Execution Breakdowns
If you happened to DVR or Tivo Sunday night's game against the Cavaliers I recommend going back and giving the fourth quarter tape another look. After battling back from a double-digit second half deficit the Blazers tied the game at 89 with about six minutes to go. The Rose Garden crowd was back into it, the momentum was building, Brandon Roy was heating up and a game that hadn't seemed winnable for the Blazers all of a sudden was there for the taking.
Over the next four minutes, the Cleveland Cavaliers put on an execution clinic on both ends of the court, going on an 11-0 run to put the game away. It was particularly interesting to watch play out for the following reasons...
- The Blazers and Cavaliers have similar offensive characteristics: they are, respectively, the 1st and 3rd slowest teams while also being the 7th and 5th most efficient, according to John Hollinger's rankings.
- The two teams have similar late-game offensive strategies that often draw criticism. Both coaches simplify things by putting the ball in the hands of their best player off of isolations or pick and rolls and trusting that player -- LeBron James or Brandon Roy -- to make the necessary reads.
- In this particular fourth quarter, both teams had similar defensive strategies too. Both teams were looking to make life more difficult for their opposing team's star by sending a double team at him and taking their chances off the ball.
- The Blazers fielded a bigger lineup than they have in many games this season going with Andre Miller, Brandon Roy, Martell Webster, Juwan Howard and LaMarcus Aldridge.
At practice this morning, Nate McMillan told reporters...
It was a good hard practice for 2 hours, we worked on some things that we need to get better at after watching the Cleveland tape over, defensively as well as offensively.
I asked him if there was anything in particular that broke down offensively in the end. McMillan's response...
We had some shots. They're a good defensive team. I think the big thing was that we didn't stop them so we had to play against a set defense. They are really good when their defense is set.
Indeed, any time you give up an 11-0 fourth quarter run and Brandon Roy is on your team, there's plenty going wrong and plenty to improve. So following McMillan's lead, let's look at some of the Blazers' defensive possessions before we turn our attention to the Blazers's offensive possessions.
Defensive Breakdowns
If you've been frustrated by the Blazers' simplistic offense, get a load of the plays Mike Brown called during this four minute stretch: LeBron Iso Left, LeBron Iso Left, LeBron Iso Left, LeBron Iso Left, LeBron Iso Left, LeBron Iso Left, LeBron Iso Left, LeBron Iso Right. It's hard to fault Brown's strategy given how effective the look was; during this stretch, the Blazers never defended or rebounded well enough for the Cavs to feel like they needed to try something different.
The key to this set for the Cavaliers was establishing LeBron in a position on the court where he is a classic triple threat: pass, shoot or drive. Although Martell Webster certainly gave it his all, he wasn't able to consistently get James off of his spot during this stretch. Take a look at this picture to get an idea of where James was setting up. Webster finished the game with just 3 personal fouls. If the Blazers could do the game over I wouldn't be surprised if they asked Webster to be even more physical on James, risking a foul to deny him his spot or the catch.
Once James got the ball, the Blazers' general strategy was to run a double-team at him from various spots hoping to 1) get the ball out of his hand 2) keep him off-balance in locating the open man 3) force one of Cleveland's tertiary players to beat them. Here the Blazers saw mixed results.
In the picture shown above you can see Andre Miller double-teaming from the basket side and Portland's three other defenders spaced well, covering the basket and forcing a difficult crosscourt pass. Because he's LeBron, he simply elevates over the defense and rifles a perfect pass over the top of the defense. This causes the Blazers defense to rotate and, eventually, foul Shaquille O'Neal to prevent a lay-up after Delonte West quickly feeds the post. The Cavs' ball movement was excellent and yet the result was perfectly acceptable for the Blazers: Shaq on the free throw line (where he went 1 of 2).
In this picture, however, you can see a similar situation with much different results. Juwan Howard attempts to double LeBron but doesn't get there in time, leaving his three teammates to guard four Cavs. The Blazers weakside defense is spaced reasonably well but simply can't cover everyone. James carves up the defense with another spot-on crosscourt pass, this time to Jawad Williams. Williams was directly in his line of sight so, despite the high degree of difficulty, this is a pass to an open man that James is totally comfortable making. Williams, the Cavs' 5th best offensive option on the court, steps up and hits the shot. The Blazers are likely comfortable with the result of the play (a Jawad Williams 3 point attempt) but not necessarily the defensive execution breakdown (Juwan Howard's ineffective double-team) that led to that result.
In this picture we can see yet another LeBron left iso situation. This time, Webster has done a pretty good job of pressing James out towards the 3 point line. With his back to the basket at this distance, it's less likely that James will rise to shoot a turnaround jumper. He also has further to go if he wants to drive to the basket, allowing the weakside post defense more time to rotate. For those reasons, the double team doesn't necessarily need to come as quickly. On this play, the Cavs aren't even really fully set up on offense (look how far Shaq is from the basket) yet Andre Miller decides to offer a quick double team. Miller comes directly from James' line-of-sight and, as soon as it's clear Miller is coming, James passes the ball quickly, trapping Miller in no-man's-land between James and Mo Williams. Given his team's offensive spacing, Williams need not worry about a third defender rotating to guard him and nonchalantly sticks a quick, open 3 pointer.
This was simply too easy all around. It was the easiest pass possible for James and a relatively easy face-up look for Williams. Additionally, had Williams chosen to put the ball on the floor instead of take the jumper, he would have had a relatively clear path right down the middle of the lane. A pull-up jumper, a kick out to Delonte West, or a lob to one of his bigs were all possible high-probability outcomes. That type of individual defensive breakdown makes life really difficult.
The end result of the 7 straight LeBron left isolation possessions: Varejao made layup, O'Neal offensive rebound, O'Neal fouled, M. Williams made 3 pointer, LeBron jumper missed, Varejao jumper which led to a Cavs offensive rebound, J. Williams made 3 pointer. The Blazers only managed one stop where they forced a miss (a contested James jumper) and got the defensive rebound.
Offensive Breakdowns
On the other end, things were similarly ugly for the Blazers. The sum total of the Blazers' offensive possessions during the same four minute stretch that saw the Cavs score 11 points: 3 turnovers and 2 missed 3 pointers. That's it.
Let's start by putting aside two ugly turnovers by Brandon Roy out top. The first he simply threw into the stands after misreading Juwan Howard's movement on a pick and fade. The second he lost control of the ball while being pestered by Anderson Varejao. Those are uncharacteristic plays for Roy and, while not pretty to look at, aren't really indicative of systematic breakdowns. Roy's ability to limit his turnovers despite an increase in his handling of the ball in the wake of his team's injuries has been a major driver of the Blazers late-game success. So we'll leave those two plays at that.
During this stretch Roy initiated every possession with the ball in his hands with one exception. LeBron James defended Roy and the Blazers looked to use high pick and rolls to free up Roy and start the bulk of these possessions. Just like the Cavs, the Blazers were going with their offensive bread-and-butter.
Let's start with this picture which does a nice job of showing the Cavs' general approach to defending Roy in the fourth quarter. As you can see, James is Roy's primary defender and is meeting him well outside the 3 point line. When a high pick comes to help free Roy (this time set by Webster) the Cavs simply ignore Webster for the time being and hard double Roy. This forces Roy to decide whether to attempt to beat two men off the dribble (do you see any easy dribbling paths?) or swing the ball to Webster who will pop open to one side or another. Because of James' outstanding quickness and defensive intelligence, the Cavs are able to man up on the rest of the Blazers and not worry too much about cheating into the lane. This limits Roy's passing options considerably. Making matters worse, Andre Miller (not a 3 point shooter) and LaMarcus Aldridge (barely on the court) are not viable options at all. This possession ended with Webster coming off the screen to the right and forcing an off-balance, contested 3 pointer, a look the Cavs are happy to give up 100 times in a row late in a game (especially when sitting on a lead).
Here's a picture of a similar high pick and roll situation. This time the pick is set by one of Portland's big men, Jeff Pendergraph. Again the Cavs double, with Shaquille O'Neal not worrying at all about the rookie so that he can harass Roy enough to prevent a short pull-up jumper as LeBron gets through the pick. In this case you can see Mo Williams cheating extremely hard into the middle of the key to 1) discourage a pass to Pendergraph and 2) to foul Pendergraph if he should wind up with the ball uncontested towards the hoop. Roy winds up deciding he has no better option than stepping back and putting up a contested three pointer. Another shot the Cavs are totally comfortable giving up considering the circumstances. Once again, it's important to note here that Andre Miller and LaMarcus Aldridge are offensive non-factors on this play. Miller is ostensibly spacing the court but presents no real threat to the defense and barely merits a glance from Roy. Aldridge is again out of the play altogether although he worked hard on this possession to gather an offensive rebound off of Roy's missed 3. Shades of Greg Oden at the very beginning of the season: the only way he touches the ball is if one of his teammates misses a shot and he winds up gathering the carom.
This last picture shows what happened when the Blazers did decide to move Brandon Roy off the ball, running him off a curl. Miller worked the ball to Roy who had trouble receiving the pass and gave up his dribble in a tough part of the court. Despite the fact that James was covering Roy without problem, the Cavs still decided to run Shaq at Roy to ensure that he would pass the ball. Look at the offensive spacing for the Blazers. LaMarcus Aldridge is once again totally out of the play on the weakside. There's no way Roy can even see him let alone pass him the ball. (Contrast this with LeBron's positioning and his team's spacing which allowed him to see and make crosscourt passes that was discussed earlier.) Webster is calling for the ball but he is well-covered. Pendergraph, who has some range but not that much, is left totally unguarded near the 3 point line. Miller is again spotting up at the three point line but Delonte West cheats off of him as much as he can, knowing that Miller is no threat to catch-and-shoot it from deep.
This is when you start to get really frustrated if you're Brandon Roy. Eventually Roy found Miller who unsuccessfully tried to feed Aldridge at the high post, resulting in a turnover. Brutal.
Conclusions
While Sunday night's game isn't necessarily a fair representation of how the Blazers have executed down the stretch this season, it is a pretty good example of how they've failed when they have broken down against premier scorers and quality, intelligent team defenses.
A list of defensive adjustments from this tape might include...
- More aggressively prevent the opposing offense from initiating isolations so close to the hoop. Consider using a foul or two to push the catch further to the three point line.
- Mix up the double teams so that the second defender doesn't come from directly in the offensive player's line of sight. Double from the weakside whenever possible and avoid getting caught in no-man's-land on the strong side.
- When the defense is forced to rotate and a shot goes up, all 5 guys must find a body to rebound the basketball.
A list of offensive adjustments from this tape might include...
- Use LaMarcus Aldridge as the designated pick-setter so that he becomes a legit offensive weapon or, alternatively, run a play for him every, I don't know, six possessions or so.
- Work to establish the high pick and roll closer to the hoop to improve Roy's options. A high pick and roll five feet above the three point line isn't particularly difficult to defend.
- If Roy is hard-doubled, off-ball movement is essential. Two quick passes should be able to find a quality look somewhere, but only if all five players are actively part of the play and well-spaced.
With Steve Blake coming back healthy and Rudy Fernandez potentially playing tomorrow and then working his way back to full game shape, Nate McMillan will have some interesting decisions to make when it comes to his closing lineup. Recently he's enjoyed good success on both ends using a three guard lineup that included both Blake and Jerryd Bayless. In the past, Rudy has also closed games, however Webster has stepped up his game enough, especially on defense, to warrant continued consideration.
At practice this morning, when asked about how he planned to adjust minutes going forward, McMillan was noncommittal...
We've got to get them back [healthy] first. As soon as we get guys back, Blake coming back the other day, he only played a few minutes, it was nice to have him available. As soon as we get Rudy back then we will figure out how to get these guys back into rotations and look at the units that they're playing with.
87 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Movement
This is meant to be a question and not trying to be sarcastic. Is it better to have movement while a pick & roll is in play? I noticed every time we run a p & r, the other 3 guys just stand there and while they stand there, the defense is looking to help out on the p & r. not sure if it creates confusion for the offense or defense or both but it would seem to me that if there were some movement going on, it would make it difficult for the other 3 defenders to help and also to defend their man. Though this would also make it confusing for the ball handler because space might get compromise but at least he knows where his teammates are going.
Obviously movement is better
You can move without compromising space.
#5 #10 #52 #88
but timing is crucial...
the movement needs to wait till right when the ball handler brushes off his man. Movement earlier in the play leaves the other defenders a chance to pop out for the surprise double of the picker or the pickee….if you will. I assume this is what you mean by not compromising space.
RoadBlazer
Precisely
I was lazy in my answer, and you elaborated nicely. Actually, movement earlier CAN work as long as it is the right kind of movement. For instance, you can have one of the off-the ball guys set a screen for one of the others at the same time as the pick is set for the man with the ball, without compromising space, or someone move from the three point line out from the elbow down to the corner.
But mainly, you want to spring guys into motion just at the time when things start happening with the p’n’r, so that you are stressing the defense at multiple points at once.
#5 #10 #52 #88
I knew you knew...
I just didnt have anything to do while I drank my coffee.
RoadBlazer
You're too nice
You’re just educating the youngsters and covering for my incompetence without making me look bad.
#5 #10 #52 #88
I thought your secret was the ability to look good even though incompetent.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
so how good of a coach is McMillan, again?
I like, and concur with this analysis.
But,why? What will it take to fix it?
Recognition. Adjustment.
Does this coaching staff see it the same way? If so, why is a professional team like the Blazers reacting instead of anticipating?
Frankly, there are several issues that I have with McMillan regarding:
1) being the slowest-paced team in the NBA does not appear to be a good fit for this roster;
2) I don’t like McMillan’s rotations, mostly.
3) I don’t like schemes that don’t identify and leverage player strengths – whether those strengths are a particular skill set or a particular mismatch
4) I don’t like how teams are able to take the Blazers out of their comfort zone in crunch time
McMillan has some nice things said about
7th most efficient offense, 1st last year...
Most teams struggle against good defenses and don’t succeed on every possession. But if you are wondering how good a coach McMillan is, look at the long term trends. His teams kill on offense. Last year they were #1, which is pretty impressive, but to be #7 this year with the MASH unit, incorporating all these new players is flat out amazing. And it gets even more efficient in 4th quarters.
So even though people don’t like how Nate doesn’t coach the way they want, the results look really good.
by sanjait on Jan 12, 2010 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Fool's Gold
He has to slow the pace to achieve the efficiency. Low turnovers, good shot selection, etc.
Nate isn’t all bad – however, the problem is that the Blazers are greyhounds, but run like labs. It’s one thing to have generally good shot selection (shoot open shots), but another to know exactly how to get a good shot under pressure. Lately, the Blazers have been very bad at that, and the reason is poor offensive schemes.
Also, Nate doesn’t get any kudo’s for “incorporating players”. He was doing a terrible job before injuries did his job for him.
If there was anything that indicated Nate is a good turnaround coach, but not necessarily a good playoff coach – this is it. Good with a limited roster, maybe not so good at optimizing a loaded roster.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
It's no easier to achieve offensive efficiency at a slow pace
The top 10 “efficiency” offenses with pace rank in parens:
1) Phoenix (4)
2) Atlanta (23)
3) San Antonio (25)
4) Denver (5)
5) Cleveland (28)
6 Toronto (13)
7) Orlando (15)
8) Blazers (30)
9) Boston (22)
10) Memphis (9)
So it’s not like Nate’s gaining an advantage in efficiency by slowing the pace — some of the most efficient teams play very fast, some are in the middle, and others play a slow game. I agree that it wouldn’t hurt to run a little more on occasion, and also that the playoffs last year exposed some weaknesses in our system, but Nate still deserves major kudos for his offensive results, particularly with limited resources.
only 2 of the top efficiency teams play "fast"
and both of those teams (Phoenix and Denver) play to their strengths.
Portland isn’t SA or Cleveland – with aging, plodding front court players. The point is that Portland has the personnel for a faster pace – but play overly conservative.
I’d be impressed with Nate if his teams could achieve the efficiency without playing an old man’s game.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Old men like Atlanta or Memphis?
I didn’t realize executing a half-court offense was an old man thing to do. It usually works better in the playoffs though, which is probably why good coaches emphasize it and championship teams learn to do it well. It’s the fast paced game that’s “fools gold”.
you also didnt realize half-court wasn't a discussion point
if i must explain why the blazers pace i.s only equivalent to the two old teams, there isnt much room for discussion
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 3:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Not sure what you think you are explaining?
That emphasizing half-court execution isn’t related to pace factor? That San Antonio’s 91.2 pace factor is “equivalent” to the Blazers but Atlanta’s 91.6 pace factor is not? That Anderson Varejao is a plodding aging player? That you think unusually slow pace confers some kind of regular season advantage that doesn’t translate to the playoffs, when most of the rest of humanity would say it’s the unusually fast paced teams that have that problem, since the playoffs slow way down?
I admit I don’t understand. I don’t get how the team can be at or near the top of the league in offensive efficiency and people still complain about it. I know the wham bam of a running game is fun for fans, but what greater goal is there on offense than being better than the rest at making points out of possessions? That’s what our team is doing now, and for a couple decades now it’s been the teams that can win a slow-paced game that succeed in the playoffs.
Here's what I have to keep telling myself.
There is no requirement to actually be knowledgeable about a sport to be a fan. And it doesn’t matter how smart you are in what you do in real life, because being a fan automatically makes you a genuis waiting to be discovered when it comes to talikng about your sport or team.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
self-deprecation may be your personal misogyny
but disagreeing with someone on the premise that they lack the experience to be knowledgeable is a logical fallacy otherwise known as a copout.
If you want to disagree with me, make a better argument – but don’t try to challenge my knowledge – you know nothing about me.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 14, 2010 11:16 PM PST up reply actions
your arguments lose traction
when you invoke Varejao, and conveniently ignore Shaq and Ilgauskus….
and you, as well as many others (see below) invoke logical fallacies to try to win arguments without actually addressing the real discussion…
To address what you specifically cannot understand: Portland was even higher on the offensive efficiency rankings last season, but got run by a physical defensive team. Why? Failure to secure easy baskets early in the shot clock. Scoring early – before a defense gets set – has not been a Portland strength (last night’s Milwaukee game notwithstanding).
Pace isn’t simply about getting more shots up – it is about getting more good shots up and not being susceptible to defenses that could force Portland into shots late in the clock.
This is, and remains, a challenge for the Portland offense. Portland runs too many sets that defenses can exploit.
In the playoffs, this deficiency is magnified because (and most of humanity would be clueless, even if it is common sense) teams have more time to gameplan for each other. The more predictable team or team with easier mismatches to exploit is at a disadvantage. Guess which problem is Portland’s?
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 14, 2010 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
If I had to choose between a greyhound and a lab ...
… it’s a no brainer.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
and you would lose every race
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 3:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Maybe the first couple of years.
Until the greyhound breaks down.
And if the objective is to hunt, or act as a watch dog?
Success in basketball is not determined by how fast you run the ball up and down the court or even by how many points you score. It is determined by which team can consistently score more than its opponent night in and night out. At least half of that equation is preventing the other team from scoring. I don’t have to be particularly gifted in math to understand that when you combine giving your opponent fewer possession (i.e. opportunities to score) with being highly efficient in scoring with your own possessions, the odds favor you.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
You also don't have to be gifted in math to know you don't race labs against greyhounds
it’s called competition (and not a duck-hunting competition)
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 14, 2010 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
So there is only one form of competition?
For someone who talks about making a better argument, I see that you don’t apply the same standard to yourself.
You make the argument that the Blazers are a group of greyhounds. To the best of my knowledge, a greyhound can really do one thing – chase a mechanical rabbit. While a lab can do many things (relatively speaking). It is also my understanding that greyhounds tend to have very short careers. If you want a dog for the long haul, a lab is a better choice.
But the primary argument is not about dogs, but about coaching. And on that score, I haven’t seen you address a single reasoned point against what I said above, namely that a combination of high efficiency and limiting your opponents to fewer possessions is playing the percentages to your favor.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
So we should have been
champions last year and 4th best in the league this year despite our injuries. I didn’t remember the celebration, but then I’m the forgetful sort.
You forgot about defense sarcastic guy
and a bunch of other factors.
I was waiting to see who would be first with the Nate can't coach diatribe.
Because not only did we all know one was going to show up, but because after reading what Ben had to say, the more reasonable conclusion to draw is that execution by the players on the court counts for far more than what is happening from the sidelines.
Reviewing Ben’s defensive possesion analysis:
First play – Martell can’t keep James from his spot. But with Miller’s help he is forced to make a difficult pass. At 6-9, James can easily pass over Miller. A second pass and Shaq gets an easy look. All in all you can’t fault execution and it certainly isn’t a case of poor coaching.
Second play – Howard slow in the double team which leads to a breakdown in the defense. Juwad Williams has a wide open shot and makes it. This one seems clearly to be a case of poor execution on the part of the Blazers and Cleveland executing well by their non-three point shooter hitting the three.
Third play – Miller only partially commits to the double, leaving Cleveland’s best 3 pt shooter with a wide open look. Again, this looks more like an execution issue, not inferior coaching.
On the offensive end you may have a bit of a better case. You can say that running Roy iso’s is not a good strategy. However the burden of proof would be on you, as it has proven a fairly effective strategy for Portland and Cleveland employed exactly the same strategy and ran off an 11-0 streak to seal the win.
You could also criticize McMillan for the rotation he had out there. But then you’d have to identify who should have been on the bench and who on the court. About the only obvious lineup change I see is Miller. And if Nate sits Andre in the fourth (logically for either Rudy or Blake, or if he’s been hot, Bayless) what happens? People say Nate sucks as a coach because even an idiot knows that Andre Miller is our best PG and should be on the court.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Some of the photos show well
How the floor doesn’t get spaced when Miller is on the floor and Roy has the ball… and why he wasn’t getting those crunchtime minutes. I agree with some the answer could be to put him and others in motion off the ball, but having to do that to begin with is to cover up a weakness – that it’s hard to find a use for Miller without the ball.
I am not a believer
in Roy isos with Miller on court. If you are going to run a Roy iso, you probably need to sit Andre. If you are going to play Andre, put the ball in his hand and run plays to get Roy an easier than normal look.
#5 #10 #52 #88
See what I say below in a response to douglast
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
To be honest
I think Ben is massively overstating the degree to which Miller’s lack of 3-pt shooting is affecting the Cavs positioning. Of course all 5 Cavs are focusing on Brandon Roy in each picture, because not only does he have the ball, but he’s BRANDON ROY. Even if Steve Blake is out there, you focus your defense on stopping Brandon Roy and live with it if Blake beats you.
Going play by play, in the first picture, Delonte is within 2 steps of Miller. No matter how good a 3-pt shooter he’s guarding, that’s close enough to close out once he sees Brandon getting ready to throw a pass to him. There’s also enough space between him and Juwan that he doesn’t have to worry about a quick screen to free the shooter there.
On the next picture, Delonte is again within 1.5 steps of Miller in the corner and is clearly keeping an eye on him. Maybe Roy doesn’t look at Miller, but in terms of him occupying Delonte and keeping the lane open, I’m not sure what more you’d want. Ironically, the one guy that they leave completely alone at the three point line would be the one credible threat, Webster, as Mo Williams hedges hard down low on Pendergraph, although he’s still leaning towards Webster with an open stance.
In the final play, Delonte isn’t facing Miller because Roy is trapped on the baseline and has picked up his dribble. Any pass from him that Miller would easily be able to fire up from three (if that were a strength) would have to pass directly through Delonte, his 3-pt ability seems immaterial. Miller actually seemed to help on this play (assuming it’s the one I’m thinking of), by fileding a long, high pass from Roy up top and then threading the needle quickly to LA, who was wide open at the elbow and fumbled the pass away. If Aldridge holds onto that ball we get a good look out of the possession from having Miller in there, instead of the probable deep contested three from Blake after getting a high pass late in the shot clock.
#52
Fully agree with *
I don’t get to watch too many games, so i can’t always qualify my opinion with such a small sampling size. I noticed in this particular game, that when Roy took his iso alone, Miller was essentially a spectator. But IMO the rest of the team were ineffective as well.
*However, I saw that Roy was just as effective, if not more, when Miller was starting the play. So, in my mind, it makes better sense, to attack from this standpoint. It also helps to keep the defense more honest, realizing they have to be aware of every player on the court including a possible dish off to a slasher or other inside player.
IMO It is easy to conclude that this should make the iso more effective, even though it drifts away some from the comfort zone of Roy.
But I do agree with you about the fact that how they used the iso of Roy in the 4th quarter lost it’s value by keeping Miller out there.. It is easy to see why he(MIller) is not too productive in the 4th, if they use this particular approach. He might as well sit.
Things are beginning to get a lot clearer to me, and why the use of Miller has generated so much question and a “what could possibly be the issue here” thought
that said, I just don’t see Miller as a liability on this team.
I have a strong opinion about it (as you know), But I’m just an “armchair guy” like everyone else. I have to accept the fact that when I read DNP coaches decision, is what will be. It is patchwork right now, so the complete identity of this team has not surfaced yet .We shall soon see
what happen.s o.n th.e court i.s a function of coaching
the coach canno.t control whether a shot is made. A coach does influence who takes the shot and influences how players work for that shot.
if you are satisfied with who is shooting and where, then you won’t be critical of mcmillan.
If you believe the blazers can and should do better – then you start with the coach.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 3:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
This is where I am of the strong opinion that you and the other coach critics
are wrong.
What happens on the court is to a certain degree a function of coaching. But it is primarily a function of how the players execute. And if you believe that the majority of players execute a play exactly as it is drawn up the majority of time, then fine, you can believe that coaching is the most important aspect at question here.
I don’t believe that the players always execute in the same manner a play is drawn up or how it may be run in practice. They are not programable machines that you download instructions into and watch as they run a play as if it were a video game. Players miss reads. Players don’t always react fast enough. Most importantly, the opposing team can execute their play well and negate what you want to do. Supposedly that is where experience comes into play. The experienced player should make reads faster or miss them less often. Additionally they are supposedly better at making adjustments to what the opponent does. And it’s not just one player having to do this. All five have to be able to do so. Doesn’t matter much if Roy or Miller sees the called play is defensed and knows what to do next, if the other guys don’t.
At this point the critics say it is the responsibility of the coaching staff to make sure everyone knows what to do all the time, under any circumstance. And that’s the point where they advertise that they’ve never in fact had to do this themselves and don’t really have a clue what is required to get a team to this point (besides learning with experience).
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Nice one Ben
Hopefully the team can work out some of their kinks before the season is too far gone. Its still too early to make judgements based on the injuries sustained this year but with time to mesh, I think that they can fix a few of the wrinkles.
Keep the faith.
Really interesting analysis, Ben, thanks for the effort.
I have at times noticed how our players don’t seem to work to position themselves to receive a pass out from a doubled player, with a notable exception being Rudy, who is a model of continuous hustle, and readiness to receive, as well as deliver a pass. It just doesn’t seem to be a mindset of our players to provide an outlet. Are they saddled with some preplanned floor position, like “spread the floor at the three point line” which interferes with freely adapting to the unique moment on the floor ?
I would interesting hear what you “really think” on the quality of the coaching, as in, is it just “grass always greener” effect, or is it quite plausible for the team to acquire a coach significantly more adept at advancing the team we have (or will have) and making the most of our unique aggregation of talents, as I do respect your insights. But I understand that is a “biggie”. Maybe at season end you can air it out.
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
Nice analysis, Ben
Denver did the same thing for Melo, in their win here earlier in the year, except he likes the right side of the floor. I thought Web fought Melo hard to deny the the spot, but similarly to no avail.
This is the crux of the problem in my opinion
Work to establish the high pick and roll closer to the hoop to improve Roy’s options. A high pick and roll five feet above the three point line isn’t particularly difficult to defend.
Look again at this picture. Doesn’t it look essentially the same as every high pick and roll we run, game in game out? It sure does to me. Like Ben said, the first problem is we are setting the pick way too high far too often. The second problem we have is how we respond to the jump double that we almost always see (like the one in the picture). It would seem to me the smart move we be to somehow get the ball to the pick setter QUICKLY, so he can immediately attack the defense without hesitation before they have time to re-set. We pretty much never see this, primarily because the pick-setter has no ability whatsoever to attack the defense at all, but also because instead of figuring out a way to get that guy the ball quickly, we instead get Roy dribbling backwards towards halfcourt 5 feet, which basically resets the entire play, allows the defense to reset, and pushes us further against the shot clock.
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 Jan 12, 2010 6:59 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Almost 100% right
You can set the pick that high, but it makes it harder. In that pic, if Juwan pops out towards Brandon, and Brandon makes a quick pass to him, we’re good. Varejao will almost certainly take a step following Juwan, instinctively, and as soon he moves, Martell breaks. Varejao will never get back in time, Juwan hits Martell, and no one else can beat Martell to the hoop.
You’d be better off with LMA on the other side of the court, and have both Juwan and LMA popping out to get the pass, so Brandon could choose his target — both would be looking for Martell breaking to the hoop, and whoever doesn’t get the pass and quickly hit Martell will be breaking towards the hoop, trailing Martell, so if the defense does manage to get back on Webster, or he misses at the hoop, you are there for a pass to the trailer or a follow on a miss.
It would be better if Andre were a deep threat, but he could be in Aldridge’s position, a step or two farther out. He can hit from there, and that would be a secondary outlet for Juwan if they manage to cover Martell, or for Martell to make the dish.
It isn’t ideal to run the p’n’r that high, but if you do, and they double hard, you’ve got a 4 on 3 if you execute it.
#5 #10 #52 #88
exactly
except we never run that 4 on 3. never. in the cases where we do make the outlet pass to the wing like you suggest, we never push the advantage, and instead STOP and let the defense reset.
I think it goes to our team mindset – which is overly cautious patience. We really just don’t have people trained to instinctively attack quickly. everyone’s instinct – by coaching design my guess – is to stop and assess.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
honestly this goes to Brandon's greatest weakness
Brandon is strong in almost every area of offensive basketball. However, he is inconsistent in handling the ball and making decisions against pressure far from the basket. Against double teams beyond the three point line his tendency is either to try to split the double or dribble toward a corner where it is easiest to trap. It’s as if his court feel improves the closer he is to the basket. This weakness (and a few turnovers against pressure) might cause him to lose confidence in his reads against the double and prevent him from executing the correct pass quickly enough.
We do have someone
Put Jerryd on the wing, and tell Brandon, “When they double you hard, hit Jerryd.” HE has the attack mindset.
#5 #10 #52 #88
yes, we do
and JB isn’t the only one either. Rudy has that mindset, as does Andre. any 3 of those guys COULD receive the pass and attack. But two problems: 1) we don’t ever put them in the spot to receive that pass (that was what I thought we would do with andre when we signed ihm), and 2) even if we did, is the coach going to WANT them to do that? We haven’t seen any evidence of that. The instinct on this team seems to be to “hold and wait” when receiving a pass, and not to “attack and press the advantage”. How much of that is by design?
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
It's all by design....
Nate’s philosophy is to draw the double, kick to the 3-point shooter.
That’s a primary reason why he has failed with Andre (Andre has had other issues, too – but as long as he is here, why not use him to his strength!!!!!???!!!!)
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
An issue of timing
if we were to run our sets or initiate the offense even 2-3 seconds quicker and initiate offensive moves earlier there’d be nothing stopping Andre or Bayless from being able to take that kickout, put the ball on the floor and attack the closeout instead of getting the ball with 2 seconds on the clock and having no choice but to go up with it.
It’s not like we’d need to make massive overhauls. A simple change like that could get the defense on its heels, draw some more fouls, open things up for the other wing’s 3-pt shooting (Webster or Blake in the offense).
#52
there are a lot of things that work better when we play quicker
and note I’m not saying guns blazing fast breaks. Look back at both the LAL and Cleveland games. When were we at our best on offense? When we inbounded or outlet passed the ball to Miller, who dribbled up into the halfcourt quickly, then got us quickly into an offensive set or hit a trailer on the secondary transition for a wide open shot. That is what gave us a huge lead against LA and what got us back into the game against Cleveland.
In both games, we then immediately stopped doing this, and changed up to “slowly walk the ball up the court and set up in our 1-4 isolation offense”. Is it a coincidence that our offense immediately stalled thereafter? I don’t think so.
Look, are there risks involved in continuing to attack? of course there are, but I think the potential benefits of generating good looks, and potentially easy ones, outweigh those risks – especially at home, when you can feed off the crowd energy created by the successful trips down the court. Of course this assumes you trust the 5 guys on the court to make the smart play more often than not. And I think we have players who can be trusted to do that.
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 Jan 13, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I would not include Miller in that grouping.
For one, he was in the lineup and wide open. If he was such a threat to drive to the rim, why wasn’t he getting the ball. (Contrary to the opinion of some, Brandon is not a poor decision maker and will put the ball in the hands of a guy he thinks can make the play.)
For another, when the ball has come to Miller on these kick outs, he’s usually done one of two things, dribbled around and eventually passed or taken a jumper.
Finally, all the convention wisdom that gets passed around here as excellent analysis often is off the mark. Andre Miller does not have an explosive first step like Bayless or is a constant motion machine like Rudy. If you watch, I believe you will see that when he does drive it;s usually when he has the ball of the dribble and is initiating the offense, not as a reciving option. In other words, Miller is not really a number two option in these circumstances. Maybe if they switched it around and Andre was the iso guy and Brandon was on the perimeter. That one does fall into the category of coaching strategy. It does seem logical to me, but then again it is hard also to argue against the ball being in Roy’s hands.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Isn't "trained to instinctively attack" a bit of a contradiction in terms?
I understand that behavior is either learned or instinctive.
Now one can possiblly, through constant repetition, practice a behavior so that it appears to be almost instinctive. But I believe that is easier said than done.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Watching Phoenix the other night
was like watching a pick and roll clinic early on. You can see on every pick they set it is foul line extended or very close to it, which lets the pick setter, (Amare) roll to the hoop after getting the pass, or shot an uncontested jumpshot from about the foul line extended area. It is a very effective play, one that the Blazers should be able to run with LMA over and over, yet I have rarely seen them try to do a pick play that close, and when they do, LMA floats way to far out toward the 3 point line after setting the pick, which leaves him a low percentage jumpshot from 20 feet.
The high pick and roll, can be effective, but the Blazers are crazy if they believe this is a bread and butter play. More often than not Douglast is correct, it only leads to Roy dribbling backwards and the defense resetting, and in a sense wasting 10 seconds of shot clock.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
When do you think fans will finally say, "I give up!"
Seriously, I’m getting worried here. It’s been several years and this team still can’t execute a proper pick and roll, nor defend it. Maybe it’s impossible with this lineup?
I..for one....
an a LONG way from saying “I give up”.
RoadBlazer
Memphis
What is going on there?
by doomsdaymachine on Jan 12, 2010 7:02 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Ben, I do not know that much about basketball plays..
am just learning and find it very interesting. My question is…do you know whether the coaching staff sees things the way you do? Are you in on the film viewing sessions? Are you able to talk to any of them about your ideas?
The only conclusion from Sunday's game is
that LeBron is really, really good and the Blazers only have Howard and the rookies for low post presence. The Blazers lost. That’s gonna happen. Howard and the rookies have been great, by the way. I take the offensive efficiency stat and Nate’s comments with a grain of salt. They sound good but they’re not necessarily indicative of future success.
McMillan’s game plan maximizes Roy’s talent at the expense of team talent. That was okay in years past when the overall talent pool was a bit thin. But once Fernandez and Batum return, there will be many more players that would thrive on and be better suited for an uptempo game than the slow motion creation that they have now. Why not put them to better use. It seems certain that an uptempo game plan could be devised and it could easily include Roy. But I think all those isolation plays sap too much of his energy and that’s part of the reason why he doesn’t run now. Alas, I don’t see a paradigm shift in McMillan’s thinking any time soon. With the return of the injured players and McMillan’s rotation style, I fear the team’s going to look and sputter like it did at the beginning of the season but without the benefit of Oden and Przybilla.
That was a much better analysis...
Foul line picks means Shaq doesn’t have to leave the key. It just clogs the lane even more. Instead of Roy-on-2 it’s Roy-on-4. And if it’s LaMarcus that sets the pick, well shucks, that’s Juwan open all day from 3 point land. Easy money.
Riiiiiight.
Now, if only you could get McMillan to take 6 minute smoke breaks between periods in the locker room, then run Rudy, Batum, and Bayless together, tell them the ball has to be past mid-court under 3 secs and nobody dribbles more than twice before passing, you might accidentally take advantage of a deep and athletic bench and overwhelm any second unit in the NBA including Cleveland’s…
Nah, wouldn’t work. Plus, I’m sure Roy’s hammy is going to make it through the season averaging 40 minutes a game. Jay Jensen says so.
by Sarcastic_Twit on Jan 12, 2010 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
Great work, Ben!
Very in-depth and informative. Even though I follow the Blazers like crazy, I didn’t know any of this, how really everything worked, how it hasn’t, how it can. Excellent!!!!
Barrett: You are going to score 35 tonight.
Bayless: Ya think?
MB off by only four, my oh my.
Great analysis, can you "accidently" leave this post in Roy's locker?
The problem with setting picks way too far away is big, I also wonder how much it’s an issue with lack of movement. Open threes are great, sure, but it seems like we have one guy up top with the ball, one big (who is sure to not get the ball) setting a pick, and 3 people standing outside the arc wondering if they’re going to get the ball. Why isn’t there more motion during these plays? Someone cutting under the rim or at least rotating to try and force a defensive mistake. Isn’t defense a little harder if you don’t get to stand still and watch the ball?
LBJ and Shaq
We just had no answer for LeBron. Also, we could not stop Shaq. Juwan’s fronting helped somewhat. The guys should do that more often against players that they can’t guard. If they can’t guard them, then the guys should not even let them get the ball in the first place.
We are going to get a decent defender[Rudy]
And a good one[Nic] back soon,hopefully this will make life a little easier for LA and Grandpa.
by southern oregon on Jan 12, 2010 11:46 PM PST reply actions
How will Rudy and Nic coming back
make your life any easier?
HEYO!
"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
by BlazersOrBust on Jan 13, 2010 9:28 AM PST up reply actions
haven't you heard?
Batum is going to play some 4.
How to balance the roster with the returnees:
1) Fire Blake (err…trade Blake’s expiring contract). That way, we don’t have to suffer Blake playing the SG or SF positions and Rex gets some run at PG…
2) ….
3) …
not sure what you do, after that. Split Batum/Webster at SF. Play Cunningham or Pendergraph at the 4, depending on matchups, etc. Give Pendergraph some time at the 5, depending on matchups.
Trade some wings for some bigs?
Blake/Outlaw expiring contracts for a journeyman big wouldn’t be such a bad thing, now.
But….problems remain
SG: Roy/Rudy/Rex
SF: Roy/Rudy/Batum/Webster/Cunningham
PF: LMA/Howard/Pendergraph/Cunningham
Center: LMA/Howard/Pendergraph
PG: Andre/Steve/Rex
Unbalanced Roster = minutes issues
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
It was a joke :)
SO is an esteemed elderly gentleman and Morty always ribs him by calling him Grandpa.
"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
by BlazersOrBust on Jan 14, 2010 8:38 AM PST up reply actions
As far as Lebron isos, well Lebron is different than Roy
And Lebron isos still won’t work for eight minutes straight against well-coached teams in the playoffs
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
The common feature ...
in all three of those scenarios is that LMA is out of the play. Either this is bad coaching or bad play by LMA. He is allegedly the teams #2 offensive option, and needs to make sure he is in the play.
I would criticize Aldridge in these sets: his play is symbolic of his general reluctance to play in the post. If he showed a little more exuberance for aggressive, physical play (of which he has shown he is quite capable for brief periods), Shaq would have been less willing to double Roy.
If you look at the last picture, Shaq is guarding NOBODY: he is simply standing at the rim to prevent penetration. Why? Because Pendergraph inexplicably seems to have decided he is a 3 point threat, and Aldridge apparently has lost interest in the play. Even Varejao, who ostensibly guarding him, isn’t even paying attention to his man.
Obviously you have to space the floor, but the Blazers need to have somebody down low, and it should be Aldridge. Make Varejao play Pendergraph on the perimeter, which takes away a pesky defender. Shaq would have to guard LMA, which is bad for Shaq because Aldridge is quicker and does have some range if he needs to back out. But it won’t work if Aldridge doesn’t at least try to establish some post presence, and stay in the play.
This last set wouldn’t be so bad if LMA and Pendergraph had traded spots on the floor.
all good if it really is LMA's problem
but this is a coaching issue. LMA is executing a Nate offense, which in this case can’t be defended as anything but a mess…
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
on Aldridge, I agree completely.
hard to fault the guy for not being in the paint when Nate’s isolation calls the last 6 minutes of the game call for him to be picking for Roy at the 3 point line.
Hard to fault a guy for not scoring more when we basically treat him as an outlet option on offense. If he’s your #2 option, then design some plays that work to his advantage, and actually call them from time to time. Lately, we’ve even completely gone away from the obligatory 3 or 4 post ups at the start of each half. Basically, what we are “telling” LA is “your own your own, go find some shots”, then critize him for only scoring 18, even though he was 8 of 11.
I’m not completely absolving LA. He has areas of his game he needs to work on for sure. For me, I’d like to see him mix up his “wait and see what the defense does” approach with a bit more “make a quick decisive move as soon as I get the ball”. But I think he takes more criticism then he deserves, given that no one on the court outside Miller can apparently even see him, and the other players (and the coaching by way of the offensive sets) treat him as an outlet jump shooting option.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
It's the 24th worst offense in the league
and these guys have been playing together for weeks, so there’s not really any excuse that it’s such a mess…
sarcasm scores no points, here.
LMA and ROY hav.e been playing together for years….
(oh, and that 24th worst offense has been dropping games lately because they have had a hard time scoring late….)
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 4:26 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
They are only into their 4th year together.
Their first year I believe they played fewer than 50 games together, as both players missed time to injury.
They are not quite to the half way mark in this season. Being generous, you can say they have three years worth of playing together. And that does not count the number of changes in personnel that has gone on around them. A statement like yours gives the impression of Stockton & Malone or Bird & McHale or Pippen and Jordan.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
3+ years is a different circumstance to playing together for only a few weeks
and since we were discussing Roy/LMA – the point stands
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 13, 2010 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
you were talking about the offense generally
which consists of more than 2 people
And playing together 4 or more years is yet another difference.
The point may stand, just not anywhere close to the discussion at hand.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
You really want to object
so badly, in fact – that you will ignore the entire discussion in order to be disagreeable.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 14, 2010 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
If you say so.
Besides it is a minor point. You seem to think Aldridge and Roy have a long history together. From my experience that is usually what people mean when they use the term been together for years.
Prior to the start of this season they had 2 seasons of playing together as starters. If you consider that as being together for years, I guess technically you win, as 2 years is plural.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
How else can I respond to hyperbole?
Sarcasm probably isn’t helpful, but I thought the whole “can’t be defended as anything but a mess…” thing was pretty over the top, considering it’s the 7th most efficient with a patchwork roster (and pretty obviously I’m talking about the whole team when I say been together for weeks…).
It’s also been very good this year in crunch time. I keep bringing up the numbers, because while we get a better picture of how well the team is doing by looking at averages over long periods of time rather than one or a few examples that we choose to try to make a point. For example, that Memphis game the team lost from lack of late execution in the game was only close because the team made a huge 4th quarter rally, but I bet all you remember is former and not the latter.
you could respond using a little critical thinking, instead of reaching for an irrelevant crutch
if you believe Portland’s offense is fine, then you won’t have a problem with McMillan’s coaching. On the other hand, if you believe that Portland is vulnerable to good defenses, then you might question why LMA isn’t in good position on a Roy iso.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 14, 2010 11:33 PM PST up reply actions
We can't all be the critical thinker you are.
But I don’t believe it takes a ton of critical thinking to recognize that every team in the league is vulnerable to good defense.
Why do you think guys like Mike Brown, Mike Woodson, Gregg Poppovich, Doc Rivers, the Van Gundy’s and even Nate McMillan put so much emphasis on defense?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
I'm not a LMA hater...
in fact, I think he could be scary good. He has the athletic ability to be an absolute beast out there. He is fast enough to run the floor with anybody, tall enough to shoot over the top of just about any perimeter defender, strong enough to go in and bang with most power forwards, quick enough to take any post defender off the dribble.
And while I’m losing a lot of confidence in Nate as a coach, I don’t think he is a bad coach or a stupid coach. I refuse to believe that he hasn’t observed what the rest of us have: LMA’s instincts are not to go bang guys inside. I’m sure Nate has tried to preach to LMA the value of rebounding and post play.
But just as clearly, LMA isn’t getting the message. Which means he either isn’t listening to Nate (which is a coaching problem), Nate isn’t making the message clear (a coaching problem), is a soft player (a criticism he hates, but may be well deserved), or some combination of the three (the most likely option).
It is true that the Blazers seem to only look for him, either by design, habit, or negligence, during the first few minutes of each half. When they do look for him and find him regularly, he typically starts to play more aggressively and usually with good results. The fact that they don’t keep this up is a coaching problem.
I don’t mind LMA going 8-11 for 18 points, except that right now this team needs him to do that every night, and would be better off getting closer to 23 or 24 points, alongside of Roy. I wouldn’t mind his FG% going down a little, because likely some of those extra points would come at the FT line. So if he were a bit more aggressive on the attack, it might not necessarily cost other players shots.
I also believe that our current pace of play, which roughly rivals that of my son’s 8-10 year old league game, does not do LMA justice. Imagine how much Dirk Nowitzki would be huffing and puffing if he had to run up and down the court with Aldridge, defend him in the paint, and try to be the primary scorer while LMA gets right up on him, and maybe delivers the occasional hard foul. Again, I think this is a coaching problem.
But my initial point was more that it appears the LMA took himself out of the play. If he sees Roy getting trapped at the baseline, why is he still standing out at the 3 point line with his hands in his pockets?
Give Roy Some Rest
I think it’s time the Blazers rested their superstar. Roy is getting way too many minutes – 40+ a game. The Blazers aren’t championship bound, probably not even second round of the playoffs bound. Why not limit him to 32 mins a night, play some more of the young fellas – Bayless, DC, Pendergraff – and wait for guys to get healthy. Blazers will have some losses, but could fight for a 7th or 8th seed. A well rested Roy and an unerdog mentality could lead to a first round upset and a chance at the Lakers in round 2. Anyone else feel like Roy’s killing himself for nothing?
by Polish Chocolate on Jan 13, 2010 12:07 PM PST reply actions
I got a different take on the game
Not to say Ben didn’t have some valid points, but he viewed it in a much different light.
IMO he was still holding on to the “how we normally finish games” and what could have happened …..but why did we switch in the 4th quarter from what we did in the 3rd?. I mean we were able to get it tied up, in spite of the bad defense in the first half…I don’t get the change unless it was more comfortable for Roy?
I still believe it was lost because Cleveland is the better team, but I thought we may have “stole this one back” if some things fell into place….. I know most people saw this game as offense as usual, but I saw something completely different, for 3 quarters and then a change in the 4th.
I guess I’m too lazy to take exception again in this post, so I won’t….I commented several times in the game 39 recap, but no one saw the same thing I did . (I guess)

by 



















