Thursday Practice Report
by Ben Golliver on Jan 14, 2010 1:46 PM PST
in News
74 comments
A jovial mood at practice today with Rudy Fernandez, LaMarcus Aldridge, Dante Cunningham and even Tom Penn working on some soccer-style juggling moves and trick shots. There was a lightness in the air after last night's dominating blowout win.
Brandon Roy's Hamstring
Hanging over the happiness, though, was the status of Brandon Roy. Roy did not practice today after undergoing an MRI that confirmed the discomfort that he has been feeling is a right hamstring strain. Here's some good general information regarding hamstring strains. Roy is officially listed as questionable for tomorrow night's game against the Orlando Magic.
When questioned at practice today, Nate McMillan wouldn't say who would start in Roy's place should he not be able to go. As always with Roy's health, McMillan was pretty tight-lipped. Asked about Roy's status, LaMarcus Aldridge summed things up pretty well.
I think he'll play, I haven't even seen him sit out any games if he could possibly go so I don't really think he's not playing. The only way I'd think that is if he said he's not playing. I think as of now he's playing.
Joe Freeman has a nice piece with more details and quotes.
LaMarcus Aldridge's Ankles
Blazersedge: Are you back to 100% with the ankles?
Ah no. [laughs]
Blazersedge: Where would you say you're at?
About 75 or 80 [percent.]
Blazersedge: Really? You were moving better last night.
I was. Then I kinda tweaked my right one again last night. I mean neither one of them are 100% but neither one of them are bad enough [to miss time]. It's tender. I should be ok.
Blazersedge: What are you doing for treatment?
Ice.
Aldridge's stellar performance last night now looks all the more impressive. He's facing a huge test tomorrow night.
Nicolas Batum: Power Forward?
Over the last few days I've been pondering the options available to Nate McMillan once Nicolas Batum gets back. According to McMillan (via Sean Meagher), Batum will travel on next week's road trip but will not play. Nevertheless his return is considered to be right around the corner.
The main problem facing McMillan, as I mentioned in passing last night, is that he currently has 6 players manning the 1 through 3 spots, all of whom have proven they deserve playing time. He also only has 2 bigs he really feels comfortable playing big minutes and 2 rookies who have shown good promise but whose minutes fluctuate from game-to-game. Put simply: if you're looking to cram Nicolas Batum back into the lineup it's easier to find minutes for him if you consider playing either him or Martell Webster in the frontcourt than trying to squeeze a 7th player into the backcourt.
Conventional wisdom dictates that Batum is too slender and too young to handle the league's premier power forwards on the block. I would tend to agree with that assessment.
However, I don't see anything preventing Batum from handling stretch 4s who rely on a face-up game. Batum looks to have added strength since last year as his body has started to fill out. His defensive awareness and instincts combined with his quickness and versatility are perfectly suited to handle perimeter power forwards. When you consider the other available alternatives (Juwan Howard, Dante Cunningham), why not throw Batum out there against the likes of Hakim Warrick or Rashard Lewis?
Batum at the 4 spot was not something we saw for any meaningful amount of time last season. I asked Nate McMIllan for his thoughts on Batum's potential as a frontcourt player.
Blazersedge: When you look at Nicolas Batum's defensive capabilities with your roster where it is right now, do you see him as a straight 3 or?
He's guarded mainly the 3, 2 and 1. We haven't put him on a lot of 4s because Outlaw was playing that position. I think he can guard some 4s.
Blazersedge: First unit 4s or second unit 4s?
I think it just depends. I think he can guard similar guys that Outlaw was guarding. It depends on the player.
Blazersedge: A guy like Hakim Warrick last night, he could probably guard him.
Oh yeah. He could front him. Front the post and guard him out on the perimeter. We would help him if he was getting posted up but I think his speed and length allows him to guard a guy like that.
Blazersedge: Would this be a way to get him some minutes alongside Martell Webster? Webster has stepped up his defensive capabilities.
Possibly. Possibly.... Martell can guard some 4s too. I think he does a great job of fronting. He's strong. He doesn't mind contact.
Blazersedge: If you went that way, you would just shift LaMarcus up to 5?
I think LaMarcus is just forced to have to play some 5 without our centers [regardless].
As I left the gym today, Batum was working with Monty Williams on pull-up jumpers off the dribble from just outside the paint, a Travis Outlaw specialty.
While using Batum as a 4 certainly opens the Blazers up to some physical pounding and potential problems on the boards, this approach would help ensure that Jerryd Bayless continues to see at least some playing time, that Rudy Fernandez gets a large enough chunk of minutes to get going, that Martell Webster's development as a defender continues and that both Andre Miller and Steve Blake get substantial run.
How would this play out? One scenario might see the Blazers starting Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge and Howard. Webster would be one of the first subs off the bench, replacing Howard. Depending on the opponent's power forward, either Batum or Webster would move up to the 4 spot with Aldridge moving to the 5.
Or, if McMillan feels that Webster has developed enough to hold his starting position, he could start Miller, Roy, Webster, Aldridge and Howard and bring Batum off the bench like he has done with Outlaw in the past. Either way, McMIllan could also be able to limit Batum's size and strength liabilities by going to that smaller lineup against his opponent's second unit frontcourt.
I, for one, hope that McMillan decides to give Batum a full chance at the 4 spot. Given the backcourt logjam, it's worth the look.
-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
0 recs |
74 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Trade Bayless or...
play him. I’m a big Bayless fan, but he isn’t going to develop on the bench. It isn’t fair to the player to use him in such a limited role that he never develops. Same goes for Rudy. Both guys are potential NBA stars. I’d like to see the Blazers use them both, but if the Blazers can’t use them let them go.
Patience.
Both guys are second year players. Let’s forego the instant gratification urge and allow the team the team needed to develop and integrate all of the talent they have.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
other notable second year players who contribute around the league
Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, Brook Lopez, OJ Mayo, Jason Thompson
Not sure where it’s written that second year guys should sit in place of older guys who have reached their ceilings.
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 14, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
but Blake had a great game last night!!!11
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 14, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
It isn't.
It also isn’t written that they must be starting and even in contention for an all-star birth by their 2nd season.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
you're forgetting one thing:
All those teams sucked and most still do suck (though improving). It’s easier for promising rookies and 2nd-year players to get much more playing time to develop when there’s nobody on the team better than them at that position.
And what is the combined record of those teams the last 1 1/2 years?
I’d bet we’re at least 5 games ahead of the closest competitor. We were/are too good to sacrifice wins for deelopment, where teams like NJ and Mem didnt hae much choice but to play their guys
Yeah, just like the Nuggets,
Spurs, Magic, Cavs, and Rockets have been too good to sacrifice wins to develop Ty Lawson, Dejuan Blair, George Hill, Courtney Lee, JJ Hickson, Aaron Brooks and Carl Landry.
#52
Every team operates under different conditions and circumstances.
Who else does Denver have at PG besides Billups? They’ve been needing a #2 PG for some time. Plus Billups has missed some games.
Courtney Lee won his PT in Orlando. I don’t think he’s getting a lot of time this year in NJ. (He may be injured.)
Same is true with Landry. Houston didn’t play him ahead of someone else in order to “develop” him. He performed well in practice and during the minutes he got on court. His play got him minutes, not some development strategy.
Aaron Brooks got playing time when they traded their starting PG. That opened up minutes for him. Now you can argue in his case that the team made the trade because they had confidence in Brooks and wanted to open up playing time for him.
San Antonio had two choices at backup PG, Hill and Jaquez Vaughan (sp?). Not exactly a hard decision. Sure Vaughan is the steady vet, but I don’t think anyone in the league has remotely considered him as a starter (whereas at least two NBA coaches have named Blake as their starter). Also, if I remember correctly, Hill’s playing time has varied widely and was significantly curtailed the last part of the season last year.
One additional factor you fail to mention. How many of the guys you mentioned were 4 year college players? JJ Hickson is the only one I know wasn’t. Can’t remember if Brooks came out early, but I don’t think he did. I know Hill, Lawson, Lee and Landry all were 4 year players.
Meanwhile Bayless is an early out guy drafted by a team with four other guards in front of him. And when one of those guys was traded, Portland signs a veteran PG with former All-star credentials. If you can demonstrate that the each of the cases you list above match the circumstances surrounding Portland and Bayless, then you have an argument. Outherwise not so much.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
If you operate under the false assumption that playing young guys
mean sacrificing wins, hence my original sarcasm, or the needlessly restrictive criteria, not to mention you are flat wrong about some of these guys (Anthony Carter’s not a backup PG now?). But hey, let’s ignore the fact too, that I chose to artificially limit my examples to guys in the last 2 years, too, as if there weren’t much better examples outside of that time frame, although I’m sure most of those wouldn’t fit the exact example of a 2nd year PG playing on a team in the northwest with Steve Blake on it as well.
#52
I never made the argument about sacrificing wins.
I would generally agree with the statement that if you don’t put your best team out on the floor you are risking wins. And when I refer to best team, I mean the team that will execute the best. Not a couple years in the future.
(As for Anthony Carter, isn’t he the guy that couldn’t beat out Steve Blake for the starting PG postion in Denver?)
I think it is indisputable that Prichard and McMillan are both looking at a bigger picture than most fans. I believe they see a team build on the San Antonio model, i.e. one that will consistently contend for a title year in and year out. And they are looking to both the present and the future. If that means playing Steve Blake and signing a veteran like Andre Miller, than so be it.
Pritchard obviously sees something in Bayless. Otherwise he would not keep turning down deals that include him. And Pritchard also obviously has faith in his coach. I believe both of these gentlemen understand that Bayless is going to get his chance. Whether or not it happens in the same timeframe as some fans would like to see is basically immaterial. I would not argue against the point that a player is more likely to develop faster, the more playing time he gets. And it is ok for fans to express their opinion on this. But many fans here are not content to do that. Rather, they have to take it the next step and accuse McMillan of being a poor coach because he can’t see what is obvious to every one else. For me that is where they go from being fans with an opinion to opinionated jackasses.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
ahh yes, the old these guys are too good, so we must trade them so they can become stars elsewhere argument
#10, #25, #52, #88
by The Arkitect on Jan 14, 2010 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
but they are also on cheap contracts
we should trade them for overpaid role players.
dinasour type of guys choir boys
Bayless may take this choice out of your hands
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 14, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
really?
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 14, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
Not for another three years following this season.
A lot can change in that time.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
only one more year til we think extension, and two til he can be a restricted free agent. Seeing as only two players have ever played the fifth year on a qualifying offer as of last season, it’s safe to assume that we have only two more seasons before we decide.
#52 #10 #25 #88
It looks like you are playing word games here.
When you say that only two players have played their 5th year on a qualifying offer, you leave out the fact that the reason for this is they are either extended by their team or the team decides not to match or releases them before that time.
Portland controls Bayless for the next three years after this season.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Yes!!
The Blazers should deplete their bench entirely so when Brandon gets hurt (as he is now), the team can lose by 20 like the L*kers just did to The Spurs when Kobe was hurt.
"Blake’s presence in Portland will never die, you do realize that. 100 years from now, his ghost will still be refusing to leave the court. Quick PGs will blow by the spectre, only to run into a real defender. They will swear Portland is running that six man play again, but on film, the sixth man will never appear. But occasionally, video replays will show the ball, all on its own, dribbling up court at great speed, with offensive players on the wing and few defenders back, only to pull up, back out, and look for Brandon. And the ball will be passed around, and suddenly, a pass will go to the corner, where there is no visible presence, only to have the ball suddenly stop as if caught, and launch towards the basket.
Video replays will be unable to determine whether the shooter’s feet were behind the three point line." - jscot
When Batum gets back, he's starting at SF even if it's for only for 5-7 minutes
I’ll change my name to tomeatspoop if he doesn’t. Nate knows what to do.
Proof that Miller is better than Blake: Miller is a 10 time non-all star and Blake is only a 6 time non-all star.
That's really eerie ... as that's how we've been referring to you in private for some time now.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 14, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
what does " to meats poop" mean
is it like “to meat is poop”
or “to meat’s poop”
or “to meat spoop”
dinasour type of guys choir boys
by mittsabishy on Jan 14, 2010 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I could explain it to you ...
… but seeing as how Dave likes to keep this site family friendly …
… lets just say that you could probably see it demonstrated at a Greek batchelor party or in a mens prison.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
glad I have no Greek friends that I know of
Kermit on the inbounds play, inbounds....
BATES at the horn, HE SCORES!! HE SCORES!!!!
And they are all over Billy Ray Bates! My, oh my!!!
ugh
im barfing right now
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 14, 2010 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
I think I finally parsed that
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
It's worth a shot
I tend to think that when it comes to defense, there’s a lot of conventional wisdom in the NBA that just doesn’t hold up when someone bothers to test the assumption. Teams that lose their centers (like Portland or Houston) or who never had them (Phoenix) can often compete quite well against most teams using unconventional lineups. Guys that are short (Chuck Hayes, Charles Barkley) can often play well in front court positions. There are also a number of really small guys in the league, guards even, who are capable of playing excellent post defense when they get stuck on a switch, for example. Effort and good instincts can make up for height and weight, especially against guys who don’t know how to take full advantage of their height or weight. As much as I hate to say it, I think LaMarcus is one of those guys. I bet Batum can guard LaMarcus about as well as anyone.
It could be a failed experiment, but given our roster, it’s an experiment worth trying, especially against any team that doesn’t have a bruiser of a PF.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
I'd rather see Cunninham at the 4.
I don’t think Batum is cut out to be a power forward, despite his height.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
that's called
not setting the bar very high
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Relax
It will take a while for Nic to get in game shape after not having played the entire season.
frankly it doesnt matter who plays what #
I say play matchups. I dont care if we got Batum at center as long as the other teams center is small. It only really matters who they are guarding on the floor. As long as they can stick the player they are assigned to, we are fine.
Just a minor setback for a major comeback.
#52
Now it's YOUR time.
#7
by GreatOden'sRaven on Jan 14, 2010 2:56 PM PST reply actions
Argh at tweaked ankles
pretty much something that every single basketball player who has ever stepped on the floor battles constantly. if he’s still at 75% after what, three weeks of a tweaked ankle then something is amiss
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
he's re tweaked them several times in the past few weeks
Tweaking a tender ankle is extremely painful, you should know that leeeeroyjenkins
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
then maybe he should sit if he's not going to heal while playing on them
The Leeroy Rule: being insistent >>>> being correct
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 14, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
I hear Obama may still have a couple of Czarship positions available.
He might be interested in someone who has all the answers to problems.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 14, 2010 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Just speculation
but somethings gotta give. Maybe latter than sooner, but deciding on minutes, for a coach with lots of young talent (some unproven potential) is overwhelming.
This because, out of the younger talent, there is not a clear cut player that stands above the rest. I mean we have players that can do 2 or 3 individual things well, but aren’t the complete player that would make their time on the court more valuable than the next.
So it looks to be a match up thing and some odd men out. (at some point) The younger Blazers need the minutes (as many minutes as they can get) sitting on the bench is a slow kiss of death for them.
Also playing style is at the forefront….Roy and Nate like the methodical, controlled approach….But they have players on the team are suited more to open court, push the play style IMO Bayless, Rudy , Batum, Miller, would be better in this type of environment. LMA could do either, but he,Webster and Outlaw have been schooled into the half court game.
It looks like our identity has been established and we will move on from there. but something has to give …right now they have no issue with playing time. The reality is, you will not have a 12 man rotation . A ten rotation still sits people down for long periods . As much as one begs for standing pat and letting things play out, the reality of the future looms…In other words, the dreaded (by some) trade word is on the horizon.
That said, they have to decide what is the look of this team going to be before they can make a legitimate trade. Although we know this team is built around Roy, we don’t know much more than that
Good thoughts, yes there are tough decisions ahead.
Who we keep, what players we want, are all going to be set around a vision of how we want to play, what kind of team we will be. The coach is at the center is these decisions. Up till now, we have been all about getting the best players available, and have done a remarkable job at it. Now, the coach we were happy to get to bring some order to the dysfunctional blazers is tasked with these very significant decisions which greatly determine our future success as a team. While KP obviously has the trump card of authority over coach, they need to be in harmony for maximum success. The way Nate has handled so many of his lineup decisions and aspects of the teams playing style, particularly earlier in the season has given me, and others, cause for concern on having him be the one to make the correct tough decisions, including who our central players will be. As great as Brandon is, we need a similarly great coach to LEAD him and the rest of the team to be all that they can be. I am not saying Nate is a bad coach, but I am not feeling the same confidence in him that I have in, say, KP. And I am admittedly partial to a more open, flowing, faster game, which our young, athletic team is capable of. Brandon is adaptable, but just riding him at the expense of developing the rest of the team is not the track I hope we take. I want to believe in the decisions that are going to send some of these guys that many of us personally like down the road.
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
Looks like we think alike
Sometimes these type of thoughts get unregarded because some choose to step in to defend Nate. They should realize that it’s not so much, we don’t like Nate, but we see both present and future issues continuing down this particular path. The argument for, has always been offensive efficiency and how Nate tops the charts. Without trying to offend anybody, it’s a rather narrow view to rationalize.
Most realize that it is much more than that, when you are building a team. You can never stand pat and rest on your good stuff. You need to work on the weak spots to get to the next level. ie. No inside game, no easy hoops, the transition game, and shoring up the fundamentals in general. I would bet that if these items were addressed, it would result in a higher win percentage. (the bottom line of all statistics). I’m a little old school but I still believe in the Jack Ramsey concept. you play good sound defense backed up with solid fundamentals, and the offense will take care of itself…
No one can argue that the 3 point shot is a weapon to be reckoned with, but living and dying by it (along with Roy’s iso’s) makes little sense. This team has struggled to get new things into an offense that needs some new weapons. Unless we just want to spin along in the first round of the playoffs. It will only make the 3 point shot a better weapon that can actually contribute to a win rather than just high offensive efficiency.
KP brought in Oden and then Miller. This was his vision of the next level. Concluding that Roy and Nate have put themselves in the path of progress, is a valid opinion.(based on the season so far)
Add;
to our comments about some open court play….It seems such a waste to me, to not use your youth as a weapon. They will make more mistakes, at first, but we should be able to run some teams right off the floor. This is the value of young, well conditioned players, that we have never taken advantage of….? Sorry Roy, you are a great individual player, but you are no Lebron_Kobe_MJ…..you need the rest of the team . Life in the NBA is a lot easier if you have help from your teammates.
I also don’t think Nate is a bad coach, but he has disappointed me with his approach and lack of flexibility. I simply can’t figure out why this integration of Miller and Oden has been so difficult. A sign of a good coach is the ability to read his players abilities and get the most of that talent into the structure of your team.
Surely this guy is not banking his whole philosophy on reading his offensive efficiency stats?
the extra banging
Batum is going to get getting bumped by a bigger player at the 4 is not what he needs coming back in the rotation.
I'm sure his shoulder is healthy
but putting it to the test by guarding PFs doesn’t seem to be the best use for Batum. Frenchy can guard PGs as well as Bayless, if not better. Let Martell put his body on the 4s, if that’s what it takes to get Nic back in the lineup
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
My personal choice,
trade Martell and if needed Mills, for a true center. If Haywood ends up in Denver, I have seats for sale the rest of this season.
Blazer fans are happy today, but let’s see what Howard and the Magic do tomorrow.
I love Martell dearly, but Nic has a higher ceiling, so does Dante, who could also play the 3.
Small ball does not win championships. LA is already injured and playing out of position. Enough with getting by already.
Go Blazers !!!!
Can we get Brandon a body suit, PLEASE ??
Go Blazers !!
Dante Cunningham has a higher ceiling than Martell Webster? Oh come on, Webster is on fire right now.
The Kings have the best bench I’ve seen. There are easily 14 guys on this team good enough for every bench in the league. Now if we could only get some starters, I’d totally jizz in my pants.
Kings fan
by dyshooter182 on Jan 14, 2010 8:27 PM PST up reply actions
I've gotta agree with this
Denver is at a different stage than Portland. They’ve already got the size to match-up with the L*kers and they’re looking to add to it. Thanks to injuries to their centers, Portland will soon be trying to juggle minutes for 7 guards and/or wing players. That’s not a formula to win games in the post season, so it’s like they’re treading water until Oden gets back next fall
I’m not sure what Webster is worth. His contract plus Mills = 4.8 mil and that might be enough to match Haywood’s (6 mil) once the capspace and the 125% is factored in. But I still think KP needs to trade one of his veteran PGs, I don’t think dealing Martell and forcing Roy to defend SFs is in Brandon’s best long-term interest
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Webster is "on fire" , not consistantly, imo, Dantes ceiling is still higher.
You have to trade value to get value. Glad I don’t have to make the choice between Blake and Miller if it comes down to it.
Rudy makes up for what the Blazers would lose in 3 point shooting, and Nic IS and always will be a better defender. With Nic and Dante defending 3’s, Roy won’t have to.
This topic still has me sick to my stomach. What guarantee does anyone have that Oden and Pryz will both remain healthy in future seasons?
Can we get Brandon a body suit, PLEASE ??
Go Blazers !!
I like Dante, but I don't think Portland sees him as a defensive SF
Prunty made a comment about Cunningham having trouble defending quick SFs (like Travis) in space during summer league. Dante played the middle of a zone at ’Nova and he has some developing to do before he can be put out on an island against NBA 3s
Following summer league, the Blazers asked DC to work on his upper body strength before fall camp, which is further evidence that they see him as a 4/3
Cunningham’s a scrappy rebounder with great PnR footwork and a (usually) accurate mid-range jumper. But those skills alone don’t make him a backup SF in Nate’s offense
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
True,
but at that point, the Blazers had 2 healthy centers, and had possibly not signed Howard yet ??
Time to rethink, if they want to do anything in the playoffs. And not just this season, if we’ve learned one thing in 3 years, it’s that Greg only counts as half a player. I’m not hating, just realistic.
Dante’s basketball iq is higher than Travis’ , ( I can’t beleive I just said that ) it won’t take him long to figure it out.
Can we get Brandon a body suit, PLEASE ??
Go Blazers !!
I could tell Dante's BBIQ was higher than Outlaws
after watching him play 5 minutes in a summer league game. Cunningham has good athleticism and fundamentals, and he’ll be a better team defender than Travis soon (if he isn’t already.) But not everybody has the lateral quickness it takes to defend SFs, and DC’s a ‘tweener who will struggle when guarding the quicker 3s in space. Coaching and experience will help, but the Blazers have pigeon-holed him as a 4 and unless Webster or Batum are hurt or traded I don’t think Ferno is going to get much of an opportunity to defend SFs. (Another limiting factor is that Portland has too many guards and Nate often likes to play 3 of them together, against teams with quick SFs)
This doesn’t mean that Martell won’t be traded, but I doubt the one of main reasons he might be dealt would be to carve out playing time for Dante to play backup 3
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
We'll see what happens to Martell, when Nic comes back.
He is playing great, but I still see him as the odd man out, if the Blazers make a move. I like Dante where ever he plays. If it came down to it, imo, he won’t hurt the Blazers if he gets minutes at the 3.
Small ball does not win championships.....
Go Blazers !!
by FrenchieFan on Jan 17, 2010 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
I dont think he's going to be playing so much against the quicker 3s
I think he would be matched up against the stronger 3s like lebron or carmelo. They are both quick as well, but generally use their size and strength to intimidate their opponents and get the space to move.
Portland could coast along with their superior talent and stay right with us. Now that Portland woke up, the hammer cometh down.
Bayless > Daffy Duck after 3 cans of rockstar
by Batumshakalaka on Jan 21, 2010 1:44 AM PST up reply actions
I reject the notion that all these guys deserve to play
I think a big part of why we struggled to find our rhythm early in the season was because there were too many substitutions taking place because guys “deserve to play”. It know it’s a tough thing to deal with but Nate needs to decide which group of 8 to 10 guys work best together and stick with playing just those guys. As injuries depleted our bench, the remaining guys became comfortable knowing that, #1 they would get their minutes, #2 what their role was, and #3 who they would be on the floor with. This led to better results. Nate cannot fall back into running people in and out of the game constantly trying to make sure that everyone is happy with their playing time. It kills the flow of the game, there is no player cohesion, and plays with guy’s confidence. That’s my opinion.
by mlsinpdx on Jan 14, 2010 5:16 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Agreed with one caveat
That being that Nate may have been playing more people than he actually wanted to because no one had risen up to actually take minutes. At some point, decisions would have been made but only after somebody truly showed a consistently higher level of play than the others. I recall a coach saying when asked how he would decide minutes for his “loaded” team that was up to the players to beat the others out.
Early on no one in the spots of contention was beating other people out. Blake was cold on his shot, Andre was trying to fit in and was not in the best of shape, Bayless and Travis were inconsistent, Martell was knocking off a ton of rust, all the players were unsure of how to deal to Oden’s ability, etc.
All in all, though, I agree with you. Nate owes no one time. They owe it to themselves to make their individual and team play indispensable.
by Interested on Jan 14, 2010 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Totally agree and rec'd
regarding early season play and nobody rising above the rest for minutes. Nate was juggling because nobody was playing all that well. Once injuries crushed us, roles became more established, and players starting performing better.
In my opinion, Martell stays the starter over Batum. Marty is on the upswing lately while Batum is totally unproven this season. He may push Martell but we’ll have to see how Martell responds to the likely reduced minutes with Rudy and Batum back. Odd man out is Dante unless he plays at the 4.
Clearly, Miller will remain the starter over Blake and Bayless although I think Blake may push Bayless for minutes if he keeps playing like he did against Milwaukee. The nice thing for Bayless is that he can sub for Roy. The bad thing for Bayless is that Rudy is going to push for those minutes behind Roy.
I wouldn’t be opposed to Roy sitting a couple games to let his hamstring heal. Start Bayless in his place with Rudy backing him up. In a sense, we’d be showcasing Miller, Blake, Rudy, Bayless, Martell, and Dante at the 1, 2, and 3 positions not only for trade potential but also settling up minutes for when Batum and Roy come back.
"Nate was juggling because nobody was playing all that well."
Or was nobody playing all that well because Nate was juggling? Shall we split the difference?
Great idea for Batum...
Now if Nate doesn’t do it, let’s all call him stubborn and inflexible.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
You betcha
After all, we KNOW basketball and the players involved especially at the pro level.
Seriously, my guess is that if we voted on who might be the best BE “coach” and that person went to straighten out Nate, it would be about 5 minutes before he/she figured out they were in over their heads by a long way, a very long way. And I’m not talking Nate being ornery, but rather him revealing a level of knowledge and understanding to which only only a small fraternity of people are familiar.
No, I don’t think he is a genius or the best coach ever, but he isn’t writing comments on a fan blog either—he’s doing what others have never qualified themselves to do.
by Interested on Jan 14, 2010 8:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Funny...
It’s fun to play armchair coach/GM. We all do. But you can only get so much from the outside. And getting to make decisions after the fact and with no risk of failing is much easier than actually coaching a team. Nate isn’t playing NBA Live or something but it is easy to forget that it is real life, real people, and a whole lot of things out of his control.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Jan 14, 2010 10:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Precisely
To be fair, there are some very knowledgeable comments on this site from people who have obviously played and coached a lot of organized basketball.
But none of us is an NBA coach.
This idea for Batum is one I suggested several weeks ago, therefore I’m brilliant, and Nate is really slow and stubborn, to only come up with it after Ben asked him about it.
Except that Nic said last summer that Nate had talked to him about the possibility of playing the 4 at times. In all probability, 99% of the ideas even worth considering which are ever mentioned on this board were already thought of and discussed among the coaching staff. After all, you have a group of highly trained people who are paid to think about this full-time, who think and talk basketball far more than 8 hours a day.
But we’re smarter, anyway. I know I am….
#10 #25 #52 #88 -- #5 is back!
Lately I have been on this website
for about 12 hours a day. Thinking about nothing but Basketball….and changing my daughters diaper…. and Oregon beer……….Can I coach the Blazers now…..PLEEESE!
Seriously I enjoyed this mini section of a sub thread.
RoadBlazer
This sort of reasoning can get you flagged.
I’ve been fighting this battle for some time and apparently people complained when I kept asking exactly what experience they had that qualified them as expert analysts of NBA talent, coaching and personnel decisions.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
because it's a logical fallacy
your challenging credentials instead of addressing the merits of an argument. Just another variation of “appeal to authority” – and just as weak. If you can’t beat em, give up.
by blacknoiseNW on Jan 16, 2010 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
I don't make appeals to authority.
There is a long line of teachers, officers, managers, etc who will attest to the fact that I am exactly obediant to or overly respectful of authority.
That doesn’t blind me to the fact that there are people out there who are either far more knowledgeable, more capabale or both at specific tasks and functions. I’ve also lasted long enough to recognize uninformed BS a high percentage of the time.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Blazersedge
Related FanShots on Blazersedge
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
