Hollinger takes a shot at Nate

"Phil Jackson finally got the memo that the way you beat Yao Ming is by using smaller, quicker players to front him on offense and attack him on defense.... This at least proves that Jackson's more flexible than Nate McMillan, who apparently was waiting for Game 12 to make that adjustment in the first round."

6 months ago howlingfantods 54 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Does he mean game 2?

Cause we did start fronting him in game 2…..I don’t get it

I didn't mean to turn you on

by dukedee on May 7, 2009 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

notice the part where he says "smaller, quicker players"?

Oden and Thrilla don’t count. He be talking about going to a small lineup (i.e. Pau Gasol or LMA at C).

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose he means for offensive purposes without losing defense?

The problem is that we only have three passable big men + Outlaw. Without a center, we’d have to play Aldridge and Outlaw, and Outlaw doesn’t protect the paint against penetraters. Outlaw also didn’t provide much offense in the series.

I really disagree with Hollinger on this one.

by poster on May 7, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

shrug who's Houston's worst matchup over the past few years?

Probably Utah, right? Both Okur and Boozer are threats to shoot from 15 feet and out, leaving Yao without a guy he can cover on defense. Both and get involved on pick and rolls, pick and pops, which kills Yao. Both have guarded Yao by fronting him. Neither are good traditional protect the bucket interior defenders.

This is what all the NBA watchers are killing Nate for not even trying, since this blueprint has been pretty well established over the past couple of years. I know a lot of Blazer fans don’t watch any other basketball than Blazer games, but this is the sort of nonobvious thing that folks who pay attention to the whole league know about.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep

after game 1, our defense on him was very good. But offensively, we never did anything to make him move around and get tired, or bring himself out of the lane.

Granted, neither of our centers can shoot outiside of 0 feet, but we should have tried something.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on May 7, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please, Greg has range at least out to

3 feet.

by Royster on May 7, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're completely missing the point that our rebounding went to zero when we went small

and we did go small in Game 3 in the fourth quarter, briefly.. We quickly adjusted because we couldn’t get ANY rebounds. Odom can rebound and that’s why the L*kers can go small. Hollinger doesn’t see the whole picture here. Sure, maybe our offense gets slightly better, but theirs gets way better off all the putbacks.

Sure we could have gone small and lost by more thus proving that Hollinger was wrong, or we could have went with the best option. Recall how much better we did when Oden and Pryz were able to play. Also, recall what small ball means with us right now. LMA 5, Frye or Outlaw 4. I remember cringing whenever this happened.

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

by hobobob on May 7, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

shrug I'm not saying it was guaranteed to succeed

but I’ll point out that it’s not like Boozer and Okur are such rebounding beasts.

Hey, I hate seeing LMA/Trout frontcourts too (you’ll see plenty of criticisms of us going smallball last season from me), but if there’s any team to go smallball against when your team is struggling to put the round rubber thing in the orange circle, it’s Houston.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boozer and Okur are top tier rebounders compared to LMA and Trout

Blazers would get killed on the glass. The Blazers are not the fast breaking team like the Lakers even with a smaller lineup. The Lakers have wing players who can push the ball up in Fisher, Odom, or Bryant. Even Gasol handled the ball on the fast break last night. They also have rebounders in Ariza, Odom, Gasol, and Bryant. The Lakers big men also set much better picks than the Blazers.

The personnel and coaching philosophy between the Lakers and Blazers are very different. There is no way the Blazers could have gone small and survived.

"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith

by blzrfan on May 7, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK. Whatever.

Literally every single ESPN basketball writer, from Hollinger to Simmons, from Thorpe to Stein is totally befuddled about why Nate never tried to go smallball, but obviously the Portland fanbase knows best.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to hear how the Blazers could have played small ball against the Rockets

I would be more interested in this type of discussion. National columnist are not any better at understanding the game of basketball than anyone of us who have played, watched, and followed the game for a long time. Especially since many fans know the team much better than national columnists.

"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith

by blzrfan on May 7, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh, I think it's kind of funny I'm arguing for this

considering how much I loathed the smallball lineup last season.

But I’ll just point out that we went with LMA or Frye at C in crunchtime pretty much every game of 07-08, and won half our games. We did so even though we were even less of a running team then, and I’m not even really sure the relevance of that observation on your part; the motivation on Nate’s part seemed pretty clearly to try to maximize the shooters surrounding Roy.

We went to it less this season, but still pretty often. Here’s last season’s most frequently used lineups; here’s this season’s. You’ll notice plenty of Oden/Thrilla-less lineups with healthy +/- and win% even while conceding some rebounding advantage.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blazers did go small many times last season as well as this season

But specifically against the Rockets, I don’t see a match up that I like. Putting LMA on Yao would increase the possibility of foul trouble. If LMA gets into foul trouble, the Blazers have no chance to compete. The energy needed to front Yao would sap LMA’s energy on offense.

I could see how LMA could draw Yao from the paint by making jumpshots. But those are the types of shots he got with Scola defending him. The Rockets showed they were willing to concede long 2-pointers. I can’t imagine much of an advantage running the pick and pop.

I just don’t see the matchups in a small lineup any better than a lineup with center. The offense would still be perimeter oriented and isolation heavy. LMA is not a guy like Boozer who can take Yao off the dribble. I think the Rockets are a great defensive team and Blazers just don’t have the firepower in the right places to attack them.

"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith

by blzrfan on May 7, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, I could take Yao off the dribble.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True - we went small and it failed

"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy

by Honka Playboy on May 7, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it was sarcasm

I got 6 years of playoff blue balls going on, and I'm ready to release. GO BLAZERS. ~Mortimer

by Philthyanimal on May 7, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ehhhh.

Whatev.

Nate is the man/sarge,

"Awesome! Totally awesome! All right, Hamilton!"

by B-ROYalty on May 7, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We did sandwich Yao with LaMarcus behind him and Greg/zilla in front of him beginning in game 2

That worked pretty well imho. I wouldn’t trust Channing or Travis or Nic to do a more credible job.

by Norsktroll on May 7, 2009 1:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Too much Oden for Simmon's taste

If all Nate had to play center was the disappearing act formerly known as Andrew Bynum he would’ve gone small, too

by two4larue on May 7, 2009 2:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem is

That LA has two quasi-Power forwards to throw at the Yao/Scola combination, we had one (LMA). They can front Yao with Gasol and keep Odom on Scola while maintaining speed and quickness. It’s not a lack of coaching by nate, it’s a lack of two bigs who are quick and agile. I guess we could have put in Channing, but he’s pretty much swiss cheese on defense so that wouldn’t have helped.

"Respect everyone, fear no one." -TP

by Arby on May 7, 2009 2:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dallas showed you didn't exactly need all star guys to front Yao

Ryan Hollins and Brandon Bass (!!) were basically able to shut down Yao by fronting him in the last game of the season. Watching the game last night, it’s apparent you don’t even need to really sandwich Yao. If Yao’s man is standing between him and the ball handler, the rockets aren’t going to risk the lob, period.

by Royster on May 7, 2009 2:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger seems to forget

how LMA looked very very tentative when Yao was on him

Best of Senator Clay Davis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4-QyAzY64&feature=related

by cloudydays on May 7, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It wouldn't have worked

Blazers needed LMA’s energy on the offensive end. The Blazers would also get killed on the boards.

"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith

by blzrfan on May 7, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger also understands

This was the series to make the most out of a small lineup, make the game faster and get their guys tired. They don’t score as easy so if the opponent finds a way to work around their defense and shut Yao, then it suddenly becomes an easy game.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

by DaniBCN on May 7, 2009 2:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

but they do rebound when thier averaging a 1 ft height advantage

so it’s not like they need to shoot well

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

by hobobob on May 7, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yao had 7 points in game 2

by svlittle on May 7, 2009 2:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This blueprint

is about destroying Yao’s effectiveness on defense more so than on offense. Yao literally can’t guard anyone more than 10 feet from the bucket, and that creates the only serious weakness in the Rocket’s defensive scheme.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love how Jackson's "got it figured out" over Nate...

..even though the Lakers are in the exact same position as we were two games into the series. And we didn’t need one of their star players to get ejected to win game two.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 3:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

AND

it’s musch easier to be flexible with Jackson’s seasoned, experienced lineup than it is with THE LEAGUES YOUNGEST ROTATION EVER PLAYING IN THEIR FIRST PLAYOFFS EVER. Give any other coach the Blazer’s lineup and they don’t tinker on the fly too much either. Nate saw that this would confuse them and cost even more confidence points. He made the best decisions to give his team their best shot at winning. It’ll be different going forward.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would it confuse them? We've used the smallball lineup plenty

often as our crunchtime lineup (especially the previous season but plenty this season too).

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But not in the hyper-accelerated world of playoff basketball.

You can’t compare it to the regular season against teams we probably matched up against much better.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

...that argument makes no sense.

So we don’t try a lineup we’ve used in high pressure crunchtime of the majority of games over the past two seasons because it might confuse them, more than playing a lineup that we’ve used less often will confused them?

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not arguing.

I’m not making a case for either lineup change. And we didn’t go small in the regular sesason for the purpose of fronting a 7’6" center and denying entry into the post. We went small against small lineups to out-quick them and not worry about getting killed on the boards becasue the other lineup was just as small as ours (ususally) when we did. I’m just calling it like I see it. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And, on my response to your next comment, I gave you that describing it as "confusing" wasn't the best way to put it.

Sounds more to me like your stretching my comments into a context you can use to disqualify them. o you not like my handle or something? Have I wronged you in the past? Haha. Have a nice day. Go Blazers!

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nothing personal, I just disagree.

I also disagree with your observation that we’ve gone small in order to match opponents going small; actually, Nate has usually gone small to try to put in max scoring lineups.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's true...

especially late in games. But most teams in the league don’t have a dominant big man in the middle anymore, so it’s less of a risk.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In fact, if anything,

the “confusing” lineup would’ve been the bigball lineup with Oden/Thrilla in the game at the same time, a lineup we used more than we used the smallball lineup.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll give you that.

But in the playoffs you have to admit we often looked intimidated. The more changes you make with a young, inexperienced team, the more they question themselves and lose focus. I went to each game in Portland and only saw the twin towers on the floor for a few minutes. I saw no Joel or Greg with LMA and Outlaw more often, but not by much.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it would have been worth a shot, for sure

A lineup of, e.g. Blake, Rudy, Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge would have given the Blazers more offense, and might not have sacrificed as much D as we think, given that Yao struggles against smaller, quicker defenders.

I understand Nate’s reluctance to abandon the big, offensive rebounding lineup that won us so many games all year, but I do think this ought to have been done for more minutes than it was.

by jksnake99 on May 7, 2009 4:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I do recall Nate was forced to use a small lineup when Oden and Przybilla were in foul trouble

I believe it was in game 4 near the end of the half. I don’t remember it being successful.

"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith

by blzrfan on May 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, it

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

gah. Also, it's worth mentioning that Travis is a poor SF

but a pretty decent PF in terms of production by position. last season and this season.

Trout basically lives on beating slower interior defenders off the dribble. His height advantage against most Sfs don’t matter much, with his natural ridiculous jump a million miles in the air jumpshot form.

Not getting much time at PF in smallball lineups was a pretty big factor in why Trout stunk up the joint so badly.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given what the rockets are doing by putting Artest

on Odom instead of Scola/Landry, they probably would have kept Battier or Ron on Travis and forced Rudy or Blake to beat our PF off the dribble. Not out of the question, but I’m pretty sure Houston wasn’t going to let Trout get going, period.

by Royster on May 7, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

I agree 100%.

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

whoops. That was a response to howlingfantods commetn wbout Trout (see above).

this has been a message from: "The People's Alliance to give Greg Oden at Least a Couple of Seasons"

by bforsythe on May 7, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if Hollinger noticed that Pau finished with 2 fouls last night

(and that Yao only played 26 minutes himself because of foul trouble). Pau got his first foul half way through the 4th quarter, and his second with 43 seconds left in the game. Remarkable.

In the games where Greg and Joel stayed out of foul trouble, our fronting worked. This seems like pretty sloppy commentary from Hollinger

"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy

by Honka Playboy on May 7, 2009 6:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You're missing the point. The point of the smallball tactic against Houston

isn’t in order to more effectively defend Yao. It’s to create an unsolvable defensive problem for Houston. The biggest weakness Houston has on defense is against a small ball lineup. Plenty of teams have demonstrated this, but no team more than Utah, who Houston can’t defend effectively with Yao on the court, since both Okur and Boozer are threats from range.

by howlingfantods on May 7, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger says that smaller, quicker lineups are effective both on offense and defense

so I was responding to half the point.

But thinking about Rockets-Lakers Game 3, let’s Imagine Yao plays more than 7 minutes in the first half and 26 for the game. If the games are called as closely as some of the Portland-Houston games were, do you think Pau is going to stay out of foul trouble and in the game? Will he be able to expend the energy it takes to front a man and then get into position for rebounds for 40 minutes? I’m saying that last game was unusual and only one game.

We saw a slew of line-up combos during the Portland-Houston six games, including small ball. I had high hopes for small ball since I saw Portland have some success late in the 3rd regular season game with LMA guarding Yao, to the point where they pulled Yao when the Blazers made a late run. I did not see that working in the playoffs. What I remember from that lineup is Yao scoring right at the hoop or getting putbacks.

"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy

by Honka Playboy on May 8, 2009 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fundamentally, the problem with your argument

is that we actually have a very strong smallball lineup that we’ve gone to in crunchtime of games almost every single game last season and a pretty high percentage of games this season.

Smallball lineups all across the league have hurt Houston for years. It’s not just that LA has a particularly potent smallball lineup. This is why we call it a blueprint – every well-coached team tries the tactic against them, because it puts Houston’s defense back on their heels a little bit. It’s obviously not a silver bullet (else Houston wouldn’t have the w/l record it has), but it’s a fundamental weakness that everyone on the league knows about. We used it for maybe 5 minutes of the entire series.

This was a baffling coaching decision, and if you’re out of the Portland media cocoon and are wondering why pretty much everyone commenting on Portland/Houston are making snide comments about Nate’s coaching, this is the reason why.

by howlingfantods on May 9, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

why didn't we do that?

simple. Lakers’ smaller option: Gasol & Odom. Ours? Aldridge & Outlaw. They would be killed in rebounding and Outlaw would be murdered by Scola.

So to me it’s a personnel issue. Also Gasol & Odom is probably better than Bynum & Gasol anyway in many situations.

by iverigma2 on May 7, 2009 10:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger is Wrong and is Always Wrong

Second guessers can kiss my booty. Didn’t a coach in Dallas get fired for changing what did the entire season to match up with another team? I’m pretty sure he did. Who would back up Adridge? Anyone who says playing Oden and Joel was a mistake must be a Frye fanboy.

by tominhawaii on May 8, 2009 9:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs