Game 39 Recap: Blazers 94, Cavs 106
Parts of this game went much better than expected. Overall I am not terribly disappointed. What looked like a sure blowout in the early third quarter turned into a competitive game...a game the Blazers actually had a chance to win. Considering the pummeling they took early, that was nearly a miracle. The fact that Portland couldn't pull it off isn't surprising. There was just too much pressure coming from Cleveland on both ends and on the boards. But the Blazers shouldn't be hanging their heads about that and neither should their fans.
The game started out in the worst of ways, with LeBron James putting on a clinic on how to look like the best player in the universe. He was shooting, running, laying the ball in at the cup, bumping and grinding...he just used everybody Portland sent against him. It was scary. He scores like Kobe but he's built like a truck. (As my two-year-old would say, "Biiiiiiiiiiig tuck!!!") Portland's defensive energy clearly wasn't the same out of the gate as it was Friday versus L.A. either. The Cavs were flat-out running, usually with LeBron leading the charge. Portland wasn't getting back in sufficient numbers. When they couldn't run Cleveland was taking advantage of horrific rotations by everybody in white. Half a move and one pass yielded wide open shots for the road team. Portland had to double LeBron and Shaq, which was both expected and the right call. But after either star released the ball nobody moved. It was ugly. Add in that the Blazers couldn't rebound against Shaq to save their lives and you end up with a 34-29 advantage for Cleveland, the Blazers keeping that close only because some shots fell.
The second period featured more of the same, except Portland seemed even more impotent on the glass and LeBron just started hitting anything he took. That turned into a 30-20 quarter for Cleveland and it was 64-49 at the half. Things looked dismal.
The Cavs pulled even farther ahead at the beginning of the third but they relaxed and started going away from LeBron more. Also the Blazers concentrated on denying LeBron more, daring anyone else to beat them. And at this point Brandon Roy decided he wasn't going down without a fight. He scored. And scored. And scored. He looked every bit as good as we've ever seen him, mixing up short jumpers, drives, and even threes. You kept waiting for LeBron to turn it back on but he didn't. The result was Portland chipping away slowly at the margin. Then suddenly Martell Webster hit a couple threes and the lead melted like an Al Gore glacier. The rebounding got better. The Blazers kept denying LeBron. Portland didn't turn over the ball once in the period. They smacked the Cavs 29-18 in the quarter and trailed by only 4.
The fourth period started the same way the third had ended and Portland crawled back into a tie. But for a number of reasons they could never get over the top. First, Cleveland figured the gander should have what the goose got and double-teamed Roy to get the ball out of his hands. Second, much of the non-Roy portion of the comeback had been built on threes and they stopped falling. Third, behind Shaq the rebounding swung back Cleveland's way. And fourth, Anderson Varejao pulled yet another fourth-quarter job on us, not so much with his shot this time (as that was off) but with rebounding and creating turnovers. Portland kept it close but the Cavs salted it away late by hitting a couple of threes and the game was over. Portland could have handled LeBron's outpouring but not taking care of business on the boards and giving up the ghost to Varejao had been too much to overcome.
Portland shot 51.4% for the game but they're going to look at a couple other numbers and shake their heads. One is the 25% (5-20) three-point shooting clip. Worse, though, was only hitting 13-20 from the foul line. Cleveland won the rebounding battle by 10 on a night when they actually missed 1 more shot than the Blazers did. The bench played limited minutes tonight but all four reserves, in a combined 40 minutes of play, managed but 1 rebound between them. Portland did fairly well in the points in the paint battle, scoring 40 to Cleveland's 46, but they let the Cavs have 15 fast break points.
A couple more free throws, a couple more rebounds, and some semblance of defensive rotation or even hustling back in transition in the first half and this game might have been different. As it was the Blazers didn't take the game from the Cavs. And if you don't out-and-out take a game from LeBron he's going to walk away with it by default. You can talk about wins like Friday's being magic but the truth is you have to make your own magic in this league and the Blazers' wands were just a little too wobbly tonight.
Individual Observations
Brandon Roy had another phenomenal night. His great scoring was overshadowed by LeBron in the first half but in that second half he had the spotlight all to himself and he took full advantage. Roy keyed the third-quarter comeback, kept us in the game, and did everything one could have wished. He's good, folks. 34 points on 14-23 shooting. For those wondering, LeBron had 41 on 19 shots.
LaMarcus Aldridge, though not getting as many attempts as we probably needed, had a good night on both ends with 8-11 shooting, 18 points and 13 rebounds. He was never able/willing to attack the basket in the halfcourt though, even passing up what looked like a clear try for the rim late to create a play that didn't work. We need him taking more shots and being more aggressive.
Martell Webster picked up his defense in the second half and was the key guy in denying James the ball. He got taken to the cleaners early in the game, but who didn't? Other than hitting those consecutive threes with 3:20 left in the third he couldn't do much offensively, shooting 2-9 from distance, 4-11 overall, and garnering 12 points. But he does get props for the late "D".
Andre Miller had a decent game, registering 8 assists and 14 points with but 1 turnover. He tried to push tempo tonight but nobody really came with him. He started taking over the ball a little during Roy's big scoring push, an occurrence I had mixed feelings about. But there's little use complaining about the offense looking disjointed sometimes when it looked disjointed all the time a month or so ago.
Juwan Howard played 38 minutes but just got overwhelmed by an aged, ground-bound Shaq. O'Neal, even at a shadow of his old self, was too big. Howard was among the guys who might have rotated more though. There were a couple plays where he stuck with Shaq out around the three-point line while the play progressed towards the basket. That was probably unnecessary. 6 points, OK. But 4 rebounds? Then again, who else do the Blazers have that they're sure can hold it together for extended minutes?
Jerryd Bayless was the most-used man off the bench tonight with 15 minutes of play. He was pretty much a non-factor in those 15 minutes though with 1-6 shooting, 4 points, and an assist. You could tell pretty early it wasn't going to be his night.
Dante Cunningham hit a couple of shots in 7 minutes. Blake and Pendergraph didn't matter much in their 7 and 11 respectively.
Final Thoughts
This game isn't too bad if you get the next one versus Milwaukee. It's just a nasty matchup for Portland. It's odd that we got a tale of two evenings in the last two games though. Two fantastic teams...one can't win here and one can't lose.
Oh...and Brandon Roy is a superstar in this league, but LeBron James is a galaxy unto himself.
Plus...I nearly always give Shaq a hard time but I have to say that tonight was your basic, well-played, go-with-what-works-for-you effort and was quite admirable. He didn't disrupt a thing except for the Blazers' rebounding efforts. He looked as in-tune with his role tonight as I've seen him.
See your Jersey Contest score for this game here and enter the next one here.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Solid Recap as always
When I read this though:
but LeBron James is a galaxy unto himself
All I could think about was that starstruck ESPN sideline reporter.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
Didn't see the sideline report
but I wouldn’t blame anyone for being starstruck with James tonight. Everything people say of Chuck Norris off the basketball court LeBron is on it. And the guy’s 25 years old. He plays that level of game—not just with his physical gifts but his court sense and timing and awareness and effort—and he’s 25. Not fair.
—Dave
apparently is was all game long
it’s not the fact that they are touting his game, it’s the completely over the top, unprofessional, non stop love affair way they do it.
Seriously, have some journalistic pride.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
That would be it then
When I Tivo the game I hit fast forward every time I see heads talking instead of players playing.
—Dave
No kidding
According to ESPN, there were 1 3/4 players in that game.
There was LeBron, Brandon (1/2), and Shaq (1/4). Hardly anyone else even got a mention. And that was before LeBron got hot.
#5 #10 #52 #88
and on that note
Everytime I see him in the open court I can’t help but think to myself “why on Earth doesn’t his GM and coach get players and put in a system that runs more?” Talk about a waste. That guy may be the most impressive fast break player I’ve ever seen – yet he rarely fast breaks.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
You are correct but remove the "fast break" and go all the way back to Wilt to find an equal
He simply has the gifts to do anything he wants.
I am remembering the Olympics when he played PF and dominated the competition.
I really get that LeBron does not want it to be all about him.
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
Someone in the crowd said sarcastically, "Does LeBron have 50 yet"?
I turned to him and said, “He has 31. He’s on his way there.”
He finished with 41. Still better than Kobe and more efficient.
Kudos to Blazers fans so far
I am a huge Blazer fan but we just got beat tonight by a great player on a hot night. It just happens that way sometimes….The Blazers did not give up.
This wasn't Hollywood tonight
This was for real. There was one audience member holding a sign that said, “One puppet down, one to go!” Nope. Cavs are tougher to beat than the Lakers, especially without Gasoil.
it’s just a different matchup for Portland. Plus, they were coming down off of the huge high of beating LA, hard to deal with the emotion.
They also can’t handle three centers when both of our studs are out.
#52 #10 #25 #88 #5
by Cablinasian on Jan 10, 2010 11:56 PM PST up reply actions
LaMarcus
I know LA is meeting resistance like never before inside now that he’s the biggest guy on the court for the Blazers, but, honestly, how many times will LA hear “you need to be aggressive and go at the rim” before it sinks in? I’m starting to fear it may never sink in, may never be something he can do.
He had a couple of nice moves near the basket tonight, but what sticks in my mind is a late possession where he ran into Varejao on the block and basically freaked out. Didn’t try to score over him, didn’t try to draw a foul, just looked around for someone else to take the ball, then turned it over.
LaMarcus has, at times, been a bit pouty about not being a bigger part of the offense (or is it just that people are predicting he will become this way?). Whatever the case, being part of the offense doesn’t mean routinely picking and popping to shoot a 20-ft jumper.
I’m dying for this guy to be aggressive on in the paint. I’ve been looking for it since he came into the league, and I’m not seeing it happen. He could have been the difference tonight, just like so many other nights.
I suspect
he is still favoring his ankle and doesn’t want to mix it up too much for fear of hurting it again.
ankle
Yeah, I want to grant that to him and be patient for a few games here, but this has been the case with him for so long. Last year he was supposed to step up his play on the blocks and never really did. This year, Greg’s presence was an excuse. Now the ankle. We’ve seen LA really battle inside in spurts (even tonight I can think of two examples), but it’s not the norm.
I love what he has in his game now, but I think he still has so much room to grow. It’d be great to see it this season when the team really needs an interior presence.
He actually does not score well against powerful defenders going to the hole.
He is what he is – a good defender an improving rebounder and a gifted shooter. Alongside Greg that is a prefect combination.
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
alongside Greg
Great point, really. Alongside Greg, LA is the ideal PF for this team.
But Greg’s not there right now, and the more LA develops an interior game, the more effective he is from the outside.
And in the long run, well, my fingers are crossed for Greg…
yes
He has an opportunity this season to round out his game, give it more dimension. Again, though, while he put up respectable numbers tonight, he never really looked comfortable. His reaction to catching that pass on the baseline pretty much summed it up. I’d almost rather he sat out and let that ankle heal fully. Playing on it risks hurting it worse or hurting the other one, and he’ll get subconsciously used to favoring it. Last thing we need is for Lamarcus to go down all season or to have the injury nag him down the stretch and never really go away.
by Chadillac5000 on Jan 11, 2010 2:23 AM PST up reply actions
You might as well ask Blake...
to play center. You can move a PF to the Center, but you can’t necessarily expect all-star play, when you play LA out of position. I think LA has done well. I agree it was a bad decision on the Varejao possession late, but that’s all, bad decision.
As I see it, the question is still offensive scheme. Blazers build too much on Roy and not enough on the team. Even with the injuries, the Blazers have an exceptionally talented roster that could create difficult match ups for almost everyone. If we used the triangle or any other offensive scheme that spreads the floor and where every player can be the scorer, I believe we would stretch defenses and get better shots for everyone including Brandon. This Brandon with the ball scheme doesn’t utilize our talent and creates situations like the Varejao possession where the ball is thrown inside and the shot is heavily contested. Look at the interior shots other teams take compared to our points in the paint and you’ll see what I mean.
Funny Thing
With great frequency I’ll look at the box score (without having watched the game) and there it is each time: Martell leads the team in +/-. Not to make too much of the stat….but I’m just sayin. So, what happens when Nic gets back? Better yet, what happens to our guards when Rudy gets back?
Will be interesting
They certainly play the exact same position with the same responsibilities. And they’re both so damn good, and getting better. I think Martell continues as the starter, of course, because Nic has been out and it’ll take some time for him to get his legs. Maybe Martell continues as the starter throughout this season. Beyond that it gets even more tricky. They both have such high ceilings, and I’d love to see them both stay on with the team for a long, long time.
This is the elephant in the organization, though. All this talent, but so few minutes to go around. Nate clearly isn’t able to manage all this talent and make it work. (I’m not sure anyone can.) And if a trade happens, what/how/why? You sure as heck don’t trade Martell/Nic and, say, Bayless or Rudy for a Caron Butler or Jermaine O’Neil.
It’s a problem. The only hope is that this team manages to buy into winning as the goal, but when it comes to sacrificing individual GROWTH, that’s almost too much to ask. It’s much easier for a team like the Celtics to buy into TEAM concepts because all of their talent (Rondo aside) peaked already. Same for the Lakers. That’s not the case with the Blazers, so something’s gotta give. No matter how much I consider the possibilities, I don’t see how it works out for me as a fan who wants to see all of these guys stick around and reach their potential.
by travis13 on Jan 10, 2010 11:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I see stretches where both are playing together locking down the two scorers on the opponents
While Brandon and Greg/LA fill the hole.
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
roy/webster/nic/la/greg
just thinking about those 5 on the court at the same time makes me grin from ear to ear.
"Growth." That is an *excellent* point.
I hadn’t thought about it in those terms before. It’s easy to talk sacrifice when you’re sacrificing points and individual accolades for team wins. But these young guys—by sacrificing minutes, we’re asking them to not only sacrifice their individual accolades but also their full potential as basketball players.
That is too much to ask. Maybe we’d better get ready for more trades of young promise for guys like Andre Miller.
Buck Williams for the hall of fame
I don't want to say much to jinx it, but
We have been waiting so long for this Martell Webster to arrive. Here’s hoping he stays.
by Chadillac5000 on Jan 11, 2010 2:25 AM PST up reply actions
Hey guys,
I think we should sign Lebron James
I have no facts to back up my statement but I think it would be cool and I think we would win lots of games. Paul Allen has a lot of money so it can happen.
Can't beat my, can't be my, no you cant beat my Pendergraph! (He's gonna block somebody)
Can't beat my, can't be my, no you cant beat my Pendergraph! (He's gonna block somebody)
Pa-Pa-Pa-Pendergraph! Pa-Pa-Pendergraph!
Pa-Pa-Pa-Pendergraph! Pa-Pa-Pendergraph!
by Starvin' Marvin on Jan 10, 2010 11:19 PM PST reply actions
Nah, he's not much of an outside shooter
How is he going to spread the floor for Roy late in the game?
#52
yeah, we need a guy to stretch the floor and know his role.
….. Steve Blake. Boom.
#52 #10 #25 #88 #5
by Cablinasian on Jan 11, 2010 12:23 AM PST up reply actions
Dave's dreaming talking about a minimum contract
I’m sure we’d have to give the guy MLE. Can Paul Allen afford it?
#5 #10 #52 #88
I though tonight's effort was amazing and gutsy
You could see they were all gassed in the 4th quarter. Just nothing left in the tank and shooting air balls.
I liked that the remaining crowd applauded them at the end.
"I could almost fall asleep when he's got the ball," Demopoulos said of Roy. "That's how comfortable I feel with him. He always comes through."
I'm back from the game
Wow…the Rose Garden really is all you guys claim it to be. What an experience.
Name the only Blazers who play better in the slow methodical crap that Nate runs. Guess who those players
are? Blake and Roy. Everyone else plays better when we run. We beat the Lakers because Bayless was taking the ball to the rim. He got 12 free throws. I’m more convinced than ever that Miller and Blake are gone and Bayless and Mills are the future.
No one can stay infront of those guys. If Nate doesn’t let these guys play he needs to be fired too. We come all the way back by running, and what does Nate do?
Brandon iso up top, walking the ball up the court? WTF is that? Why the hell is he walking the ball up the court when we’re down 10 with minutes to go? Then what does Roy do, dribble off his leg turn over.
This game is on the coaching. Roy needs to start pushing the ball. Mills needs to stop sitting on the bench. Start developing the players so it pays off next season. Blazers are really frustrating me.
Coach
Roy’s a player. A young player. He can learn to run, can learn to play in a fast offense, and he did it against the Lakers.
Uh, Mills doesn’t deserve minutes, though.
Bayless, however, does. And why he played only 15 minutes tonight is just baffling.
OH, it’s because Nate’s ol’ fave Steve Blake was back to take 7 minutes when he clearly wasn’t healthy (and his D is weaker than a wet tissue when he IS healthy).
Don’t agree with you entirely here, but I will say that Nate is not exactly having a good season. Blake’s gotta go.
Mills doesn't deserve the minutes? Weren't we saying the same thing about Bayless last year?
Yeah, and Bayless only got better with time and playing time. If Mills is never allowed out there in a real game he will never get better.
Oh, and about Bayless playing bad in the minutes he did get. When you play in garbage time, you play like garbage. Bayless loves playing in crunch time, and those are the guys I want out there. Competitors, not Steve Blake walking the ball up the court. It’s boring and we see it’s not working. Being aggressive works, and Mills and Bayless are aggressive.
by BRoyInThe4th on Jan 11, 2010 12:11 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I might have forgot to say, that Mills played in the olympics and owned Deron Williams and Chris Paul.
That was one of my lighter points. As we know international ball is different than NBA ball, but still he proved he could be out there with the best.
by BRoyInThe4th on Jan 11, 2010 12:19 AM PST up reply actions
Really?
Bayless got better without playing time.
Mills isn’t even close to ready. You only play Mills if you are tanking. Whether Mills will ever be ready is doubtful — can he play defense? Will he be enough better than the other options offensively to make up for defensive liabilities?
We’ll see. But no, Mills has done nothing to earn minutes from other players at this point.
#5 #10 #52 #88
Bayless didn't deserve more minutes last year, plain and simple
by about a month after Steve Blake got back, he was so terrified to put up a shot that he’d repeatedly pass up wide open looks that the offense needed him to take, in addition to playing poor team defense and repeatedly fouling on the perimeter.
He went into the offseason, found some confidence in his shot, got the defensive schemes down, and realized he couldn’t defend guys by playing in their shorts on the perimeter, and he’s looked 100 times better this year than he did last year. I don’t think we’ve seen enough of Mills to say whether he has some sort of mental block like it appeared Jerryd did last year, but we’re talking about the 55th pick in the draft. When you have as many talented guards as we do, there simply isn’t room to try and steal minutes
#52
by Royster on Jan 11, 2010 7:31 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Roy turned the ball over AGAIN in crunch time...
He needs to protect the ball better
I didn't mean to turn you on
by dukedee on Jan 10, 2010 11:58 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Dave?
Blake….. didn’t matter much in …. 7 …….
We were down 13 in those seven minutes and we lost by 12. Blake did not look like himself and did not look well at all. He looked even thinner than normal i.e. he has apparently not put the eight pounds back on. He also came in the game at times when we were on some what of a run and things immediately turned against us. The second time, it was so obvious that Nate even saw it and took him out very quickly—too little to late (-13).
Also it was inexplicable to me that DC was not put in the game in the second half after he had played very well in the first half. Bayless’ 15 minutes were also too few. All in all, a tough game to lose the way we did.
#52
Yeah, Blake wasn't ready to be out there
#5 #10 #52 #88
A guy rushing back from injury before he's fully healed?
I’m shocked. No way our crack training staff would let that slip through.
#52
lungs
I’m recovering from bronchitis right now, and trust me, there’s no way Blake’s lungs are ready to go yet.
Made no sense
Why did we not run him a little in practice and measure lung capacity and recovery to see if he was really ready? He’s not a guy who has great size or immense skill to make up for lack of conditioning.
#5 #10 #52 #88
They did
He practiced a couple of times — with the team doctor there — and looked recovered, even “peppy.” They checked him out afterward. Jay Jensen wanted to limit him to 5 minutes a half, but Blake said he felt good and was ready to play as much as Coach wanted him to.
No matter how much practice time and treadmill work he puts in, it’s not the same as gametime. I have no problem with putting him in for limited minutes to help build his conditioning back up. It’s not like we lost the game because Steve played.
by Corvid on Jan 11, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think they needed to take a little closer loook at him in practice
because from what I saw, it was not even close. And I think Nate came to the same conclusion in the second half. As a side note: a player does not, “play themselves back into condition,” from that far out—it is just too much of a drain on the team while the game is still on the line. Getting up to game speed equals the finishing touches—Blake was not himself yet.
#52
Our style of play did not beat us last night.
For that matter we were playing a team with a style of play that is very similar to our own. What beat us last night was poor execution down the stretch and turnovers. And oh by the way, the -13 that Blake had while drifting in and out of consciousness did have a lot to do with our needing to play catchup toward the end of the game.
#52
I attribute it more to Cleveland
being the better team and the lack of defense in the first half. I suppose I could blame Blake, but I don’t.
Matching up to Cleveland’s style is what beat us (if you want to think we lost it down the stretch).
So I’d be more inclined to blame Nate. for two reasons.
1. Playing Blake (like you said, he deserved it?)
2. Changing the game plan in the 4th quarter (putting the ball in Roy’s hands from start to finish and making the rest of the team spectators)
or you could blame Roy for not being quite as good as Lebron (it was Roy that didn’t execute down the stretch and is when he committed his 2 turnovers (he actually had 3 in the fourth, but they decided he didn’t deserve the one that was knocked off his knee out of bounds)
You could blame LMA if you want as well….he didn’t do much in the second half…but then again he never got the ball…
Yes you could consider all these factors as a reason for the loss…but I still stick by my first sentence…..
I am not sure about all of this assigning blame blame business.
Most times, assigning blame is a waste of energy and effort. It is not like we are going to kick anyone off the team over a single game.
Maybe if we just talk about what happened. Blake was not at full speed yet. He played 7 minutes during which time the team lost 13 points on the scoreboard in a loss that ended up being 12 points. This caused Nate to change his substitution patterns and took some of his focus off of the rest of the game.
Also, if the decision had been made for Blake to sit this one out, it would have possibly meant more minutes for Bayless or Cunningham (two players who were making more positive contributions on the night) and we may have had a net gain in those minutes rather than a net loss.
With nothing else changing, we win the game, simple as that. Would we actually have won the game, maybe, maybe not ??? But putting Blake back out there before he was ready to play clearly hurt us. And I do not just concede that Cleveland was the better team on our court.
And remember, Dave started this by saying:
Blake….. didn’t matter much in …. 7 …….
I thought you were saying that Blake had nothing to do with the loss in your comment up above, and that you were blaming our offense in a comment below (Note: I don’t care for some of our sets much either), but I thought poor execution and bringing Blake back too soon had a lot more to do with this loss than our offensive philosophy. If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I apologize in advance.
#52
well
we could say that Blake’s 7 minutes were unproductive, but not why the game was lost.
I truly think we lost the game because Cleveland was the better team. It may have been possible to steal this one back if several things fell in line.
One example of this was the changing the offensive style in the final quarter. It was different from the first 3, in that Miller had been starting the play in those….. and but for the poor defense in the first half, was getting results.
So I think there was a least 3 items (of possible contributing demise) that stood out more than Blake’s poor showing.
i just happened to notice the fourth quarter offensive change and the first half lack of defense and they stuck in my mind…Not really looking to to blame
Check out Ben's post on the front page, "Execution Breakdowns."
He is making the point that it was not our offensive concept of the 1-4 set that killed us, it was the execution of the set. I.e. poor spacing, poor positioning, and poor man and ball movement once the play was in motion that was our undoing. That is basically how I saw it in the Cleveland game as well (even though I am not such a big fan of that set either).
#52
Yes
Not too many people observed what I saw in the 4th quarter. An altered change in the offensive set, in that Roy took over , brought the ball down court, and started the play.
In the previous 3 quarters…Miller started the play, directed traffic, with Roy positioned on the outside of the elbow. It appeared that Nate and Roy thought they had a better chance to win by going back to the old set in the 4th quarter.
I viewed the game with an eye on the Miller fit. And I see no reason why he shouldn’t fit quite well.
The reason I thought the 4th quarter set was less effective, was because it put everything on Roy and left the others (especially Miller) as spectators. All they had to do was stop Roy and watch for the kick out…Knowing full well that Miller is not an outside threat and needing the big men inside to rebound . In the previous 3 quarters, Roy was still in position to do everything he normally does, and still have Miller remain effective. The 4th quarter plan made Cleveland’s job on defense a lot easier…..
Ben took a more generalized view and analysis. I singled out 3 items that stuck out in my mind.
You have to understand that there are 2 camps in here. Ben appears to be in the “get rid of Miller” camp. I’m in the keep Miller camp , so we could easily come to different conclusions about the game if we let bias take control.
It is understandable that they would have trouble with execution like Ben says. It’s because they haven’t done it the ’Miller way" much yet and would not be expected be too fluid and somewhat unorganized. They keep at it and they will succeed. No doubt in my mind.
I can only qualify my opinion on the basis of what I saw . I use my experience in having played and coached organized ball, to offer some support to my observations. Ben has a lot of insight on the Blazers and I do respect his comments. Most of his opinions are spot on
You make some thoughtful points
that I do not totally disagree with. It will be interesting to see if we can make the necessary improvements—no matter what they actually turn out to be.
#52
by KINGofMACct on Jan 13, 2010 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
Look, I know LeBron is good.
I get it. Its one thing for the announcers to talk him up to be the superstar he is but the woman calling the game on ESPN was such a homer, I had to mute my tv. Everytime she opened her mouth I wanted to reach through the tv and smack her.
Whether it was about James’ shooting, defense, hell even his shoes. She would not get off the man’s nuts. It was so frustrating to listen to. Anyone else share my feelings? I’d love to hear it.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
Damn it feels good to be a Buckeye!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon! Check it out!
by Andrew Tolliver on Jan 11, 2010 6:24 AM PST reply actions
OH YEAH...
The media loves LBJ and LBJ loves the media. I tell you, if he had even half of the killer instincts that Kobe has than he would average a triple double. And unfortunately, last night he was in attack mode. But I still say the BRoy and Kobe have more killer instinct and drive than LBJ.
Using the term ‘killer instinct’ is a crutch so-called NBA experts use when they want to prop up a player who doesn’t stack up statistically to another. Don’t be a tool.
Why the personal attack at the end?
There was no need for that.
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
The ESPN coverage was not so good...
I was watching the game with two females: a college professor who played the game and a preacher who loves the Blazers. We wanted to hear some of the national perspective. After just a few minutes, we all agreed that the coverage was rather, “thin,” and turned it back to the local coverage. Somewhat disappointing because we like to know what those who really know the game-from a broader perspective-are thinking about the Blazers.
#52
Horrible
Asking him to talk to a mere mortal. Blech.
People call the Mikes homers, but ESPN announcers are far worse homers.
#5 #10 #52 #88
Amen to that. I’m no Mike and Mike fan but I’d listen to them any day over those two.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
Damn it feels good to be a Buckeye!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for the Jackets Cannon! Check it out!
by Andrew Tolliver on Jan 11, 2010 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
6 straight losses to the cavs.....
oh well, there’s always next year. Of course, Lebron will be playing for a different team…
An analogy
Shaquille O’Neal right now reminds a little of Lawrence Tayler at the end of his career with the NY Giants.
He is a shadow of his former self, but the knowledge and skills are still there — just not the athletic ability. Nevertheless, in any given game there can be a stretch — a quarter, 5 minutes, maybe just a few trips down the court — in which he dominates. Portland had no bodies to lean on him. I saw Shaq simply reach over Howard’s head to pull down a couple boards — without even jumping. Might as well send me out there, for all the difference it made.
Frankly, I was surprised the Cavs didn’t start pounding it into him more when Portland started making their run.
This game was real simple: too much Lebron.
Did anybody else dislike Quick's recap today?
I thought it was almost a hatchet job on LMA. Mind you, I’m not a huge LaMarcus fan, and I actually agreed with a lot of Quick’s comments in the article…but I’m a schlub on a keyboard, not the lead Blazers beat writer for the state’s largest paper. LMA’s play this season should not have been the focus of that article, and subtly (or not so subtly) calling him out like Quick did was extremely unprofessional. LaMarcus has professed to being happy with his play this year. Nate has never said a word against LaMarcus publicly. So why on earth did Quick think it was okay to make LMA’s “disappearing act” the focus of a game recap, and on a night where he had 18 and 13 to boot?
"One of the bright spots of the young season has been rookie point guard Jonny Flynn, whose name sounds like he should be the lead character in a Broadway Musical. "What are you doing here, Jonny Flynn?" "Why I'm here to court trouble, and woo a girl, and build the most fantastical contraption the world has ever seen!" -- Dave, Game 7 Blazers versus Timberwolves preview
I agree
LMA did not drop the ball last night…how can you drop it, when Roy has it from start to finish….The Knock on LMA is conclusive only to the design of the teams game plan.
Mac and Roy are continuing down the same course by riding the back of Roy til the bitter end. For some strange reason in the 4th quarter, Roy decided he was going to be Lebron/Koby/MJ. and so the rest of the team was just out there to play defense.
What was wrong with the way they were doing it in the 3rd quarter? Roy was still getting the ball 80% of the time without closing down all their other options. No this loss was on Mac and Roy. They decided to change course in the 4th quarter and put the ball in Roy’s hands(and Roy’s hands only)….
.If Varejao was out stopping Roy (and he did make him look quite foolish), you would think a bigger man like LMA would have been open with a smaller man on him? The logic of this move boggles the mind. No one had to guard Miller did they? He was put in Roy’s spot and expected to do what? (wait for Roy to get broke down and shoot a 3?) This game could have been a loss either way, but if someone could explain this type of logic to me, I’d gladly listen.
It’s not about Roy being a great ball player, because he is. It’s about a style that takes players out of a game, when they are still on the floor. I don’t get it……

by 
































