My First (Public) Nate Criticism

by Fund A Mental on Feb 19, 2009 1:32 PM PST

I don't know if I should be directing this criticism at Nate or Blake, but last night was another instance of us wasting a timeout trying to inbound the ball. This seems very common for this team, when it should be a rare occurence.

It appears as though Blake is hesitant to inbound the ball, I understand being cautious, but it is something that has hurt our team this season (think Orlando game). But I don't think you can blame Blake for this because he has been put in this situation by Nate.

Why would we want our second best free throw shooter throwing the ball in? Wouldn't it make more sense for a big like Aldridge to throw the ball in? Not only does he have more size and a greater wing span, but he is also a mediocre free throw shooter and a decent passer.

Another positive is that it would probably pull a big out of the middle to contest the inbounds play; which could lead to more positive outcomes in end of game situations. I wouldn't want Outlaw or Oden to do this because of penchant for errors, but Aldridge is a capable inbounder. If he were out with foul trouble, then Blake is a good second choice.

Am I the only one who is bothered by this? Let's start discussing something other than trades (thank goodness). Go Blazers!

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This seems very common for this team, when it should be a rare occurence.

Are you serious? First of all, we won the game so calling a timeout was the right thing to do. Throwing a bad pass would have been a disaster. Second, I see this happen all the time with lots of teams. It’s a common occurrence in the NBA and I don’t believe it happens more on the Blazers.

by Nick Van Excellent on Feb 19, 2009 1:36 PM PST reply actions

Agree with Nick Van Excellent

It was the right call to make and I am sure that Nate said:
“Either call a time out or get the pass in but unless you have a 100% sure pass, don’t throw it away.”

Memphis was only down by 2…think about it.

by Ireallyliketheblazers on Feb 19, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions

I might be wrong, but I think we were up by 4.

I commented on the game thread last night I thought it was a dumb timeout, because the Grizzles would have had to foul to stop the clock, and we would have been shooting free throws with a two possession lead. I saw no reason to call a timeout, letting their defense get set and giving them an opportunity to potentially steal an inbounds pass. I believe that Nate called the time out because he was being a little overbearing in that situation. His team is young, and he was hessitant to let them take those baby steps on their own….hence the time out.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on Feb 19, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions

up 2.

Balzers were up 4 after Roy hit the fts on the foul following the inbounds pass.

by greyhound9 on Feb 19, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions

logic lesson

The eventual outcome of a decision does NOT make that decision right or wrong.

A proper analysis of the rightness or wrongness of a given decision can only be conducted in light of the information that was available to the decisionmaker at the time the decision was made.

Monday morning quarterbacks are scoffed at for good reason.

In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" only twice. He uses the word "love," by contrast, over ninety times. Darwin never wrote about "selfish genes." For Darwin, the main force behind human evolution is survival of the most compassionate, not survival of the fittest. Human evolution is driven by moral sensitivity, or love.

by Love on Feb 19, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

well unless you use an utilitarian-based ethics system

where the outcome is what determines the “correctness” of a situation

but that really wouldn’t work well for planning/coaching a basketball game

"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"

by Magnum on Feb 19, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions

Roy was open

Sometimes teams will call the second timeout as a tactical move to see what the other team is going to run defensively, but this is clearly not what is happening here. Blake seems to have trouble pulling the trigger in these situations. Maybe he had a tramatic inbound experience sometime during his career, but it is hurting us at the end of games (ORLANDO at Blazers being the most memorable).

"It's not who jumps the highest -- it's who wants it the most" Buck Williams

"and if EVERYONE confronted with a tough, disgusting situation pulled out, I don't think I would have been born." Mortimer

by Fund A Mental on Feb 19, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions

"Let's start discussing something other than trades (thank goodness)."

by going with the old standby…bashing Nate

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

by 92wastheyear on Feb 19, 2009 1:43 PM PST reply actions

Seriously though

it is possible that they did that strategically…to see what what defense was being called

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

by 92wastheyear on Feb 19, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions

I agree that Blake isn't the best inbounder.

The reason is because of the one you stated. He calls timeouts too quickly.

I think Batum and Rudy are our best inbounders. Batum is a little green, and Rudy sometimes tries to force the ball in with a fancy pass. Nevertheless, I think they make the best inbounds decisions most of the time.

James Jones last year was clearly our best inbounder. I can’t remember when he didn’t make the right decision.

In that position, I don’t know who I would have inbounding. Blake pretty much ensures not turning the ball over, but again he wasted a timeout. Personally, I’d try Batum, but whatever.

by poster on Feb 19, 2009 1:44 PM PST reply actions

I would prefer Rudy

in that situation. But in this case they wanted Rudy to catch the ball so he would get the free throws when he was intentionally fouled. Lacking a time/space bending device, he couldn’t inbound it and catch it, thus Blake stepped in. The Grizzlies did a good job of keeping up with Rudy, making the inbound pass risky.

When in doubt, call timeout. Blow the pass, it’s your…ummm…booty on the line.

—Dave

by Dave on Feb 19, 2009 4:02 PM PST up reply actions

Wasn't it inbounded to Roy?

and Roy was the one who got free on the attempt before when Blake called the TO, but I agree that I wouldn’t want to have Rudy inbounding because he is such an active player and he is our best FT shooter.

"It's not who jumps the highest -- it's who wants it the most" Buck Williams

"and if EVERYONE confronted with a tough, disgusting situation pulled out, I don't think I would have been born." Mortimer

by Fund A Mental on Feb 19, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions

But trade discussions are so much more fun...

by socalblazer on Feb 19, 2009 1:44 PM PST reply actions

nate’s reaction made it look like he was surprised blake didnt just throw it to brandon.

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben Golliver on Feb 19, 2009 3:02 PM PST reply actions

Maybe it's not Nate's fault afterall

I can’t see the bench from my couch, but I just know what is going to happen everytime Blake tries to inbound the ball at the end of the game

"It's not who jumps the highest -- it's who wants it the most" Buck Williams

"and if EVERYONE confronted with a tough, disgusting situation pulled out, I don't think I would have been born." Mortimer

by Fund A Mental on Feb 19, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions

i wan't an inbound alley oop

i hate playing not to lose, they were throwing lobs all night, save one for the dagger, either rudy or roy, the only prob. is it’s easier for a ref to see a foul they expect so the ref might miss a push in the back and the opposition may be able to get away with a worse shooting foul, but i still would rather see something unexpected.

by appel82 on Feb 19, 2009 3:44 PM PST reply actions