Media Row Report: Blazers 89, Jazz 93
by Ben Golliver on Feb 22, 2010 2:11 AM PST
in News
Email
Print
The Blazers blew it tonight and they blew it hard. You know it, I know it, they know it, the Jazz know it. Up 64-39 midway through the third quarter, the Blazers began an eye-popping collapse that resulted in a devastating 93-89 overtime loss at home to a key division rival.
How did this go down? The Jazz closed the third quarter on a 21-9 run. The Blazers shot 3-12 during the stretch including 1-9 on jumpers. The Jazz then won the fourth quarter 23-10. The Blazers shot 2-17 during the stretch including 1-14 on jumpers. The Jazz won overtime 10-6. The Blazers shot 2-10 in overtime including 2-9 on jumpers.
Are you ready for me to add that all up? Over the last 24 minutes of the game, the Blazers were outscored 54-25, shot 7-38 from the field and made just 4-33 jump shots. If you are new to basketball those are poor results.
Poor results that left Nate McMillan flustered during his post-game press conference, at a loss for earthly explanations. He opted instead, as he sometimes does, for a meditation on karma. "If you play with this game, this game will come back and get you. What I mean by that... if you lose your focus and don't play the game the right way, it will come back on you."
Of all the games for the Blazers to play with, this was an especially brutal one because it started off with so much potential. After Brandon Roy was forced out of the game early with 2 fouls, the Blazers played some of their sharpest ball in recent memory, getting a hot start from Andre Miller (10 points in the first quarter) and much-needed contributions from Rudy Fernandez (10 points overall) and Nicolas Batum (14 points, all in the first half).
While Rudy rediscovered the long-distance shooting stroke that has been eluding him, Batum succeeded in truly changing a game's tempo for the first time in perhaps two weeks. One sequence stood out: a chase down block of a layup attempt by Deron Williams followed soon after by a leak-out, cock-back dunk that drew some of the loudest cheers of the night. "The last three games I didn't bring anything," Batum told me after the game. "I was shy. I didn't rebound. I didn't play defense. Tonight, I just make my shots, stretch the defense, grab some rebounds, that's why I stayed on the court tonight."
Although he played probably his loosest basketball of the past month, Roy still lacked explosiveness going to the basket, instead cashing in at the free throw line and on spot-up shots. He moved better on defense but was beaten to the basket off-the-ball on numerous occasions and, after using a heat pack and an exercise bike to keep his leg loose during the second half, really seemed to be dragging in the game's final minutes. He made just one of his last five field goal attempts, a three pointer to start overtime.
"About the fourth quarter it started getting sore," Roy said after the game. "So I just tried to keep it as warm as possible, stay warm on the bike because I don't want to let it sit too long. I thought it worked tonight. It got pretty painful in the third quarter so I heated it up. Rode the bike for a little bit."
While Roy was careful not to use the hamstring as an excuse for his poor shooting down the stretch, he clearly remains troubled by it. "It was a little up and down. I tried to make plays. There were times where it gets sore so I have to kind of back off. It's something that I just have to deal with. It's something that's not going to go away right now. I just try to keep heating it up when I'm on the bench. And when I'm playing just picking my spots where I can be aggressive."
One can't help but wonder whether McMillan should have been more active in helping pick Roy's spots for him. Although a heavy disclaimer is always necessary when looking at +/- over the course of a single game, Roy was a -21 tonight. The next worst Blazer was Marcus Camby at -13. If McMillan insists on playing Roy while he's recovering from his hamstring injury and readily admits that Roy still needs time to regain his rhythm, perhaps easing the late-game workload back onto his shoulders might be a good idea.
Perhaps, rightly or wrongly, McMillan felt like he had no other options. For the first time in awhile, McMillan looked and sounded genuinely worried, as if tonight's collapse might be foreshadowing a larger collapse: a fall out of the Western Conference's top 8 spots. "If we are serious about really making a run, we gotta act like it. We gotta play like it. And we gotta have guys step up."
McMIllan avoided eye contact and shook his head much more than usual during his media statements, repeating multiple times that he would have to look at the game tape to figure out exactly what went wrong down the stretch.
"He takes every game pretty hard," Roy told me as he moved to leave the locker room. "And we take it just as personal as he does."
Let's hope so. It's gut check time.
Random Game Notes
- Scott Schroeder on Twitter: "Made the decision - if the Blazers decide they need a PG, it's Conroy. If a big man, Dwayne Jones. If they don't go with these options, ugh."
- Nate McMillan refused to directly answer a question about Marcus Camby's play, despite 18 rebounds and 4 blocks on the night. Pretty strange. Check it out below.
- McMillan said he had considered starting Nicolas Batum for the second half. Asked about this, Batum told me, "no, no, he just told me nothing."
- "I don't look at players as players any more. They're just x coordinates and y coordinates." -- Anonymous, before the game, to healthy laughter.
- When I left the arena Marcus Camby was still signing autographs for fans in the players garage. Pretty solid first impression.
- A Rose Garden mainstay (and Blazersedge reader), Larry the Security Guard, told me before the game that he was working his last Blazers game tonight as his day job is taking him away from the Portland area. In charge of the visitor's tunnel, Larry helped oversee the craziest intersection in the entire arena. Courtside fans, media, players, coaches and autograph hounds all converge before the game, at halftime and after the game, turning a narrow hallway into a giant mess. Perfectly suited for this role, Larry is big enough that unruly fans wouldn't dare mess with him, friendly enough that he dished head nods like dimes, and die-hard enough that you could always, always expect a good barb about the night's action. Larry's even temper and easy smile will be sorely missed. Hopefully his new-found distance from the games will lead him to a natural new home: the BE comments section.
- True BE readers will remember when I was nearly decapitated by a flying t-shirt while live-blogging one of the pre-season games. I thought it couldn't get worse than that. But I was wrong. During the fourth quarter, a t-shirt cannon launched one of its rare and priceless collectibles off the railing above my row so that the shirt caromed down to an improbable resting place directly underneath my seat. A gentleman of at least 50 years of age came hurtling in my direction, down on hands and knees like a Labrador, using his right arm to madly paw for the shirt underneath the seats next to me. As there was no one -- LITERALLY NO ONE -- else who could have made a play on this particular t-shirt, least of all me, it was unclear why he was acting so manically. His unsuccessful one-armed foraging got the better of him and before I knew it, his head had nuzzled its way basically onto my lap, in roughly the position that would cause you to immediately change the channel if you were watching an HBO late-night show and your child suddenly walked in the room. As I certainly hadn't paid for this (the shirt... or, you know, whatever he was doing to me) I reacted with some choice words and looked around for help, in disbelief. Stunned, horrified faces looked back at me from every direction. Hopefully there were no camera phones present as a picture capturing these events would have immediately ended the Clinton presidency or put me in a starring role alongside Greg Oden on WorldStarHipHop.com. The moral of this story: if you're down on your hands and knees for a free t-shirt (hey, it could happen to anyone) please watch out for the laps of others. I suppose this is my karma for the LeBron story?
Nate McMillan's Post Game Comments
Opening remarks
"It's hard to ... you hate to make comments and not see the film but see the tape but I felt like, I've always felt if you play with this game, this game will come back and get you. What I mean by that... if you lose your focus and don't play the game the right way, it will come back on you. I thought, just the third quarter, we took some shots, we started to relax offensively. I thought defensively they started to -- we knew they had to make a run -- we started to give up some easy baskets and we got caught up in fouling. You have an opportunity to put a team away you never allow them to gain confidence. I thought some of our shots that we took in that third quarter against that zone and their defense, we lost our rhythm and they got momentum and all of a sudden you lose a little bit of confidence and you can't make a shot.
2 for 17 in the fourth quarter
Again, I need to look at the tape but that's my feel. I just thought we've got to play the game the right way for 48 minutes, regardless of what the score is, whether you're up 20 or down 20, you've got to play together, you've got to execute. You don't give a team any life at all by gambling or getting loose or you stop the things that are working for you. They got in, they got aggressive, they started pounding us on the boards. We gave up 11 offensive boards the second half. Offensively we had shots that we didn't knock down those shots and we give up a game like this.
Tough loss after the Boston blowout
If we are serious about really making a run, we gotta act like it. We gotta play like it. And we gotta have guys step up. We've got veterans, we've got guys who have been on the team. We've got to show that in what we do out on the floor. And the moves we've made, and having guys back, if we're serious about making a run that's got to show in our play.
Thoughts on the last play of regulation
You gotta get that board. You get the board it's a ballgame. They beat us to the board. Boozer, their bigs came in, they had 11 offensive boards and outworked us the second half. Williams got a pretty decent look. I thought Nic got a hand on it -- a hand in his face -- and you force the miss and you've got to finish that with a rebound. That's the second half, you've got to make plays. To win the game, you've got to do that. Make the plays that are there.
Marcus Camby showed you some more tonight
As a group we didn't get it done. I think that's pretty obvious.
Roy looked better
He made some buckets. I thought down the stretch we tried to get it to him. Defensively, again as a group, you can't let this go.
Did you consider starting Nicolas Batum for the second half?
I thought about it. In the second half we were going to get him in, and needed to get him in. We needed his shooting out there. I finished with him because we needed defense and he was making his shot in the first half. The second half he had some looks that he didn't knock down. They double-teamed and forced some guys to make some shots and they didn't knock down those shots.
-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter
124 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I changed the channel to Amazing Race at the 3rd quarter...
If only every member of the NBA was chasing the MILLION dollar prize! Good stuff as always Ben but tonight the only one chasing the Benjamins was Batum and his lottery crapped out in the second half offense that is Nate and the iso ( bet on black or red 50%50) known as Roy.
Which until he learns that the offense flows better when he doesnt hold the ball at the top..
of the key for 15 seconds if more like betting 00 all in…More heart from the group while he wasw chearing from the bench recently.
by TheOdenator52 on Feb 22, 2010 2:35 AM PST up reply actions
So frustrating.
You don’t give a team any life at all by gambling or getting loose or you stop the things that are working for you.
Stopping the things that are working for you-… going from High energy to low energy Brandon Iso. Is this Nate or the Players? I am confused when he talks like this. He makes it sound like the players.
I understand it’s players faults for not blocking out and doing those things but game tempo, that’s got to be Nate.
This team is so Bipolar it is frustrating.
Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy,
don't be afraid to make slurping sounds,
and don't take crap from anybody
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae-5q8MaSSU
2 most glaring problems with the gameplan: 1) No low post scoring presence whatsoever; 2) Not starting Batum in the 3rd Quarter
1) The lack of a post scoring option causes all kinds of problems. Much of this falls on LMA’s shoulders. His skillset is simply not where it needs to be in order for him to be a true 2nd scoring option who can be depended upon in the 4th qtr. The tale of the tape doesn’t lie: LMA shot the ball TWICE in the 4th qtr and OT combined…missing both. That just isn’t going to get it done. LMA might want to think of himself as a Dirk Nowistki type 4, but he doesn’t have the handle or 3 pt range or killer instinct to put him in that class. He has a lot of work to do in the off season so he can become more than a tall, soft 2 guard who shoots 20 footers and disappears in the 4th qtr game after game. Some of this is systemic and falls on the shoulders of the coaching staff, but most of this is LMA’s lack of post game and general lack of intensity. This team needs a 2nd option we can depend on in crunch time. We simply don’t have one right now.
2) The fact that an hour of real time passed from the end of the 1st half to when Batum went in during the 3rd quarter is a huge coaching mistake and is inexcusable. Batum was on FIRE in the 1st half. Not starting him was idiotic. He is a better player than Martell and should be starting. Period.
No. What is missed is an offensive post presence and an offense that thrives on ball movement.
1) Our starting 2 is gimpy and not 100%. When he is in the game, the offense grinds to a halt.
2) Our starting 4 is a soft 2 guard who shoots 20 footers and disappears in the 4th.
3) Batum should have started the 3rd and should have had his number called all night. When the ball is moving around the circle he is tremendously successful.
4) Nate was out-coached in this game, especially on the final inbounds play which was ridiculously ineffective, relying on a gimpy Roy to get his own shot under duress without so much as a screen to free him up.
I heard that sometimes
Players can make an impact on the game without getting the ball in post position. Like blocking shots, boxing out, 2nd chance points, and stuff like that.
just a rumor though
Ball handling and dribbling are my strongest weaknesses."—David Thompson
LMA can't do anything
a.) from the bench
b.) when the ONLY offense we run in the 4th is ISO…I say it when we win and win we lose, I love Roy, I love the fact that he can create his own shot out of the ISO, all successful NBA teams need a guy like that, but ISO should never essentially be the only play in the 4th as it is routinely whether or not Roy is in the game.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
True, but that ignores my overall point re: LMA...
a) even when he was in the game in the 4th and OT he didn’t do anything. Boozer turned him into his beeyotch. Look at LMA’s qtr splits to verify. I was at the game and re-watched on DVR later to verify. LMA’s ineffectiveness at the end of the game was glaring.
b) as noted, part of LMA’s ineffectiveness is a coaching/rotation/offensive system problem. But, much of it is simply that “real LMA” is much different than “potential LMA”. He simply does not currently possess the right skills and mentality to be a true 2nd scoring option, especially in crunch time.
It’s hilarious to me that he demonstrates this night after night, but so many people refuse to acknowledge the truth as we see it played out in front of us…game after game.
Like the rest of the team, LMA would benefit from
a better coach.
The whole team is not reaching their potential. And I think that while some of your points re: LMA (both above and below this) are valid, I think you’re being way too harsh on him. He’s not being developed as well as he could. He seems stuck. But he’s still a solid talent, and I’m not giving up on him taking that next step.
But I could say the same thing about Rudy, Bayless, and, sorry for the blasphemy, Brandon. None of them seem to be getting any better this season.
I feel bad for Dante Cunningham who clearly has a lot of potential, but if he develops it, it probably won’t be until we have better coaching.
That's more than fair. I've admitted more than once on here that I'm very hard on LMA.
And it’s mainly because I think he is a Top 15 talent guy in the league. What I see from him is a distinct lack of development as a post or perimeter big. In fact, he seems to have regressed this year. I realize a lot of that is because of team instability due to injury. And some of that is due to coaching/rotation issues. But some of this seems to be a lack of effort. It is difficult from where I sit to deny there is a distinct difference between how much, say, Boozer leaves on the court vs. LMA. Boozer gives you pedal to the metal intensity and effort. Win or lose that’s all I want from LMA. If he busts his butt on both ends and leaves it all on the court, I can live with a loss. What is difficult to swallow is when it appears he takes plays off and doesn’t hustle defensively. I think he has more upside on this team than anyone except perhaps Batum. I just want to see him reach it.
That's more than fair. I've admitted more than once on here that I'm very hard on LMA.
And it’s mainly because I think he is a Top 15 talent guy in the league. What I see from him is a distinct lack of development as a post or perimeter big. In fact, he seems to have regressed this year. I realize a lot of that is because of team instability due to injury. And some of that is due to coaching/rotation issues. But some of this seems to be a lack of effort. It is difficult from where I sit to deny there is a distinct difference between how much, say, Boozer leaves on the court vs. LMA. Boozer gives you pedal to the metal intensity and effort. Win or lose that’s all I want from LMA. If he busts his butt on both ends and leaves it all on the court, I can live with a loss. What is difficult to swallow is when it appears he takes plays off and doesn’t hustle defensively. I think he has more upside on this team than anyone except perhaps Batum. I just want to see him reach it.
2nd option
I don’t think you should complain about the lack of a 2nd option when our first option is clearly not right. The idea of the Miller acquisition is that he could make plays when either the matchups don’t favor Brandon, or the opponent focuses everything on taking Brandon away (both these things were true in the Houston series). Of course, where Brandon is getting defended successfully 1-1 by Deron Williams and CJ Miles, you’ve got a problem. A fully fit Brandon would have obliterated Deron pretty much just by shooting over him. If Brandon were going off instead of getting uncharacteristically stuffed due to his injury, you would’ve seen a lot more space for Andre to drive and make plays, and more open jump-shots for our complementary players. As it stood, we had the choice of “injured Brandon” gimping to the basket or Andre shooting 17 footers (because they weren’t letting him get inside, the paint was all clogged). Our team is correctly designed around Brandon’s wonder ability to get to the rack and create for others—when he isn’t fit all the other options start to look a lot worse.
*Note, I am not defending Nate’s decision to continue to go to Brandon 1 v. 1 despite his demonstrated inability to consistently get and advantage against the Jazz defenders. I just think this game is not great evidence for the proposition that we need another creator in crunch time.
by atomiccafe on Feb 22, 2010 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So, just b/c Brandon is still a bit gimpy, we are supposed to ignore LMA's complete lack of crunch time contribution?
Sooner or later we have to recognize the TRUTH is that club does not have a 2nd option. Yes, we want BRoy to be “right”. But, even when he’s 100% we will STILL need a legit 2nd option who can be depended upon to have any hope whatsoever to make noise in the playoffs next year. This game is not an isolated case for LMA’s ineffectiveness in crunch time. He shows this game after game after game.
As for Brandon obliterating DWill if fully healthy, I would say that is partially right. But, let’s shift the focus a bit to discuss BRoy’s final shot: that was absolutely a COACHING mistake, not a problem with BRoy’s injury. That was a pathetic excuse for an inbounds play. Re-watch it. We didn’t even set a screen for BRoy, we simply expected him to get his shot 1 on 1. I’d rather have ANY other 3-pt shooter on the roster shoot the final shot off a screen than have BRoy shoot THAT shot under duress. Absolutely HORRIBLE strategy by Nate/Monty to end the game.
I am not convinced that designing an offense around BRoy ISOs is the way to win. We need better ball movement. When BRoy is in the game, all ball movement stops and other players stand around and watch him with the ball. Nate needs to find a balance. This is most definitely a systemic problem.
As a point of comparison, how many titles do you think Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant would have won without the triangle offense creating ball movement, open jumpers, and being executed by bigs with good passing/ball handling abilities? Answer: ZERO. Neither player won jack without the triangle. Both of those players are much better than Brandon is. So, for the purposes of comparison, an offense designed to create ISOs for BRoy while the other players stand around is NOT going to result in winning.
Re: Miller…this helps prove my point about the offensive system issues. All night I was thinking to myself, “What does it seem that offense is PURPOSEFULLY rotating the ball to Miller for 18 foot bricks?” Answer: lack of a better option at times, team standing around watching BRoy ISO, no low post scoring option, no ball movement, shot clock burns down, Miller is left wide open by Utah’s D while they pack the paint and cover the other players…so Miller puts up the brick.
Give it a rest
The Jazz went zone and Portland is such a crappy executing team they couldn’t take advantage. You can’t feed the ball down to LMA in that situation.
LOL Really? That's your brilliant analysis? The Jazz went zone?
I think I’ll stick with mine, thanks. Don’t quit your day job. ;-)
Give it a rest
His analysis was spot on. They went to a zone, we didn’t adjust and execute in the face of it.
Your “Batum should have started the third” point seems pretty weak, since we went on a tear without him at the start of the third. You didn’t want us to build that lead?
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
They went to a zone doesn't explain jack.
Unless of course you agree than an offense designed around taking jumpers all game long is a GOOD idea?
Just saying that all the Aldridge bashing is misguided
The team doesn’t know how to penetrate a zone, so it’s no wonder that Aldridge didn’t get any quality looks.
It's not "Aldridge Bashing". It's reality.
Yes, we have some significant coaching/system issues. But, sooner or later you have to look at the player himself and what he consistently brings on a nightly basis. What percentage of LMA’s lackluster performance in crunch time is due to coaching/system problems and what percentage is due to his weaknesses is up for debate. But, ultimately, LMA needs to get his azz on the block, DEMAND the rock, and take shots. If he doesn’t do that then he’s passive and not an aggressive enough of a player to be considered a reliable option when the game is on the line. If he scores a nice 15 or 20 a night, but never does it in a way that BENDS THE GAMES OUTCOME TO HIS WILL, then all he has done is collect some nice stats. This is about Ws, remember?
So when the coach says give it to the superstar
and the superstar takes it, and the PF is supposed to come and set a screen for the superstar, instead he should go get on the block and demand the ball?
OK.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
Do you think that if LMA was more aggressive minded and DEMANDED the ball in big game moments he MIGHT just get it?
I DO. Because that’s how basketball works, if you’ve ever actually played.
You are hitting just about every "don't do" right now
between personally belittling a poster and trotting out the “did you even watch/do you even play” canard. Keep it up, really. It’s always amusing watching people ride the express train to Bannsville.
"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 Feb 22, 2010 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
Check back into what started this. He was the one who used derogatory/belitting language in the first place.
He also used the “HAVE YOU EVER PLAYED?” card first.
Nice of you to conveniently ignore this fact. ;-)
Why did I ask that?
I said
They went to a zone, we didn’t adjust and execute in the face of it.
You said
They went to a zone doesn’t explain jack.
Which honestly made me wonder if you had ever played, because anyone who has knows you have to adjust and execute.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
You've said a number of things that make me wonder if you've ever played as well.
Specifically that you don’t want to acknowledge LMA is a liability at the 4 against playoff quality teams who play hard D. This is a very basic concept to me that seems hard to miss after nearly a season of watching LMA wilt against physical teams and fail to show up in crunch time. For some reason, you won’t admit this fact.
As for the zone brew-haha I didn’t think we had to acknowledge things as basic as a change to a zone D possibly causing issues for the opposing team. If that passes for analysis we’re in trouble here. I was trying to get more to the meat of the matter, specifically rotations and player inefficiencies.
Perhaps you could remind me
where I said these things.
Specifically that you don’t want to acknowledge LMA is a liability at the 4 against playoff quality teams who play hard D. This is a very basic concept to me that seems hard to miss after nearly a season of watching LMA wilt against physical teams and fail to show up in crunch time. For some reason, you won’t admit this fact.
Seeing as how I’ve already acknowledged in this thread that his history of fourth quarter production is less than stellar. Just because I think some of your criticism is over the top does not mean I think LMA is an all-star or anything.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
Well HOT DAMN (is that a curse word on here? ;-))...
…why didn’t you just say so??? ;-)
Seriously, I have to say let’s just cool it down.
Truce? I think we both have valid points and good things to say.
Somehow we got bogged down in arguing minutiae, and some of that blame is mine. I think it’s easy to get off track on here. The silly thing is, on more than one point I think we were arguing the same darn thing from different angles…sprinkle in a bit of misunderstanding/miscommunication and VOILA flame war. ;-)
I think we both recognize there are some serious issues with the system and some of the player’s production.
Ultimately, we both want this team to win and we’re both pretty passionate about it.
Random thought: if a couple of former ballers on the outside can get this passionate and frustrated trying to theorize about potential solutions, can you imagine how much tension must be building behind the scenes at the Rose Garden? Nate is a pretty calm, cool guy…but I’m imagining that things have gotten pretty heated more than just the well publicized Andre Miller/Nate flap might indicate. ;-)
I doubt it’s a soap opera, but I don’t think it’s all smooth sailing either.
A more correct observation would be ...
… that jscot has made some valid points (as he usually does) and you have just run at the mount.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
Not Adridge's fault this game, I agree.
Aldridge’s fault for having a history of a lack of production late in games? Its a chicken or the egg scenario. Does Nate not game plan for him because he isn’t effective, or is he ineffective because Nate doesn’t game plan for him?
Either way, I agree. Nate calling the Roy Iso™ repeatedly in this case was completely inexcusable, given Roy’s current status.
by Free Bayless on Feb 22, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Exactly what are your credentials?
All I see is a lot jaw jacking, with you trying to sound like you know what you are talking about and it coming across as mostly a bunch of whining.
“It’s Nate’s fault because he didn’t have Batum in.” Can you actually explain exactly how this impacted the game? Unlike what jscot has done – provide data for us to evaluate – all you do is offer unsupported opinion. And when ralphzilla makes the observation that Utah’s zone took away Portland’s only interior threat, you trash him because it doesn’t jive with your certaintly that LaMarcus sucks.
So yes, do us all a favor and give it a rest.
Clarence, It's better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it.
PS
re: Batum was on fire to end the half. Any coach worth his mettle would have recognized this and made the adjustment to start him in the 3rd. So, yes this would have been a wise choice. Good coaches make adjustments all the time. Hey, here’s a good example: Jerry Sloan decided to make adjustments at the half. Hmmm. Interesting.
Jerry Sloan made adjustments
because what he was doing wasn’t working.
Nate didn’t, because what he was doing was working well, and continued to work phenomenally well until Aldridge picked up his foul and had to go out. Our starters were drilling them.
Arguably, it would have been better if Nic had come in for Webster at that point, instead of Rudy. But Nate wanted to keep Nic fresh for the fourth, because he intended to use him to defend Williams. That’s the kind of adjustment good coaches make sometimes.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
No, I'm arguing because your criticism
of Nate’s use of Nic is unwarranted in this instance.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
No it's not. Nic was THE single biggest piece of that 1st half surge that put us ahead by so much.
To say anything else is just silly. And, as noted, by your own argument dictates he should have started the 3rd to continue that trend.
I suppose now you’ll try to wriggle out of that one now. ;-)
I've already answered
The lead went from 12 to 25 without him. Horrible mistake by Nate, wasn’t it?
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
By the way
a useful site:
http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20100221&game=UTHPOR
They do this on every game. You can actually see who came in at what point in the game, how long they were in, what the plus minus was during their spell in the game, and what their stats were. It’s really useful in identifying what really went wrong in a particular game.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
Aldridge
Juwan was fine so long as LMA was in the game. The game turned right when LMA went out in the 3rd quarter, leaving us with no reliable threat at either the 4 or 5 positions for basically the last 25 minutes of the game.
so JuHo’s stint looks really bad because he subbed in for our best player on the night. Not really his fault.
Extremely poor production
in 29 minutes.
It wasn’t really a good matchup for him, Millsap and Boozer are both too quick and too strong. IMO, Nate should have used Dante.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
Juwan was murdered on the pick and roll.
#52 #10 #7
by Cablinasian on Feb 22, 2010 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Juwan is always overmatched. Dante should have been in there.
That said, our defense wasn’t really that bad during their run. They only scored 23 points in the 4th and shot 35% on the night. We just couldn’t score, which I would attribute in large part to LMA not being on the floor, forcing us to rely on gimpy Roy (Miller was terrible, and Bayless wasn’t great either).
LOL
I don’t think this game was Nate’s finest hour. I think he’s a good coach, but not on Sloan’s level, and in my limited opinion, I think he made some significant mistakes in this game.
But I certainly understand his thinking in his use of Nic, and I can’t fault him for it.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
I think Nate is a good coach for rebuilding. He has a very structured system, is slow to react and change, and knows how to relate to younger players decently enough. He can take a really crappy roster and coach it to overachieve.
But he’s the kind of guy who possesses a lot of negative traits going forward. The same ability to be slow to react and take things in context can be deadly in the playoffs, where quick adjustments are needed. His incredibly structured offensive system? If you google high-low zone offense, it’s suggested for a group of high schoolers playing in a tournament that don’t have time to learn something more intricate.
When it comes down to it, we can’t defend the pick and roll to save our lives, players aren’t held accountable on defense, and our offense is very easy to shut down with a good defense focused on it.
I do not see how Nate is an above-average coach for a contending team.
#52 #10 #7
Not too far off my own assessment
I keep hoping the offense was designed for rebuilding, and is going to be improved as younger players develop further. I keep waiting for that time. And waiting.
I think we have seen some progress on defense this year, though the injuries make it hard to assess. And I think we have enough talent that we could win even with this offense, when everyone is healthy.
But I don’t that that, either offensively or defensively, our schemes really take advantage of the immense talent we have.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
To be honest, I've almost come around
to thinking the opposite on this:
I do not see how Nate is an above-average coach for a contending team.
as strange as it may be. Outside of Roy, our turnaround these last few years has been largely fueled by veteran role players performing well above their career levels. We’ve seen Blake, Joel, James Jones, and now Juwan performing at levels well above what historical data would predict they would perform at, while the young non-Roy players have shown flashes at times, but most seem to not be living up to their initial career predictions.
I think he’s in a little bit of a no man’s land with his coaching strengths. His rigid system and structure seem to be valuable for a young set of players in order to minimize individual mistakes, but at the same time this seems to hurt young players in the long run by preventing them from getting comfortable and playing to their strengths (Sergio, Jerryd, Channing) and chafes on some vets forcing them into a role that doesn’t fully encompass their abilities (Miller).
He reminds me most of Avery Johnson in that respect, a guy who seemed too focused on micromanaging the game despite having a plethora of excellent individual talents of that Mavs team.
As a thought experiment with regards to the “Nate as a good rebuilding coach” thesis, would we still think the same thing if the Foye-Roy trade hadn’t been made? Obviously a whole lot of things would have turned out differently in the intervening 4 years, but without catching lightning in a bottle with that pick/trade, would we have won even 40 games last year?
#52
Interesting post
In other words, you think Nate is good at helping young players get better, but not really reach their potential, and good at utilizing some vets but not others.
Does that about sum it up? I would certainly agree about the vets part of it, though arguably you could say that about almost any coach — they do best with players that fit their system.
The young player part is hard to say. I think Nate is going to be a very good coach for Jerryd, in the long run, because I think Jerryd can be a great player in Nate’s system, even if he wasn’t entirely a natural for it — I think being forced to fit into Nate’s system will actually make Jerryd better, removing some of his natural weaknesses.
But Nate’s system, as it stands today anyway, was death to Sergio, and it doesn’t really utilize what many of our other young players (LMA, Rudy, Martell, Nic, probably Greg) can bring. They might do very, very well in his system, but these guys are so fast, so athletic, you wish we could turn them loose.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
The crazy thing is...
…Nate’s rep as a coach is as a stellar teacher. There are a rare few head coaches in the NBA who I hear talked about in the same class in terms of being a teacher. Outside of the obvious injury epidemic (not a trivial thing), a lot of the problems we’re having are so difficult to understand because of this fact. His ability to lead and teach are not in question. And given the injury issues, I think a case could be made for Nate to at least be in the discussion when it comes to coach of the year honors. Yet, like you just said, there’s that little “system problem” we’ve been discussing. It’s definitely becoming the elephant in the room IMHO.
The vets thing
he’s good with a certain kind of vet: the written off kind with a limited skill set. Identifying Steve Blake’s strengths isn’t especially difficult, and especially with Nate, you could hardly find a better fit for him. Same with James Jones and Joel. He’s basically put them in a position to succeed and challenged them to do it.
This is completely different for me than figuring out how to get all of Elson, Nasterovic, Bonner, Malik Rose, and McDyess to effectively play alongside Tim Duncan or their myriad changes in backcourt personnel. Or deploying Ron Artest into the triangle or alongside Yao Ming. Or fitting Grant Hill into Boris Diaw/Shawn Marion’s role on offense. Or turning Antoine Walker and 34 year old Gary Payton into effective role players. Etc, etc.
#52
This is laughable. You're going to tell me with a straight face that the gameplan was working well until LMA went out...
…indicating that somehow when LMA went out it all “went downhill”??? LOL
Go back and re-watch the game.
Utah’s comeback started half-way through the 3rd pal. Way before LMA sat with his 5th foul.
Nic needed to be in the game from the start of the 2nd half. He was part of the energy that blew the game open in the 1st half. So, BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT of “continuing to do what was working” he should have been in to start the 3rd since he was the biggest aspect of what was working.
Again, thanks for proving my point. :)
4th foul
5:39 left in the third. We were up 19, and Aldridge went out. From there, it went downhill. Except for one 15 second stint, when he got his fifth foul immediately, he was out for 14:39, and the lead dropped from 19 to 4. That perhaps indicates that yes, the game plan WAS working well and it went downhill when Aldridge was out.
It perhaps even indicates that Aldridge was a big part of our success, and his absence with foul trouble was a big problem for us. I know that doesn’t fit your view of him, but it seems to me there’s a difference between a 19 point lead and a four point lead.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
You keep ignoring the question...
…what did LMA do in the 4th and OT that justifies your man crush on him? Or, to shift to the 3rd qtr what did he do there? He hit 2 shots in the 3rd. So, 2 made shots in the 3rd and ZERO points the rest of the way are what you think we need out of a 2nd scoring option? Interesting.
you raise a litany of good points
1) LaMarcus in crunch time has been something of a concern for months now. Last night, he was a problem, but i think it was really foul trouble that took him out of the game, so it’s tough to evaluate. Of course, it really sucked that he was in foul trouble, because he pretty much was our offense for a good chunk of the first half.
2) The last shot was a poor excuse for a play. We totally agree.
3) Again, I think Brandon’s injury made the Roy-centric offense look really bad last night. He usually gets the ball in triple-threat position and makes quick and sound decisions with the ball. This leads to either him scoring, or swinging the ball around to find the open man. Last night, he was hesitant and couldn’t finish at the rim. That’s not to say we couldn’t have done better, and Nate definitely should have gone away from him when it became clear he didn’t have it.
4) Ball movement is important. But event the most “sophisticated” coach always puts the ball in the hands of their best players down the stretch. Everyone always talks about how Sloan is running circles around Nate. I didn’t see any of that last night. What I saw last night (at least in the fourth quarter) was Deron Williams either breaking his man down off the dribble or running around screens by Boozer and either scoring or making a pass. Williams’ ability with the ball and Boozer’s remarkable passing skills on the interior and tenacity on the boards won that game for the Jazz.
I think you are ultimately correct that this offensive system needs a bit of an update. When Roy gets the ball, players should be moving instead of waiting for something to happen. Can Nate do this? You basically have no choice but to find out. Right or wrong, management is going to see this as a lost year based on the injuries, so he gets another chance.
Aldridge only played 3:15 in the fourth
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
The problem is that this isn't an isolated incident for LMA. It's a recurring theme. Game after game he disappears in the 4th.
Regardless of his PT in this game, he doesn’t generally produce in crunch time and can’t be looked to for big shots in close games in the 4th. Can you think of even one game this year where LMA had a big 4th qtr and/or hit a game winning shot?
Now we're getting down to facts
Yes, Aldridge has not come up big for us in the fourth much. He has had some games with some big plays and some big buckets, but all in all, he hasn’t been what we’d want.
That’s not the point here, though. You are bashing on him for history, rather than this game. In this game, he only got in for the last three minutes, and we were basically playing “give the ball to Brandon and set screens for him or get out of the way.” There is NOTHING Aldridge can do offensively when that happens.
In other words, your general complaint has some merit, but your use of this game to further it is unfounded, and unfair.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
You don't get it.
This is about a track record…for THIS SEASON. You are splitting hairs and being a priss about this in order to try to win an argument that you cannot win. Ultimately, LMA’s performance THIS SEASON hasn’t been what we want as you just admitted. So, thank you for admitting I’m right. :) As for the pointless and idiotic point that I cannot talk about THIS game to make my point, what are you smoking? You failed to acknowledge my question to you: WHAT DID LMA DO IN THE 4th and OT to help us WIN? How much did the coaching staff feel BASED ON HIS PLAY THIS SEASON UP TO THIS POINT that they could depend on him to take big shots? Based on the fact that they didn’t call his number I’d say not a whole hell of a lot. And THAT is what I’m trying to say. This game is as legit of a reason to criticize him as any other, regardless of whatever silly little protect LMA rules you want to play by when arguing on here.
rofl let me guess, a flurry of jumpers that fell in the first half and didn't in the second half
Wow, that’s weird. I don’t want the games anymore because I don’t like watching bad basketball and games like last night make me glad I made said decision.
I wonder when the city of Portland will wake up and realize that Nate pretty much gets outcoached all the time. My guess is right after the title window has closed.
by Theghostofsomeonefamous on Feb 22, 2010 7:11 AM PST reply actions
also is there any player Nate *won't* throw under the bus after a tough loss?
quick, someone buy Nate a mirror!
by Theghostofsomeonefamous on Feb 22, 2010 7:12 AM PST up reply actions
Nate is not an elite coach and gets routinely SCHOOLED by them.
I have never thought Nate is where it’s at. Time is a wasting
Blazer Pride.
by loyal_blazer on Feb 22, 2010 7:39 AM PST up reply actions
I wonder why Nate wouldn't say anything about Camby?
Dude was doing everything he could to keep us alive…
Nate clearly thinks a big part of the loss was Utah's offensive rebounds.
Camby is probably the main guy he blamed for them.
Interior play against physical teams is going to be a weakness for us. Period. Nate needs to realize this and find ways to exploit our advantages to overcome our deficiencies. I think one of Nate’s biggest problems is that he thinks things like rebounding and defense are just about effort and toughness. They are in part, but sometimes, you’re just out-matched. I don’t think he does a good job of adjusting the game plan to account for those places we’re outmatched because he refuses to acknowledge them.
"...it was like he brought his own personal cross-wind to the arena." - Dave
Exactly.
LMA is not a traditional 4 and may never be. Camby isn’t either. It’s up to the coaches to figure out ways to maximize their strengths to exploit opponents. We played to Utah’s strengths, not our own in this game. We should have attempted to run them out of the gym. Aside from the lack of O rebounds, all you have to do is ask these questions: How many fast break points did we have in the 2nd half? How many times did the team stand around and watch Roy?
Is this not a repeat??????
I said before the game that we had a long way to go and a short time to get there and Boston and Utah was not good teams to start another new line-up in. Life will give you the same test over and over until you learn the lesson well. Therefore, nothing that happened was unexpected. We have flunked out every time the opponent’s defense gets tough, we have not yet learned to play team defense when the opponents up their tempo in a run.
I think we were given 0 chances of winning. We gave it all we had so win or lose we should be able to hold our heads up. I don’t think we gave them the game as Nate stated, I think Utah took it away from us. We played hard and gave ourselves a chance to win. Boozers rebound at the end of the game ran the dagger to deep and the life was sucked out of us. That is why this game is so heartbreaking and disappointing. We had the game, we had hope, we were dancing in the isles then the monster broke loose and killed us.
Regardless of what Nate says about us knocking down those shots, until we learn, for the how many billions of times said, settling for outside jump shots and three pointers when the going gets tough will lose you the game.
We are young and inconsistent; we have for the umpteenth time had two new players in BRoy and Cambyman in the line-up. We will learn our lessons, so don’t give up.
hg
The collapse is obviously on the team and the coach but down the stretch
Roy/Miller is pathetic because Miller doesn’t get a chance to run plays. Miller’s plays involve 5 players, Roy’s involve 3 at the most. This is COACHING. Period. Every great player needs to be coached. Brandon gave it his best—-he will never shy away from going to the hole and taking the big shots. But you need more and it’s on Nate to make this young team, and it’s young leader, understand that.
I'm just not crazy about player nick names...
by Hipster Olympic Team! on Feb 22, 2010 8:14 AM PST reply actions
I think evidence is building this offensive system isn't right given our personnel.
It may be that next year if Oden/Pryz are back and STAY healthy then this team could potentially gel under this system. However, I am not going to hold my breathe. If we want BRoy to develop and get to the next level a la Jordan, Kobe, etc…we need a better offensive system to maximize BRoy’s abilities AND the abilities of his supporting cast. The current system attempts to showcase BRoy with ISOs, but the rest of the team seems to be an after thought and much of the time they look confused.
As an aside...
…remember that many great players undergo head coaching changes that take them to the next level.
I’m willing to bet that if Phil Jackson brought his system to Portland and built it around Roy/Oden/Batum it would have much better long term results than what Nate is currently attempting to do.
I love Nate, but I am beginning to doubt his system is right for this team. Either he needs to be more imaginative/flexible, or we may need to make a coaching change. Of course, with all of the injuries this year he has done a great job keeping the team afloat. But, keeping the team afloat is a different task and set of skills than getting them over the championship hump. I’m not sure Nate is going to be the coach to do that for this team.
by mjswoosh on Feb 22, 2010 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
+1
I love Nate, but I am beginning to doubt his system is right for this team. Either he needs to be more imaginative/flexible, or we may need to make a coaching change. Of course, with all of the injuries this year he has done a great job keeping the team afloat. But, keeping the team afloat is a different task and set of skills than getting them over the championship hump. I’m not sure Nate is going to be the coach to do that for this team.
Well said
Free AK1984.
"The two women were of a certain age and were clearly drunk... The only thing that I can get out of this is Why, since all these things happen to me, they couldn’t be two young girls and pretty? :-)" - Rudy Fernandez
by blazeraddict on Feb 22, 2010 8:42 AM PST up reply actions
Miller was horrible in the fourth
both before and after Brandon came in. Brandon did not come in until 7:10 left.
Miller was 1-7 in the fourth, with no assists, and forced up some bad shots.
Miller gets chances to run plays, but he wasn’t doing it. He didn’t adjust to the zone any better than anyone else did.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
Another OT loss.
1-4 in OT this year.
Another case of a good coach doing some outcoaching with mid-game adjustments.
Once Utah decided to play some defense, we sucked like usual
The lack of any offensive BB intelligence is becoming hard to watch. As soon as the zone went in play for the Jazz, the Blazers starting chucking jumpers.
Funny, but whenever the Blazers try a zone they get killed.
And when do we stop babying Dr. Webster and Mister Hide? Geez, the guy needs to slapped around instead of worrying about his “confidence”.
And Bayless is so far away from being reliable, they probably will have to go get another PG to finish the season.
I'm furious at Nate and I'm going to try to avoid running afoul of BE rules here
But GAH! Does this coach every analyze himself? Every answer implied that the team didn’t play properly – which I’ll grant they did not – but holy feces, Nate is completely unable to say “I messed up?”
What about “I didn’t bring it, either?” Not one answer indicates he could have done anything differently. It’s all the players’ faults.
All we ran for those abysmal 22 minutes of sewage was Roy Iso’s and failed attempts to get Roy Iso’s which resulted in someone else forcing something as the clock ran down, most often by Dre.
Maybe our complete lack of offensive motion, our failure to be in position to get rebounds, our fear of gasp running out and pushing the tempo, our inability to be in the right frame of mind to step on their flipping throats when we had them down 25 and our timidity with which we played as the Jazz made what should have been an expected but thwarted run at their deficit… Maybe some of that is on the coaches? Any of it? NATE?!
I’m happy that he takes losses personally, but I wish he’d FOR ONCE step up and take some blame in his public comments.
We got pushed around. We got intimidated. We lost the mental game. We were never in position to make things happen. We got slow. We looked like deer in headlights when we were still up 15. We looked like we were sure we were going to lose when we were still up 10. The Jazz treated us like a 6th grade team. And that’s what we looked like.
But that’s coaching underlying all of those problems.
22 minutes?
Roy didn’t even play the last minute of the third or the first five minutes of the fourth.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
okay, I didn't break it down minute by minute
But that was my general impressions having watched/suffered through the span in which we died.
And I’ll stand by those general impressions even if Roy was out for 5 minutes.
It wasn't very good
with or without him.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
im confused
i threw up a fanpost last night detailing the choke job which was hardly inflamatory or derogatory, yet it was taken down? Me not understand.
It wasnt even 1/2 and angry as many of the posts on here. i dont get it
Ball handling and dribbling are my strongest weaknesses."—David Thompson
man I guess so
It wasnt even a crazy rant. I just tried to break down as best I could how a team could blow a 25 point 4th quarter lead.
LMA not making an impact without the ball
One dimensional players being shut down
shotty coaching
I dont think it merited being deleted from existence. I love BE, but sometime I think they take this a little too seriously with the censorship. Profanity and such should not be tolerated, but frustration with the team should be able to be expressed freely. its as much of being a fan as cheering when they do well.
Ball handling and dribbling are my strongest weaknesses."—David Thompson
by Benson on Feb 22, 2010 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
One adjective definitely describing 2007-08 and 2008-09 Blazers is "clutch".
The seem to have lost that quality. So now they lose big leads, lose in overtime, have a mediocre home record, etc. And yes, you’d have to use the other “c” word to describe some of their performances, notably last night’s.
#52
The thing is
that was true before the injuries.
Remember how we almost blew that huge lead in the home game against Detroit?
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
Close games are far more about luck
than anyone really admits. Brandon has been huge the past couple years, but our insane performance in close games in those seasons was largely down to luck. It was simply bound to swing in the other direction at some point, which it has this season.
#52
Sure there's luck, or randomness, if you prefer.
But some players just seem to have an ability to shine when the pressure is on, whereas others seem to wilt in those same circumstances. Brandon has been a clutch player. So has Travis (sigh). Who else? Joel on defense?
But the team seemed to believe in itself last season and the one before. When you have confidence, good things often happen. Now? That confidence, that belief seems to have gone missing.
#52
Yes and no
Whether the last second shots go in or not may be luck.
Turnovers, total defensive breakdowns, failing to get a ball in bounds, failing to break a press, good shooters missing multiple free throws in the last 3-4 minutes, not running the offense, failing to box out on the boards, these things are not luck.
And in basketball, there will always be mistakes, but we’ve seen so many of these things late in close games this year, whereas the last couple of years, they were much more rare.
Give Blake the MLE in 2010!
Farewell to #2 and #25, good luck to you!
#7 #10 #52 -- #5 & #88 are back!
On the upside
Play of the game for the Blazers here:
http://www.nba.com/blazers/video/2010/02/21/2ndbmov-1237596/index.html
For once
I would like to see one Media member ask Nate, “Does the coaching take some of the blame tonight?”
For once, i would like to see Nate take some blame instead of always implying the players aren’t playing hard or aren’t playing the right way or aren’t making plays or whatever. I’m not saying he’s a bad coach or a good coach, I just want him to be part of the result.
by BarelyLegal on Feb 22, 2010 9:51 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
A reasonable way to frame such a quesiton might be:
Coach, what do you think you and your staff could have done differently that might have changed the outcome of the game?
#52
LaMarcus Aldridge is like a box of chocolates
Now you are probably thinking I am citing the Forrest Gump line.
But no, I had a different analogy in mind.
La Marcus in the first half delivered one each of an amazing array of different kinds of beautiful shots that went in. Kind of like a sampler box of chocolates where you get one each of all the wonderful different flavors.
You could make an basketball training video for offensive skills out of those highlights.
Only problem is, WE NEED QUANTITY. We need multiples of those beautiful shots. I would be satisfied if we could get a second sampler box in the second half. If anyone has ever tabulated LaMarcus’s scoring in first halfs versus second halfs it would be really interesting.
Yesterday’s game I think was a real illustration of why people have quite a bit of frustration with Aldridge. It’s not that he plays badly, it’s that he is incredibly talented, and we want to see him make use of that talent all the time he’s on the court.
LMA and Marty
are the two guys that could take us far or keep us mediocre. Just so incredibly streaky and guys that rarely make an impact if they arent scoring.
its amazing to watch guys like Rondo or Batum who can do so much without having to score big points
Ball handling and dribbling are my strongest weaknesses."—David Thompson
Bayless
“And Bayless is so far away from being reliable, they probably will have to go get another PG to finish the season.”
Give Mills a chance to compete with Bayless for backup to Andre.
“I think evidence is building this offensive system isn’t right given our personnel. "
I don’t know if it’s coaching or the individual players but the Blazers big problem is incredibly uneven performance from the young players. The reason they had a lot of unexpected wins is that some guy like Bayless or Martell would step up and have an incredible game.
But normal winning teams have players that deliver night after night.
I don’t know how they fix it, but the Blazers biggest problem is that they don’t get consistent play out of their young players.
In all seriousness I think the team may need to consider trying to find some sort of consultants who specialize in “toughness training” to work with these guys during the off season.
Nate
As to those who want to dump Nate.
I agree with the contention: Yes go ahead and do it provided you have someone superior to replace him with.
I mean, can you imagine what Jerry Sloan could do with the talent this team has right now?
But you can’t get Jerry Sloan. Unless there’s someone out there who is clearly superior, Blazers have no choice but to stick with Nate.
A fair point,
which, indeed, could be made on all the individual player criticisms as well. I have long been frustrated with Nate’s coaching style, (over cautious, over controlling, lineup management), and I would like to see what “the right” coach could do in maximizing our players. Nate has his strengths, and I can’t guarantee that a coach change will be our salvation, nor can I provide the name of this “Mr. Rightcoach”. But before I get down on our players, I first want to give another coach a chance. It is like, if what you are doing is not working, try something else. That’s the alternative I would like to see. It is good that Nate has a good rep around the league for the performance of the Blazers so far, and if he goes out looking like an unfair victim, good for him. I wish him well. He is giving it his best. Sometimes you are doing a guy a favor moving him out of a position where he is struggling. He is no quitter, and that is to his credit.
Re-sign Travis Outlaw !
Utah
One key to Utah’s success: Some of their players are really mediocre talents but Sloan teaches them how to use teamwork to play beyond their ability.
Sloan's a good coach, sure
But to say he doesn’t have a lot of talent?
Millsap was a beast last year, who for some reason isn’t producing this year.
Boozer is a monster
Williams is an all-star
Kirilenko is a good, productive player. It’s Utah’s fault that they massively overpaid him
Okur is soft, but he fits their system by spacing the middle for Boozer’s power game and interior passing.
It’s not like the Jazz are plucky underdogs barely getting by on the work of their coach. If you trade coaches, McMillan’s Jazz probably beat Sloan’s Blazer 8/10 times (assuming no Oden obviously).
He also has guys who
play tough, leave it all on the floor, will smack down an opponent (literally) and not think twice, fight for every rebound as though it were air, and play together regardless of anything else.
I don’t think I’d like Sloan much as a personal friend. He seems like a type-A jerk to me. But his teams play like type-A jerks, too, and we need some of that desperately.
Another night,
Another Nate throwing the team under the bus experience. YES!
The guys just didn't bring it.
Can you imagine if the coaches could do anything about the teams mental approach to games? Man, what a difference Sarge could make. /end sarcasm
Point guard still hurting for another solid one
I like Miller he is a consistent player for this team. If we could have just one more point guard that would play consistently well as a backup this would help us out a lot. Bayless and Rudy both right now are so streaky its hard to rely upon them. That leads to Miller playing more ball then he probl. should. I see flashes of what LA could become, he is so close. His big contract doesnt kick in until next year. Maybe he can improve? He is still very young. I think Nate is a good solid coach, he is in no way the next Phil Jackson at least not yet. However still a good solid coach. I do think the offense plays could be opened up a bit more. How? I have no idea im not a coach. I do think that to be successful this team needs a Joel/Oden type shot blocker and someone who can swat away and defend the basket. Camby is good but still learning how to gel with Portland.
What is Miller consistent at?
Poor jump shooting? Personally I don’t think the combination of Miller and Roy is going to work because Miller’s jumper is foul and Roy really does need a shooter alongside him. That’s why I’m hoping to see more Rudy/Roy pairings, or I’m hoping the Bayless can continue to expand his shooting range like he’s started to do this season.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
