Nate McMillan, Andre Miller Exchange Words at Practice
Coach Nate McMillan and guard Andre Miller engaged in an argument that could be heard by reporters in the Portland Trail Blazers' Practice Facility's media holding room this morning.
After practice, McMillan refused to comment on the confrontation and said he was addressing the team and not a specific player. Miller was not visibly present at the facility once the media was let in. McMillan also took longer than usual to address the media.
McMillan noted that Miller did not practice due to a sore back suffered during a fall during Monday night's game against the Los Angeles Clippers and painted the exchange as a team conversation rather than a confrontation with an individual.
General Manager Kevin Pritchard was present once the media arrived and said in response to questions about a verbal confrontation during practice, "what we want is open dialogue."
Pritchard was calm and composed during his remarks, perhaps slightly taken aback by the questions. For a guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve -- particularly lately in the wake of all the injuries -- he did not give off any noticeable signs of frustration or anger over the incident.
McMillan was quick and curt in his responses, clearly viewing the discussion between himself and Miller as a private team matter.
Miller recently expressed frustrations with his role on the Blazers in an interview with The Columbian's Brian T. Smith...
I can't get my head down about it; I'll be a professional about everything. It's just coming into the whole situation, I wasn't given that chance that a veteran should be given; a fair chance. But that's part of the business. I'll be a professional about it.
This picture was not taken today. Photo: Ben Golliver / Blazersedge
Update: 12:44PM
Jason Quick of The Oregonian has the most detailed account of the confrontation. He writes...
One of the topics discussed was an incident late in Tuesday's game with Memphis, when Miller told Jerryd Bayless to make his second free throw with 4.3 seconds left and the Blazers trailing by two. The coaching staff and team captain Brandon Roy told Bayless to miss the free throw so the Blazers could attempt to rebound and make a tying basket.
Brian T. Smith of The Columbian writes...
At 11 a.m., a heated, expletive-filled exchange occurred between Blazers coach Nate McMillan and guard Andre Miller. The tirade lasted until 11:25 a.m.
Miller was not on the court when the media was allowed into practice.
Miller loudly disagreed with McMillan, at one point stating, "I ain't going to take this (stuff)."
McMillan later fired back: "You don't play the way we want to play."
Smith clarifies that the confrontation took place after the team's 3 on 3 practice had completed.
Roy said exchange between McMillan-Miller happened after practice was over during an 'open forum.'
Joe Freeman of The Oregonian tweets...
As for the practice dust up between Miller and Mac.
It lasted roughly a half-hour and was animated and sometimes heated.
Part of it had to do with Miller telling Bayless to make his 2nd free throw with 4.3 seconds left vs. the Grizzlies. There was lengthily debate about that w/ Mac telling Miller at one point that the call comes from the bench, not him.
But the debate seemed to stretch beyond the FT incident and into Miller's role with the team.
Update (1:00PM):
Nate McMillan's comments on the conversation with Miller.
I'm not commenting on my talk with the team. It wasn't with Andre. It was with the team. We talked as a group.
We had six guys that could practice today. We were only limited with what we could do. It was a short practice
Any disciplinary action?
No, I mean Andre's back was bothering him so he couldn't practice. It was bothering him in the last game. Brandon had a hamstring. LaMarcus had an ankle. Again, the conversation was with the team.
Will Andre play tomorrow because of his back?
I don't know. He didn't practice today.
How long has the back been the issue?
I think before the game. He was getting some treatment before the game. I think that happened in the Clippers game. He was able to play through it in the Memphis game. He was reaching for it. It was pretty sore. Today he didn't practice. I don't know exactly when it happened but I think it did happen in the Clippers game. I knew that he had a sore back in the Memphis game. Today he couldn't go. LaMarcus couldn't go. Brandon and Blake were out.
Andre has been vocal about not knowing his place with the team. How would you describe his place right now?
That's a conversation for us [Nate and Andre] if that's the case.
How would you describe his play?
I think he's been doing some good things. I think he's been doing some good things. He's had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he's been doing some good things.
Kevin Pritchard's Comments
Thoughts on the conversation/confrontation?
I like open, honest communication. I really do.
What happened?
I think you guys are trying to make this too much. It's not. It's not. It really isn't. If we're truly a team and we want to be the best we can possibly can be, what we want is open dialogue. This is one of many. We'll have more. We'll have individual. We'll have team. If you're a good team and you care about the organization and you care about your teammates, you're going to say what you feel. That's what we want.
Any lingering effects from this?
No.
Jason Quick, in an update to his post, has further comments from Kevin Pritchard.
Update (1:53PM):
Gavin Dawson has tweeted that both Nate McMillan and Andre Miller will address this morning's confrontation on John Canzano's 95.5 FM radio program this afternoon.
Brian T. Smith has posted a full story on the incident.
What followed was more than 20 minutes' worth of shouting, curse words and fierce challenges that mostly came from the mouth of Miller. The conversation and actions of Miller and McMillan were not visible, due to the fact that practice was closed during the exchange. However, the voices of both could be heard carrying through a wood door that opens from the media room to the practice floor.
...
When asked Thursday about Miller's confusion with his role, McMillan said: "That's a conversation for us, if that's the case." Meanwhile, Pritchard addressed the same issue by saying, "There's an old saying out there: 'Seek to understand before being understood.' "
Andrew R. Tonry of Portland Roundball Society writes...
When we were allowed in to the facility Miller was nowhere to be found, and Coach McMillan refused to comment, though GM Kevin Pritchard offered some spin. "What we want is an open dialogue," said Pritchard. These sorts of things happen, he continued, "if you're a good team."
Asked to weigh in on what transpired between McMillan and Miller, Brandon Roy looked far off into the distance. He wanted no part of it, but said Miller is "trying to feel his way through this team," and that "everybody is a little frustrated. It happens when expectations are high."
It seems safe to say now, that Miller's ticket out of Portland is as good as punched.
Henry Abbott weighs in...
The Blazers GM is, to his credit, one of the League's most relentless sunshine merchants, at least in the media (and for all I know, in private too). He found some little good thing to say even through all of the Greg Oden microfracture, and that's no small feat.
Dwight Jaynes weighs in...
It was obvious a month ago that the dislike for Miller, whether it originates from Brandon Roy, Nate McMillan, the entire team or whomever, is going to inhibit his ability to fit into this organization. At that point, there was no reason to delay his exit, once Dec. 15 came and went.
Update 3:26PM:
Sean Meagher writes...
However this exchange evolved, it was likely something that had been brewing for a while for Miller. Emotions run high in sports. Competition is the nature of the game. While Andre Miller may not display his emotions for the rest of us to see, he is undoubtedly a competitor. He wants to play and he wants to win. And there's no fault in that. McMillan, who labeled it as a "team discussion," encourages dialogue and communication from his players as much, if not more, than any coach in the league. Today, he got that communication from the free-agent acquisition.
Mike Whitman of OregonSportsLive.com writes...
The bottom line is this: if Andre Miller is complaining about his playing time, his role, his purpose on this team, then good.
Maybe somebody will listen.
SJ from Rip City Project writes...
Coaches and players are not always supposed to see eye to eye. Especially when you have two strong personalities like Miller and McMillan, there is going to be a clash. Obviously the Blazers have a policy where players can speak their mind. Today, Andre Miller did. I'm not seeing this as Andre Miller sealing his fate here in Portland, I just see it as a discussion between player and coach trying to get back on the same page.
Honestly, it's a bit of a shame this is being portrayed as such a big deal. There's this sinking feeling that there is so much more to the story than we may ever know. It's confusing because Nate's been quoting as saying he wanted Andre Miller here and Andre Miller saying how much he wanted to be here. I think the lack of concrete details is leading to speculation, and that's only human nature.
Coup from Rip City Project writes...
So before everyone gets too Millergate on this, it's pertinent to ask what the big problem is with them having an argument. It demonstrates a disconnect between player and coach, yes, but not of team rules or public conduct or, thank the basketball gods, legal issues. They were arguing about strategy and have probably argued at other times about minutes. Those are things that have to do with winning basketball games.
-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
0 recs |
734 comments
|
Comments
Well this isn't a good sign...
But I can hardly say it’s unexpected that Andre wouldn’t speak his mind after being benched the whole 4th quarter
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jan 7, 2010 12:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is all about whether you want a point guard that makes decisions on the fly
or a coach who wants to control every aspect of the game.
Why bring in Miller in the first place if you are not willing to let him run the offense? Granted, Miller has made some bone-head plays, but Steve Nash does that every game too (note: Nash is better than Miller, so not comparing skills).
by ralphzillo on Jan 7, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think this stereotypes the situation far too much.
We don’t like there to be shades of grey when we have an opinion. Yet there almost always is. I think saying Miller is a decision on the fly guy and McMillan is a control guy is a handy way of making labels so we don’t have to go through the work of understanding the situation. To be honest, I like to do that too. It makes conversations much easier.
πεντήκοντα δύο
by T Darkstar on Jan 7, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Uh-Oh!
I just like saying that. Hopefully it isn’t a big deal, but I eagerly await the hilarity that will ensue from Tominhawaii’s inevitable “anti-Miller” comment.
by jigglyai on Jan 7, 2010 12:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Anti-Nate vs. Anti-Miller commence
<— +1 Andre
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This has the makings of the perfect storm
all the Nate haters and Miller haters converge on a single thread!
by jigglyai on Jan 7, 2010 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's what happens when two sides don't talk about issues.
But now that it’s done, maybe both sides can communicate a little better now.
πεντήκοντα δύο
by T Darkstar on Jan 7, 2010 12:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't know who I got
Miller and his perpetually sprained ankles, or Nate wheeling around on his recovery scooter?
by jigglyai on Jan 7, 2010 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Best. Comment. Ever.
πεντήκοντα δύο
by T Darkstar on Jan 7, 2010 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ben look at your caption under the Miller picture from the Memphis Media Report
I say you are clairvoyant!
#52
by blazermaniac32 on Jan 7, 2010 12:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well said
Miller even rebounds wrong.
by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2010 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Reposting my comments from the earlier fanshot:
The free throw stuff is just the spark, a symptom of an underlying problem that has been building. Regardless of what happened in that situation, the real issue here is Andre’s role with the team. If Nate did say "You don’t play the way we want to play", then that is very very telling, and underscores what’s been obvious to most people all season.
Andre is obviously frustrated with his role on this team, and I think whether you agree with his role or think it should be something more, it’s hard not to understand where his frustrations have been coming from all season.
For me, it’s hard not to hold Nate at least partially accountable for this mess. He should have been much more clear with Andre from day 1. The appearances seem to be that he’s been stringing him along and talking out of both sides of his mouth since training camp opened.
i’m not a big “fire nate” guy, but I have some concerns but I think its very fair to say he completely mishandled the roster/playing time issues from start of training camp until our deluge of injuries fixed the problem for him.
2 big concerns I’ll be watching:
1) Will he do any better at managing the 1-3 positions when Rudy and Nic are both back?
2) Absent any major consolidation, will he learn from this and do a much better job next fall when camp opens?
Of course either or both of those things can be mitigated by KP making some roster consolidation moves that ease the burden on Nate to handle the depth. The question is, do we trust Nate has learned from this debacle, or should we hope that KP delivers him a roster that doesn’t force him to have to make the hard decisions.
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 7, 2010 12:47 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
I agree with you Doug
If Miller wasn’t given a fair chance, that’s on Nate.
by TallTimber on Jan 7, 2010 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nicely expressed, but here is why I challenge type of comments.
The appearance of Nate stringing Andre along from day 1
- what appearance? Exactly what evidence is out there supporting this line of reasoning? For one thing, Nate is exemplelary at keeping his mouth closed when it comes to making comments in public about what goes on with the team. On top of that, Nate has a reputation of both not throwing his players under the bus and of being very honest and straightforward in his dealings with them. To imply he has been stringing Miller along flies in the face of most of what we know about McMillan. It is one thing to question his usage of Miller. It is a far different thing to basically accuse him of being dishonest (for I consider “stringing someone along” as a form of dishonesty).
Holding Nate accountable for Miller’s frustration.
- just how accountable do you consider him to be? You start with “partially accountable” but then go on to state that McMillan completely mishandled the roster and playing time from the start and has been bailed out by having a reduced roster to work with. You close by questioning whether we can “trust” him to “learn” from all this and to become capable of making hard decisions. As for Andre? Not one comment on how much of the responsibility for the apparent disfunction lies with him.
I think you have this situation turned upside down. Nate McMillan is the coach of this team, not Andre Miller. Andre Miller is the new guy, not Nate. This is McMillan’s team, not Andre’s and if Miller can’t accept that then he doesn’t belong here. If we are to believe what Nate and Kevin Pritchard said after signing Andre, then it was McMillan who showed the most interest in signing him. And supposedly Miller wanted to come to Potland (although I don’t put too much stock in that one, as we were the only team making him a halfway decent offer). If things are not working out, it doesn’t necessarily have to be somebody’s fault. Nate could have been saying “I want you providing veteran leadership to the second unit and possibly being a second option to Brandon at times” and Andre could have been thinking “Once I get out on the court, I’m confident I’ll get the starting spot”. Neither party is wrong here. They both may be operating on some misconceptions, but that happens all the time to most people.
Finally, I am not going to give this latest news much thought. Pro athletes are supposed to be competative by nature. Miller and McMillan both have proven they are extremely competative. Getting into a yelling match is not the end of the world. If it was, no one would still be married and there would be no next generation, as we would have killed our kids.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 16 recs
Nice.
You don't need a Maserati to mow the lawn.
by pxilpooshr on Jan 7, 2010 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good post.
The appearance of Nate stringing Andre along from day 1
I chose to add the “appearance” qualifier for a reason. I don’t have iron-clad proof of anything either way – none of us do. However, this has seemed pretty apparent given the conflicting reports about the role discussed with Miller back in the summer, Nate’s statement in training camp that starting spots would be earned in camp, Nate then not following through with Miller clearly earned the starting spot. When asked if they talk, Nate saying “no, but my door’s always open”. There are other things. Do I KNOW he’s strung Andre along? No. Not anymore than you know he hasn’t. We don’t have the access needed to determine it either way. It is my reasoned opinion, based on months of stories, etc, that it APPEARS he has strung him along and not followed through on what he said.
Holding Nate accountable for Miller’s frustration.
- just how accountable do you consider him to be?
Like I said – at least partially. Am I absolving Miller of his share? Not at all, but since everyone seems so eager to put all this fault on Andre, my focus in my post was to try and illustrate why it is understandable that Miller is frustrated – not absolving him of responsibility or excusing him.
You close by questioning whether we can "trust" him to "learn" from all this and to become capable of making hard decisions. As for Andre? Not one comment on how much of the responsibility for the apparent disfunction lies with him.
From that point on, my focus and concern in my post was not about Miller specifically, but more about Nate handling a deep roster from day 1 in general, and his ability to learn from this going forward, whether Andre is here or not. I think it is pretty indisputable that Nate fumbled the ball on playing time and rotations pre-injuries – go back and read and listen to the quotes from many players saying they were confused about their roles. I was working off the passumption that this premise is not being contested. If you contest that premise, then in my mind that’s a different conversation. If you accept that premise, than it’s not about Miller at all – it’s about the questions and concerns I posed. In general, do the players have a part to play in accepting and understand the given roles? Absolutely, given that they have been clearly informed and what that role is.
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 7, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
You and usmcr having added more detail ...
… I can at least understand why someone might get the feeling of Miller getting strung along. I personally give McMillan the benefit of doubt, since, as I stated above, I think he’s earned it.
I will say that I am not getting any sense of the comments here being overwhelmingly against Andre and in support of Nate. With tallying them up, I’d say they are at least even, with Andre perhaps having a slight edge.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think what people, including myself
see as stringing along, are the comments Nate has made to the media, especially the preseason comments about how the players who play the best will get the starting spots. Which ofcourse didn’t happen, Nate said one thing, then did another. With Miller playing well during the preseason and Blake playing poorly, it has fostered a sense of “stringing him along” amoung fans.
Then you through in Miller’s comments to Yahoo about how he said he was told he would start, then when he gets here he comes off the bench. That is an obvious miscommunication between player and coach. Again that feels like Miller is being “stringed along” by Nate.
Then you take Nate’s comments at Miller’s signing, how Miller and him talked about how they could change the offense in little ways, how Miller’s game could be folded into the offense to make it better. None of which has happened, Miller has come off the bench for most of the season, and the offense hasn’t changed much at all from last year.
If I sat and thought for a while longer I am sure I could come up with a few more Nate quotes that he didn’t really stick to, all of which paint a picture of Nate not communicating well with the Media, which if true would lead fans to believe he doesn’t communicate will with the players, and thus many fans are on Miller’s side in this arguement.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jan 7, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors.
Going back in time and taking this statement or that statement and quoting it without the whole dialogue is giving out mixed information.
I remember from day one that Nate had visions of Andre, Rudy, Webster, Travis and Joel on the second unit and Andre running the show. That never materialized because Rudy never got his game going from Summer Nationals, Batuum got hurt immediately from prior injuries, Travis went down early, and therefore everything changed since day one. Yet, you want to go back to day one and make Nate accountable for his statements even if the status of the team and the injuries are changing daily. How I felt about the team when the pre-season started and now are completely different. Am I to go back and say I said this and I am not allowed to change my mind because of circumstances changing? There is a group of people that feels Nate has blown his rotation of players before all the injuries, How far back are we talking? Rudy and Batuum came to camp wounded. Nate kept waiting for Rudy to get on track, but then Travis went down. Then when the adjustments were being made Greg went down, then Joel, then minor injuries to BRoy, LMA and Steve having pneumonia. So when do say make Nate accountable. before or after which injury?
I have no idea what all was said in the confrontation and nobody else does either. That is why it was said behind closed doors.
hg
by BBK on Jan 7, 2010 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One minor quibble, it's actually Paul Allen's team not Nate's
I also think the track records of these two men matter. One has a history of being a good soldier and a proven upper echelon player. One has a history of screwing with his players’ heads.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Upper echelon players don't spend their entire careers without making it out of the first round
Nate’s been a very good coach to this point. His Blazer teams over-achieved for the last three years.
Andre didn’t put work in before camp, hasn’t shown himself willing to play the way the Blazers over-achieved last year.
So, if Nate has a history of screwing with players head, I say screw faster.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Jan 7, 2010 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You do make a valid point, although...
The pre-camp workouts are voluntary, so the fact Andre didn’t participate is nothing to hold against him.
Also, it’s been said by many people in the league that players should come into camp about 80% so that they can reach 100% status by about Jan/Feb.
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jan 7, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
as a Minnesotan
I will strenuously object to anyone saying a player not being able to make it out of the first round is entire reflective of their abilities. Kevin Garnett got a reputation as a guy who couldn’t win the big one, but I think we can all put to rest the idea that his failure to get out of the first round so many years early in his career was his fault (giant contract notwithstanding). A guy like Andre Miller, who is maybe the 4th or 5th best player on a good playoff team, is not the crucial deciding factor in deep playoff runs. A nice cog? Certainly. But it’s not his fault he’s mostly had pretty bad teammates.
Additionally, both Denver and Philly got better when he joined and worse when he left.
by atomiccafe on Jan 7, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm pretty sure we all knew
that AI is better than KG. Dude made it to multiple conference finals and won the East one year. Open and shut case.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, how many rings does AI have?
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's why it was
I’m pretty sure we all knew that …
Picture yourself back in 2007.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you were being sarcastic.
My mistake.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Both, really
No Blood, no foul. It’s all good.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In terms of players not putting in work
Brandon clearly didn’t this year, neither has Trout historically (and arguably this year, with those videos of him “working out” over the summer).
Besides, as far as “hasn’t shown himself willing to play the way the Blazers over-achieved last year”, what does that even mean? That he hasn’t tried to morph himself into Steve Blake? He knows his strengths are different so he does different things. If we were set on acquiring another Blake, we wouldn’t have signed Andre.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably worth noting
That Andre knows his body well enough that he hasn’t been seriously injured in many years.
Perhaps there’s something to Andre’s technique. Could just be a coincidence. It does stink that he needs to get back in shape during the first month.
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon still came into camp healthy, Miller did not
by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2010 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
But Miller came in ready to play
No disrespect intended.
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Go back and look at game logs from the first games od the season.
You don’t have guys who aren’t ready to go putting up like Roy did right out of the gate.
by Biddy77 on Jan 7, 2010 5:25 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Healthy on what basis?
Has there been anything said about Miller’s summer routine? No.
He still out-performed all the other guards before the season even started.
Tom, I used to read and enjoy your comments, but when it comes to this topic, if you’ve been trying to be sarcastic and funny in them the tenor just isn’t there and frankly I find them simply frustrating more than anything.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
All of our young players that are out injured have something in common.
They all kept their physical activity up in the summer time, where as our two stalwart players that keep playing no matter what happens (Roy and Miller) both have very similar summer routines. Neither of them touched a basketball all summer. Roy swam and biked, we don’t know what Miller did, but frankly I couldn’t care less what Miller did because over 560 consecutive games played speaks (loudly) for itself.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm calling BS on this.
Unless you are referring to McMillan as the former.
How about some evidence on Nate screwing with his players heads?
You aiming for a spot on Gossip Girls?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you know you love him timg56
xoxo
"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 7, 2010 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In fact I do.
I still have great hope that leeroy will once again leave the land of darkness and believe in his team the way I’m sure he wants to.
We say it towards the end of last season, but Portland’s slow start has him backsliding.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm callin' BS
give me one legit example of Nate screwing with a players head. Nate has a reputation as telling it like it is and being no-nonsense. This is contrary to your opinion.
by ItsMrHarris2u on Jan 7, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Last year Nate had a reputation for riding young PGs too hard
And sure enough, Jarret Jac and Sergio Rodriguez hae blossomed now that they can play their game and not Nate’s
by momomoses7 on Jan 7, 2010 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sergio had a DNP-CD last night.
He’s played ok, but not blossoming.
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have this sinking suspicion that Nate is lousy at dealing with PGs because of his own experience.
How was he in Seattle? Does anyone know?
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not good
but he didn’t have an Andre Miller caliber point guard either. Ridnour, Daniels, not exactly good pg’s. The Miller situation sort of decided it for me though, Dre’s drop in production is not because he is getting older if you ask me….
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he looked pretty quick against Memphis...
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Reasonable comment.
I simply find it hard to believe that a player of Miller’s stature would consent to signing with a team knowing he would be the backup. He’s been a starter his entire career, and he’s going to sign on with a new team knowing he’d be Steve Blake’s backup? I just don’t see it. Seems much more plausible to me that Nate promised him a competition, and then went with Steve when Brandon struggled/voiced displeasure.
I agree entirely with your last comment. This may not be healthy for the team, but it is probably healthier than letting tensions simmer beneath the surface. Probably needed to happen, and probably not worth too much examination.
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
by bfan on Jan 7, 2010 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fans back Miller, they say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3rWpCvyfW8
"Gonna stand my ground ... and I won't back down" -- Tom Petty
"You have to know the past to understand the present." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
"Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole." -- Roger Caras
by MojoMan on Jan 7, 2010 12:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I see spin coming from management
McMillan has not been able to adapt very well to new players. Evidence Oden and Miller. Yes I know it’s the coaches’ team, but the street is not entirely one way. Oden is no longer an issue for him this year and arrangements might be made to make Miller go away. But try as he might, Nate will not be able to return the happy time of last year when life was just so warm and fuzzy and predicable.
by rockman on Jan 7, 2010 12:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, nobody is making too big a deal out of the Miller situation
it is a cluster and of that there can be no doubt
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Except Howard, Pendy, Cunningham, Webster and Bayless
It was interesting during the Clipper game, on TV they showed lists of active players last year and this year for the Clipper game, and Roy was the only one to carry over! It looks like Miller is the only new player who can’t seem to fit in, and it’s probably no coincidence that he is the only one who feels entitled to have a certain role on the team.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
miller should be entitled a certain role, like a starting one
it’s also no coincidence that we dont hear about the others not fitting in. the rooks have no say, howard should be feeling lucky he’s signed anywhere, webster’s not new to the team plus he came in not projected to be the starter, so why would he complain now? and isn’t a badly kept secret that bayless was unhappy with his role early in the season?
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
coincidentally
JBay was unhappy with his role because Andre Miller was playing in front of him. food for thought.
oh man, I think I'm average like, ten points, like, twelve, thirteen dimes, like two, three assists, and about four, five rebounds, and if we need me to play, play a different position, I might get a little bit more.
by abdelnaby on Jan 7, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what's the point of this?
did he really expect to play in front of andre from the get go?
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it's possible
that Bayless felt like he shouldn’t be playing behind someone who couldn’t/refused to play within the system just because he felt like he was entitled to a starting role.
oh man, I think I'm average like, ten points, like, twelve, thirteen dimes, like two, three assists, and about four, five rebounds, and if we need me to play, play a different position, I might get a little bit more.
by abdelnaby on Jan 7, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Total conjecture.
Both McMillan and Andre were excited about his coming to Portland and the possibilities of how he could help the team, which Miller seemed to have thought a lot about even before their initial meeting.
Why should he fit into a system that couldn’t win a playoff series last season and basically calls for the guard to do nothing but be a spot up shooter? There needed and still needs to be more movement in the offense. Miller can provide that because of his ability to hit a moving target with a pass. He is head and shoulders above Blake and Bayless at this point.
By his skillset alone he is entitled to that starting spot, but because of his performance in the games he has earned it without question in my mind.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Entitled huh? How so?
Earning something is so old school, isn’t it? Why bother working hard when something can be given to you by pointing to your past efforts and then making a fuss? It’s so much easier to whine than it is to work.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
look at it as entitled through earning it. and not just earning it in past seasons, how about earning it from blake in training camp and preseason? you should ask nate what happened to his “players will have to earn their minutes” claim
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You either earn something or you don't.
Entitled means it is given to you regardless of you being worthy of it, have earned it or are the best person for the job.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
there's no conflict between being entitled a position and earning the postion
entitled means being awarded ( in this case) a position. and awarded means being acknowledged for achievements
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say both of us are putting more into the meaning than there is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entitled
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i'd say that i stand by my definition
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
then you'd be standing underground and precariously so
entitled means by right, civil or natural. Even a history of excellent performance cannot qualify one for an entitlement. It’s simply not a merit based word.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Jan 7, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
please go gree
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Jan 7, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
speaking of which
nate came out in preseason and said the best players will “earn” their starting spots. miller clearly won that pg battle.
nate then starts steve blake.
smh @ entitled
by CleBlazer on Jan 7, 2010 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did he clearly win based on individual numbers ...
… or overall team performance?
Isn’t possible that Nate and the coaching staff saw that the team was perhaps smoother or more mistake free with Blake?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and who was better with Roy?
We know Roy’s going to start. Earning the starting PG spot means being the best running mate for our star, and we heard Roy himself say basically that wasn’t Miller. I don’t know why people find it so controversial that Nate agreed.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 10:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bayless was unhappy, but not entitled
He complained ONCE to the press and tried to take it back immediately, but other than that, he channeled his energy into making his game better, and Nate rewarded him.
Miller OTOH complains often and mentions often how he is a veteran, as if that matters. That’s the sense of entitlement.
You’re right, the other new guys aren’t in the same situation, but that was my point. They had no choice but to accept their roles, and contrary to the OP, Nate adapted them to the game pretty well. So well, that the team has remained competitive after losing most of the rotation. I’d say that’s really good evidence that Nate can adapt to new players, just not ones that have a bad attitude because they think they are entitled to more.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
often? Can you provide links?
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you noticed a few new players playing over the past 11 games
where the Blazers went 8 for 11? This point is not a good one to argue against.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Jan 7, 2010 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I could link
but won’t bother, because I think we’ve all seen the instances of Miller complaining to the media, and try to qualify it by saying “…but I’m going to be professional about it”. There have been at least 3 times he’s done that, which is pretty often considering the season is only 3 months old.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McMillan is really a very good development coach
Which explains the guys you named except Howard who came in as a role player. Miller is a savvy, experienced veteran who still has his legs. Mac will never get us past 60 wins.
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm been starting to believe that as well.
He was great for the team back in the 21 win and 32 win seasons however, I doubt if we can win the title with him.
by TallTimber on Jan 7, 2010 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I used to think that, but now I'm back to fence-sitting.
I keep thinking he was picked for USA basketball for a reason. What’s his specialty? How does he help that squad?
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He was picked as the defensive specialist.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McMillan is winning games with those guys
He isn’t just developing them, he is winning games with a bunch of new guys and one veteran superstar. The OP was about whether Nate could incorporate new players effectively. Given how the team has played with all the new faces, hasn’t Nate proven he can do that?
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, how great is LA developing?
How long has it taken Outlaw and Martell to become passable NBA wings? What do we have to show with 3 years of Sergio? How quickly did Greg get over his fouling issues? wait…
Nate McMillan’s record “developing talent” is often overstated. He IS excellent at taking imperfect talent and finding ways to win with it, however.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm concerned in general with our big man development
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 7, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, you have to be impressed with what Nate's able to do with an undermanned roster
As far as developing talent and taking a team from good to great… well…
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Much less built to last
/end Jim Collins references :)
by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would argue some of those.
Greg’s fouling issues were better this year, and I blame Nate for yanking him instead of letting him learn to play with fouls. Also, Martell and Trav came out of high school. Travis is what he is, but Martell has shown that he may still become something special. Probably not #2 pick special, but he’ll be worth keeping around.
Nic Batum will be an interesting case, as an immensely talented but fairly raw international player. His development over the next 2-3 years will be more telling than Trout or Marty, IMO.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All but like 2 of Travis's years in the NBA were under Nate
It’s taken Travis 4 years to become a solid 6th man after being in the league a couple years. Now he is what he is, but I see no reason why he shouldn’t have improved more back when he was 20 and 21. Him and Martell were both drafted out of high school for a reason, and yet neither showed much for 3+ years under Nate. High school players are traditionally highly rated. You expect more out of them than what we’ve gotten from our two guys.
Greg’s fouling issues were better, yes, but only marginally, and I think we can all agree that everyone expected more to this point. I have complete and absolute faith that Greg will come back from injury and become a monster, but I think that’s due more to the things that made him THE Greg Oden to begin with as opposed to Nate’s handling of him.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"High school players are traditionally highly rated"
True, but aren’t they also traditionally slow starters in the NBA (with some exceptions)? It seems as if those two ideas negate each other, to an extent.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And yes, I'm too lazy to look up some article about how prep-to-pro players have fared historically.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Slower than, say, Roy, yes
but most of them have proven to be above average NBA players by the end of their rookie deals, excluding the insane ones (Miles, Stevenson) or the ones decimated by injury (Bender, Livingston, Swift). Just off the top of my head: Bynum, Ellis, KG, Kobe, T-Mac, Chandler, Curry (later ate himself out of mediocrity), Amare.
Of course, there are also your Ndubi Ebis and Kwame Browns.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 9:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That LeBron guy is pretty good too
But he’s pretty obscure since he plays in Cleveland.
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 11:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude just needs to make it to a big market to get some respect
I left out him and Dwight simply because they’re on another level as prospects.
Sadly, I also forgot Josh Smith and J.R. Smith, who could possibly be thrown in with the insanity cases.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only if those guys could break out of their shells...
They might be somebodies…
I’d probably put Josh in the above-average and JR in the insane section.
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 8, 2010 12:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
look at where they started
My comment was about winning with new talent rather than player development, but Nate’s looked pretty good at the latter too. He took a team full of kids and built a winner, which while unappreciated by fans is a pretty tough feat to pull off. If you wonder why Webster and Outlaw took so long, look at how old they were on draft day, but how far they’ve come since then. Both have improved every year except when they were out with injury. So has Greg. So has Bayless. So has LMA who is a near all-star and Roy who is an all-star. Batum only played one season, but was better at the end than the start. It’s really easy to point out the faults of any player in the league, but the hallmark of good development is constant improvement, and we’ve gotten that from almost everyone.
Sergio is the exception, but he just isn’t that good at being an NBA PG. He should have a nice career in Europe if and when he goes back.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 10:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you think LMA is a near all star right now
I don’t know what to say.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 10:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By this I mean:
the list of PFs in the West alone who deserve to make the all star team over Lamarcus this year:
Dirk, Duncan, Amare, Pau, Boozer, Landry, Z-Bo. If you want to include all forwards, add Melo, Durant, and arguably Gay and Maggette. If you’re not even a clear top 10 player at your position (by AS balloting) in the conference, there’s no way you should be referred to as a “near all star”.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 10:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Way to focus on a minor point
We’ve still got a roster full of kids who have shown consistent improvement with Nate as coach. It’s a huge track record of improvement. LA may not be an all-star, but he’s pretty far from the guy who got outplayed by Patrick O’Bryant in summer league.
If you think the young players we have aren’t way better than when Nate took over, I don’t know what to say…
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I should definitely be impressed
that the sixrh pick in the draft has become a serviceable role player 4 years into his career, and that Travis Outlaw can be a contributor after only 6 years in the league, and that two lottery picks didn’t get worse in their second years in the league, and of course, that LaMarcus Aldridge can put up the exact same per minute numbers in his 4th year as his rookie year.
Young guys tend to improve, independent of coaching as long as it’s not laughably awful. For me to consider someone a great developmental coach I need to see evidence that more than one guy (Roy) has improved more than you’d expect from natural aging and experience gaining.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Excellent point
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 11:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it's about expectations
I thought it was obvious Webster didn’t deserve to get picked 6th in the draft, but if you expected him and Outlaw to ever grow into something more than serviceable, I guess it makes sense you are disappointed. I don’t know what skills you think they bring to the game that should have made them more successful, but I’m happy Nate took two guys who came in the league totally lost on an NBA court and made them into players who look like they belong.
by sanjait on Jan 8, 2010 12:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and same goes for Batum and Oden
who brought more real potential to the table, but came in with no basketball sense to speak of.
by sanjait on Jan 8, 2010 12:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ooh and Bayless too
They taught him to be an NBA pg, which seems to me like a tough thing to accomplish.
by sanjait on Jan 8, 2010 12:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
all-stars tend to take over games in the 4th quarter
maybe it’s just the system, but LMA seems to run away from the ball during crunch time
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
who is he developing????
With the exception of Roy no player has made consistent improvement
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Roy's the exception here.
I’d wager Roy is very much the same player he was when he was drafted. He’s just more experienced. I don’t think Nate has helped him develop at all. He was complete when he arrived.
I’d also argue that it’s not Nate’s job to develop players. His job is to win games. Assistant coaches put in the time to develop players. In that sense, I can’t think of many head coaches across the league who have been great at developing players. Phil Jackson maybe?
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
by bfan on Jan 7, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to say
because very few coaches have ever had the overwhelming load of youth to deal with that Nate has. IIRC the recent Hawks and the recent Blazers were the two youngest teams ever.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about everyone?
LA got outplayed by Patrick O’Bryant in summer league. Batum looked like a non-factor in his summer league games. Martell was about the worst defender in the league when he started, and got outplayed by Juan Dixon on offense. TO was constantly lost. Greg and Bayless are light years better than last year.
Who hasn’t improved noticeably and consistently? Any particular one can be attributed to individual effort, but when the aggregate trend is that strong it looks lot like good coaching.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 10:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Bayless has loved it here ever since he was drafted. Right.
How soon you forget how unhappy Rex was with his role on this team. He hasn’t been the only one who’s expressed his problems, with both past and present players.
by Coastie07 on Jan 7, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rex was unhappy not playing
That’s unavoidable when you are buried on a deep roster. But the difference is he kept working more than whining, and because he is willing to play the way coach wants (mostly staying useful off the ball), he beat out Miller for 4th quarter minutes.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
andre miller is who he is though
He’s been a classic distributor/starting point guard in the NBA for 10 years now. If Nate wants a point guard who doesn’t play like Andre Miller, he shouldn’t have signed Andre Miller. Signing the guy then blaming him for not changing might be satisfying, but it doesn’t diminish the fact that you should have signed someone else.
by atomiccafe on Jan 7, 2010 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It goes both ways
It’s looking more like a management mistake, but I’m sure they would argue that a player always has to adapt to a new offense and new team. As much as he claims to be a professional, has Miller tried to do that, or just complained about how the team isn’t adapting to him?
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i think he's been a bit of a baby too
but at the same time, why is he shooting three times as many threes as he shot last year? He’s bad at it, and he doesn’t like doing it. McMillan is setting him up to fail by putting him behind the three point line receiving flaming bag passes. No matter how much he wants to adapt (and I agree you can question is “adaptability”) he won’t make those at a high percentage because he’s bad at it.
by atomiccafe on Jan 7, 2010 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the idea over the summer was
to find ways to take the pressure off Roy. Maybe the best way is to change the basic game plan. Most teams that have one superstar and a supporting cast of role players may have some success in the regular season, but it very rarely translates into playoff victories.
Miller’s ability to get the team to do well with his style of play certainly exposes some of the weakness in Nate’s coaching. As if it wasn’t already apparent with trying to blend in Oden’s game with the rest of the team. Instead of changing and adapting a game plan to the personnel at hand, Nate seems to be just another coach that overvalues his ‘system’. It might seem logical to look at the improved record over the last five years as vindication, but I think it has more to do with the quality of players that KP has brought in, than Nate’s system. I mean it would be quite an achievement to NOT win with these guys. If Nate took the players from five years ago and got them to over 500, that would be impressive indeed.
Miller has shown he can direct the team when he’s in the game. It’s only natural that the coach would have some territorial issues but it’s to his detriment at times and this looks like one of them. Nate has show a high degree of mental rigidity in a game that’s fluid by nature. The coach has also been inconsistent with saying the best players will be on the court.
As far as the new guys go, that’s all Nate has left. Who else is he going to play? Not only that, this is their chance. Of course they’re going to try to play well. They’re motivated. They’re going to leave it all on the floor. When the injured players start coming back, they’re going back to the end of the bench.
And speaking of injured players returning, what’s going to happen when they’re all healthy and deserving of playing time. Miller’s just the tip of the iceberg. How do you not start Batum? What do you do with Fernandez? Has Nate learned the Blazers can play without Outlaw? What has Nate learned, if anything? Will he have the creativity to get all these players to mesh? To get them to do “what we want to do”? I have my doubts. If the answer to all this is to have Blake play 35 minutes a game, the odds are high that it’s going to be a long season.
by rockman on Jan 7, 2010 4:19 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
All solid points
Rec to u, sir.
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 5:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
seems like part of the pouting
Only a fraction of the 3s Miller takes are at the shot clock buzzer. If his head is in the game he drives the ball, but if he is floating out there not really into it, he jacks up a 3. That’s part of not playing the way coach wants him to play, because no coach likes players who take bad 3s.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 10:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
According to Pritchard...
At the initial meeting between McMillan, Pritchard and Miller in Las Vegas, McMillan and Miller hit it off so famously that KP just sat back and watched. Sounds to me like the management above McMillan have every right to be just as puzzled by these developments as we are.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Miller hasn't reportedly asked for a trade either though. Rex has.
by Coastie07 on Jan 7, 2010 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When?
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Was before the last road trip, apparently
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jan 7, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess is Dre will be moved before too long
But all things considered I don’t think Nate stays past next year either…
by dulcamara on Jan 7, 2010 12:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
based on the Blazers winning a high percentage with a gutted roster?
I’m not sure that line of thinking holds. Maybe they don’t like each other, but something nice is happening. You just don’t fire nice.
If they fall apart, then maybe.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Jan 7, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good for Miller
He has the right to stick up for himself, Miller is a great point guard and if Nate could see that we would win more games. I also see Miller getting moved, unfairly albeit.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
by RyanRTE on Jan 7, 2010 12:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Miller may have been a great point guard.
He’s been pretty average this year though. Now I suppose that could be on Nate. But this was a problem that was forseen by nearly everyone before Miller was signed. He was an aging player who needed the ball in his hands playing on a team which needs Roy to have the ball in his hands.
I want him to succeed, because if he does, then the Blazers do too. I also want Nate to succeed for the same reason. Though, if Miller is moved, then I think it will be the best move for both parties.
πεντήκοντα δύο
by T Darkstar on Jan 7, 2010 1:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Trade Miller for a big man !!
Can we get Brandon a body suit, PLEASE ??
Go Blazers !!
by FrenchieFan on Jan 7, 2010 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Blake for a big man !!
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Blake for something...anything!
My head will explode if I see Blake log 30+ minutes with Rudy and Nic sitting side by side on the bench.
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 11:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree, unfortunately
I also thought Miller was an odd fit with Roy, but expected them to find a way to make it work. Nate should be blamed for not managing egos and expectations well, and Miller should be blamed for not acting like a pro (even if he insisted he was going to just be professional over and over…) and making the best of the role he was asked to play. If they can work it out it that is the best outcome, but it seems doubtful.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
excellent summation
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 7, 2010 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Miller was on the bench in the 4th
how come not one person mentioned hearing him yell to JB4 to make the FT?
by Escrote on Jan 7, 2010 12:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
because he was put into the game with 9 seconds left… so he was on the floor at the time of the FT
by Polish Chocolate on Jan 7, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
I meant to title that as the play-by-play
by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2010 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is also what I wonder, I did not see this at all on TV
Yet I did see Brandon tell him to miss it
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm wondering if that really occured
Bayless does have a history of what he calls “miscommunications” that could be described as a “lack of truthfulness” on his part. Multiple times this has happened.
by dulcamara on Jan 7, 2010 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good point.
and even if bayless is being truthful, i thought he should’ve been more responsible with what he said. i mean, was it necessary to add that it was andre who told him to make it? why not just leave it and “one guy said miss, the other said make it”?
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are we assuming Bayless ratted on Andre...
or was this written/tweeted somewhere?
"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave
by DC Blazer on Jan 7, 2010 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"One person said to miss it, one person said make it," Bayless said. "I just shot it. It was a miscommunication. … Brandon said miss it. Andre said make it. And I was like, I had to shoot it, so."
quote from http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2010/01/memphis_grizzlies_109_trail_bl.html
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm..interesting point.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Check the video
http://www.nba.com/games/20100105/MEMPOR/gameinfo.html (1:45 mark, roughly)
Both Miller and Roy walk up to Bayless at the same time. Regardless of if they told him different things, they were all there to hear it. It’s not like Roy walked up to Bayless, told him one thing, and then Miller snuck in to confuse Jerryd.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here we go down the rabbit hole again.
Please lets over analyze the situation some more.
[insert witty nomenclature and/or out of context quote from someone that makes more money than I]
by HallelujahHoeDown on Jan 7, 2010 12:58 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
No worries there.
People will.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
McMillan later fired back: "You don't play the way we want to play."
Yup, no posting up opposing PGs for easy baskets or drawing fouls on the drive, and don’t even think about a fluid, dynamic offense here in Portland!
by dulcamara on Jan 7, 2010 12:58 PM PST reply actions 10 recs
And heaven forbid you should get easy points off of fastbreaks, back-cut layups, etc.
Rec’d.
I can only hope that, should the Blazers ship Andre Miller off, it won’t be before he’s taught his teammates how to play the game of basketball. Is he a bricklayer? No question. But so is Jason Kidd, and everyone deifies him.
Andre Miller came here at an affordable price, and he brought the exact qualities the Blazers have sorely lacked in their point guard play.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
You too, Przy: everyone knows you're the heart & soul of the Blazers.
by hurryup09 on Jan 7, 2010 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what a bunch of crap
passing the blame as always.
way to go, coach.
by CleBlazer on Jan 7, 2010 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Miller's at fault here
… for not telling Bayless to make the first free throw too.
by Scorcho on Jan 7, 2010 12:59 PM PST reply actions 14 recs
LOL REC'd
"What I´m sure about is that I never had a gun. For gunfights I have the Playstation."
~Rudy Fernandez
by twiggs on Jan 7, 2010 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Toms domino theory at work again!
If he made the first, then Miller would have been correct to tell him to make the second. But alas, Tom is correct in going to the root of any problem. Remember the dominos! REC!
#52
by KINGofMACct on Jan 7, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I want there to be fallout from this
In the sense that I want the Lakers to feel our wrath.
Seriously, who thought that BOTH teams would lose to the Clips this week.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 1:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm still a little curious
as to what Nate thinks Andre is doing. I don’t think he addressed that in his comments to you, Ben.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 1:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
would be very interesting
But it’s hard to blame Nate for not specifying Miller’s alleged faults to the press. Calling him out publicly would only make things worse, so he’s going out of his way to say “it’s a team thing”, even if it’s really an Andre thing.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I was just making fun of the
“Andre’s been doing some good things” quote.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Calling him out publicly would only make things worse, so he’s going out of his way to say "it’s a team thing"
Nate’s floating down a river name De Nile…
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who didn’t see this coming?
You don't need a Maserati to mow the lawn.
by pxilpooshr on Jan 7, 2010 1:05 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Me
I thought Miller was a professional.
Ha, I can’t even type that with a straight face.
by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2010 5:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so nate, what kind of things do you think andre miller does?
I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things.
bayless leaves over my dead body
Start Bayless (in a 2 guard lineup)
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52
#4
#24
by thomasikehara on Jan 7, 2010 1:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i am anti nate
but at least he is being professional about this and not airing his dirty laundry.
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"both teams played hard"
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I spent too much time
reading the Most Significant Event of the Decade post and reliving the 2000 loss.
by superfly05 on Jan 7, 2010 1:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
There is no justifiable way to treat Andre like this
McMillan wanted Miller on the team himself. The mistake was thinking that a solid veteran All Star PG would be content with “leading the 2nd unit,” and not just leading the 2nd unit behind Chris Paul or someone, but Steve Blake. Are you kidding? Where’s the respect? And despite Andre finally starting, Blake still gets the overwhelming majority of the minutes. Really Nate? Really?? Even after Miller proving his worth these past few months, he’s still being sat in the 4th quarter? Even with Blake out?
Disgusting.
by thetsaiguy on Jan 7, 2010 1:08 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
"overwhelming majority"
They played about the same minutes all year. And if you really think about it, Miller’s role was leading the 2nd unit behind Brandon Roy, who is the superstar running the first unit, and who said himself he couldn’t seem to get comfortable playing with Miller at the start of the year.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok maybe "overwhelming majority" is an exaggeration
but it’s Blake who’s playing crunch time, we-need-someone-who-can-be-trusted time. I know Roy said he had trouble fitting in with Miller at the beginning of the year, but look at them now. They seem to be meshing quite well. And superstars need to be able to evolve and adapt. That’s the only way adding championship pieces can work out (not saying Miller is a championship piece, just an example).
by thetsaiguy on Jan 7, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crunch time is still about Roy
Even more than the starting unit, we are going to end the game with the ball in his hands. Who plays best in that circumstance? Do you really think that is Miller? What exactly does he do well when he doesn’t have the ball (I’ll give you O-rebs … but what else)?
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By crunch time I meant "critical" time ie. in the 4th quarter when the score is close
Roy can’t do everything by himself. Definitely Roy needs the ball if we’re like down 1 with 5 seconds left or something, but the period leading up till then Andre should really be in there as a laxative for ball movement and good offense.
by thetsaiguy on Jan 7, 2010 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Miller plays best in that circumstance.
He can get Roy the ball in places that Blake simply won’t attempt to.
No he’s not an outside threat, but why do we need multiple outside threats again in the fourth quarter unless we’re down by three in the closing seconds?
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because they prevent double teams
When Miller isn’t a threat to do anything without the ball, his man is free to roam and double team Roy, who himself is a lot better at creating his own shot than moving without the ball, so he doesn’t need Miller to get him the ball in places.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 10:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
because we are in isolation mode
miller wont get roy the ball in those situations bc roy will already have the ball…and even if miller had the ball, brandon isnt the best person that moves without the ball.
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 8, 2010 12:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
crunch time will always be blake
unless andre or bayless can develop a solid 3 point shot. we played with a 3g lineup using andre, bayless, and roy…the defense was sagging off bayless and andre like crazy putting extra pressure on roy. that cant happen. roy needs space to work.
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, better players tend to make better plays
I understand the logic behind it, but it strikes me as similar to Avery Johnson benching Jason Kidd in crunch time because he wanted “shooters” out there. If we’re down three, I fully endorse putting Blake out there regardless of the circumstances, but I think it’s a fallacy to assume that the only outcomes of a play will be Roy taking a shot or a 3. There are lots of things that can happen after Roy kicks it out to the PG beyond just a spotting up.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
just sayin...but up 8 who cares about 3's? ball control ball handling play making
Martell shoulda been out w/ Miller in…Martell was already tired…roy and Jerryd shoot 3’s well enough….whatever…
what is the completion rate of a “Roy on 5 ISO” with 7 on the clock? The rest of the offense was close to 60% all night…2 more baskets at 3 min mark, they’d have thrown their scrubs in…
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The funny thing about Roy saying he wasn't comfortable playing with Miller is the fact that Roy had the best stretch of his career when Miller finally started.
Hmmm, maybe Roy can play well with Miller? Either he didn’t know this or he didn’t feel “comfortable” knowing this.
by Coastie07 on Jan 7, 2010 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're forgetting
the ton of other variables that occurred in the same time span as Miller starting that had a greater effect on Roy’s elevated game.
by jigglyai on Jan 7, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Roy has also refuted that "comfort" notion repeatedly.
I think now too many of us are projecting that onto Roy. He said early on that he was comfortable (i.e. familear) with Blake. Too many of us have twisted that into him meaning that he was NOT comfortable with Miller. Roy has directly disavowed that sentiment repeatedly.
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 7, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Nice use of contrapositives!
"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 7, 2010 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
flagged for logical terms
go study for the LSAT
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Jan 7, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh too late
been there done that. ::facepalm hobobob::
So I asked you back in some other thread where the heck you’ve been recently but thought I’d repeat the question here.
"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 7, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When did he refute it?
I remember when he first said it, and he didn’t call out Miller, but when he said he was more comfortable with Blake, and since Miller was the primary alternative at the time, it’s pretty simple deduction to identify who he was less comfortable with.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Roy had the best stretch of his career when Miller finally started.
Good point. Andre was supposedly brought in to help Roy (and the other Blazers) to score more easy baskets. We know Roy never scored 20+ points 15 games in a row when Steve Blake was the starting PG
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blake was on the court though
for most of the minutes Roy played and scored those points. Not sure why people think it matters so much who starts rather than who plays the minutes, but Miller and Blake have both played consistent minutes all season no matter who started, so however hot Roy is probably isn’t from any difference there.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure why people think it matters so much who starts rather than who plays the minutes
It shouldn’t matter, but it does. Try convincing Roy or LMA they would be better off as 6th men. Yet Miller has started more NBA games than the 2 of them, combined
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 11:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is Miller being old relevant here?
Who cares who started more games in the past?
As for whether starting matters, I was talking about the stats Roy put up. How does Miller starting and playing 30 mpg rather than coming off the bench for 30 mpg affect how easily Roy scores 23 points over the whole game? That makes it pretty hard to credit to Miller, unless we think Miller starting the game somehow creates a residual effect that helps Roy play better the entire game even when Miller is out. Come to think of it, Roy seems to do the most damage in the 4th, which during most of his streak was without Miller entirely…
But if we’re talking about egos, Manu Ginobili and even Lamar Odom showed us that very good players can come off the bench behind nominally lesser players to run the second unit. Why couldn’t Miller do the same? He isn’t as good as either of them.
by sanjait on Jan 8, 2010 12:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it's relevant because
you’re asking a guy who has started NBA games for 10+ years to come off the bench behind an inferior player, for the good of the team (which was highly debatable…)
Lamar and Manu are not in the same category. If younger vets like Roy or LMA agreed to become 6th men, then they would be comparable to Odom and Ginobli.
If Miller’s game had fallen off to the table due to his age, then he would’ve been expected to accept a reduced role, but we all can see that this clearly hasn’t been the case
Nate was asking Andre to do something that few veteran PGs have ever been required to do, and Miller shouldn’t be blamed for objecting to it. If Dre had quietly gone to the bench and said nothing about the demotion, then he wouldn’t have had the competitive fire necessary to start for 10 years and miss only a handful of games
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 9, 2010 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also agree that Miller should have played the fourth
and I’m guessing his role with the team is really what this argument is about. But wait one sec… Miller actually thought it was a good idea to make that last FT? no timeouts, 4 secs left? hmmm.. don’t know about that.
"There are a lot of computers in Portland and a lot of people with time on their hands, or who are passionate enough about their Blazers to make time. After several years of writing about basketball on fake paper, that's a conclusion I will fight to the death to defend. It's a small city, and yet no fanbase so passionately and so adroitly makes its presence felt in this sphere." Word.
by doggpound84 on Jan 7, 2010 1:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
hoping to get “lucky” and get an offensive rebound is a better option? if you miss the second and don’t get it, you’re down at least 3 probably 4. game over.. u make it, down 1 and you foul. At least you have a chance for a Houston-like heave for a tie.
by Polish Chocolate on Jan 7, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With no time out...yup..that is exactly what you do
and the coaches and Brandon Roy agree
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it depends on the coach
Do you bet on being able to push the ball in 3+ seconds for a 3 point attempt, or bet on getting an offensive rebound off of a freethrow? I actually think the former is more likely, because the latter, plus 2 made freethrows after the foul, seals the game…
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 7:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially considering we had Brandon
and LA going against Gasol and Z-Bo for said rebound.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
trooth
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If done correctly ...it won't be a regular rebound
it will be a long rebound …maybe even Jerryd gets it back. The reason you have to miss it is what ended up happening ….the other team misses the second on purpose and you can’t call time out and advance the ball
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
even if you got the rebound clean
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because we couldn't even get a defensive board to have another chance
Did you watch the play? The entire Memphis team crashed the paint immediately and had Jerryd boxed out the second it left his hand, basically. Barring an absurdly unlikely super high and far rebound, that wasn’t coming back to Jerryd.
Besides, now we’re talking about Jerryd not just missing the rebound, but he has to miss it correctly, too, just to have a decent chance at a board. How exactly is this a much higher percentage play than us having to grab a defensive board, race down the court and shoot a 3?
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I watched the play...I was at the game.
and yes…when you try to miss a free throw on purpose, you do one of 2 things…either hard at the back rim…or hard at the front rim (and it has to touch the rim) ….both of those things can result in a long rebound and an excellent chance
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, you try to do that
How often “can” you do that when you’re trying? Watch the replay. By the time the ball gets to the rim and Bayless is allowed to leave the line to go for the board, Mayo and Gay are both on top of him. A low, hard rebound and it goes right into those guys’ laps, so you need it to be a decently high board that still travels far enough horizontally to get back to him if Bayless is going to get that board.
When you factor in the odds of him being able to hit the rim just right, get an offensive board with an undersized lineup, and then get make a contested shot in traffic, that’s just not appreciably easier than getting a defensive rebound, racing down the court in 4 seconds and making a 3.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if Jerryd produces a nasty bounce leading to a long rebound
The chances of the blazers a)coming up with it… and b) converting it in 3 seconds is slim to none.
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 9:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the problem wasn't the fact that Memphis missed the 2nd FT on purpose
which I don’t think they did. looked like he was trying to make it to me. The problem was we didn’t get the rebound at all – knocking it out of bounds off of us. If Roy corrals that rebound, there is enough time to get up a decent 3 point shot.
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 7, 2010 7:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Even if we had got the rebound
and gathered it in …there would have been maybe 2 ..2.5 secs left ….to get to the front court and heave it
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bayless has a history of "miscommunications"
as I stated above. I tend to be skeptical of his statements these days.
If Miller did actually tell him that though, JB knows the situation and what you’re supposed to do, Roy clearly told him to miss, my thought is that he had brain freeze and then needed an out.
by dulcamara on Jan 7, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thats a good point
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thinking today about the situation
I think it’s a 50/50 argument on whether to make or miss that free throw.
option A: Miss on purpose, making sure you hit the rim, snag the rebound, then make what is likely a tough shot in a ton of traffic. what are the odds? 10%
option B: Make, foul, then be left with 3.3 seconds to move from your own FT line to the other 3 point line, and get up a decent look to tie or win? what are the odds of that? 10% again?
I dunno, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk decision either way. if you actually overruled the coach, that’s a problem. if you honestly thought the other call was a better one, I think you can make that case.
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 7, 2010 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm waiting to hear if the timing is established.
I don’t think Nate or Andre would intentionally want their team to lose. Which means this is very likely a miscommunication. Such as these scenarios:
1. Andre walked over and told him to make the second free throw immediately after missing the first (as encouragement), then Brandon came over later and told him to miss after getting the call from Nate (but not telling JB that), and Bayless was confused.
2. They both told JB different stuff, and JB thought Andre was relaying Nate’s info.
3. Brandon told JB first, then Andre came over afterwards, either not hearing (or misinterpreting) Nate’s call, and gave JB encouragement.
The whole Nate/Andre/Brandon/Bayless thing is probably a big miscommunication.
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
video
http://www.nba.com/games/20100105/MEMPOR/gameinfo.html (1:45 for the FT)
Looks like they both walked up immediately after Bayless missed the first. If Bayless didn’t know what to do, I think it’s on him. Roy was right there and would probably have overruled Miller if that was the case. Besides, based on Bayless’s reaction, he didn’t look too happy making the FT at the time, which would imply that he listened to Roy and was trying to miss it regardless of what Miller said.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The NBA.com video isn't launching for me (of course).
Does it look like Bayless simply didn’t realize he was going against the coaches call? It sounds like classic encouragement by Bayless (“Don’t sweat this, make the second one, and we’ll get a steal”)
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't show the entire sequence between FTs
He misses the first, and Roy and Miller both immediately walk up and say something to him, not quite a huddle, but close enough that all three of them could have heard what the other was saying. Maybe Miller could have gone back in and said something after that, but I don’t think so.
After the FT and foul it has a shot of Bayless’s face walking back to the huddle looking disgusted with himself, so the cuts make it a little inconclusive, but if Miller was saying to make it, Roy was in a position to know that and overrule him.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It really just sounds like a miscommunication
IMO, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks of Miller, he would never knowingly submarine a team’s chances in a game, or override a coaches’ call in that situation.
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Besides, even if he wasn't sure what to do
what’s the worst that could happen, he accidentally misses instead of intentionally missing it?
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s the thing, unfortunately Broy is a top 10 player in the league and Andre Miller is not even top 20. Because of that, it is mostly Andre’s job to do what he can to mesh with Broy. Could Broy help this process? Sure. Has Miller had a chance to mesh with Broy? Maybe, But it doesn’t change the fact that it is on him to do so. When Shaq got traded to Clev, Pau to LA, Jermaine to Miami, Jefferson to SA, Etc., almost everyone said and agreed it was their job to mesh with the superstars(Lebron, Kobe, Dwade, Duncan) not the other way around. This change has clearly been hard for Andre.
I do think there is a system, especially now with Oden out, where Andre and Broy could coexist. That system would utilized Andre’s amazing ability to post up, rather his amazing ability to abuse the rim with his flat line jumpers. I just don’t know if its going to happen. Especially now.
I just don’t see why everyone is backing Andre, when it appears (to an outside observer) that the majority of this is on him, but who knows.
by organjet on Jan 7, 2010 1:09 PM PST reply actions 9 recs
I think you're on to something.
Roy has got to be the focus of the offense. Otherwise we’re just wasting his talents out there. Now, that doesn’t mean Roy Isos all game, but still, Miller has to make himself available out there. Since Oden went out, I cant remember Miller cutting to the basket when he didn’t have the ball. Just kind of hanging out, waiting to hit an outside shot.
I don’t know how much of that is Andre’s effort (which isn’t particularly consistent) or McMillan’s system (which is appropriately Roycentric, but not to Miller’s strengths).
πεντήκοντα δύο
by T Darkstar on Jan 7, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
when's the last time you saw *ANY* Blazer consistently cutting to the hoop?
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw the chosen Juwon cutting to the hoop quite a bit last game
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jan 7, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably true
If so he’s one of the few
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
that he Brings some great things to the table like his ability to post up, to cut where the defense is weak and to find open cutters. Our offense should be more focused on those things for 3 and 1/2 quarters, because when it is, it is a thing of beauty, but with under 6 minutes to go in the 4th it is Roy time and there is a reason it is Roy time. He creates really high percentage shots for himself and his teammates. For example, against Memphis Bayless and Webster missed wide open threes, created from Brandon’s Isos. One of those threes will usually fall which seals the game, but on that night they didn’t. Doesn’t mean you go away from it. And here the great thing about Broy he takes what the defense gives him in crunch time and doesn’t force garbage shots with 2-3 players hands in his face, which is extremely impressive for a young superstar.
by organjet on Jan 7, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
rec organjet
That sums it up. I hope they can find a way to put the pieces together and utilize Miller’s talents with Roy, but with all the bad mojo it seems less likely.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A rec for the line "ability to abuse the rim with his flat line jumpers"
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i actually think Miller and Roy have meshed well together
we have played well for long stretches with both of them in the game – specifically the first 6 minutes of each game when both are starting. I really think the mesh thing is overblown.
i think it has a lot more to do with having a shooter on the floor when we go to the 1-4 iso in crunchtime, so I get that. I think Miller gets that too. The issue is why he isn’t out there for the previous 4-5 minutes before that, giving us a 2nd guy who can initiate the offense. This is especially true if Roy is not working, like against the Clips, or if teams are taking the all out of his hands.
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 7, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially if we're losing
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When they dont mesh is when Nate goes to the 1-4 Iso to close games
Which has had mixed results in comparison to the last couple of years…
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't Miller be the one distributing and Roy be the shooter?
Roy is better coming off of screens anyway – as was proven by a previous post that went over the advanced stats earlier this season.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I....don't....know....
I’d personally go with whoever has the better matchup/better game up to that point, but I’m not the coach…
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 8, 2010 12:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, Roy is a better player
But you’re comparing apples & oranges. Miller is more experienced and is a true point guard. Miller is, I believe, #3 in assists among active point guards. This is not chopped liver. I think Andre Miller has much to teach this young Blazers team—including the gifted Brandon Roy—about playing the game of basketball.
I was born in '52, and I believe in #52. Hang in there, GO.
You too, Przy: everyone knows you're the heart & soul of the Blazers.
by hurryup09 on Jan 7, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As I stated above I agree Miller can help
and has helped us. It’s just things would have gone a lot smoother if he took the Juwan Howard approach, helping in anyway possible, without overstepping his bounds. When you’re new to the team, over the hill in basketball years, when everyone is healthy you’re importance to the team is 3rd, 4th, 5th or even lower, and you realize that the last time a true point guard lead a team to a Championship was Isiah, your energy should probably be focused on blending and helping, rather than PT.
It makes sense that this would be a struggle for him, considering it is the first time he’s had to do it, compared to Juwan who has been doing it for years now.
by organjet on Jan 7, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the thing about the thing
Roy is a top 10 player, but he is in his 4th year, not his 10th+ like all of the superstars on the teams you mentioned, except LBJ. Roy’s game needs to improve for this team to win, as good as he is, the Blazers can not win with him doing as much work as he is. We only need to look back a few years and remember watching Kobe shoulder the load for LA with no help, or Wade last year for Miami. As dominate as Roy can be, those players had much better seasons during those years that Roy has put up yet, and they couldn’t get it done, so we know Roy won’t be able to get it done playing the way the Blazers play.
Miller was brought in to help change that, we were sold a bill of goods by KP and Nate that the team would change, that they had learned from the playoff loss to the Rockets, but that was obviously not what Roy wanted as he rebelled during the preseason and early part of the season against any changes. He felt that the team had won 54 games last year, and that was pretty good. For me it was the point where Roy stopped being my fav player on the team and Oden became that player. While I still love Roy and want him on the team for his whole career, he needs to change for this team to really be successful. 54 wins is not good enough in my mind, no amount of wins is, only a championship is good enough.
Miller didn’t need the whole team to change for him, the team needed Miller to help them change. LMA was quoted early in the season as not knowing that after setting a pick he could role to the basket and get a pass for a dunk. The most basic and simple play in all of basketball and the teams #2 scorer didn’t know how to run it. O.o /boggle
All of that said, I hope this season has more of this, this year has to be the year of the cocoon, where this team forms its identity, with which it will play the next decade, and hopefully bring a championship to Portland.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jan 7, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Or Lebron in his first 3-4 years
Or MJ in his first 8 years, or Oscar, Or KG, or Robinson, or Pierce as long as we’re talking about stars who didn’t win until later in their careers when they got some serious help.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And LeBron is LeBron
Dude is special, a once in a generation player, Roy is not THAT good, although he’s very very good.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s hard to claim that the blazers wouldn’t be able to get a championship if they continued to grow like they had in the previous three years.
If you take the game 1 beat down out, which can clearly be attributed to the whole team being playoff virgins, you would likely be looking at a 2nd round exit by the hands of the L*kers. Add a healthy Oden to the #1 offense, the growth rooks named Boom-Boom, his royal nayness and Rudy, marinate it for a couple of years and I am pretty sure you will have a team with an excellent chance at a title or two over the next 10 years.
by organjet on Jan 7, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
rec
Good stuff. If Greg had stayed healthy, I think Miller and Oden would’ve continued to develop into an unstoppable duo and a lot of what Andre and Nate are going through now would have been kept below the surface. But now this is beginning to look like a divorce, based on “irreconcilable differences” and KP is trying to smooth the waters so he doesn’t get further low-balled in his attempts to deal Miller
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
incomplete analysis.
Andre’s job is to play basketball, make a good faith effort to listen to his coach, get along with his teammates, and mind his own career.
But the “meshing” is primarily a managerial concern. First, it falls on KP to be mindful of the team chemistry when making an acquisition. Second, it falls on the coach to create the circumstances in which team chemistry can flourish. Lastly, it falls on the existing team leadership to respond positively to challenges to team chemistry.
There is a natural adjustment that occurs with any new hire. It has not hard to see why a veteran like Miller would not welcome what to him was a demotion. Portland seems to want to reinvent the wheel when it comes to management. Fine, but acknowledge that that’s not the way business is generally done. In general, sports teams start and play their best players in the fourth quarter.
"The only 'Advanced Metric' that matters is what you see with your eyes." -Timbo, Nov., 2009.
by Blazin' on Jan 7, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have known guys like Miller
They are former supervisors….and are looking for a job…..they are offered a clerk job but also are told that there will be a sup position opening up and they will be free to apply for it when it does. They take the clerk job and since he is former sup he figures he is a shoo in for the sup position…but another guy gets it and he is pissed…Later, due to circumstances he is asked to fill in for a sup out on leave…he is doing well but is still pissed because he didn’t get sup job at the start also this sup position here is a little different than at his last job and he doesn’t think his manager appreciates his expertise in the matter when he doesn’t agree with how the department is being ran. He then gets into an argument with the manager and could possibly lose his job over it…and the shame of it all is, if he had just continued to contribute …worked hard and made himself valuable …he would have likely been able to keep the job he wanted all along
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 7:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
good way of saying it
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 7:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Off of a few newspaper quotes you got all that huh?
Color me skeptical.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I used the same info that everyone else did
and I came up with conclusion that is just as valid as some these posts that are 3 times as long
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
My question still stands.
You don’t “know” Miller any better than I do. I don’t see him as anything like your analogy portrays.
I think you had to make quite a few rather large assumptions about the man’s personality to make that statement.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 10:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am glad this is green
I’m glad there is some common sense on the internet, even if it’s just a pinch.
by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2010 5:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are absolutely right, and unfortunately Andre is using the logic that he is more experienced, and a veteran in the league, to the detriment of meshing with the team.
He probably thought that he would provide leadership to this “young” team. and the “youngsters” would automatically acknowledge his leadership as an established player. This obviously is not what happened, and all people involved have gotten more stolid in there determination that they have the correct position in the situation, instead of being flexible and trying to figure out how to make it work. Communication would have gone a long way towards fostering flexibility in this situation, and I’m not sure that any of the three parties between Roy, Miller and Nate are necessarily the best communicators.
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see Andre meshing with the team pretty well
Its his meshing with Nate thats not working…
You don’t pull 16 dimes unmeshed…
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 6:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But I don't think he's meshed with Roy very well, which is evident when they are on the court together.
Brandon seems to get really lazy in his off-ball play, almost like he’s pouting. I think the crux of the problem is between Nate, Roy, and Miller and not between Miller and the rest of the team. I think Miller has been utilized in a strange way since he’s been here, I think he had a different idea about what his role would be when he was signed, and I think Nate has tried to play both sides here, which does not lend itself to gaining trust between himself and Andre. While it’s easy to say that Andre is not a good fit, I think that marginalizes all of the little things, that have led to this situation.
I believe Nate intended to move the offense into more of a fast-break type offense which lends itself better to Andre’s style of play, that type of offense was certainly absent as we got into the playoff’s last year. However I don’t think that this was discussed properly with Roy, and I don’t think he likes fast breaks, as evidenced by his gameplay. How many times have we witnessed the blazers getting the ball with an opportunity to fast break, and seen Roy, “wisely slow the game down”? This is why Blake was placed back in the starting lineup, even though Miller is a superior point guard. But I’m not sure this was explained the right way to Andre, or maybe he didn’t want to hear it. Nate has said from the beginning, that players will earn their roster spots, but he has not made good on this statement. He has tried to placate Roy to his own detriment. Whether other people on the team were even aware of some of these feelings of resentment is obviously debatable, and I’m obviously speculating here, but it’s not debatable that there were indeed many pent up feelings that were unleashed today. If the rest of the team were not aware of these feelings until today, it’s certainly possible that some of the less established players had begun to view Andre as a vet and mentor, and it’s especially understandable in the case of Greg, who was getting more passes with Dre in the game, than with Blake, and Bayless whose game more closely resembles Miller’s over Blake’s.
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
how do you mesh with a pouter? Pout too?
does Roy get less shots with Miller on the floor? Does Roy need to stand there dribbling for 10 seconds before driving one on three, or can Dre pass him the ball off a screen?
and well..the fast break crew is all on the IR..
I think Miller assumed he was gonna start over Blake when he signed — he claims he was told that maybe not…whatever…but then, it was to be it was performanced based, to be earned…then somehow not being giving the reins after displaying the skill…I can understand his “…I been here…blah months and still don’t know what is going on..” comment from the other day…whats a guy supposed to do? He’s doing whatever he always did…seemed to be putting out a ton of effort last week…with decent results…steals rebounds assist points.FT% good..He knew he was sitting cause Nate don’t like him…
Nate gets alot of credit for the increas in wins over the past few years…I think its just maturation of a talented group and give those individuals and the ones who assembled them more credit than Nate
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
rec
Especially when you have Brandon Roy, that guy would make me look good as a coach.
My plan: “Give Roy the ball and get out the way”…
But I am no where near an nba coach…
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh wait....
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well you just described 20%+ of Blazer offense didn't you?
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
WINK
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so do you think that the onus for any chemistry issues are only on nate and roy?
Roy is the franchise, and although Dre dropped 16 assists the other night, he hasn’t done that every night. Yeah I know his career average is way higher than blake’s. I said I thought his role here was misrepresented to him, and Nate’s gone back on his word to Andre about earning playing time. There is however a stark contrast between the way Dre brings the ball up the floor and how Blake/Roy do it. I’m not justifying Roy’s inability to figure out a way to play with Dre, but I am saying that one of these guys is the franchise player, and the other is here on a 3 year contract for a quarter of the price. Now obviously Dre has more experience, but if he is not willing to play a style that better incorporates Roy, then he is not going to get very far. Imagine for a second that Dre went to the Lakers, and then was not giving Kobe looks, but instead was driving to the basket every chance he got. How would that go over with Kobe and Phil, especially if Phil had tried to tell him he needs to slow his game down? Look my main point was that I felt communication between these three key figures was the main failure that has brought the team to this current crisis. And some of that responsibility lands on Andre as well.
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
But my question to you is if you think Roy can continue to handle this kind of responsibility when the blazers are hopefully contending? How well did Roy incorporate Greg into the gameplan while maintaining his solid level of play? I hate to say it, because Roy has been a top 5 player in the nba, but he needs to adjust his game a little bit. He can be just as effective without all of those silly 1-4 iso’s. I am sick of that set, the only reason it works is because Roy is an incredible player. As a coach, I would ask him to expand his game, that set will always be in Roy’s back pocket. Relying on it makes it too easy for opposing coaches to game plan against it, just look at the clippers game. Roy can’t be superman all of the time…
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am in complete agreement with the stagnation of our offense when run through Roy, and I do think that Andre could greatly benefit this team, if he was given more time with Roy.
But I think keeping it all in, and then blowing up at the coach in front of the whole team is not the right way to communicate his frustrations. I hope I’m wrong that this has maybe rang the death-knell on his time here in portland, but it may have. I would have hoped that he would have figured out a way to still bring his own style of play to the starting lineup while allowing more switches as to who is running the plays, ie. letting roy get a few more looks. Sometimes when new people are brought into a new working environment, they need to placate the people who have been there for awhile, especially the people who helped get the organization to where it was in the first place. Now I think there are certain things that Roy has said this year about leadership, and his need to be running the team, that I have not liked. While they may have been coming from the right place, his desire to continue winning, he does not necessarily in my mind, yet have the perspective or the knowledge that can only be earned with experience. But that is another way that Miller could have helped Roy, instead of alienating himself from him. Miller should have enough perspective to understand how to foster the talent and ambition in Roy, and how to use him to his strengths, rather than trying to just bring in his own game, and try to get Roy to play along.
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't see them having problems on the court at all.
Yeah they had some issues in the beginning of the season, but then they were new to each other.
Brandon has said that his comments about familiarity with Blake weren’t meant to mean that he didn’t want to play along-side of Miller at all. He in fact stated that he didn’t have a preference between Blake and Miller and that he was willing to play with either.
Since that time Miller has been playing on the court with Roy and the team has been doing quite well in that situation. So I really don’t get where you’re coming from at all.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I guess I'm just imagining it, and Andre really didn't explode out of frustration towards the team, or the organization, or the coaches or anything.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but that last line about not knowing where I’m coming from at all, just kind of irks me. I don’t want to get into a shouting match with somebody though, as I’m starting to get tired, and can’t spend the time looking up old quotes from the preseason and early season, that back up my claim that there were chemistry issues between Broy and Miller. I don’t remember when he in fact stated that he had no preference between Blake and Miller, but I’ll take your word for it. What I am referring to is the other night when roy had 6 points in the first half, he barely touched the ball, and the Point was Andre. Andre was showing much more of a tendency towards driving the ball first and dumping it off to Howard or Pendergraph than he was looking to find roy. At times in other games, it looks as if Brandon does not know what to do, while Dre is looking to drive. I don’t know, maybe we’re watching different games.
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 9:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Roy has said that those quotes were misinterpreted.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
how do you know he's not trying to save face, or stem the tide of controversy, or simply go back on his words?
I think you have a good point though about Nate not liking the freewheeling turnover prone style of Miller, versus the conservative play of Blake. Still, I think Roy has had a say in who was getting run, according to people with the Blazers, Roy has discussions about the playing style of the team with Nate quite a bit, and according to Quick Nate has given Roy quite a bit of room to talk to him more like another coach and less like a player.
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 10:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It could be that he's saving face, but it isn't his style to make comments like were attributed to him in the first place.
So I think I’ll take the historical attitude of Brandon Roy rather than seeing him as all of a sudden a malcontent.
There were also comments about Roy not appreciating the fact that he had to change his game as much as he did, and those got misapplied to Andre Miller’s presence by a lot of people but Roy later clarified that he just didn’t want to play the 3.
To me, the fact that Roy is a very willing passer (even to Miller) says enough about his attitude towards having to be the guy in all situations.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing that changed for Brandon this year though, was his contract.
I have watched him a little more closely this year, and maybe I have been reading into some of his comments a little too much, but at times this year he has sounded a little out of character from his past. I think some of that could be that the contract validated him as our franchise player, and leader, and with that he feels a greater responsibility for the teams success. This could make him want to say things in the vein of being the leader, but it’s kind of like someone trying to say the right thing, for the sake of saying it, rather than really seeing the heart of the matter through experienced eyes.
I was blinded to that by sick alley-oops and facials
not to mention Greg crotchifyin’ suckas
by Tyler Durrden on Jan 7, 2010 10:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't you assuming that they can't work together?
Miller and Roy have have been a really successful combination lately. I simply can’t see where they aren’t working well together. They’ve gotten to know each other’s style of play and Miller has been getting the ball to Roy in ways that wasn’t happening at the beginning of the season.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did Nate really say "I think he's been doing some good things" three times in a span of 4 sentences?
Dude needs a thesaurus, stat.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Jan 7, 2010 1:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He's devolved into politician speak
How to say a lot without saying anything.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he should take a job as Dudley's campaign manager.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
both teams played hard
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Ben
Why do you think Dre wanted Bayless to make that last free throw. Just curious as to why a vet as himself would go for that move, when it basically ends the game (as we saw)
"There are a lot of computers in Portland and a lot of people with time on their hands, or who are passionate enough about their Blazers to make time. After several years of writing about basketball on fake paper, that's a conclusion I will fight to the death to defend. It's a small city, and yet no fanbase so passionately and so adroitly makes its presence felt in this sphere." Word.
by doggpound84 on Jan 7, 2010 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
whats more likely?
make a 3 with 3 seconds left or get an offensive rebound off a free throw
bayless leaves over my dead body
Start Bayless (in a 2 guard lineup)
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52
#4
#24
by thomasikehara on Jan 7, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
with no timeouts and a full court to cross?
I’d say an o-board.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Jan 7, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup.
The other team still have to inbound.. and assuming we foul quick enough so that not a lot of time passes.. then they could just go down, hit one and miss the other.. ballgame.. and if they made both, still have to go full court..
"There are a lot of computers in Portland and a lot of people with time on their hands, or who are passionate enough about their Blazers to make time. After several years of writing about basketball on fake paper, that's a conclusion I will fight to the death to defend. It's a small city, and yet no fanbase so passionately and so adroitly makes its presence felt in this sphere." Word.
by doggpound84 on Jan 7, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jerryd had just made it from an inbounding play
all the way to the rim in like 4.5 seconds. Getting the ball into a decent shooting position if we had gotten an immediate foul in was completely reasonable.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna have to disagree.
there were less than 4 secs left. The likeliness that we foul quickly, then they go down and make both, annnnd we come down and hit a three is pretty unlikely. All they would have to do is miss their second free throw and that’s ball game. I think this could have worked with like 10 seconds left.. under 4? no way.
"There are a lot of computers in Portland and a lot of people with time on their hands, or who are passionate enough about their Blazers to make time. After several years of writing about basketball on fake paper, that's a conclusion I will fight to the death to defend. It's a small city, and yet no fanbase so passionately and so adroitly makes its presence felt in this sphere." Word.
by doggpound84 on Jan 7, 2010 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And it was likely that Roy and a hobbled LaMarcus
were going to get a board against Z-Bo and Gasol? Listen, at that point, the odds were slim either way. If we had been quicker about fouling immediately following the FT, we would have had 4 seconds left. 4 seconds is plenty of time to race down the court and hit a 3, not a great look, but certainly a pull up within 28 feet or so.
Like I said, Jerryd had just taken the ball from inside our 3 point line all the way to the rim in about 4.5 seconds, including the time it took the timekeeper to acknowledge the whistle. It was definitely possible.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear ya
but honestly from a coach point of view, with no timeouts, you miss that free throw and pray for an offensive O. too many other variables have to be right for the scenario you wanted to happen. What if we foul after 2 seconds pass.. 3 seconds? what if Memphis misses their second free throw? to get that rebound and go down and get a decent look with no timeouts is crazy.
"There are a lot of computers in Portland and a lot of people with time on their hands, or who are passionate enough about their Blazers to make time. After several years of writing about basketball on fake paper, that's a conclusion I will fight to the death to defend. It's a small city, and yet no fanbase so passionately and so adroitly makes its presence felt in this sphere." Word.
by doggpound84 on Jan 7, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
4.3 seconds were left
bayless leaves over my dead body
Start Bayless (in a 2 guard lineup)
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52
#4
#24
by thomasikehara on Jan 7, 2010 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but this is exactly what happened.
there was like 5 seconds left when Jerryd was shooting. after making the 2nd, they inbounded, and we fouled, leaving 3.3 on the clock. they then missed the 2nd free throw. had brandon been able to snag the rebound, I think we would have gotten a 3 point attempt up before time expired, that would have been launched from close to the 3 point line.
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 7, 2010 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention that the only reason it was down to 3.3 seconds
was that it took us longer than it should have to foul after the made FT. Add an extra .4-.5 seconds and it helps that scenario a lot.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
as if we have anybody that can get an offensive rebound
looks good on paper- and that is about as thin as our rebounding is right now
by ralphzillo on Jan 7, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
this is also why I have a hard time believing Dre said this
the only reason I can think of would be purely out of spite for not playing the 4th.
If this is the case it reflects poorly on Miller
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe he was just encouraging him as a reflex rather than setting a stategy
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Ben!
It’s “Andre” Miller ;)
"What I´m sure about is that I never had a gun. For gunfights I have the Playstation."
~Rudy Fernandez
by twiggs on Jan 7, 2010 1:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I didn't wanna be the one to point that out lol
First thing I noticed when I saw the article
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jan 7, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm officially tired of him.
Trade time.
Life is hilarious.
by SolGoode on Jan 7, 2010 1:17 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'm tired of Nate too
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not tired of either
I still like Dre.
Its amazing how we have a few bad games and all of a sudden everyone panics.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, you should see the Ducks blog!
We panic even when we win!
by JonathanPDX on Jan 7, 2010 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I know
The good part of being an Oregon sports fan (fan of teams in OR) is that we’re passionate.
The bad part is everything is over dramatized, good AND bad.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do wonder if any other state
has been as cursed as we have with teams that are really good, but not good enough to go over the top.
by superfly05 on Jan 7, 2010 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Illinois (except the Bulls)
And Massachusetts until 2004.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to remember
The Bears winning a Superbowl and the Celtics winning a lot of championships, Patriots, too.
by superfly05 on Jan 7, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well we've only got one team
Boston and Chi-town have enough pro teams that one of them was bound to break through, eventually
Blazer fans at least have one more title than Suns and Jazz fans
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boston
until just recently
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boston?
Really?!? Really?!? Surely you jest.
by jigglyai on Jan 7, 2010 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
probably referring to the red sox
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to say - this must be a Oregon thing.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, we panic BEFORE we win.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently I don't understand.
OK…..if Nate should be held accountable for this mess…then I really don’t understand team sports. It appears to me (and I may be wrong….) that the rest of the team is following Nate’s instructions for the most part. But clearly Miller isn’t. (“You don’t play the way we want to play.”)
And if Miller is directly contradicting the coach (telling Bayless to make the second free throw the other night when Nate told him to miss it), then I just don’t see how it’s Nate’s fault. Heaven knows Nate was trashed here at BEdge for not having Bayless miss the second….and now we find out Nate wanted him to miss.
Maybe it’s how I was raised or my work environment, or something….but I always thought that when a new person was coming into an established situation, it was their responsibility to fit in. It was not tee responsibility of everyone else to adapt to them. It appears to me that Miller is not trying to fit in, but rather is trying to have things the way he wants them, not the way the coach wants them.
I’ve been a fan of Miller’s from his days in Utah, but I gotta say, I have been totally unimpressed with how little he appears to have tried to fit in with the team.
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Jan 7, 2010 1:21 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
How would you suggest he fit in?
Happily sit on the bench while inferior players lose 4th quarters?
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
that team won the 4th quarter
They just started down by 8 points because the team with Miller lost the 3rd quarter. But yeah, I’d say he could fit in by trying to play the role he is asked to play as best he can and not whining about how he is entitled to things because he is a veteran.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
sorry my replay was a little snarky
i just don’t get the whole ‘fitting in’ thing
what does that even mean?
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a few things
Put out consistent effort, not complain so much, and realize that the ball isn’t going to be in his hands all the time because the offense is going to revolve around Roy. The question I don’t get is how Miller and others are saying he “hasn’t gotten a chance” when he plays 30 mins/game. A chance to do what exactly?
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i dont think Miller wants the ball in his hands all the time, where do you get that?
i think it’s more frustration from watching the Blazer offense devolve into easily-defendable standing around plays when he feels like he could help get easy baskets
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
where does he get "hasn't gotten a chance?"
I’d still like to see someone answer that question. What chance does he think he hasn’t gotten in 30 mpg? I don’t know for a fact Miller expects the ball to be in his hands when he’s on the court, but I know that’s where most of his value is, and that he doesn’t generally seem to be useful without it, so that “play(ing) the way we want you to” means doing more to be useful without the ball.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's been sitting in the crucial last stretch of the game more than once.
Thats a pretty significant chance to prove one’s value to the team.
Consider that in the 30 mpg you say he’s gotten as his chance, the team has had a really good record, you’d think that would extend to the fourth quarter, where he’s traditionally been an excellent player on other teams.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's gotten 30 mpg all season
It’s not a new thing correlated to good record, because it has been consistent with the ups and downs of the season. He is playing better lately, because he’s finally gotten himself into shape and plays like he gives a damn more often now, but if you want to talk about really good records, look at the last win streak when the team dominated 4th quarters playing Bayless over Miller. Even with that though, Miller has played 57% of the team’s “clutch time stats” so again I ask, how has he not gotten his chance?
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this is the point everyone seems to be missing
I keep hearing that Andre didn’t play in the 4th Qtr, but only a few will mention that we were losing until he sat down. I know he had a great game, but it was the Bayless lineup that even gave us a chance to win that game, not the Dre lineup. A dose of reality is needed here.
by ItsMrHarris2u on Jan 7, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
rec
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Teams go on runs, I don't think you can single out Andre's removal as the reason the team went on a run
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not singling him out
Dre played great and we needed his contribution to be in the position we were in. It’s just ridiculous to say that because Zach stole a few Offensive rebounds from LMA that you should suddenly swap out Bayless for Dre. I was at the game, Zach killed us with rebounds in the final run, this has nothing to do w/ Miller over Bayless.
by ItsMrHarris2u on Jan 7, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
to bad our GM couldn'ta hired a rebounder
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And when they do, most coaches tend to stick with the lineup that produces the runs.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and if Nate doesn't
they complain about that too.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
though on the other hand, it makes a lot of sense to a lot of people that it might have been worth a shot to put him in somewhere in the middle of that 13-1 run instead of at the tail end of it, if only to shake things up a little.
by jigglyai on Jan 7, 2010 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yup...comeback crew were shot from the effort
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's a fair point
but it really only applies if you’re going to let that lineup play like they were playing when they built that lead (e.g. attacking their defense). Once you go to the conservative, slow it down game, the new strategy requires new personnel.
by atomiccafe on Jan 7, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
stategy like that needs to be ditched
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
That’s why I called Miller Zach Randolph in my signature the other day. The only reason he doesn’t look as bad as Zach is because part of his job is getting assists.
by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2010 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It that's the situation, then yes.
If he doesn’t like it he can quitely go to management and request a trade.
Miller signed the contract and is getting paid more and for a longer period than anyone else was willing to pay him. If it has developed into a situation he didn’t envision, that’s too bad for him. He can always quit. What he doesn’t do is complain about it.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if i were management i would take andre’s mild version of complaining over a player outright quitting any day
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Up to a point - yes.
However there is also a point at which the disruption and negative impact to what you are trying to accomplish becomes the deciding factor.
And by quit, I mean exactly that. Not quit putting forth the effort. Quitting as in giving notice and giving up his paycheck.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was before the HR became god.
Now it is the responsibility of the many to ensure the few never have their sensitivities ruffled.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we all need to chill....
sometimes you got to yell and scream then when you cool down a little it is easier to have a real conversation. I just hope both sides are willing to concede a little.
by Escrote on Jan 7, 2010 1:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only person that find this quote funny?
I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things.
52 + 88 = 140% better team.
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 1:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I find it funny too
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing particular to say
Just wanted to see how my new quote looked.
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...in a sad, confusing way
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jan 7, 2010 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
both teams played hard
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love the Portland Media
Quick’s article:
Andre Miller erupts at Blazers practice in confrontation with Nate McMillan
No, that’s not one sided at all!
"What I´m sure about is that I never had a gun. For gunfights I have the Playstation."
~Rudy Fernandez
by twiggs on Jan 7, 2010 1:23 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Who on this team has the guts to speak up?
This team is made up of players that are passive and a bunch of “nice guys”. That is just the way Nate and Roy want it to be. No competition from being in total control.
Sad to say, but both of these guys are starting to look like real jerks.
by ralphzillo on Jan 7, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, I think 'passionless' if it is a word fits this team very well
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
are you serious?
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Jan 7, 2010 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mmmm...I dunno
I definitely agree that our first 20 games were passionless, but I also don’t think that spate was indicative of the team in general. Could see that somebody might feel differently though.
"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 7, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Both who?
Do you mean Nate and Roy? Is there any indication that Roy is complicit in some nefarious scheme to prevent high quality basketball players with too much personality from joining the team? Would Roy have resisted reinforcements at the last trading deadline? Is there any indication that Roy is harming Andre’s integration, except a one-off quote where he talked about being comfortable with Steve?
No, I’m afraid the screwy rotations and lack of action on the personnel front recently have more to do with Nate being a bit confused and KP’s attachment to “his” guys.
by atomiccafe on Jan 7, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
i think he means Nate and Andre
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
pryz speaks up
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon Roy and Nate McMillan are jerks.
That’s classic.
Not exactly an accurate, intelligent, well supported observation, but classic none the less.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Why?
Why are the Blazers killing Brandon Roy and LaMarcus?Roy’s playing over 40 mins and is tired and hurt. LA isn’t right, his ankle is jacked and he was getting pushed around by memphis. Let’s play the healthy 8 or 9 guys, take some lumps, get them some experience and rest Roy and LA. the blazers can still make a late push for a 7 or 8 spot in the playoffs with a rest and rejuvenated team. Kill b-roy and LA in games in January is ridiculous.
by Polish Chocolate on Jan 7, 2010 1:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
with all due respect LMA is going to be pushed around his entire career ,hurt or not
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it still doesn't make any sense to play him heavy minutes
first game back from an injury not fully healed so he can tweak it again
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with you there, just had to get my LMA shot in ;)
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Give me Cunningham
I’ll take a 100% Cunningham over 70% LA. He couldn’t even elevate to try and block a Z-Bo shot… and Z-Bo can’t even jump as high as three sheets of paper.
by Polish Chocolate on Jan 7, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
without saying we depend on LMA for offense, not defense. so if they weren’t going to run the offense through him (only 8 shots), might as well give dante some PT
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
more variables than that
even if you don’t have LA taking a large amount of shots, his presence as an offensive threat alters opposing defenses more than having Dante on the floor. that being said, I agree that we shouldn’t be riding him so heavily when he’s still clearly got a bad wheel. but then, who isn’t injured on this team.
oh man, I think I'm average like, ten points, like, twelve, thirteen dimes, like two, three assists, and about four, five rebounds, and if we need me to play, play a different position, I might get a little bit more.
by abdelnaby on Jan 7, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
dante isn't
about LMA being the offensive threat, of course that opens things up. problem is, he doesn’t touch the ball enough to draw doubles, never mind to shoot
by tblazers on Jan 7, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dante can pick and pop
every bit as well as LMA
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure LaMarcus's presence as an offensive threat
had no bearing whatsoever on those last two minutes as Roy spent every possession holding the ball up top for 18 seconds. If anyone should have been playing over him, though, there, it should have been Pendy, who was something like +15 on the night and is a much more physical presence on the offensive boards than Aldridge.
He got a couple key offensive boards, though, so hard to fault LA there.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He did get two very key tips at the end of that game
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a healthy PF woulda have put both of them back in
and woulda been moving around setting some screens and allowing the offense to work
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The other thing that has bothered me about Miller is
that he constantly talks about how professional he is and how he will remain professional, but he only states this after he’s gone on and on complaining about his issues. I just want him to choose one or the other, either be professional or complain publicly, but please don’t do one while you say your doing the other because that makes my head hurt.
by organjet on Jan 7, 2010 1:31 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Him saying he'll stay professional
Is kind of, in itself, a strong statement. It appears to be a harder text to spin for the media though (for now).
by RecordTOs on Jan 7, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol he does do that.
It’s kind of like when people say “Nothing personal, but…”, and then say something really personal. Miller’s said at least three times he will remain professional, as he is complaining publicly about his role on the team.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, it drives me crazy
and without fail he will state after each complaint, “I’ll just keep being professional and whatever happens, happens”.
by organjet on Jan 7, 2010 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree, i don't think he's been 100% professional about the situation
then again professional isn’t always the perfect state of mind imo. sometimes professional is substituted for lazy or uncaring
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
whose definition is that?
I take “professional” to be an antonym for lazy and uncaring. It means you keep working hard toward team goals no matter what personal junk is bothering you.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i take it as you show up every day and rarely ask questions
of course there are many different interpretations
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lazy was probably a bad choice, more like 'overly satisified with the status quo'
i prefer a bit of a wild card
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be happy
if he would play hard every game and do his best to help the team win rather than worry about himself. I think that’s the definition of professional most people would use.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he thinks other things will help the team win
I know I do
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
pouting and poisoning team chemistry
you have to really hate Nate to root for that.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so based on ur definition Roy is not a pro right?
by pdxblaze on Jan 7, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, what?
Roy doesn’t play hard every game? He doesn’t do his best to help the team win? Come on. Roy is killing himself out there.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Roy takes a lot of plays off on defense
and doesn’t commit himself often at that end is what pdxblaze is referring, too, I believe.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 9:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm.
I could believe that. sanjait’s definition, though, says “play hard every game,” not “every single second you’re in every game.”
For all the good Roy does for this team, I can handle him taking a play off on D every once in a while.
37-33. Pasadena. Roses. Bliss.
by Mr. Knox on Jan 7, 2010 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not even close
Roy carries the team. I understand that means he isn’t going to be a stopper on defense or run the floor on every play, because that would be physically impossible.. The guy is a warrior, plays through injury, and when things aren’t going well, he usually asks himself first what he can do to make it better. That’s 100% pro by my definition, and Miller should take notes.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So a professional is to be mute at all times and disregard
the fact that the very reasons they were signed are being completely ignored and under-utilized?
How is it professional to just sit back and dispassionately accept being misused? Its like a Bobby Flay being asked to work the grill at McDonalds. Yeah, I’m sure he’d be “lovin’” that!
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
by Seijeff on Jan 7, 2010 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Bobby Flay has only two job offers ...
… and the other one is as a part time grillman for half the wage,
Then yes he shuts up and does his job.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
none of that is what I said
I think players can do a lot if they think they are being misused, including talking to the coach about it directly and working harder to prove their value on the court. That’s how a pro would handle those circumstances.
Miller instead complained to the press, cussed out the coach and plays focused only half the time. That’s not pro.
by sanjait on Jan 7, 2010 11:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But he’s not really complaining publicly.
by SomeNerve on Jan 7, 2010 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
um… yikes. but this was like a train at night on a straight track. you could see it coming from miles away…
meanwhile… i still don’t understand nate’s substitutions… probably never will… i was perplexed as to why miller was benched in the 4th the other night…
the whole thing is like watching the above mentioned train wreck in super slow motion…
by zuul on Jan 7, 2010 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Miller should have been in earlier
Because he would have made both free throws. Then we tie and who knows, today’s practice could be much more joyful.
by RecordTOs on Jan 7, 2010 1:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh great
So Miller’s back is bothering him? Do we need to add another injury to the list? On another note — can you imagine the fireworks if his back is so bad that he doesn’t play?
by Corvid on Jan 7, 2010 1:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
yeah
you have to kill miller for him not to play
bayless leaves over my dead body
Start Bayless (in a 2 guard lineup)
if you should strike Oden down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
#52
#4
#24
by thomasikehara on Jan 7, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure he's just faking it
He’s just going to pull a Derek Anderson.
by tominhawaii on Jan 7, 2010 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bound to happen
Now maybe that they both got it out of there system Miller can play more and get just a little respect from Nate. If nate wants to play 7 guys the whole time were gonna burn people out. I think if we trade miller this year we get nothing for it and lose a good point guard. I shudder to think Blake playing almost the entire game.
by Baddog992 on Jan 7, 2010 1:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
playin just seven on the second game of a back to back was kinda....odd?
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
My thing is that this isn't the first time Nate has jerked guys around
I think at some point Nate has to allow guys to do things on their own and I think at some point he’ll have to awake from his robot-like state. Who here would enjoy working for a micromanaging boss who rarely praises you when you do well? I wouldn’t. Especially if that boss lied to you about your role before he hired you.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nate is a great development coach
Repeating myself in same thread, but Nate was responsible for bringing a young group of kids out from under the Whitsitt mess and into a playoff team in a remarkably short time span. I have huge respect and admiration and he’s reached his ceiling with this team.The next stage of improvement (from playoffs to champions) will require a more creative and optimistic mentality.
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you 100%
I think Nate has been fine up til this point, but he hasn’t proven to me he’s the guy to compete with the Phil Jacksons of the world yet. Not by a long shot.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this situation gives me more respect
to big time coaches…it takes a strong coach to handle all those egos and make them coexist. we dont’ even have that much of an ego problem on our team and nate can’t handle it.
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but lets look at “big time” coach Jackson and all of his crazy ego problems. When things aren’t going well for the Lakers they come apart at the seems. It impresses me that McMillan has kept things calm considering the deluge of injuries that have swamped this team. It’s easy to get along when you’re racking up wins and most of your talent is on the floor.
You don't need a Maserati to mow the lawn.
by pxilpooshr on Jan 7, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
kept things calm?
eeeee
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he may have ego issues
but you need a big ego to control other egos…post-shaq era…kobe had an ego issue that had to be resolved…he was able to do that. he has done a decent job with artests ego and rodmans ego in the past as well. they aren’t angels now nor they ever will be…but i dont think nate would do better at keeping those guys in check.
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Lakers and Bulls come apart at the seams?
By all accounts, Shaq and Kobe despised each other for at least the last of their titles and they still won a title, and despite clearly hating each other throughout most of the 2004 season they made the finals, and possibly would have won if Malone hadn’t been hurt, and that team was one of the most dysfunctional of the decade when you consider not only on court issues, but that Malone was openly hitting on Kobe’s wife in the locker room.
Regardless, between Kobe, Shaq, Rodman, and Jordan, Phil has dealt with probably 4 of the top 10 most difficult players to deal with in the past 15 years and won 10 titles. Now with Artest, too, he has a chance to add another. That’s impressive any way you slice it.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
seriously?
malone was going after kobes wife? malone is a jerk…i remember when he impregnated a 14 year old and didnt pay child support.
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The money quote
“Vanessa [Kobe’s wife] told me that she just was very uncomfortable at halftime and that Karl was acting and saying weird things.” said Pelinka. “When the game ended, Vanessa walked Malone’s son back to Karl. She told me that she asked Malone why he was wearing that [cowboy] hat. His response was, ’I’m hunting for young Mexican girls.’ At which point Vanessa just walked away.”
Kobe’s wife being a young Mexican girl, of course.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1944994
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thats dirty
i guess i was wrong…the girl he impregnated was 13…he was 20.
I'm going on a Dave boycott until AK1984 is brought back.
"Did they really expect me to bow down to Jesus?!?" ~Sophia
by Philthyanimal on Jan 7, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson may deserve an asterisk
Between Michael & Scottie, Shaq and… that whatzisname thug… I do give him lots of the credit but there’s no valid way to measure his success with normal players. I’m sorry to admit it but that’s freakish talent on the court. Rings have been won by “merely” great players and teams in Miami, San An, Boston, etc., and our talent when healthy is every bit as strong if used correctly.
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was the point, no one's talking about his ability to coach x's and o's
but his ability to keep all of those guys with egos far larger than anything we have to deal with here and get them playing cohesively enough to win titles.
It’s just one aspect of coaching, but it’s an important one. Compare that to how the Suns splintered under D’Antoni with Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare all wanting bigger roles.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but talent far larger than anything we can expect
A healthy ego is required to even make it into the NBA. The best and the brightest are also the biggest egos. This is in no manner a negative thing. My point is Dywane’s and Roy’s egos are every bit as strong as Michael’s.
Nate’s best attribute was keeping those egos in check while they developed the fundamentals. What he fails at is utilizing the egos to his advantage. As well as x’s and o’s.
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How come Phil doesn't get any credit for developing that talent?
To hear people talk you’d think the 2009 Blazers has the most overall young talent in the league
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"I do give him lots of credit" (previously stated))
But he was in two very exceptional positions with Jordan and Bryant… I’m clearly nitpicking here! But for the sake of dialog I’ll expand on my thoughts. If we could somehow bring in Phil, I’m not 100% certain that he can actually go the distance with mere mortals such as Popovich and Van Gundy (Stan) (if I can call call Superman and the Admiral mortals).
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ok you're off the hook :p
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What egos did Nate have to keep in check
we essentially had to banish Z-Bo and Miles, Bassy had to go, Ratliff and Magloire were never motivated here (not complaining about dumping any og them). Roy and LaMarcus got all the touches they could ever want out of the gate. Joel and Blake were guys who had already bounced around some without much success anywhere else, so they could hardly feel entitled to much. KP basically made managing our team’s personalities as easy as possible for Nate.
And really, we’re comparing those guys who pretty much all broke into the league together to guys who openly despised each other, were the leaders of playoff teams before they played with Phil, or were just insane. You can’t compare what Nate has done dealing with players to what Phil has.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
point taken
+1 for Jackson
-1 for McMillan
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 11:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I cannot believe we are even comparing the two
Nate and Phil??? are you serious? There is no comparison there, the only similarity is that they both coach in the NBA.
by pdxblaze on Jan 7, 2010 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing
Miller’s been a player for over a decade now and has never had problems with his coaches, at least that I can remember. George Karl and I think Mo Cheeks, at least, have both gone out of their way to praise him, and yet he comes here and suddenly he’s a cancer.
Nate, on the other hand, has clashed some with players before, even if they deserved it to some extent. For all of their faults, guys like Sergio who have left seem to deal with other coaches okay. Admittedly an extremely small sample size, but I just don’t buy the idea that this is all on Andre, given their histories.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
additionally
I don’t understand why Nate didn’t understand what he was getting with Andre. Every year as a pro, Andre has 1) come into camp out of shape 2) started the season slow, and improved as he played himself into shape 3) played heavy minutes as a starter 4) rarely shot the three point ball and 5) been on the floor in crunch time.
I can’t imagine Andre agreeing to come to the Blazers without them understanding his decade-long track record in the league. But either Andre just assumed he would walk into a significant starting role and doing what he’d been doing before, or Nate made false assurances to that end. And now because of miscommunication at that stage, Andre has been criticized and benched (basically for being what he’s been his whole career), and he’s putting up more than twice as many 3s as he normally does. I’m usually for putting the blame on both parties, so that’s what I’ll do here. But from the Blazers’ point of view, they need to know what they’re getting in free agency, and Andre Miller’s poor conditioning early in the season, poor three point shooting and anger at being benched shouldn’t come as a surprise.
by atomiccafe on Jan 7, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Stop it. You're just making way too much sense here.
It’s just blowing my mind, man…
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well put!
Dudes been in the league forever and I also can’t remember him ever being anything but praised. I remember before we got him Steve Smith on Nba Tv could not stop gushing about him and saying how good he could make the young blazers. This was when We still Had the expiring contract and everything.
by jcoop85 on Jan 7, 2010 6:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Did u guys hear his college coach from UT talking about him when we signed him?
Great interview, he only had praises for Miller and kept saying how this is the ultimate team player and will do what it takes to win.
by pdxblaze on Jan 7, 2010 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tim Grgurich was also high on Miller going to Portand
as much as he’s moved around, the teams that Andre’s left behind tend to wish they had him back
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Miller
Good player, wrong situation for him. Since Portland is, at best, a first round and out team this year, might as well trade him and then see if B-Rex can grow into the PG the Blazers need. And get Patty Mills some burn. Any serviceable big men out there the Blazer could get for Miller?
Duct tape makes you smart.
by TTRocks on Jan 7, 2010 1:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ughhhh
If Bayless was confused about the free throw, was any other Blazer on the court confused? What are the chances that Aldridge would have gotten the rebound (if he had was expecting it) and put it back in?
The game was lost when Mayo swatted at broy’s ball, not because Bayless accidentally made a free throw. Whether a foul should have been called or not, it does not matter. Mayo should never have gotten that close to Roy. Roy made as big of a mistake (bigger in my mind) with that fleeting loss of concentration as did Bayless and Miller with the mis-communication
by clonigro on Jan 7, 2010 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Crap now I have to listen to the BFT
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
this is a precurser to another injury
it will be dre, with a broken jaw, after nate hits him for not playing how this team plays.
the post punch interview will go something like this
nate’s comments:
“I think he’s(his fist) been doing some good things lately”
KP’s comments:
“we like to have a completely open discussion and nate’s fist was just voicing it’s opinion”
in all seriousness, players and coaches get in arguments all the time. Odds are we won’t here about this again.
the few, the proud, the blazers
by HD on Jan 7, 2010 2:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It would be funny if they got in a fist fight and then put a bunch of bland quotes out afterward
funny, not surprising :p
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its just because we're Portland
And this is our one and only team that we get all this stuff.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh god, they are going on Canzano's show
That should be, uh, interesting.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Who knows
Although since 95.5 is no longer owned by Paul Allen, Clownzano need not be the Blazer mouthpiece.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
?
Has he been a Blazer mouthpiece in the past?
by jigglyai on Jan 7, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He has at times
He has always pulled back a bit from fully going after them as he does after the Ducks say (why Canzano hates UO I don’t know).
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You'll recap for those of us not hearing?
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
I refuse to listen to him. I’m counting on Ben to take the hit for all of us.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can respect that decision any day. :)
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously
I refrain from reading him after anything happens especially related to UO because he’ll find a way to make it sound FAR worse than it is (see his column after the Rose Bowl).
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ill try to paraphrase in here as its happening
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 7, 2010 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When is it happening anyways?
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no idea. but i listen while i work
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 7, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love how Nate says he doesn't know if Miller will play because of his back!
Haha, give me a break. So the guy with the longest current streak of games played that will basically play through anything if it’s physically possible, is all of a sudden gonna take a game off because his back hurts? Right, Nate. Who would buy that, I think we all will know the real reason if Miller doesn’t play. And it aint his back.
by Coastie07 on Jan 7, 2010 2:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah he's going to play
I also think Steve will man up and play (although maybe he shouldn’t). He loves beating the Fakers.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I say this because with Steve's skillset
If he’s out of it, it could be a real negative if he just starts chunking 3s again.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blake has lost 8 pounds that he couldn't afford to lose
he was tired after running the floor in practice
maybe Steve will try it Sunday, definitely not Friday night
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jan 7, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh man, if he gets a DNP-CD disguised as an injury...
man o man, if we thought he was mad at Nate now…. what if Nate kills his 550 games played streak. look out!
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 7, 2010 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not gonna happen
Not against the Lakers, or the Cavs. Nate knows how much tomorrow’s game means to the fans, if not to the players as much (and I think it does, look at how much joy BR took in beating Kobe 1 on 1 last year).
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
by skywaker9 on Jan 7, 2010 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Money could be raining from the sky, your kids could be earning full scholarships
to the top schools in the world, the house behind your’s could have just been purchased by a bevy of attractive females who are seriously into nude sun bathing (or for twiggs, by Rudy Fernandez, who you find out is seriously into working out in the backyard sans shirt and constantly coming over to borrow a cup of sugar or ask if you would like to sample a new wine from Spain he just got) and some people here could still find gloom and doom.
How about taking a healthy dose of lighten up?
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think twiggs would die should that scenario play out
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jan 7, 2010 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who you place blame with is a strong function of what you already thought of Nate and Andre
Regardless, its clear the situation has become a problem. It might be time to trade Andre for whatever we can get. Maybe they can work it out, but I doubt it. Its not a good fit between coach and player. Not a good situation
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 2:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I can't make up my mind
I’m all for chucking Nate in June and letting Andre play out his contract with a champion caliber coach. On the other hand get what you can for him now and still chuck Nate in June. They could use him in Minneapolis.
by jiminut on Jan 7, 2010 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am for trading Ande and getting a new coach in June.
Its not fair to Nate, who has done an amazing job with undermanned teams during his tenure here, but like you, I’m quite convinced he’s not a championship coach. I would rather give the job to a defensive mastermind like JVG or Thibodeau, especially if we can get them to bring in an offensive coordinator.
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why not look at bringing in a defensive mastermind as a coordinator?
especially if Monty Williams gets plucked away to be head coach somewhere else.
oh man, I think I'm average like, ten points, like, twelve, thirteen dimes, like two, three assists, and about four, five rebounds, and if we need me to play, play a different position, I might get a little bit more.
by abdelnaby on Jan 7, 2010 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be another option, but I now have concerns with Nate on both ends of the court...
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
me too
but if I had to rank my concerns, I know I have major issues with Nate’s offensive capabilities. We have a lot of offensive talent on the team that we don’t seem to do a good job of maximizing.
Conversely, while our defensive numbers are not very good, I’m not convinced the lack of defensive talent in the playing rotation isn’t a bigger problem than our schemes
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 7, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nate's overall coaching record still makes me lean toward D as his biggest weakness as a coach, but you and I know each other's positions about that...
no need to rehash them here :)
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't dispute your concerns about his defense
just saying that on the defensive side, you could at least say “he doesn’t have a lot to work with”. on the offensive side, I find that same argument impossible to make. roy, aldridge, martell, rudy, outlaw, bayless, blake, miller are all better offensive players than defensive players – most of them FAR better on offense than defense. only oden, przybilla, and batum could be said to be the other way around.
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 7, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I might put Martell in the "better on D" category
I see your point, but overall Nate’s been so much more successful as an offensive coach than a defensive coach, pretty much independent of personnel… but he certainly isn’t very flexible with his offensive gameplans.
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's a lot of defensive potential there, actually
if Nate could find a way to light a fire under LA and Roy’s butts.
People forget that LA was the big 12 defensive player of the year as a sophomore before he got here and decided to stop playing help defense around the basket and boxing out guys. Roy’s shown flashes when he tries. There’s obviously Nic, and Martell’s looked good on that end of the floor. Pendergraph was a noted defender at ASU and has looked decent on that end. I haven’t been as high on Bayless’s potential on that end as some, but he’s certainly got enough to be more than adequate there at the least.
Obviously there’s Greg and Joel as well, although who knows about Joel’s career from now on.
Really, if you can’t scheme an elite defense around 2-3 subpar defenders in a 9-10 man rotation or motivate a guy like Aldridge to play D, you could probably use some help on that end.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or figure out how to properly defend the pick and roll
which is troubling since it is the bread and butter for most NBA offenses.
"I think he’s been doing some good things. I think he’s been doing some good things. He’s had to play a lot of minutes lately with Blake being out. I think he’s been doing some good things." -Nate McMillan
by xedubx on Jan 7, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, regardless of whoever's fault it is at this point
Something needs to be done by KP at this point, even if it’s just a sitdown with both of them at this point.
The thing is, I don’t think you can say either of Nate or Miller is one of the three most important people to the Blazers hopes for a title in the near future, so both should be considered expendable to a degree.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I needed to throw in a few more
“at this point”’s, though, just to be completely clear about when I thought things should be happening.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe KP can package both in a trade to Chicago for Vinny Del Negro and Kirk Hinrich and a pick
Then the Blazers can waive VDN the next day and move on. Though the salaries of VDN (underpaid) and Nate (paid half as much as Jackson, but still in the upper echelon) don’t match, so more players might have to be involved. Not sure what the CBA and the cheap prudent Bulls ownership would say about paying the coach more than most players.
by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2010 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mhm, I just called VDN underpaid. I guess that’s not true based on his experience, though he did lead the team to the playoffs immediately despite all flaws in his game management.
by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2010 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Kirk makes a little more than Miller, right?
So that would probably make up for the difference in Nate and VDN’s salaries. Guess we might have to take Tyrus’s salary off their hands, too so they can add an extra couple million to the bottom line.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree
I side with Miller on the issue, but it hasnt worked nearly as one would hope, and we are in need of some big man help for the season. Even though this means more minutes for Blake, it seems obvious that Miller needs to be traded for help underneath the hoop. Unfortunate if you ask me, we finally get a good pg, and Nate fails to integrate him(IMO). Oh well….
RUDY > MJ
But, of course, if I could make a dunk on his face I would. - Rudy
by Rudiculous on Jan 7, 2010 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad coach coaching badly.
Sadly, not a surprise.
by TSE on Jan 7, 2010 2:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Are you trying the "obvious troll is being obvious" argumentative strategy here?
Nate has one of 30 jobs in a highly competitive industry, and a solid win-loss record in his coaching career. Supply in quality coaches certainly outweighs demand, if you look at how many unemployed former NBA coaches as well as quality college coaches and European coaches there are. I’m certainly not his biggest apologist, criticizing his for my likes too strict game management (Oden 2 fouls and you are out rule, etc.), and simple and at times bordering on unimaginative offensive schemes that were justified maybe while having bad player personnel but not so much anymore. Yet labeling him “bad” is hard to base on any factual foundation.
by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Boom
rec’ed for having the energy to intelligently smack this post down. I just roll my eyes and FIDO.
"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 7, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you trying the "obvious I think I'm better than you attitude is being obvious" response strategy?
I simply summarized my feelings because I didn’t have the energy to talk about how Nate is a pretty bad coach again.
He doesn’t have a solid win-loss record – he has an average one. He has a rudimentary offensive scheme that failed us horribly in the playoffs because the team either hasn’t been taught or is incapable of moving. We rely heavily on two plays – the clear-out ISO for Roy, and the pick and pop with Roy and LMA thus making it incredibly easy to defend in crucial moments unless Roy has a superman cape on.
He’s stubborn, he’s predictable – even my friends who are fans of other teams can remember who is coming out when for the Blazers despite only seeing them a few times a year. Greg comes out at 6 in the first unless he has two fouls then he comes out quicker, comes back in at the 6-8 minute mark of the second. Come out at the 4 minute mark in the 3rd unless he has four fouls, comes back in at the 8-10 minute mark of the 4th. Andre or Blake come in at the 4-6 minute mark for Martell. Doesn’t matter if a player is hot or helping us sustain a noticeable advantage – if the clock reads something certain, they have to come out for their replacement.
His defense consists of putting our best post defenders out on the perimeter, and the scheme is a lazy one of switches that allows the other team to gain the advantage they want. That isn’t an aggressive defense, but it does allow the other team to get us into foul trouble. Our offense heavily relies on jump shooters getting bailed out by offensive rebounders.
He lets the other coach set the mismatch tone, infact openly concedes them – see last year’s game in Toronto for him acknowledging this in a quote. That’s not the sign of a good coach, I’m afraid.
He throws his players under the bus and rarely accepts responsibility for recurring issues with his strategies and preparations. That is the sign of a bad coach.
He lied to his players and pretty much blew the preseason this year, causing a lot of the chemistry issues we’ve seen this season. He clearly did not start all the players who had earned it, continued to ride Blake through an absolutely horrendous stretch of basketball on Steve’s part, and used piddled our preseason away by not starting the most obvious group (Andre/Roy/Martell/LMA/Oden) on a consistent basis to see how it would work.
His obsession with two separate (1o player rotation) units is appalling and also easy to plan against. If we hadn’t experienced injury apocalypse 2009 we would still be suffering from the absurd two unit rule and subsequent confusion over roles.
He clings to the rules he has created in his head where his rigid routines of calling the plays as if he is still coaching a bunch of new players and rookies hurts us. The fact that he insists Andre Miller, well regarded 11 year old point guard, not make calls from and instead rely on the calls coming from the bench is painful. By the way, you can thank that demand that plays get called by Nate on such a basis for Brandon’s turnover on Tuesday.
But please call me a troll if it makes you feel better – it just makes me laugh.
by TSE on Jan 7, 2010 5:16 PM PST up reply actions 9 recs
While sharing some of the criticism you mentioned, I would still argue his coaching record speaks for Nate,
He is just the second coach in NBA history to improve a team by nine wins or more in three straight seasons. He stands at just over .500 with Seattle and Portland combined, which is better than an “average” record among coaches. The last three seasons he was .500, .659 and now .595 so far this season. If he could keep that pace, he has a shot at cracking the top 10 all-time in winning percentage. Current #9 and 10 are Jerry Sloan and Flip Saunders at .602 and .597 respectively (500 games or more).
Among the 23 head coaches to reach 300 wins in the last 20 seasons, only Jeff Van Gundy and Mike Fratello hit the milestone at a younger age than McMillan. So he still has a lot of time to improve. He has changed his style already noticeable since the time of “Sarge” during the Jailblazers era. If he can become a coach who leads a team to the finals or a title remains to be seen.
by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2010 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he didn't instill the talent and heart into these guys that has translated into these wins
What I’m trying to say is that his presiding over the maturation of young talent and the subsequent improvement in their ability to win is only somewhat a credit to anyones coaching and at least in part the natural outcome of the individual players level of talent and desire to improve… Also 21 wins sucked sufficiently to allow great statistical improvement
""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "
by LetsBlaze on Jan 7, 2010 7:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But he’s hardly the only coach to ever come in that situation in NBA history, taking over a crappy team after it fired it’s coach close to the bottom and then got a few high draft picks.
I really don’t want to lead a pro-Nate movement here, but obviously he must be doing something right. If it’s not his game management, it’s motivating players to get the most out of stars as well as bench guys (a la Doc Rivers), or getting out of the way and letting his star operate and the team sort it out themselves (arguably a la Jackson), or something to that effect.
by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2010 8:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, but I think his situation is still a little uniquely advantageous
How many guys come in to take over team, and then gets to add a lottery pick (admittedly Martell, but we did get worse this year) and another first rounder his first year, 2 lottery picks (ROY and a 1st team all-rookie) + another first round pick, admittedly a relatively acquisition-free year after that, then adding a #1 overall pick, another lottery pick, a reigning Euro MVP, and another highly touted Euro the following season.
While Nate has undoubtedly had a fair amount to do with our historic improvement over the last few years, I’d also say he got a major assist from not only starting off from such a low point, but also from a fairly unprecedented influx of talent at the same time.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone who has coached the Bulls since Jordan retired comes to mind
#2, #5, #10, #25, #52, #88
by The Arkitect on Jan 7, 2010 11:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be the only comparable situation I can think of
and it’s widely accepted that Tim Floyd is the worst coach in NBA history, although they also never got a player of Roy’s caliber in that stretch.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 11:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well said. This will be a bit of a novel, but here goes
While I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said, my issues with Nate have actually become less about his tactical gameplans, and more about his personal interactions with players. Listening to the BFT (for my first and last time) today for Quick and BTS, it seems so much of the problem stemmed from a perceived lack of respect from Nate by Miller. As was pointed out multiple times by both BTS and Quick, Miller is a proud player who’s done a lot in this league, and been a key part of playoff teams recently (as opposed to AI and his jaunt in Detroit last year).
For him, his resume clearly seems to mean something, at least compared to Steve Blake’s resume. So I imagine it was hard for an apparently sensitive guy to come in and hear that nothing he accomplished before mattered and he had to prove himself to Nate after spending the previous decade “proving himself” in his eyes. He gets told to outplay Blake in training camp and preseason and he’ll start, but then that doesn’t happen after outplaying Blake in the preseason, and he starts to pout. Both Quick and BTS pointed out that it was that moment after Nate gave Blake the starting job that things went downhill in Miller’s attitude
Basically, Nate seemed to treat him like he treats every player, essentially as a rookie. Nothing you’ve done before matters, nothing is given to you. This is the NBA now, either suck it up or get it out. This is his system and until you’re doing exactly what he wants out of you, you’re not seeing the court as much as you think you should be.
Certain players seem to thrive with this approach, particularly guys who have been unfairly written off or deemed incorrectly to be poor NBA players. Blake and Joel have really seemed to thrive in this environment, possibly because they didn’t have a resume of work to base any PT demands off of. Wiping the slate clean for them is to their advantage because there’s no slate to wipe clean. They’re able to make up for the shortcomings that saw them get cast off earlier in their careers through hard work and determination. I applaud them for this, it’s an admirable quality, but not all players are wired like Joel and Blake.
Now, Miller deserves a lot of scorn here. He’s getting paid to play basketball, he should be trying his hardest regardless of whether he’s coming off the bench or starting. He should be secure enough in his ability to not be overly sensitive about his role or “contributions” and not let any slights affect his work ethic or demeanor. If he didn’t like how he was being treated, he should’ve worked harder to fix that.
The thing is, though, Miller is who he is. Sensitive, a bit of a loner, a guy who needs a little validation that he’s helping the team. Are any of these admirable qualities compared to Steve Blake’s doggedness to prove his critics wrong? No. But at the same time, Miller is still an excellent basketball player who could have helped us immensely this year and the next. It may suck that Steve Blake doesn’t have Miller’s talent, or vice versa, but it is what it is. If that requires Nate dealing with Miller a little differently than the rest of the team, it’s a small price to pay.
I understand there’s a legitimate concern about treating some players differently, but these are distinct adults. What works to motivate Brandon Roy may not motivate LA, and what motivates Jerryd may not motivate Blake. Applying a type of cookie cutter approach ignores these distinctions between players, and so the players who may need a different approach get alienated.
Now, the progress we’ve made has been undeniable. At the same time, ever since Roy got here, we’ve been essentially stocked with guys that the “Nate” approach I described a couple paragraphs ago works with, or at least doesn’t rub the wrong way. Brandon, Blake, Przybilla, James Jones have all thrived in it, improving exponentially or submitting career numbers. Most of the rest of the regulars seem to have done okay with it, although I’m not sure you can really say Nic, LA, Rudy, Martell, Bayless, or Outlaw have really “thrived” for various reasons, but they’ve all done fairly well to varying degrees throughout Nate’s time here, all things considered, and certainly no one would complain about their performance.
But every time we get a player who seems to need a little different approach, they flounder somehow. I’d argue that all of Miller, Sergio, and Channing seem to do better with a slightly different touch, and all have performed relatively poorly here. Miller’s obvious, Sergio’s improvement gets a little overstated sometimes, but he’s undoubtedly been much better in Sacto that he ever was here. Channing is a borderline MIP candidate in Phoenix. Each of these guys seemed to experience crises of confidence here that led to them playing below their capabilities when they were Blazers.
So my concern is that, while it’s clear that he can get certain types of players to buy in and play well, I’m not sold that he’s able to adapt himself to other players, many of which can help us. Writing off these guys as general malcontents is an unsatisfactory explanation for me. Andre Miller had played over a decade before coming here and having issues. Sergio seems relatively content and able to effectively contribute as a backup PG in Sacto. Channing has played well both before and after coming here. These aren’t cancers by any stretch of the imagination.
And some players out there who could potentially be that last piece to a title team will have similar psyches. The best coaches often have to deal with guys who are built differently, and they get them on the same page. I think it’s safe to say that Phil Jackson treated Dennis Rodman differently than he treated Scottie Pippen and treated Shaq differently than he treated Kobe, and Gregg Poppovich treated Stephen Jackson differently than he treats Tim Duncan, and Pat Riley treated Gary Payton differently than he treated Udonis Haslem, and that’s okay. Those guys were able to put aside their inherent craziness/issues and band together to contribute to title teams.
I’m just not sure how confident I am in Nate’s ability to do the same player ego tap dancing that those coaches were able to pull off after these last couple years.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
The underacheivers you mentioned also have stylistical problems with Nate's gameplans
should be noted
" Welcome to the Bedge....where good, is never good enough"…Rudiculous
by 92wastheyear on Jan 7, 2010 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
but I feel if you have to limit yourself to only players who fit into narrow positional archetypes, that’s just as bad. If I have to acquire Kirk Hinrich instead of Rajon Rondo because I can’t run an offense without a PG who can spot up from 3, that’s an issue for me as well.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice analysis. Andre should have been an asset to assist Roy in taking the team to another level.
BOTH players needed to adjust to each other for optimum effect, and coach should be the one to facilitate that convergence. From outward appearances, using lineups and playing time, there was not much of an effort made at the beginning of the season to make the adjustments to get Roy and Miller playing effectively together. WHY is open to conjecture, but it was a failure to effectively utilize our players. IF Roy is so full of himself as “the man” with his new fat contract that he can’t be bothered to adjust his fabulous game to an up tempo veteran point guard, then I am disappointed in him. Andre probably had a vision for a more team oriented flowing style of play, which, I would like to see. The plodding Roy isos are unidimensional and limiting for the team. They are fine as an option, but we need diversity and add flexibility in our offense to mix is up and create problems for our opponents.
I am glad we are at least getting some “open communication”, though, sure, it would have been better without the media with an ear pressed to the door (though it is certainly a fascinating inside glimpse for us fans). I expect Andre’s frustration is about both his role and about “how we play”.
If I was delighted with Nate’s floor management, strategy, and over all coaching, I would be much less sympathetic with Andre’s discontent. But since I have a certain level of discontent with Nate, I don’t mind someone giving him some “feedback”, which he should be able to handle.
I expect that Pritchard has been involved in this situation for a while, at least with Nate. The team has a problem, and just blaming Andre I don’t think is the fair resolution, and I hope that is not what happens. There is a lot going on in the team we really don’t know about. I wrote a little post a while back called “what we have here is a failure to communicate”, disappeared pretty fast off the front page, but it had some merit. (well, at least I thought so)
It is not just a simple matter of Andre is insubordinate. He wants to win, he cares about the game. This is good. There is a frustration with the management, and he has strong feelings about what is the way to win. Nate does too. Nate does need to show some respect and consideration for the opinions of an experienced player, not just bark orders and punish him for “wrong thinking”. That is a communication issue, a respect issue. I doubt it is all one guys fault. But I also don’t think Nate’s only problem is a discontent Andre.
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
by Berkeley on Jan 8, 2010 12:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, on great coaches, and lets not forget Larry Brown
got Iverson to the finals singing coach Brown’s praises, and took Rasheed all the way to the championship.
That’s building relationships, communicating, respecting, supporting your players.
"Travis went all wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow on everybody " Dave's recap, season opener
by Berkeley on Jan 8, 2010 12:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Strong Rec from me.
You are spot on in your analysis. Good stuff.
#52
by blazermaniac32 on Jan 8, 2010 7:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, in other words Andre Miller is not a good fit as a Blazer. Can we move on now and just get rid of him? Injuries are bad enough but locker room chemistry is a killer. Tick tock Pritchard.
"I'm at clips-blazers + Juwan Howard just posterized Marcus Camby. Crowd is still reeling. That dunk was from 2 decades ago."
- Bill Simmons on Twitter
by halo_on on Jan 7, 2010 2:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
maybe Nate's not a good fit as a Blazer
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
For anyone who honestly believes this, give me a name of somebody better who is available.
"I'm at clips-blazers + Juwan Howard just posterized Marcus Camby. Crowd is still reeling. That dunk was from 2 decades ago."
- Bill Simmons on Twitter
by halo_on on Jan 7, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you mean people with better track records?
Avery Johnson, Byron Scott to start
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jan 7, 2010 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Avery Johnson. My god. That would be almost as bad as Zach Randolph was for the team.
Also, Scott is coaching the Hornets right now. But he’s a good coach. I agree with ya.
"I'm at clips-blazers + Juwan Howard just posterized Marcus Camby. Crowd is still reeling. That dunk was from 2 decades ago."
- Bill Simmons on Twitter
by halo_on on Jan 7, 2010 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Scott was fired at the beginning of this season
OK...so girls in movies where guys wear hockey masks have a better survival rate than the average Blazer player. - Dave
by 22baylor on Jan 7, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Firing is required, he was almost on the same team for two years after winning coach of the year
NBA rule about not allowing that.
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Byron Scott was fired earlier this season.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Jan 7, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Scott was fired from the Hornets
I would keep Nate over him.
Avery might be decent— he did get a team within a few DWade star calls of a title, but I think there’s better choices out there.
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would take anyone over Avery
that team was STACKED, and he couldn’t find a way in 4 games to prevent one guy from beating him. As great as Wade was and as bad as the refs were, when you’re trotting out Terry, Dirk, Howard, Harris, Stackhouse, and Marquise Daniels relatively close to their primes, you have no excuse to not beat that Heat team in a 2 out of 6 times.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you beat Bennett Salvatore as a coach? And wouldn't that look unfair, beating on an old mean man?
by Norsktroll on Jan 7, 2010 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If teams with Kobe can lose twice in the finals,
as KG would say, anything is possible.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
interesting
You didn’t even mention his epic failure as a coach in that Warriors upset. Maybe you are right.
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if I had to point to Avery's single greatest screwup
it would probably be that, I just think he gets too much of a pass for that Heat series in general.
#52
by Royster on Jan 7, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My bad on the Scott situation. I totally forgot about that.
"I'm at clips-blazers + Juwan Howard just posterized Marcus Camby. Crowd is still reeling. That dunk was from 2 decades ago."
- Bill Simmons on Twitter
by halo_on on Jan 7, 2010 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Two guys who couldn't hold a job.
I think both of these guys are good and I particularly like Johnson. But believing either will be even a marginal improvement over Nate is fools gold.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a no-win argument.
No matter what coach a person picks, they’ve had good or bad years that can be cherry-picked in arguments.
The key to a good coach is being able to implement a system that uses his players to maximum results.
Nobody knew Popovich could do that until he did. Nobody knew Riley could do that before he did. Nobody knew Jackson could do that until he did. They were all relatively untested and unknown before they succeeded.
There’s no point in listing some (retread?) coaching names on an Internet site and hashing out how they’d work. The question is, are there holes in Nate’s skillset that could be replaced without causing bigger holes as a result? And can the team handle that change well? If so, it’s at least there for consideration.
It’s possible the best person to bring into Portland is a name for whom everyone would ask… “who??”
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Nicely stated.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
by timg56 on Jan 7, 2010 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nicely done and rec’d.
draft patrick patterson
#52 #10 #25 #88 #5 #2
by Cablinasian on Jan 7, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The guy AK's brough up a number of times, Mike Budenholzer, might be a possibility.
#52
by jksnake99 on Jan 7, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like Lawrence Frank and Budenholzer.
draft patrick patterson
#52 #10 #25 #88 #5 #2
by Cablinasian on Jan 7, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Man, Lawrence Frank = grass being WAY greener on the other side to me
"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 7, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he is a really good coach who has done a lot with very little.
He’ll do well wherever he ends up.
draft patrick patterson
#52 #10 #25 #88 #5 #2
by Cablinasian on Jan 7, 2010 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair 'nuff
"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 7, 2010 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I think it's quickly becoming obvious
That Lawrence Frank was not the problem in New Jersey.
by Timmay! on Jan 7, 2010 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just what I needed on a slow work day
some soap opera reality drama. Should make the game tomorrow night even that much more interesting
Maddie in Portland, Oregon
by kentuckybred on Jan 7, 2010 2:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Macmillan
It almost appears that Macmillan has sabotaged this deal from the beginning. Its the coach’s job to make this work, and if anything he keeps throwing gas on the fire. It makes me wonder if Pritchard didn’t have Nate’s buy in on Dre and this is his way of getting back at him. How else do you explain playing Blake and even Bayless over a VERY GOOD NBA point guard. I don’t blame Dre, I blame Nate and Brandon for not accepting and welcoming him to the team knowing that it would make them better.
by MBRANDEB on Jan 7, 2010 2:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I blame Nate and Brandon for not accepting and welcoming him to the team knowing that it would make them better.
That’s a ridiculous statement which I’ll never fully understand. There are several Blazer fans who share this opinion.
Look, here’s what I’m 99% sure happened. Once the Turkoglu and Millsap deals fell apart, Portland needed to spend salary cap space on somebody. Nate wanted a veteran and anybody better than Sergio Rodriguez to improve our overall point guard play. I’m sure Pritchard wasn’t sold on Miller but he relented and let Nate have the player he thought he wanted. Turns out the “knocks” on Miller’s game have been right all along. They are starting to surface in the form of laziness on defense, looking for his own jump shot late in the shot clock (which he usually misses) and a general lack of hustle. There’s no such thing as “giving him time to fit in” when as a player, he’s just not the right fit for our style of play. I love the lobs passes when they hit their mark. I love that Miler wants to run the fast break more often. But one thing Nate can’t stand is a veteran point guard who won’t play defense. Was it Nate’s fault for being so high on Miller then in the first place? Yeah, I’ll agree with that kind of blame. But I don’t agree that we haven’t given him a chance. I’ve seen enough myself and I’m no basketball expert.
"I'm at clips-blazers + Juwan Howard just posterized Marcus Camby. Crowd is still reeling. That dunk was from 2 decades ago."
- Bill Simmons on Twitter
by halo_on on Jan 7, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Andre Miller's Defense
My goodness man, have you watched Blake and Bayless’ matador defense? They are BOTH awful. Not buying it.

by 
