out shooting 18 footers for the most part and his defense looks like it might have regressed slightly, if anything.

Nic’s done pretty well, but still early returns there and it’s pretty clear he hasn’t been used in a role to suit his offense. Martell and Trout are starting to come good, but it took them a solid 4/5 years each. Not exactly rapid development.

As far as Oden, Jack, Sergio, Jerryd and Channing, I think it’s pretty clear that none of those guys has been handled particularly well so far.

But the players that have done extremely well under Nate have been our veterans. Joel and Blake have both been playing way over their career norms over the last two years and James Jones had a career year in his one year here. In fact, Miller is probably the first veteran player to come into our team the last few years and not play much better than he had before.

So, he’s done a great job at getting experienced players to buy into a style of play and fitting their strengths, but in terms of being able to develop and teach a scheme to young players, we haven’t seen much of this outside of Brandon. This is going to have to change or improve in the near term if we’re going to win titles with this group.

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 7:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The guys that start consistently are the guys that have shown the most improvement...

I think that is why we have seen slower development in Webster and Outlaw. Over their careers they have been inconsistent starters meaning their roles have been changing. The same can be said for Oden, Jack, and more recently Joel and Rudy. Starters tend to get more playing time (except Batum) and have more cohesion with one another. Bench guys don’t always come in consistently and they play with various lineups more often due to in-game decision making by the coach. For example, Trout comes in sometimes for the 4 or the 3- that is not consistency. Rudy comes in for the 2 and a lesser extent 3 and 1- that is not consistency. Joel has been in a back and forth starter with Greg -that is not consistency (although we all know Greg needs to start in order to develop, which is my point in a nutshell). I like the flexibility of our roster but it also tends to muddy the waters in terms of developing player roles.

This is not a unique situation among coaches. They all have to balance development of youth with winning ballgames. The tough part is picking who you develop when there is only so much playing time and a plethora of young guys to develop,

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Plenty of guys develop well on the bench

as long as they’re getting regular minutes. Trevor Ariza, despite foot injuries and absurd amounts of upheaval in movement from team to team, became an effective player and starter essentially instantly once he began getting regular minutes on the bench in LA. Same with Shannon Brown.

J.R. Smith was able to develop into an effective player by his 3rd season despite being a reserve. Same with Josh Childress, Big Baby, Carl Landry, Aaron Brooks, Anderson Varejao, Barbosa, and Devin Harris. All those guys were able to become solid players while coming off the bench early in their careers.

Admittedly, the best players tend to be guys who consistently start, but I attribute that to the fact that the best players tend to come into the league on bad teams. Regardless, though, I just don’t agree that we’ve had a particularly stellar record developing young talent.

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with you completely!

I would add regular minutes in a consistent role. Both Marty and Trout have been shuffled around so much from position to position and starter to bench guy to starter. We have seen the same with Rudy. All those guys you mentioned were in consistent roles for their respective teams and not shuffled position to position. I was just saying that I think starting players develop faster because their role is more defined. Guys are shuffled from position to position.

Also, I never said we had a stellar record of developing young talent. I think it has been very average and perhaps underachieving. But I put a lot of that on the fact that the organization and the fans want to win over developing talent. It is a fine balance and how can you argue with a 54 win team? Would we have had the same record if we had been giving our young talent (minus Roy/Aldridge/Oden) bigger/consistent minutes? Hard to say but not likely. We have chosen to develop the BEST of the young talent…

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is definately not the message Dave has given us - he says that we need to win now

.
There has been very rapid development as a team. Individually, the development of Roy and Aldridge has amazed the league. The changes in Outlaw year to year have been very encouraging. The development of Webster has started slow but yielded good fruit. The development of Frye is paying dividends for Phoenix now as a starter. The development of Oden last year to this year is encouraging. The development of Blake and Joel from relatively unwanted FAs to highly desirable starters is exceptional. The development of Nic from pure raw talent to starter on a 54-win team in one training camp is jaw-dropping. The development of Rudy has brought defense to his game and a good feel for NBA style in just one season. Bayless is a better defender and improving. As he develops on defense and when he can consistently hit the open 3 he will be in rotation. You can look at the numbers to gain some appreciation of the growth which is continuing while we focus on winning.

Part of the development is to teach players multiple positions. This reduces negative mis-matches and increases flexibility. This is development that will assist them throughout their careers. Travis’ flex between two positions allows him to be on the floor more, creates mismatches and shortens the rotation. Martell has played both wing positions before and should move from one to another. The goal is not to develop a player faster but to develop a player completely with sound fundamentals on defense and offense. The critical path to playing time is defense and the team has been focusing on defense this year. The results are uneven (as expected when developing) but this development (in multiple positions) is important for the team and the players.

Development takes place on the practice floor. Can you think of a better playing environment than against Roy and LMA and Steve and Joel? That time is more challenging than time in mop-up against non-starters on other teams I would think. The time they do get on the floor in games is refinement of those practice principles. If they are not getting it done in games they need more practice time not game time.

The development has, by all measures, been there. I think the need now is to learn how to play tough and more efficiently and how to best use the talent we have. The big jump in development has to be internal for the players to want to win dominate more than any other goal. . The shakeout time at the beginning of the season will provide answers for Nate as the season progresses.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We do need to win now!

The crux of the discussion was on developing our talent. I think Royster and I agree that development of SOME our talent has somewhat been hindered do the demand to win from the fans and organization. I have added that I think the CORE talent (Roy/Aldridge/Oden) has developed nicely while the SECONDARY talent (IMO) of Trout/Webster/Bayless/Rudy/Frye/Sergio/Jack among others has been somewhat hindered due to a lack of consistent playing time and/or role on the team. That is why it has taken longer for some of these guys to emerge on our team or on another.

Practice is not even close to the same experience as game time. There is not the same pressure to win!

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The development vs. winning

conundrum often presented here is a false choice. Assuming that wins have to be sacrificed in order to develop players isn’t always the truth. The Spurs in this decade have managed to develop 2 all stars from nothing once they already had a contending team while never finishing with fewer than 50 wins in a year. The Lakers managed to take a finals team, further develop a project center, turn a guy into an elite defensive wing and win a title all in the same year. The Rockets developed a guy into a borderline all star PG and a top bench PF while sacrificing no wins and making the 2nd round of the playoffs The Celtics managed to turn a solid defensive PG into a top 5 guy in the league after winning the title and contending the next year.

As far as the practice time vs. game time issue, I couldn’t disagree more. Beyond a point, you need to be on playing in games, against guys trying their hardest to beat you under the bright lights to get accustomed to it. Anyone who’s played competitive sports can attest to needing a mix of practice and game time to get better. Bayless isn’t suddenly going to stop after practice one day and find himself ready to be a solid starter. Practices and games are simply completely different beasts. If Aaron Brooks hadn’t played a minute in the NBA, but had just been practicing with the Rockets the past two years there’s no way he’d be doing what he’s doing now. Just how it is.

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Channing Frye certainly supports that arguement...

Treat him with confidence, make a committment to him, and he responds with confidence and maximum performance. Not the “Captain Hook” program.

"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener

by Berkeley on Nov 5, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I had never thought of your assessment.

It might be like taking your hands off the bike and let the kids figure out how to balance themselves. there might be a few recks but it will be much better in the long run. Hands off at times and hands on at times. That is a question

hg

by BBK on Nov 5, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I really agree that you have to let the players "play"

Players must be allowed sufficient freedom to flow with their own natural gift, which is developed over years of playing, and yes, fundamentals training. There is a transition that must take place to greatness, which is from “fundamentals” to “in the zone”, where you are in that special world on top of your game, flowing on a high, and if your team is with you there, you are deadly. You can’t be second guessing every more, trying to prove something to a doubtful coach. Your coach needs to treat you like Nate treats Brandon: “I know you, I trust you, We are in this together”. That’s my coach, not just Brandon’s coach.
Not saying this is necessarily an easy transition, when you have players out of high school or one year of college, that have fundamentals to learn. But overcontrolling, for me, ultimately puts a cap on potential.

"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener

by Berkeley on Nov 5, 2009 11:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have a big problem with this statement.

“The problem is that at the professional level, successful teams transcend fundamentals and use exceptional skill, cooperation and determination to establish dominance.”

What evidence do you have of this? It certainly doesn’t apply to the Spurs. Sure they have talent, but Popovich is most certainly a fundementals guy. Why do you think he and Parker were always at odds early on? And our 2nd favorite team the Lakers – are you saying they are not primarily a fundementals based team? I doubt there is a more fundementals strong guy in the game of basketball right now than Tex Winter. How about the Celtics defensive coach? Stresses fundementals. Or Larry Brown and his “playing the right way” mantra. Another fundementals guy.

I would argue that you couldn’t be more wrong with your statement above.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and you would be wrong

the msg is that you cannot win without fundamentals, but you need more than fundamentals to win

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

But it would be one of the very few times.

Back on the point, I agree with your statement. I don’t agree with the “transcend” part of the first statement. But that could just be an interpretation issue as to what transcend means to me.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Enough of the Nate hate

I realize fans are pretty critical but after 5 games I see people jumping to the conclusion that Nate doesn’t understand basketball, that he has no idea what he’s doing, and that he should be fired. The Travis and Blake haters are also out in full force.

I agree with Dave, 5 games is nothing. Our guys have a lot of adjusting to do. We’re still a great team made up of great players. The blazers just need to get it together and I’m confident we’ll have a great season.

Let’s wait a bit before we call for Nate’s head or for any player to be benched.

"Rudy is not everyday a shooter," Fernandez said. "He's defense. He's passes. He's assists."

by jebuz on Nov 5, 2009 12:55 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Nate gets outcoached by nearly every good coach in the league

Nate has time to learn, but cmon. There’s only so many times Adelman or Karl can run circles around him before he’s not immune to criticism.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Nov 5, 2009 7:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not the same teams to compare coaching

Each coach has different weapons and uses them in different manners to win. Last year by wins Portland out coached every team in the league except LAL, Cleveland, Orlando and Boston. Given the relative lack of experience for the Blazers it suggests they were even better then those teams.

I am not suggesting immunity to criticism. My dad used to say:

To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing

So everyone gets criticized. I taught my kids about criticism – “consider the source”. When KP criticizes he needs to listen. When his coaching staff criticizes he needs to listen. When the fans and bloggers and beat writers criticize it is from their inherent lack of training and experience coaching in the NBA and lack of most of the data available to the coaching staff. So the fans can legitimately say “I don’t understand this move” and it is valid. But for fans to say he is outcoached or he is failing to coach properly is just not supported by the meager data and training and experience available to us.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

How does a guy who won 54 games with the youngest team in the league ...

… get out coached by every good coach in the league?

And how does the fact he’s had either the best or one of the best success rates on plays following timeouts for the past three seasons corrolate with his being such a poor coach? There is an instance where it is a clear head to head comparison between coaches. Each has the same amount of time to determine what they want their team to do and get that communicated to the players.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nate's issue didn't start this season

You have a fairly sophisticated reader/participant on this site, so I don’t believe people are harping on Nate because of 5 games this season. He has been making questionable coaching decisions since early last season, and this is merely a continuation of those mistakes.

As noted above, Nate is a motivator, a good developmental coach, but right now he’s starting to show his weaknesses, and the reality is he is getting out coached. Nate has been a huge part of the turnaround for this Blazers team and the city owes him a big round of applause – but if he can’t get it figured out in the next few months, I think the fans (true fans) need to hold him accountable.

by anotherthought on Nov 5, 2009 7:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The current situation and the criticism I'm reading of Nate

makes me remember his cryptic comment a year or so ago that he might not be around for the Blazers’ championship run.

by MiledAnimal on Nov 5, 2009 9:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Paul Allen and KP will ultimately decide Nate's fate

but as long as Roy has McMillian’s back, I expect Nate to be the Blazer’s coach

which is why I’m advocating upgrading up the coaching staff at the assistant level. Thibodeau (etc) for defense. And an offensive guru for that end of the floor. Big man coach for Greg and LMA, etc

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Always get the best you can

that, more than anything else, should guide PA and KP in their hirings. I’m sure it’s their principle now.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Winning fixes everything

Last year nobody was willing to criticize Nate due to our team’s wonderful overachievement and late-season surge. Why nitpick when our team was outperforming our wildest expectations? However, that does not mean he was a perfect coach last year, and he isn’t this year. The intense backlash after a so-so start is to be expected for a coach who has (with the exception of when we lost the Houston series) endured less criticism that 99% of NBA coaches and front office members.The facts remain though that he is a career below-.500 coach who is notoriously slow to adjust to both his own and opponents’ personnel. While this reaction is unfair in that it is all happening at once, we need to remember that Nate has endured precious little criticism up to this point

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Also

I think he wants his players to run things off the court but for him to run things on the court. Doesn’t that seem like role reversal?

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't read criticism of Phil, Pop of Jerry so those three comprise 10% of the league

As far as throwing Nate;s career record at him, that is selective evaluation. Nate understood when he came to Portland that his record would take a big hit and was assured by Paul Allen that he would be given time to develop despite the losses. He took big losses to clear the roster of the deadwood and develop young players. Last year was the first year of dividends. There are bound to be many more to come.

As far as being notoriously slow to adjust, that is interesting considering Ben’s diatribe yesterday criticizing Nate for adjusting too much! I think I am unqualified to judge his method of development and achievement except by a wins progression which has been outstanding by any measure and now wins against quality opponents on the road. It is way too early for me to make any assessment this year. Perhaps some here have that NBA coaching experience to understand the process but I cannot claim that experience.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Having " fairly sophisticated reader/participant on this site" ...

… still doesn’t equate to there being a single person on this site who is qualified to evaluate McMillan’s performance.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is a site for fans & their opinions they have every right to express them right or wrong.

I am not a Nate basher, I do however think he has made some mistakes. Nate is human of course he has, for example IMO in the last game when Oden got his 4th foul Nate went small. A good strategy against certain teams. I think it is important for Greg to learn to play with fouls & if nothing else you put in Joel as we needed the rebounding & defense at that critical point in the game.No I am not by any means a professional coach this is just my opinion but even if we had still lost the game it would have given Greg the oppurtunity to learn how to play with fouls.Nate is a good coach & the fans that criticize him will be either right or wrong but they have every right to do so as that is what this site was created for IMHO

"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-

by We-B-Dunkin on Nov 5, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Pick and roll D

Must improve

"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.

by Sabonis4Ever on Nov 5, 2009 12:55 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

All D must improve

Step 1: getting back on defense each and every possession

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Nov 5, 2009 7:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Which is where the whole "effort" thing comes into play.

Getting back on defense is almost completely about effort.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Roy, Rudy, Martell, LMA, Oden

I use that lineup in crunch time.

Rudy guards the PG, Roy guards the weaker SG/SF, Martell guards the better SG/SF, LMA – PF, Oden – C. Roy is generally the ball-handler late in games, this moves him to ball-handler position. This lineup limits our defensive liabilities/holes, while keeping tons of offensive talent on the court.

Miller, Roy, Martell, LMA, Oden – I try starting this unit consistently. Let them get on-court time together, and build some cohesion.

We need cohesion, we need something solid to build on.

Rudy, Outlaw, Joel, and Blake = Finishing the 9-man rotation Howard can play when the bigs are in foul trouble.

Give Bayless+Cunningham minutes if you want to speed up their development…If I had to choose whose minutes to cut into it would be Blake and Howard, the Veteran role-players we know what to expect from.

Cunningham+Bayless = Two great young talents who I’d like to see get in the mix. Hopefully the guys ahead of them can run up the score to get them some minutes. Bayless has been fairly solid, and what I have seen from Cunningham so far I have LOVED. Dante can straight up play.

-Coach DD

Enjoy the Ride

by DigitalDaggers on Nov 5, 2009 1:04 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Roy, Rudy, Martell, LMA, Oden...

I start that lineup! Two shooters around Roy (Rudy and Martell), one playmaker besides Roy (Rudy) and two big guys! Personally, I think this is our most athletic lineup. The problem with it is still defense at the 1 and 2. Neither Roy or Rudy are good consistently. However, neither are Blake or Miller if you stick them in for Rudy or Roy. This is going to plague us all season. I could see using Bayless occasionally against the quick guards but he also has his liabilities…

I know it sound weird not having Blake or Miller in the starting group but quite frankly, what have they done? I love Blake for his shooting, intelligence, and general lack of turnovers, but he doesn’t play great D, isn’t a great playmaker, doesn’t run the break, and can’t get into the lane. I love Miller for his passing skills, intelligence, and ability to create plays but he doesn’t play great D and can’t shoot.

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Roy, Rudy, Martell, LMA, Oden...

…I think that this is probably our best/most effective lineup.

We didn’t pay Miller all that cash to move Roy to PG for the majority of his minutes though. That’s why I proposed the starting lineup that I did. It maximizes our roster.

Also, not sure how Brandon feels about switching over to PG.

Enjoy the Ride

by DigitalDaggers on Nov 5, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Is he really switching to PG?

He almost always initiates the offense anyway which to me is a Point Guard. Blake sitting in the corner waiting for the kickout so he can shoot the 3 is a Shooting Guard…

I know we paid Miller a lot of money but is he really making us better? I understand he is still learning the system, playing his way into shape (which is BS-you gotta come to camp in shape!), playing less minutes, etc…but he still has the same liabilities as Blake on the defensive end (which is where our biggest problem is) and he can’t shoot worth a hoot! I don’t think that just because he got paid he is maximizing our roster. And to this point, it is pretty clear he ain’t complementing Roy effectively when he is in there with him. That’s not to say it is all Andre’s fault, Roy needs to adjust.

So until the Roy/Miller twosome gets it together. We might as well play the most effective lineup (Roy, Rudy, Martell, LMA, Oden) the most minutes!

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That all being said then

Why isn’t Brandon being fingered as a culprit in all this? He is the self proclaimed leader of the team after all, and beyond that many people see him as the coach on the floor. He preached about the Blazers being a premier defensive team during the entire offseason but he hasn’t played an ounce of D since the regular season started. He has been consitantly burned by not only Carmello Anthony (forgivable, to an extent since he is playing at an MVP caliber level right now) but also Trevor Ariza (sorry, no excuse there).

Before I get destroyed by everyone for saying it (you’re probably right. After all it’s Brandon Roy) just think about it. How much of this should be on Nate’s shoulders and not Brandon’s?

by Gary: Badass on Nov 5, 2009 1:08 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

That would be next

but he has a season or two yet before we go there I think. He’s been so far ahead of the curve on everything he’s done that he’s allowed some normal growth/understanding. How long did it take Kobe to become Kobe or Michael to become Michael? Brandon may never reach quite that height but he still needs to experience some things similar to those guys before he can truly lead the way those guys did/do in all aspects of the game. If that isn’t happening after some more time has passed I’ll be more than happy to wonder about it aloud. But for me it’s too soon right now.

—Dave

by Dave on Nov 5, 2009 1:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah yes

That is a very sound point. I think it’s easy, for me at least, to get ahead of myself. In part because Brandon is already so advanced as a player, but also he will soon be be making franchise player money.

I just think that Brandon has a fair amount of sway in the way things are run with the Blazers right now. I mean, he essentially told Kevin Pritchard to trade Zach Randoplh after all. As was stated, it’s not 100% either way between the players and the coach (success or failure), but to me, Brandon and Nate are too interconnected right now to really lay all the blame on just one of them.

by Gary: Badass on Nov 5, 2009 2:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I usually defend Roy to kingdom come, but in this case

you’re right. Brandon deserves much criticism for his D. After seeing Wade blocking giants at the rim on dunk attempts, K*be playing all world D, he needs to up his game to keep up with these guys. He’s got the talent, but I don’t think he understands that must be part of his game to reach their level. He’s on their level offensively, but for most of the game, he’s not even close defensively.

I don’t agree with Dave that we should wait and see. It’s not like we should be mad or calling for his head, but I’d like the sentiment about Roy to be that he’s not a complete player. I’d like for him to hear that over and over because he’ll change it. He’s shown responsiveness.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think one thing that would really help Roy

would be a team USA stint. It really seems like he’s stuck in the “I need to do everything or it’s not going to get done” which makes sense to a point because the only time he’s had anything close to a teammate near his level at the time was at UW with Nate (LaMarcus doesn’t count). He’s never really been in a competitive situation where he plays off the ball, so it seems like he has a hard time trusting that he can still be the guy if he doesn’t have the ball in his hands every possession. He’s never really seen first-hand the defensive effort that those guys put into their games so he’d not doing the same yet.

How often did we hear that LeBron and Melo’s time with Kobe on the redeem team is what motivated them to start putting in more work and perfecting their game? It’s one thing to hear that a guy is up lifting at 7 AM every day, or that he’s busting his hump in practice, but it’s another thing to be around it day after day.

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The greats come from the same places

whether they originated there or went there to become great. It’s easier to see in sports like surfing, where you’ll see pockets of insane talent. It’s just socialization.

I don’t think he needs to go to US camp. Maybe a playoff series against him would be enough. Maybe he doesn’t need that. But, I think US camp and some time with those nutcases would certainly help.

I still remember hearing about Gary Payton teaching K*be to play D in his first all-start game. Before that, he kind of sucked. Since then, I’ve wondered whether this was just a narrative reporters created because it sounds like a good story or whether it’s true.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think he "needs" to go, per se

but it’d be a huge help. Like you said, greats in a sport tend to congregate, pushing each other to further greatness. Brandon is already great, no doubt, but what’s pushing him beyond that now to next the next step? He’s not a psychopathic self-motivator like MJ, so I think he needs that outside Lebron/CP/Kobe motivation to push him a little more.

It seems odd that as Blazer fans we were all applauding his decision to not touch a basketball over the summer. Could anyone imagine MJ or Kobe going an entire summer without basketball?

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I vehemently did not applaud that.

I love Roy to death and defend him against all the selfish, isos arguments, but there are a few areas he simply ought to improve and since he’s getting paid grillions and telling us he’s going to win championships, I think he should do everything he can to improve. That means playing basketball in the summer. I can’t understand why people thought him not playing basketball was a good thing. Sure, it’s good not to overdo it, but …..

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree that the experience those guys got on the USA team improved their defense commitment

But Kobe was not committed to defense before that experience either. The talking heads attribute it to being together. The players themselves have also given credit to Nate and Coach K for the change. Since Coach K has not traditionally had great defensive teams at Duke more of that credit goes to Nate who was selected for the USA team for his NBA defensive coaching skills. That same lesson has been impressed on Roy from playing under Nate.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Nov 5, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course Nate gets the credit

How can we forget the suffocating D played by that 2006 world championship team that had all of the same major players except Kobe on the team and was coached by Nate and Coach K? The team that was unable to defend a pick and roll and got picked apart by Greece on its way to winning a bronze medal.

And how can we forget how that feeling of togetherness on that team so inspired and motivated LeBron that he went out and made the 2007 all-defense team and won the 2007 NBA MVP.

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

K*be learned to play D from Payton at an all-star break the year he won the championship for the 1st time

it’s pretty well documented as the time he committed to D, so that would predate the US camps

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 2:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Brandon needs to take some of the heat as well.

I understand he is ahead of the curve based on his NBA experience (or is he, having played all 4 years in college unlike most guys on this roster?) but Brandon knows what needs to happen. He needs to hold himself accountable. He needs to hold his teammates accountable. I have said it before: I hope he hasn’t reached his ceiling in terms of leadership and skill. I doubt it but I don’t like the message we seem to get from him and Nate that everyone needs to adjust their skill sets to coordinate with his. It has to go both ways in order for him to be more complete…

This has been a phenomenal post BTW. Thank you everyone!

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 9:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

While I think Roy needs to learn somethings and take some heat

the impetus must be on others to fall in line with Roy until they can prove that the team is better served by not doing so. To this point, we’re not even close to having a player that Roy should fall in line with. That obviously doesn’t mean Roy should take every shot or be contra-tactically selfish. He isn’t that. His assists (though I’d like three more a game) prove that.

I’m primarily speaking in terms of offense here.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 7 Rudy's woefully tired

Nate’s been letting him try to create a lot, even having him operate as PG with Miller in the game (now that seems stupid to me unless it’s for learning purposes).

As for the rest, maybe you’re right. That said, I think he’s trying to figure out some things he couldn’t in the pre-season. He won’t be subbing the same in Jan.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly. Nate didn't use the pre-season right

and so he is now doing what should have been done then, i.e., establishing a working line-up.

It may take a little while, but he will hopefully get it figured out. i

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Nov 5, 2009 9:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure he could have figured it out during pre-season

It seems like he tried, but nothing worked then, and nothing’s working now. It’s like he’s just waiting to see which catches fire. That seems like decent coaching to me. But, then again, I’m the type of guy that likes to try something different when things don’t work.

Given that we start poorly, maybe Nate’s the reason, but if so, history says we turn things around. So… maybe this period of rubbing sore muscles brings pleasure later.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think that is correct

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 5, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hard to say correct when it's impossible to know how long the process would take

for optimal performance, right?

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right

But my impression was that Nate spent a lot of time in preseason experimenting with a lot of lineups that weren’t likely to be key lineups, rather than spending time on lineups that were likely to be key parts of our rotation. Juwan and Jerryd got a whole lot of time and played well, but aren’t even sniffing PT now. What was the point?

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 5, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure about Juwan

but I think Rudy needed the rest after this summer.

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Must see if they deserve it.

Reducing options is a smart method for making decisions. That’s pure rational theory.

If Nate failed in this vein, it’s more likely that he assumed his rotation guys would be ready for action and thus played non-rotation guys to reduce chance of injury. Pretty common and decent tactic. However, his assessment may have been off.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I should not have said rational theory

but rather rational method

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If it was about deserving it

Jerryd arguably produced better than Steve during preseason. Certainly not enough worse to merit DNPs vs. 30 mpg.

If you are concerned about fit, it is much more important to work on fit.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 6, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

this is not true.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 5, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Most teams do not play their starters as many minutes per game

in the preseason as they do in the regular season.

Nitpicker.

by MiledAnimal on Nov 5, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right

But how much did our starters play together during preseason? Less than 80 minutes total, I would guess.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 6, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That was brilliant, jscot

I am an oasis of Blazer fandom in a bleak desert of Laker fans.

by RenoBlazerFan on Nov 5, 2009 10:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Great stuff, Scot. When's Dave gonna give you a day for the main front page essay???

"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 5, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

.................. meaning a regular weekly date.

"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 5, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A regular weekly date?

My problem was always that the girls thought I was a weakly date.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 6, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Seriously, though

the front page writing isn’t exactly lacking for quality, is it?

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 6, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I was really tempted

to needle you a little bit based on some of our earlier exchanges, but I must resist!??

I’m not calling for Nate’s head here. But if the players aren’t performing up to talent level, it’s time for the leader to lead. That means look at what he’s doing wrong, but also look at simply letting some guys have some time on the bench to consider that their lack of effort or execution has earned them that seat.

Your points are good, but then you stop short. You say Nate needs to make these adjustments, but do you actually think he will? Some of these problems have been very obvious to me (painful) for over a year now. What kind of a timetable do you see for, "the adjustments?"

The best players only try to, "do it all," themselves when it is a playoff necessity or, on occasion, to put on a show. Other than that, the game is easy for them, and they are just having fun and getting a workout in. There is no need to belabor the point!

by KINGofMACct on Nov 5, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Do I think he will?

I don’t know. Nate’s a good coach. If he succeeds in turning this team into a real contender, I might say he’s a great coach.

Perhaps some losing is what is needed to force him to recognize adjustments are needed. Nate doesn’t like losing. He hates losing. More than any of us, probably.

The thing that really bothered me was him talking about effort. If you’ve got young guys ready to put out effort sitting on the bench, then a lack of effort on the floor is the coach’s fault. He’s the one choosing to leave players in the game who aren’t putting out effort. We know Jerryd and Dante will bring the effort.

That’s your call, Nate. A regular season loss or two to get your message across won’t hurt anything, if the problem really is effort. If you aren’t willing to send that message, then you can’t really complain about effort. Your actions are saying effort really isn’t as important as your words make it sound.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 6, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

The best players only try to, "do it all," themselves when it is a playoff necessity or, on occasion, to put on a show. Other than that, the game is easy for them, and they are just having fun and getting a workout in. There is no need to belabor the point!

by KINGofMACct on Nov 7, 2009 10:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A point I forgot:

 Dear Nate, please stand up for your players in the form of a technical more than once or twice a year. More importantly, please stand up for the skin-tight post calling they’re doing on Greg – if you’re going to let Greg sit there and get fouls because you can’t teach him to go with his hand straight up and a crappy defensive scheme, at least fight for him when he’s getting hit across both arms, in the face, and the back of the head with no call the other way.

It is completely ridiculous that we hear time and time over from the Mikes that “Nate is steaming mad, Nate is really going after insert referee name” only for them to pan to Nate sitting there with a blank look on his face and hands planted on his hips.

by TSE on Nov 5, 2009 4:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How dare you, Nate coached the Olympic team!

He also had a flash in the pan year in Seattle with a veteran squad!

He also took a team loaded with talent to a first round playoff exit in just three short seasons!

Plus Brandon likes him!

Nate is Teflon Don.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Nov 5, 2009 7:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So winning 9 more games each season the last three years was a fluke?

I’m not saying that Nate doesn’t have some issues and that he doesn’t need to improve as a coach. Both the use of the pick & roll on offense and defense of the same, as well as the substitution patterns, have not been good. And there may very well be coaches available that could get more out of the current group, on both sides of the ball. But I think consistently winning significantly more games each year and taking a VERY young (albeit talented) roster to the 4 seed in the West has at least earned him the benefit of the doubt for now.

If these issues persist throughout the season, KP will definitely need to take a long, hard look at whether a change is warranted. But that time is not now, only 5 games in to the season. There’s a lot more basketball to be played.

by MDBlazerfan on Nov 5, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

fair enough

But I don’t think a single person thus far has argued we part ways with him any time before January at the earlierst. I think thats some pretty rational analysis

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"he throws his players under the bus to the media"
None of those are good things for us; and, if players can be evaluated harshly by the media I see no reason why there is this continued trend in the local journalists and bloggers to spare Nate the same criticism.

By labeling players as young and inexperienced we have developed habit of excusing the coach and enabling the players. With youth being an acceptable out, Nate has been hidden in bubble wrap. What we have now are not player personnel issues. These are coaching fundamentals issues.

With a little more leadership, our player personnel issues would be much more approachable.

The best players only try to, "do it all," themselves when it is a playoff necessity or, on occasion, to put on a show. Other than that, the game is easy for them, and they are just having fun and getting a workout in. There is no need to belabor the point!

by KINGofMACct on Nov 5, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

wouldn't it be interesting if our future PG is Nic Batum?

He played point this Summer on occasion. If we could get away with that, we could potentially play Rudy with Roy as you mention or go even bigger with Martell. I actually think Nic could defend opposing PGs as good or better than anyone else on our roster.

Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!

by hawkblogger on Nov 5, 2009 3:58 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

....either can Blake....

At least Nic can defend….

Speaking of unable to dribble, what the hell was with Brandon the other night…sheesh.

by tmundal on Nov 5, 2009 8:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm hopefull that Nic can develop into a "point forward"

If Batum is playing alongside Roy and Rudy in the future, I don’t think his ballhandling skills will have to be extrordinary for a SF, but if he can just slash and drive and make “safe” passes to open teammates, that should be enough. He’s already the best perimeter defender on the team, and should be able to defend PGs by playing a few steps “off” of them and restricting their passing/driving angles with his long arms and lateral quickness

It’s gonna take a whole lot of improvement on team defense for Portland to overcome the loss of #88 for the first 5 months of the season. So far, we aren’t seeing that improvement on the court

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I couldn't disagree more with Dave!

All the teams in the league have their own problems to deal with but they deal with it during the preseaon. Its Nate’s failure for not being able to get it done then.So we are now 3 games behind Denver but what if our bad play continues? We could be 10 games behind the Nuggets before January and what then? We need to stop the bleeding now and not wait till it gets out of control.I believe that Nate does deserve more time but if things don’t get better by December then a decision should be made. Perhaps I am over-reacting but I want to win the division and I know that this team can do it. I am just not so sure that Nate can.
The problem with Nate is that he has yet to develop an identity for this team. Are we a defensive team? An offensive one? Last year we were an efficent offensive team but one that had trouble averaging over 100pts a game. This team still can’t run the fast brake, we are still a jump shooting team without the ability to get enough points in the paint. At least Adelman knows how to coach both types of offensive(Sacramento) and defensive(Houston) teams.

by VinnyB on Nov 5, 2009 4:29 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Want to talk about issues?

What about Orlando? Let their primary late-game playmaker go, replaced him with an All-Star with a very different skill set who got injured almost as soon as the season started, lost their 2nd best (?) player to a 10-game suspension, Have a new backup PG, are trying to work their starting PG who missed half of last season back in, 2 new PFs, a myriad of other injuries etc. I know they have more of an experienced team right now, but to say that we’re the only good team in turmoil is unfair. And the Magic only have 1 loss so far and have looked like one of the 2 best teams in the East. Have we even played like a playoff team for more than a quarter or 2?

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Some may not agree with me, but.....

All the CP3 talk needs to die, it is so unrealistic… For me, the BEST acquisition for this team would be Jeff Green… Yes, he would bring 3 things… Toughness, scoring presence in the post and perimeter defense… WAY more possible landing him than CP3… And I would trade Outlaw and Bayless for him in a heartbeat.

"You can lose lots of money chasing women, but you will NEVER lose women chasing money. " - Mr.Landis

by Bump22 on Nov 5, 2009 4:45 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

What? How's that relevant?

That said, why does it have to die because it’s unlikely? That’s like saying we should watch Star Wars because it’s unlikely.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

BRANDON....

NATE and it stops there, those are the 2 people I will blame for this.

Nate for yankin Andre over Blake for whatever reasons he’s doing it becuase it has nothing to do with basketball…

and Brandon, for not letting the new point guard play pointguard.

The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.

"New Man Law: If you don't show up for the draft you don't get to come later if you're picked. If you believe in yourself, show up and sit there. If nobody else believes in you, take it and cry like a man...in front of the cameras."

-Dave

by faith on Nov 5, 2009 5:51 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I like Steve Blake. I don't have a problem with Steve Blake.

I don’t like the fact that everyones quick
solution is to start Andre Miller and
everything will be all right. I think
the problem is bigger than the PG issue. Plus you will see defenders sag off big
time from Miller.

Clyde the Glide, the greatest player ever

Cliff Robinson got mad at my brother who was trying to sell him a cellphone when my brother called him Uncle Cliffy. Apparently, he doesn't like that name very much.

by BeaumontTXBlazerFan on Nov 5, 2009 6:18 AM PST via mobile reply actions   1 recs

yes sir..

I like both but both are incomplete players and neither can play D which hurts us (and Greg/Joel) the most!

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't have a problem with Steve Blake

But Nate was sooooooooooooo excited to have a “coach on the floor” etc and yet has changed NOTHING about his style to suit the player he reportedly wanted from day 1. Does it look like Nate wanted Andre on this team? What did he think was going to happen after he made 0 adjustments to suit the game of the ONLY player he wanted this summer?

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+92

"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles

by 92wastheyear on Nov 5, 2009 8:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

rec

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Nov 5, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm with you most of the time on that, Tom and 92, but that tune is sounding a bit tinny right now.

There are some knowledgeable folks commenting here (see jscot’s and TSE’s comments above) and you can’t just dismiss their well-reasoned criticisms as Chicken Little hand-wringing and scapegoating.

by MiledAnimal on Nov 5, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right

Except my head hurts from the sky falling on it.

No, I’m not ready to give up on Nate, but the things he is saying in the media don’t sound like leadership.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 5, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yup

I’m not saying nothing is wrong. Just that the voices of reason are being drowned out by all the panic and finger pointing.

Everyone sounds like this guy to me these days.

by tominhawaii on Nov 5, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And

Dave’s post was nice because it wasn’t another “this is what is wrong and this is who I blame” post.

It’s like we are all on a ship and there is a hole in the side cause the ship to sink. 95% of Blazersedge is saying “there is a hole” and blaming the captain. The 5% that would like to repair the hole and keep the ship from sinking, can’t get to it because of all the folks standing around the hole pointing fingers.

by tominhawaii on Nov 5, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

You miss the point, tominhawaii

We are using Root Cause Analysis to find out how to fix it – and Nate isn’t part of the solution….

This isn’t hand-wringing and finger-pointing – this is an exercise in the wisdom of the masses recognizing the Root Cause and recognizing that Nate has some inherent flaws that likely prevent him from being a part of the solution.

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I haven't seen any of that

This is all I see:

I’ve said it for a long time and I’m getting sick of repeating myself, but it seems, again, we’re here. Nate McMillan is a lifelong loser. He has never won anything significant and he’s passing that loser mentality onto Portland. Until Nate is no longer our coach, get used to mediocrity Portland.

I know what is wrong, I don’t need 20 FanPosts and FanShots a day with 1,000’s of comments telling me that the Blazers are not playing to their full potential.

by tominhawaii on Nov 5, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

not seeing isn't the same as it not being there

the vast majority of Nate criticisms focus on these issues:

1) rotations
2) defensive schemes
3) pick and roll execution

The quote you use above is an aberration, overall – and has little to do with valid concerns that Nate is not the right guy to take the Blazers to the next level

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm done

We are not even talking about the same subject.

by tominhawaii on Nov 5, 2009 11:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

we aren't?
It’s like we are all on a ship and there is a hole in the side cause the ship to sink. 95% of Blazersedge is saying "there is a hole" and blaming the captain. The 5% that would like to repair the hole and keep the ship from sinking, can’t get to it because of all the folks standing around the hole pointing fingers.

Dismissing valid critiques that offer legitimate insight on what needs to be fixed is what we are discussing. You offer one isolated example of a BS attack on McMillan and refused to acknowledge that what is going on here isn’t an exercise in panic, after all.

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sorry Tom

But your willingness to point general fingers while not engaging in the intelligent discourse occurring below Dave’s post frustrates me. If you’re mad about the Fire Nate stuff in the fanposts, say it there. It is most definitely NOT being said in this discussion.

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Before we concede these as valid points ...

 … how about showing us this:

Where you learned about proper utilization of rotations and employment of defensive schemes, with examples of how you have successfully used them.

Also, exactly what a coach should do (and proof that Nate isn’t doing this) to improve pick and roll execution.

You can be the best teacher in the school, but if your students have a tendency to freeze up when taking a test, it’s difficult to overcome that. You can work on techniques to help them improve their test taking skills and build confidence, but then you have less time to teach the subject matter. The operative word in your third point is execution. The coach can’t execute. Only the players can do that and in the end that is where the responsibility lies.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I'm starting to fall in love with you

Logical uncertainty is exactly that. Why some people continue to assert the contrary with such passion and vitriol drives me insane. It’s one thing to say there seem to be reasons that Nate’s wrong. It’s completely different to say Nate’s an idiot and is responsible for our poor record.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 6, 2009 8:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We usually agree

but I don’t agree with you this time.

First point, on rotations. I’m not going to tell you that I could do a better job on rotations. I will tell you that I see and hear things from the players indicating they do not have confidence in their roles. That indicates a leadership breakdown.

You were in the Navy. You may not have been qualified to be an admiral, or even captain of the ship, but you would have recognized if a ship was not being run well. I think that’s where we sit with Nate right now. I’m not going to take his place, I don’t even have a candidate who is available right now who I am sure could do better. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot of evidence that the captain has not instilled in his men a confidence in where we’re going, and he’s going to lead them there.

Second, as to execution. If the captain sends someone to the helm to steer the ship, and they don’t steer properly, it’s his responsibility to put someone else on the helm until the guy he sent the first time gets the message that he’s got a job to do there.

If execution isn’t happening, it might not be Nate’s fault, but it is his responsibility to do something about it. Most of these guys have been in his system long enough to know the schemes. If they aren’t committed to execution, Nate ought to sit them down for a while, and tell them why.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 6, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Having taken courses and done a fair amount of root cause analysis ...

… I’m not seeing much here that could even mascarade as that.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Maybe, as it's been awhile ...

… since I was the Component Reliability Engineer at a nuclear power plant, whose primary job was to perform failure analysis on plant equipment.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the essential components of root cause analysis are here

the only thing missing is assembling the data. The objectives remain the same.

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The problem is you've already come to a conclusion.

It is not analysis of any sort when you state conclusions without assembling all the data – or at least all available data.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 6, 2009 7:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I know this is against general site rules

But that sounds like an awful lot like finger pointing to me> I have yet to read a single “fire Nate right now” post. What I see is the fans who were expecting to see a TEAM this season are being told to stop attacking the people at the top of our team hierarchy. I think the 95% are pointing out exactly what it is about this hole that needs to be fixed, while the 5% is praying for a miracle to drop from the “falling” sky

by momomoses7 on Nov 5, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There is no hole

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

we miss Batum

As I watch the Blazers look mediocre in these first five games, I find myself wishing that we had Batum’s defense on the wing and his non-need for touches on the offensive end.

I remember last year thinking that Roy can get to anywhere on the floor that he wants, and that his leftie layup in the lane was unstoppable. This year, it looks stoppable. Opposing teams are sitting on it.

Also, it seems that LMA thinks that we are paying $65 million to shoot only fall away jumpers.

Rudy has no consistency as of yet.

All these things are fixable and every team has to overcome some adversity so that they can say they are battle-tested when somewhere down the road they find themselves in a must-win situation or in a Game 7. This is all part of the process and whatever the Blazers can learn from these losses now in November will be useful come next May when games really count.

by billyrybates on Nov 5, 2009 6:34 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Batum can't guard PG's

That’s where a lot of our problems are coming from. Frankly Batum couldn’t couldn’t have guarded Melo the other night either.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Nov 5, 2009 7:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I thought it was pretty clear

that no one’s ever gotten a shot attempt up against Nic, much less scored.

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 7:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We would be calling Nic a future all-star if it was he that received compliments from Dwyer, scored consistently in double-digits, crashed the glass, shot 40% from three.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 5, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just a future all-star?

People would be calling him the next Pippen.

Wait…

by Royster on Nov 5, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry I dissagree.

Not Sure why anyone would make excuses for Nate. I’m tired of it. Every team in the league deals with player personell changes, inuries ect. but the good ones. THe well coached ones, are properly prepared to play the game of basketball. How many seasons do we have to go through where Nate can’t figure out who should be on the court? I think in the Atlanta game Nate was desperately trying to show the owner that he was “coaching” by constantly changing the line up. Nate may be a nice person but he’s just an average coach and if the ownership is really wanting a championship calibur team they need a chamionship calibur coach. Nat’s not it. Sorry.

by Flapbreaker on Nov 5, 2009 6:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Yea Nat

go back to the ‘Peach Pit’
:)

by abobo84 on Nov 5, 2009 6:55 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think he was trying to show the owner anything.

I think he simply is struggling to find a line-up that works.

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Nov 5, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

People who were predicting 60 wins were living a pipe dream anyway

I’ve always expected about the same as last season, maybe a small step forward. My frustration is less with the record and more with the horrible basketball that is being played and the complete lack of improvement on issues that plagued the team last season. Also the completely unnecessary lack of chemistry.

If after 15 or 20 more games of this, if things aren’t getting better, then I’ll treat the Blazers like I more or less treat the Ducks most seasons. Eh.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Nov 5, 2009 7:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

If you don't want to take a hit ...

… then at least pass me the pipe and quite being a bogart downer.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nate talks a lot about being out scrapped.......

I for one would love to see more scrap from Nate on the sidelines. Be more vocal, risk a “T” every now and then, let his players know that he’s there for them, Instead of standing there with his arms folded, give the ref an ear full! I was watching a Spurs game the other night, not only was Pop going after the ref, the whole bench was! I couldn’t belive it!

2-4 the who

by 24thewho on Nov 5, 2009 7:48 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Yes indeed...

He is way too rational and sane looking just standing there with his arms crossed staring at the ref. He needs to act like a crazy fool once in while, Stan Van Gundy-style, all runnin’ up and down the sideline waving his arms and hollering. I would love to see the refs reaction!

"Do me a favor. Put your lip over your head... and swallow." Max Goldman

by clinchmobb on Nov 5, 2009 9:47 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

why? Getting a T is a huge psychological motivator. Remember the game in which we were down ten to the Nets last year? Nate got a T and the team really keyed off of that, playing really well for the rest of the game.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 5, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Didn't he get a T in the game against ATL?

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Because with no way of proving whether being constantly remonstrative

or low-key works best with the refs, the criticism is wildly speculative at best.

Maybe it’s because I think the refs are doing a tough job the best they can, no one is perfect, and they would perform better if players and coaches would shut up and let the refs do their job without the additional pressure and distraction of millionaires screaming at them in front of thousands of people.

by MiledAnimal on Nov 5, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

it obviously doesn’t help the refs do a better job. It either makes the refs more inclined to see your side of things or it fires your team up as they want to stand up for their coach that put his neck on the line.

It’s a motivational tactic that Sloan, etc. fall back on.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 5, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

there are many instance of technical fouls as a motivational technique.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 5, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It could be he's walking the talk ...

… about not letting the ref’s distract you.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If the coach tells his players to be silent he has to have their backs and defend them.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 5, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Pop going after the ref

It’s a valuable coaching skill to get your point across to the officials without getting run from the game, or fined. Pop has it. Jerry Sloan and PJack have “it” as well. No matter what David Stern’s propaganda machine tells us, refs do influence the outcome of games. If the head coach can influence the decision-making of the refs, that’s an edge. The Blazers need all of the help they can get in this area, when it comes time to compete for the finals

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Complete over analysis

This team is not ready to play. Most of the games have been ugly even. You can say the team is not clicking, but you can also say they don’t know what they are doing out there. That is always the coaches fault. Rotations are not set, playing time is undetermined, and the offense is completely uninspired. There was a perceived evolution of player development, but the offense is still isolation based. You can play slow and not do one-on-one every other time down the floor. You can just feel the wheels turning when they have to find a way to score.

by Sonic Boom on Nov 5, 2009 8:18 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Amen.

Nate loves the “Iso” play, and talks about it a lot in the postgame. It’s the easiest offense to teach and the easiest to defend. At the end of Tuesday’s game, my friend and I were talking on the phone during a timeout and pretending to be Nate. “Okay, Brandon, you dribble the ball and everyone clear out and work the clock and then dribble into the interior defense and chuck up a prayer. Hopefully you will be fouled!” Sure enough, that is what happened. His shot was blocked, needless to say.

Zero creativity.

by BlazerDavid on Nov 5, 2009 9:24 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Travis got the assignment, in the Atlanta game

at the end of a quarter, Outlaw dribbled down the court, squared up his man and went into his two-dribble pull-up jumper from 18 feet (clank!) Travis won a game for Portland down in Atlanta doing the ISO a few years ago, I guess Nate figured that lightning could strike twice?

It reminded me of the ending to Hoosiers. Just get the ball to “Jimmy” and he’ll bring us home!

(Maybe next time they should run the “picket fence”?)

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 3:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Win convingly against SA

and no one remembers how mad they are. I’d rather slump now, no matter how boring/frustrating it is, than in March.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:07 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I'm all for getting on Roy about his D

but, that’s not motivated by what the team’s doing right now.

I do wish people would calm down and try to have fun with it.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I just rec'd you 3 times.

But I unfortunately had to throw in a couple of Unrec’s to get to that number.

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Nov 5, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

LOL

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 5, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

+44

"Rudy is not everyday a shooter," Fernandez said. "He's defense. He's passes. He's assists."

by jebuz on Nov 5, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nate has a trust issue

I agree with my commenters that Nate is being let off the hook. Yes, we aren’t executing well but I do think there is a fundamental problem with our offensive sets with very little ball movement, rolling after the pick and roll, penetration etc. That isn’t all execution. Miller even said that he sees little evidence in practice that McMillan wants to run. I think it is a control and trust issue. A couple years ago the players needed to ask Nate to back off and let them play. They may need to again, but this time regarding player rotation. Nate needs to step up and pick a rotation and let it have some time to play out before adjusting it to death.

by Letusrunsispuede on Nov 5, 2009 9:36 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Could you please explain the fundamental problem with our offensive sets?

Why do you think there’s a fundamental problem? I’m hearing many of these things said, but almost nothing justified.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Quantum Physics is a Real Science

but if you want proof, it’s gonna take you a lot of years of study

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Our offense is based on chaos theory?

But slowly things happen that they cannot help and the Blazers Fellowship of the Ring begins to break apart

by Norsktroll on Nov 5, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

if only

chaos theory is far more robust than a “butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil causes thunderstorms in Kansas”

Chaos theory is related to complexity theory, and complexity theory tells us that dynamic systems are more stable that static systems.

Chaos theory also tells us that the more you try to control a complex system from without, the less successful you will be (you cannot be the “hand of God” and impose stability on a complex system – you have to let the system self-organize)

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Shouldn't you take a cue from Chaos theory and relax then.

I’m down for a long explanation and any signal that the author took those years of study and is now able to assess this fundamental problem.

My work involves me in public perception and what many would call crises. Sometimes I generate them, sometimes I use them. What’s often the case, though, is that there is no such crises. People are generally ameliorative, and because of this see problems anytime something trends normal or slightly below previous levels. Very, very easy to manipulate such folks.

I’m not sure why I bother telling people about it here. Something about the hyper doom train against the blazers rubs me the wrong way. A few losses simply do not suggest that a person is an idiot. On the contrary, in this case, it’s more likely to indicate experimentation, the results of which may yield far greater fruit down the road. But, that’s not the illusion that sells.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Faith vs. Science?

as pointed out by others, criticisms being discussed here are not simply reactions to a 2-3 record.

Rather, we see the 2-3 record as a symptom of deeper troubles that go back a long way. Call it trend analysis. Call it intuition. Call it a lack of faith. Whatever – but my perception as a fan is that those ills that ail us ARE fixable, but if Nate were a better coach – would be much less of a problem.

Ultimately, I think the players will take control of their own destiny and gel as a team that knows what it wants to do and how to do it. I just think they will do this in spite of Nate, instead of because of him.

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Trend analysis?

It can;t be on anything other than a 2-3 record, because if you go back farther, you have a different roster and different results. So it must be on this record…..and this is such a small sample size.

"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green

by antediluvian on Nov 5, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Of which there is only evidence to the contrary

That course makes worse than no sense if you know what I mean. It’s a rationalization for an over-reaction. The trend has been good. What you, then, bemoan was good. If you don’t like it when it works, don’t like the results either.

I’m sorry, maybe you were talking about how the Blazers were doomed to a 2-3 record to start the season last year. Even if you were, that’s hardly a reason to fire someone that was at least involved in a great turnaround story.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

does Nate deserve kudos for the job he has done?

I’d say yes. But he is Moses, and we need Jacob.

by blacknoiseNW on Nov 5, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

nice biblical analagy,

Jacob works for me, but Nate as Moses is a stretch.

"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener

by Berkeley on Nov 5, 2009 11:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I prefer an analogy of Nate to Samson.

And fortunately for him, the pages of BE indicate there is no shortage of asses available to find a jawbone to his liking.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Nov 6, 2009 7:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Possibly, but are you sure we're out of the desert?

I’m not saying Nate’s not an idiot. The way he speaks sometimes makes me think so. He’s incredibly inarticulate, but he does have that track record of getting this team to win. Whether he was just along for the ride or not, he was part of that.

I’

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 6, 2009 9:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Jacob died long before Moses

I think you meant Joshua.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 6, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops, good catch, you are correct.

Joshua was allowed to take the Israelites into the promised land.

"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener

by Berkeley on Nov 6, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe Moses isn't ready to kick off quite yet anyway

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 7, 2009 1:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Five years ago, you'd call me ... oh what's his name again.

Karl Rove. Neither would be accurate. Both of those guys are much more successful than I am.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

According to many, it's based on Idiot-I-Want-to-Lose Theory

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This from Stan Smith:

NBA news and notes

— So who’s going to be the first free agent traded? How about Andre Miller? This clearly doesn’t seem to be working out well. Miller is a ball oriented point guard and it was interesting to see the end game sequence with Portland losing to Houston Saturday. Roy, who had 42 in the game, generally controls the ball at the end of the game for the Trail Blazers. But with about three minutes left and with Roy having scored seven of Portland’s last nine points, Miller took a quick jumper and missed. Roy then intercepted him on the next "Blazers possession as Miller crossed halfcourt to get the ball. Miller then drove into an offensive foul the next Portland possession and was lifted for Steve Blake. In Sunday’s win over the Thunder, Blake played the dominant minutes while Miller attempted one shot and had zero assists in 20 minutes. Pout City?"

                                 **************************************************

If only we could be so lucky.

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Nov 5, 2009 9:45 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

What's Pout City mean?

Andre’s pouting?

Ironically, if he hits that shot, it’s great for us as it brings pressure off Roy. The problem is more that Miller seems to suck right now than it is a style of how he plays. A two pronged attack is more potent than a one pronged attack. Roy’d be cool with this if Miller ever showed a reason to trust him.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

December 15th

If “all things Andre” aren’t straightened out by then (and another contending team has an urgent need at PG) KP might need to go against his predisposition and make a significant midseason trade

RFS1970 mentioned this a few weeks ago. What if Miller was the “best FA still available” in mid-July and KP used the capspace to sign Andre with the intention of using him as a trading chip just in case things didn’t “work out” on the court?

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

by two4larue on Nov 5, 2009 3:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Makes some sense as it would provide a method to not lose the cap space.

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Nov 6, 2009 7:58 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nate's interview

revealed that he takes seriously being honest with players, because of the way he was treated at Seattle. I think he’s trying early this season to show players why he needs a certain lineup so that they can get behind that change. I would expect to see in the next few games the slow gelling of a final eight lineup.

by 7677maniac on Nov 5, 2009 10:17 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

I like the way you came up with reasons that Nate might not be a complete idiot

That’s a pretty savvy argument.

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Nov 5, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting thought. It kinda fits with the beginning of last year.

I’m hesitant to bring up something that was such a huge issue for people last year (it feels like opening up old wounds) but I’ve always felt the whole “boneheaded move” to start Travis over Nic at the beginning of the season had a lot to do with buy-in. It definitively proved to Travis, Brandon, the rest of the team, and the coaching staff that Travis was best off the bench. In the short run, it looked indecisive and stupid; in the long run, it cut off ANY debate that Travis (a popular guy, by all accounts) should be a starter.

by Corvid on Nov 5, 2009 8:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not the Start, it's the Parts

This team is just not put together very well to compete in today’s NBA game. The game is moving to quick players that can attack the basket. Besides Roy, nobody else has those chops. So stop Roy and you stop the Blazers- no mystery there.

If you start Miller the team will be marginally better. The problem with that is Blake then has almost no role- other than an injury fill-in. His off-the-bench potential is very low.

 A dominating Center is another route, but let’s face it, Oden is at least a year away from that potential.

Nate didn’t want to go young, but in hind sight that might have been the best move.

So now we are stuck with one guy that can drive and a bunch of guys that you hope can get hot from the outside. Not a very good team make-up. Could be a long season.

by ralphzillo on Nov 5, 2009 10:22 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

You are right we are not a quick team

including Roy…slow, methodical.and mechanical…..thus predictable and easy to defend….it’s funny we have all this youth, but are one of the slower teams….quickness helps keep teams on their heels and getting good results is a whole lot easier….

by WyEast on Nov 5, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

this is an excellent review

as it covers the broader view and enlightens the reality of things without taking sides…….I’m a bit of a skeptic at heart, so I lean a bit more towards the side that our problems may be a little deeper and thus harder to fix…..As you said, it will play out, if and when the talk stops and walk begins…
      Nate’s offensive system and overall approach with the players, he has, is not working….right now it fits only Roy and LMA and the 3 point/outside shot offensive weapon…….2 people will not win you many games and you will live and die by the outside shot….
    Building a team around these 2 players, is realistic but also very limited…..We have shown little flexibility and it will continue to haunt us until we can install the basic fundamentals that many of our young players have yet to learn…..With so many young players it is a monumental task.
     We loaded up with youth and inexperienced players that have talent but are not fundamentally sound (a lot of this is done in 3 to 4 years of college)…….This is more of a problem than most people are willing to admit…. to me it is the entire problem, as basketball these days is all about transition….It’s what makes both your offense and defense work …..it’s fundamentals that are hurting this team (along with just plain hard work and hustle)….without this foundation, you have players only and not much “team”
   Could be that this team just is what it is….nothing more than that…if this is their level, then they have to be considered an average team that will win some, lose some.
  
    That being said, it is pretty obvious that preparation for the start of the season has been poor….could be players, but this should have been reeled in quickly by the coaching staff. ……but talking has been the only result so far……there is a lot of “real work” to be done(something that should have started prior to preseason) ….
   the season will go on and we will soon find out, if this is just a slow start or the real Portland Trailblazers…the red check mark could be history and soon forgotten, but they certainly get an “f” grade for the start of the season

by WyEast on Nov 5, 2009 11:05 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

its a time of panic

and this post did a pretty good job of calming my nerves, miller can bring so many things to this team and all he needs is some minutes. but defensively we are downright terrible. loosing batum erased our ability to even compete with a top scorer, ala melo. i hope nate work things out, and i hope brandon roy tries to just take over, show hes the leader.

by StocktonNEP on Nov 5, 2009 11:06 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I'm not panicking yet...

Thye will eventually find a lineup that works for everyone and people will start to get and start to get a groove on defense. Just play hard, share the ball, take open shots and play defense. That’s all there is to it.

by jenstcy on Nov 5, 2009 1:00 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Bring back Ha

"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-

by We-B-Dunkin on Nov 5, 2009 2:48 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Hedo Turkoglu

if any ball-handler appeared that would let Rudy and Roy play together without a third guard it might be worth a try simply to see the scoring permutations increase.

Can you say “Hedo Turkoglu”? KP can

by Tiparillo on Nov 5, 2009 9:02 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I think Miller starting helps

offensively, but only if Roy lets him do his job. Miller should, and can, be getting players the ball where they can do damage. Roy will only benefit.

by Tiparillo on Nov 5, 2009 9:08 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A site by Blazer fans, for Blazer fans
Start posting about the Trail Blazers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Sched Ahead Daily Update, Games of 3/20
Small
SB Nation Survey + Chance to donate $500 to a charity of this community's choice
Picture_533_small
Gavin Dawson appreciation thread.
Small
Sched Ahead Daily Update, Games of 3/18
Joel_przybilla_small
To:Juwan Howard, with love.

Recent FanPosts

Bigred_small
March 22st Big Red Junk
Small
What does tom penn have on Larry miller?
Cute_small
Oregonian's Top Ten?
Cabo_small
Is Nic Batum a geometry major?
Nicbatum_sm_small
Spring Into Junk - March 21st 2010
Small
Comparing the Thunder to the Blazers
Troll_stone_cropped_small
Joelconomic Junk Sat March 20 Anno Domini 2010
Small
Umm, has anoyone noticed the washington win gaurantees us a winning season for the third year in a row?
Nalin_tonia_small
Off-Top: I'm loving how those two Pac-10 teams punked those two Big East teams

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

In Your Face Bill Simmons!
Self explanatory
A fantastic piece of NBA journalism, even if it is about the L*kers.
Oden rehab update
Paul Allen and his Vulcan Advisor

Add your own caption...

Recent FanShots

Derrick Rose theme song
Outlaw dunk vs Kings.
Solid Thunder playoff analysis
Korie Lucious amazing buzzer-beating three
Northern Iowa Defeats Overall Top Seed Kansas
Check Out the Spurs Schedule
the Next sam bowie
Smith: Rudy Fernandez Will Not Travel to Phoenix
Wall or Turner? Ask LeBron, Kobe-- More praise for Roy

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

San Antonio Spurs guard Malik Hairston is fouled on a dunk attempt over the Golden State Warriors' Anthony Tolliver during the second half of an NBA basketball game at the AT&T Center in San Antonio, Friday, March 19, 2010. The Spurs beat the Warriors, 147-116. (AP Photo/Bahram Mark Sobhani)

Spurs Torch Warriors, 147-116, In Highest Scoring Game Since 1991

ATLANTA - MARCH 19: Joe Johnson #2 of the Atlanta Hawks is congratulated by teammates after hitting the winning shot against the Charlotte Bobcats on March 19, 2010 at Philips Arena in Atlanta, Georgia.  (Photo by Scott Cunningham/NBAE via Getty Images)

Hawks' Johnson Does His Best Jordan Impersonation, Hits Winning Shot In OT

New Orleans Hornets forward James Posey, left, reaches in for the ball as Denver Nuggets forward Carmelo Anthony looks for a shot in the fourth quarter of the Nuggets' 93-80 victory in an NBA basketball game in Denver on Thursday, March 18, 2010. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski) link

Nuggets Rout Hornets 93-80

More from SBNation.com >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Ben_small Ben.

Moderators

Pict1126_small -ken

Polar_bear_small jorga

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Lamb_small T Darkstar

Wallpaper_small geoffm