Game 1 Recap: Blazers 97 Spurs 106

by Dave on Oct 30, 2007 9:38 PM PDT in News Comment 55 comments

Well, it wasn't a great night but it wasn't a bad night either. This was a typical veteran versus young team matchup in the NBA. The Blazers had a lot of enthusiasm and never gave up. But you got the sense that San Antonio was in control of this matchup from about midway through the first half and never relinquished it. Every time Portland would pull close the Spurs would put the hammer down. They won by 9 because that's about how much they needed to win by. No wasted effort, it's just business.

Team Reflections

--We shot 50% for the night off of basically unselfish play. Overall I was fairly impressed with how the offense ran. We committed sins of overpassing rather than selfishness. The assist total (15) doesn't reflect the efficacy of the passing. We got the ball to the right people in the right places to score whether or not those buckets came directly off the pass. We shot over 46% from distance too. I would give us a B+ at least offensively, maybe an A when you consider it was against the Spurs.

--We also did a credible job rebounding considering who we were facing. Joel Przybilla led us with 10 but after that it was a total team effort, which I love seeing.

--We shot 13-17 from the foul line which is a great percentage. Again Joel came to the rescue, hitting 5 of 6. People will point to the 26-17 disparity in free throw attempts but aside from a couple of Duncan star-calls (which are to be expected) San Antonio was just taking it deeper quicker than we were and thus got calls.

--One of the obvious changes you'll notice if you've watched this team for the last three years is that there were almost no attempts against the shot clock tonight. In the "post it `til it molds" era last-second heaves were commonplace when the initial attempt proved fruitless. We had few fruitless attempts tonight. Even fewer of those were rushed. This is a much more pleasing offense.

--One of the two glaring problems of the evening was our turnovers. It's not so much that we committed an obnoxious amount (though 16 ain't perfect) it's that the ones we did commit were so limp-noodle-lame that the Spurs scored on all of them that didn't require an inbounds pass. They ended up with 17 points off of our turnovers which helped tip the balance of the game.

--More glaring was our defense, which just fell apart at times. The first unit kept it pretty respectable. Guys were moving their feet and hustling. When they did get beat it was usually off of the turnovers mentioned above. The second unit defense was...oh wow, I don't have a word. Communication seemed to break down all over and the Spurs waltzed inside in embarrassingly easy fashion. As we mentioned in the game preview it's hard to play a zone against the Spurs anyway, but we made it look like suicide. Our transition defense was off and on. For the most part we seemed to get back but there were stretches where the Spurs just racked us. They didn't last long, but leaking 6 points in 2 minutes doesn't help when the final scores are tallied. Oh...and our point guards got oven-roasted like Shrinky-Dinks by Parker, as advertised. It was pretty bad. Point guard defense is going to be an issue all year.

The best way to describe both our turnover and defensive woes is this: We've looked a lot worse than we did tonight and made more mistakes too. But in the moments we did look bad it was really, really bad. This wasn't a low-grade, continual suckage as in past years. It was, "Doing good...doing good...doing good...WHAT THE HECK?!?" Again this is probably a function of being young.

Individual Notes:

--Lamarcus Aldridge's coming out party took all of one game. You may expect to hear his name on the lips of all national pundits who want to look smart now. He played a fantastic game. The most obvious part of his contribution was offense. He scored 27 points on 12-19 shooting...against the Spurs. He looked so good out there. He scored inside, outside, facing up, with his back to the basket...you name it. He even got a dunk off the break and a hook shot in there. It was like he was playing Horse. But the more impressive part of his game to me was his defense. He did pretty much everything at that end too from guarding Duncan to roaming the perimeter. On one play in the third quarter he was isolated on Manu Ginobili out at the three-point line on the right side. Ginobili, seeing the big man on him, tried to take him off the dribble. Lamarcus not only stayed with him, he shut him down. Amazing. And yes, Timmy scored points, but they were well-earned. Lamarcus just had a whale of a game. Some will point to his 3 total rebounds and I know...this is something I've pointed out before. But he was roaming so much tonight that he wasn't in position for rebounds. That's what we needed from him too...to be that multi-purpose defender. Lord knows nobody else was picking up the slack.

A quick note of comparison: Zach was an amazing offensive player. (So amazing, in fact, that we can't put Lamarcus up there until he's shown he can have this kind of night consistently.) But Zach was amazing in the sense of, "Oh man, he can't make that shot, can he? Ooooh! He did!" Lamarcus, on the other hand, is much more of a "He's going to make that" guy. We haven't had a guy that inspires that kind of confidence for a while.

--Martell also played the role of Webutante tonight. His all-around game wasn't as impressive as Lamarcus' of course, but his offense was the perfect complement to the passing game. He sometimes caught-and-shot and he sometimes took a couple short dribbles. Either way he looked exquisite. He never held it, he never hesitated, he just did his gol'-danged job which is to put that round orange thing through some twine. 21 points on 9-15 shooting isn't bad.

--Joel Przybilla also had a pretty good game manning the middle. He got those aforementioned 10 rebounds and actually shot 5 times. Several of those were off of dishes inside but he took a jumper from the free throw line against the shot clock and hit it! And he scored 13 points! His defense was appropriate. He helped when possible, stayed out of foul trouble, handled his man, and rebounded hard. Nice overall game.

--Travis Outlaw looked all-world in the first half. He was banging down shots like they were Bailey's on ice. Much like Martell he was confident and picked his spots well. He looked like a real NBA player. He trailed off some in the second half but one half of great-looking Travis is decent progress. He also grabbed 5 boards.

--Steve Blake had his typical "I-didn't-notice-live-but-nice-stat-line" game. He ended up with 9 points on 4-7 shooting, 6 rebounds, and 4 assists in 25 minutes. He didn't really help the point guard defense much but he was probably the least leaky of the three. He committed 3 turnovers though, which will hinder him taking a clear-cut lead over Jack.

--James Jones and Sergio Rodriguez both had decent nights for the amount they played (7 and 6 minutes respectively). Jones grabbed 3 boards and hit a shot but had a couple defensive lapses. Sergio looked like he was ready to add a spark to the game but also had a little defensive trouble and committed a quick turnover. The tempo got more frantic when Sergio was in though!

Now we get to the people who really struggled...

--Jarrett Jack got 28 minutes and had a hard time producing in any facet of the game. He was trying but he just got stymied a lot. His shot wasn't falling right, his passes didn't go anywhere, and he was just a little too slow for the San Antonio guards on defense. I don't want to hit him really hard because I think he can play better but this just wasn't a good game for him in any sense.

--Far more glaring were the woes of Brandon Roy. He played 38 minutes and did grab 5 rebounds and dish 6 assists. He was really conscious about setting other people up. But he looked tentative on his shot and doubly so when finishing his drives. He was a lot closer to Sergio's "drive-and-always-dish" style than to the brilliant scorer we saw last year. He also committed 4 turnovers. 2-10 for 7 points won't cut it for any starting guard in this league.

--Channing Frye got 9 minutes and basically the less said the better. The defense and rebounding on the second unit are going to need major help from somewhere and Channing hasn't shown that he's it yet.

Game Summary in One Sentence:

Despite the ups and downs tonight if we continue to play like this we'll start winning.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Perfect recap

by Kampeska on Oct 30, 2007 9:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thrilla Przybilla

The TNT announcers were cracking me up... They were going on about how Joel was 37% from the line last year. They simply seemed to be in awe of the fact that he was making shots. They were making total dorks of themselves. If they only knew about Joel's wife locking him in the gym and throwing away the key.

BTW - Good job, Joel. Way to take it to the rim. And, great aggressiveness on defense. So what if you got a couple of goaltends. Those Spurs players knew to look out for you!!!

by david1978pdx on Oct 30, 2007 9:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah the commentators were terrible

That short guy with the toupee is pretty good, but the color commentators were terrible. I almost vomited when Cheryl Miller went up into the stands to chat with Eva Longoria. They talked about the most asynine subjects. Longoria is a freaking bimbo. The producer should be fired for letting her talk while the game was on. I couldn't believe they chose to show Miller and Longoria chatting about idiotic subjects like wedding rings and dresses while the game was being played.

When church and state marry, the devil pays for the reception.

by fisheyes on Oct 31, 2007 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

barf

Don't even get me started on Eva Longoria. They show her so much during the Spurs games you would think that Desperate Housewives show was on ESPN.

Did you see that chick's necklace? She's got necklace with a pendant that is the same design as the Spurs championship rings. Don't believe me? Check it on ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/photos?photoId=1721966&gameId=271030024

As if she helped them win a title. barf

by david1978pdx on Oct 31, 2007 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

don't discount

the role of her ministrations on Mr. Parker in helping him stay relaxed during the finals. She may well have played a big part in the title run.

by jon on Oct 31, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If so...

Then why doesn't Juanita Jordan have a title ring?

by david1978pdx on Oct 31, 2007 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

could be

a reason why they divorced.

by jon on Oct 31, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Martell's coming out party?

Martell was hitting his shots, and was 3-6 from 3PT range. Second highest scorer on the team with 21.

And.... DID YOU SEE THAT SCOWL ON HIS FACE after making those big shots. Dude has a chip on his shoulder and he's playing to win! Now we all know he can shoot... Next time he needs to take it to the rim! (like he was during the pre-training camp sessions.) He is going to be alot of fun to watch this season.

by david1978pdx on Oct 30, 2007 9:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I loved what I saw

from Martell tonight. This is a great example for Sergio of what we need from him. Martell was hardly the perfect all-around player. You could tell he still had trouble sometimes stopping people on defense and such. But he moved his feet, made an effort the whole time he was out there, and didn't just settle for following his instincts on offense. Most of all he played to his strengths confidently and efficiently without wasting motion, time, or disrupting the offense. For Martell it was a beautiful game. I mentioned in the recap that Travis looked like an NBA player out there. Tonight I forgot Martell ever didn't. He just fit in. Even though Martell has had good games before this was pretty near his first professional-looking good game. This is what we're all waiting for from Sergio as well and it's a textbook example of how a guy who's mostly good at offense can find a spot on a Nate McMillan team.

--Dave

by Dave on Oct 30, 2007 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Commentators

seemed very surprised by Martell. At least the voice (if not the words) showed surprise. I thought, you didn't pay attention to pre-season. I wasn't surprised by Martell - and not particularly surprised by Joel. Again they kept commenting about Przy's last year's free-throw pct. That was then, this is now... We are not last year's Blazers - hurrah!

by jorga on Oct 30, 2007 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

people in general are stupid

So it's no surprise that the commentators made stupid comments and were ignorant about our team.

When church and state marry, the devil pays for the reception.

by fisheyes on Oct 31, 2007 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Welcome Back!

Ahh...before I dive into my specific thoughts, I just want to take a moment to reflect how wonderful it was to have Blazer basketball back for a new season. Now it is truly Fall in P-town!

Now onto the game...

While I didn't have very lofty expectations for a Blazers' win, I came away tremendously proud of the guys collective effort. They hustled and showed a chemistry that, I think, can be directly attributed to beginning practice, albeit informally, back in August.

The proof of this chemistry?

The reigning Rookie of the Year had 5 points. And they only lost by 9, and were as close as four points late into the 4th, on ring night against the best defensive team in the NBA.

Folks, this could be a great year. But I think the true test is going to come on Friday once the first game jitters subside and the boys, as the league's youngest team, settles in for the next six months.

And be honest, how many of you had thoughts of what it would be like with Oden out there going against Duncan? Come on, admit it the thought crossed your mind once or twice!

by Beantown Chris on Oct 30, 2007 10:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it crossed my mind

but only every 24 seconds or so. And twice during each commercial.

Give Oden one free year as a rookie and let everybody be healthy. Then you have a 4th-year Lamarcus, a 4th-year Brandon, a 2nd-year Greg, and probably a darn fine supporting cast. Oh man.

:::drooooool:::

--Dave

by Dave on Oct 30, 2007 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kinda like Sabas, except different

The "what if" factor of not having G.O. out on the floor kind of reminds me of when Arvydas Sabonis was playing for the Blazers. His entire career smacked of "what if"

The difference here, though, is that with Sabonis we were saying "woulda, shoulda, coulda"... With Oden, we are saying "wait til next year"

Yes, that's right Tim Duncan. Wait til next year. Mwahahahahaaaa

by david1978pdx on Oct 30, 2007 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's why I want '09 to hurry up!

But tonight was great progress. The highlight for me was Martell. He wanted so badly for his fine preseason play to carry over to opening night. It did, and that's going to do so much for Martell's confidence. Considering that confidence was Martell's biggest issue his first two seasons, that's huge.

The other highlight for me was the play of the Blazer bigs: LMA and Pryz. We knew how good LMA was; now the whole country does. Assuming LaMarcus stays healthy, you might as well give him the Most Improved Player award right now: he's a shoe-in. And Joel showed us that his new "pretty" shot is no myth. No more playing 4 on 5 at the offensive end for the Blazers. Now that Joel has a decent shot, teams will have to guard him, opening up opportunities for everyone else. That's also huge.

Add Greg Oden and Rudy to this mix next season--with all the youngsters a year older and more mature--and things will really start getting fun. In the meanwhile, I can't wait to see more of what we saw tonight.

by hurryup09 on Oct 31, 2007 2:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jersey #'s

It was really wierd watching that second unit out on the floor... It was like a retro Blazers team, but all the names were wrong...

#33 Skinny Scottie Pippen
#44 Skinny Brian Grant
#25 Really long and skinny Jerome Kersey
#2 White Stacy Augumon (or a Skinny white Mark Bryant)
#11 Really short Arvydas Sabonis

Anyone else having this problem?

by david1978pdx on Oct 30, 2007 10:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Channing

I was pretty bummed about Channing Frye tonight. I know the less said the better or whatever, but can we talk about it a little bit? Theoretically this guy is going to back up our only true center and our leading scorer. To paraphrase Ron Burgundy, he's kind of a big deal. How many games like this does Nate give him before Raef Lafrentz's name gets called?

by Jumbo on Oct 30, 2007 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Channing needs time

to shed New York and reinvent himself into the style and player Portland wants. Raef is not the future (as much as I love his past). We need to find out about Channing this year to know if there is a next year for him. Sergio and Channing maybe more than anyone else are getting opportunity to prove themselves. The loss is not the critical factor to me against San Antonio. That Roy had a horrible game was more to bring the loss than Channing.

by lee3022 on Oct 30, 2007 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He Had better, Get it on

ther is no time to wait. Frye shoulda' been doin' it tonite. We have gotta get it on. There is no mo' time to wait.

"A time to build up, a time to break down, A time to defend, a time to score, A time to cast away players, A time to gather players together"

by BlueBooYay on Oct 30, 2007 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

of course anyone can talk about anything they want. I just saw him have a couple of really bad plays out there, the kind that usually get people yanked, and I didn't want to bury our Buffet of Goodness after just one game, so I decided relative silence was the better option. I'm sure Channing knows he wasn't effective and hopefully he'll try to step it up next game.

--Dave

by Dave on Oct 30, 2007 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

I hope so too.

"A time to build up, a time to break down, A time to defend, a time to score, A time to cast away players, A time to gather players together"

by BlueBooYay on Oct 31, 2007 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

During the Laker game

Barkley and crew said the Blazers were going to be the team to beat in the next few years and that San Antonio better enjoy these wins while they can get them. It was good to hear.

by sergioFTW on Oct 30, 2007 11:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sure Chuck

Charles Barkley is just saying that because he was so flattered by G.O. naming his dog after him. Total homer move. LOL! jk

by david1978pdx on Oct 30, 2007 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I missed that

That IS good to hear. Barkley was also the one who commented on LaMarcus during halftime. As I recall, he said, "That young man has a chance to be very good!"

by hurryup09 on Oct 31, 2007 2:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good recap

lamarcus, martell, steve, travis good; jarrett, channing bad. everyone else, somewhere in the middle.

they're really gonna have to work on that 2-3 zone. every time they went to it i knew something bad was gonna happen.

overall, though, it was a great effort. the spurs are tough to beat when their guys are hitting all kinds of crazy shots and getting star treatment, and your "star" has an uncharacteristically terrible game. coming up just short in those circumstances is nothing to be discouraged about.

by game sink on Oct 30, 2007 11:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

blazers, not that bad

i can't believe we were able to even hang with the spurs. i've gotten used to the road blow outs the last few years.

what team was i watching? we were still running the court with 2 min left in the 4th. even though we lost, i actually ENJOYED watching this basketball game.

we had trouble with the zone, they got some easy buckets off of poor defensive rotations. our pgs are going to have to play much better. can't wait for rudy next year.

overall, i can't say i'm unhappy even with the lost. i'm just glad that we have a team that will compete, play fast and hard. the wins will come, be patient people. we are ALMOST THERE!

by blzrfan on Oct 30, 2007 11:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

It was only when I was typing the review that I realized all the things I didn't have to say. "They got blown out and gave up. The offense stalled as the Spurs collapsed. We forced a lot of shots against the clock. The Spurs got enough layups for six games. Half the team wasn't trying out there. The guys looked complacent."

When you put it like that, this game practically deserves a standing ovation. But you know what? By the looks on their faces walking off the court I don't think this team would want it. They don't seem like the kind of group that is pleased with moral victories.

--Dave

by Dave on Oct 30, 2007 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice to be back!!

Not only to watching the Blazers but to visiting this site.
Ive been on a hiatus from over analyzation of my favorite team.
Now that were actually playing basketball.....well.....tally ho.

All I can say is that I havent been so happy watching a loss in a very, very long time.
It's just so nice to actually FEEL the change in culture by watching this young team.
So scrappy.

I love having the real "Pzy" in the middle.

Love the offense running through LaMarcus when an easy shot on the break doesnt arise.

Loved the calm and confidence that Martell exuded on the floor tonight.

Love having guys to do whatever needs to be done (Blake, Trout, James Jones)

Im not at all worried about Roy. He was out of sync but he was still easily the smartest player on our team. He drew charges, drove at will and always had his eyes and ears open. When he starts taking what the D gives him on offense his 20ppg will come.

What I did not like.

Jarrett Jack.
Ugh. we carry four point guards and this is our starter? The kid barely looks up, kills the break and scores only when creating his own offense.
can we get sergio some minutes please.

Channing Frye.
he looks like he brought over some of the "me first" culture over from NY. I hope his value can rise a little before ship his ass out of dodge.

Nate McMillan.
His substitution patterns and team pairings are head scratching. He's like the baseball manager who always seems to leave his pitchers in too long. He seems so uptight for this group.
I cant help but think how much more fun this team would be to watch if someone else coached it.
I know that my sentiment is not shared with most blazer fans but.....I believe that having a conservative coach is valuable when challenging for a championship, not when your a young team trying to find an identity.

anyways, none of it bothered me enough to keep the smile from my face.

Im eating it up.

jans

by DropstepJ on Oct 30, 2007 11:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

I would think you would want a conservative coach with a younger group trying to find their identity and a guy who would roll the ball out and let 'em play when you have more talent and experience. Although the Spurs are good because of talent and the discipline they get from Poppovich.

I have wondered at times about Nate's substitutions in the past but didn't tonight. The extended bench didn't look that great in the first half and so they didn't get in much in the second.

Jack had a bad night. I'm not too worried about him. He has shown he is better than that most nights.

I am curious about the Frye comment. He obviously didn't play well but what makes you think he is a "me first" guy?

by tssbro on Oct 31, 2007 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those comments arent just from this game

Nate is Nate.

What would the team look like with Mark Iavaroni, Stan Van Gundy, Nellie or George Karl coaching it.
I dont know.......but I would love to see someone who looks like they could share the joy of the game with these young guys.
I see Nate more as the Jerry Sloan, Larry Brown "this is the way I know how to do it, so this is the way its gonna be" coach. Does the guy ever smile? Every time the camera zooms in on him he looks like he's in the waiting room for a colonoscopy. Poor guy, I hope he's eating his fiber.

What I didnt like about his substitution patterns were that he seemed to switch in teams instead of trying to add or subtract players to the mix.
James Jones was hardly used tonight. Why not try him in with a bunch of different lineups?
Trout too.
Sergio too.
Game time is where players earn their mettle.
Each player needs a chance to do what they do well. I felt that was accomplished with the starters......and thats about all. (besides Blake)

Whatever.....he's not going anywhere.

Why I say that about Channing is because he seems to play with little court vision. Much like Zach.
He has a talent to put the ball in the hole but he doesnt seem to have at the same level of all-around game as our other youngs. Certainly not on D. Dont think he's drinken the Kool-aid yet.

by DropstepJ on Oct 31, 2007 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair Enough

All of the guys you list have their upsides but they also have downsides. I like Karl a lot but I am not sure he would be a great fit with young players at this point in his career. Nellie would make the team fun to watch but I don't know if he pays enough attention to defense to ever win a championship. I've never been a big fan of Sloan but of the guys you list, I would rather have Sloan.
I also don't care if Nate smiles on the sideline.

I'll keep an eye on Channing to see if he is a Zach type guy in the offense. He just looks out of place and unsure of himself. Hopefully as the season moves along he will get more comfortable in the offense.

by tssbro on Nov 3, 2007 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

'Sup Jans!

Haven't seen you round these parts in awhile. You still in Boulder? Or back in Portland? If you're still around, we should think about taking in a game this year ...

by bfan on Oct 31, 2007 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Feels Good

Two of the guys that did not play well, Roy and Jack, have proven themselves in the past and will play better in the future. To be in the game when both of them had off nights was fantastic. It did feel like the Spurs were in complete control for most of the game though. They are the better team and there is no shame in losing to them. Most teams will this year.

Sergio continues to puzzle me. He showed in his limited time how good and bad he can be. I swear he had at least one assist on a kick out to Blake. I remember thinking, "there's the good Sergio." and then two minutes later watching some guy named Washington drive right past him into the lane. With Jack and Blake, the effort on defense is there but the result isn't always. With Sergio it seems the issue is effort.

The encouraging thing is we won't have to play the Spurs every night. I think we are good enough to compete with most teams this year.

by tssbro on Oct 31, 2007 12:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Game # 1 observations

Great recap Dave. A couple things to add to
the Game # 1 loss.

1. Martell not only had a very good shooting game,
but also put the ball on the floor and went to
the hoop. If he had finished a couple more
times he would have had a spectacular game.
I spent all last year defending him on this
site from the naysayers, cautioning
patience for those prepared to "get rid of
him". After all he's only 20 and is still
growing into his game and confidence.

2. The Blazers D was horrible at times. In fact
the wide open dunk missed by Elson turned into
a LMA dunk at the other end. Perhaps some of
the fault goes to the 2nd unit, but the middle
was wide open most of the night. I was quite
surprised that Nate didn't insert Green to
have a quick point on Parker. Unfortunatly,
the Blazers top 3 (?) PG's cannot guard very
quick Parker, AI types. I'm pretty sure this
is one of the reasons Green made the club.

3. Brandon looked a little rusty and it seemed
at times like he was forcing his shot.
BRUCE BOWEN will do that to 95% of all NBA
wing players. Still it seemed like Roy could
at least break him down with the crossover at
times. He did a great job at setting up his
teammates, drew a charge on Ginobli and played
his usual all around game. His shot will start
falling, especially with LMA and Martell
drawing the defense's attention.

4. TURNOVERS - We had some horrible turnovers.
Lazy passes, off balance " got to get rid
of it or I'm going to travel" crap and just
careless passing. Since I know Nate and his
staff will harp on these bad habits, I'll
just offer up a HORRRRRRIBBBLE, in the words
of the Big Redhead.

5. Channing Frye - I know it's early, but as I
posted after we traded for him, my UA Wildcat
buddy said he was long, but soft. I think he
can be a backup at PF/QF if he get in
condition, but he's not a center. We may have
to insert Raef, since we know he will add
toughness and a veteran rebounder/defender.
I think he has plenty left, and we certainly
need the toughness Big Cat provided in the
2nd half of last year.

Even though the Blazers get the loss, they
showed a lot of good hustle and unselfishness.
Roy will play much better and Nate will
tighten up the defense. Go Blazers.

It's GO time !

by walkoff41 on Oct 31, 2007 1:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great recap

The game was pretty much what I expected.

LMA had a game that's probably going to be about par for the course for him this season. Franchise Cornerstone imo.

The day that B Roy beats Bowen is the day he's got a leg up on 90% of the league. Not too worried there. In fact I bet B Roy learned some things that will help him down the road.

Martell was awesome, if he can continue to keep up his confidence, look out. I had to rewind a few of his jumpers and watch them again, they were so pretty.

Travis had a nice game, but he's really gotta work on that shot selection. He took some nasty shots in the fourth at a time when good teams don't take shots like that.

I'm starting to wonder more and more if JJ is the answer at PG. He seems to second-guess himself constantly I know it's a lot to take from one game, but Blake just looks so much better when it counts.

by leeroyjenkins on Oct 31, 2007 6:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Zone defense ...

I wonder if they kept going to the zone because Nate wants the team to have it down pat for Greg's return next year? Clearly they struggled when they played zone, but put Greg in there (who played tons of it at Ohio State), and he's going to control the lane like nobody's business. Let the guys take their lumps now so they're ready when Greg comes in to take them to another level.

The most frustrating thing about the defense tonight was whenever we needed a critical stop, we just couldn't get one. We drew close in the 4th quarter mostly because San Antonio was simply missing open shots. It was luck more than pressure on our part. Hopefully that changes as the season progresses.

Safe to say that we'll be winning more than 32 games, though, I think ...

by bfan on Oct 31, 2007 6:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think Nate really likes zones at all...

...particularly given his history as a hard-nosed straight-up defender. Unfortunately, the guards were playing such terrible defense (as they have in the past) that he had to do something!

I actually had high hopes when they first shifted into the 2-3 set (I think it was late 1st quarter or early 2nd quarter). San Antonio stuttered reversing the ball at the top of the key, Martell poked the ball free and P-town scored on the fast break.

Unfortunately, good NBA offenses can chew up a zone with outside shooters and strong side/weak side reversals. San Antonio did that with almost surgical precision for the rest of the night.

By late season, I hope we're at the point where the zone is used as a snack - good for one or two extra possessions - and not as an entree. I'll bet that's the case when Oden starts playing. Remember, there's a defensive 3 second call that forces the center to spend most of his time on either the strong or the weak side. He can't just camp out under the hoop.

-t

by webted on Oct 31, 2007 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I enjoyed the game, but ...

... have to admit it was also like getting splashed with a dose of cold reality.

The Blazers are not going to compete for a playoff spot this year unless they learn to play better defense. If I take one thing from this first game, it's that we are not a very good defensive team.

I haven't seen the box score, but it also looked to me like we didn't do that well rebounding.

I was impresed by Aldridge, Webster and Pryzbilla. Outlaw looked ok and I thought Blake demonstrated he should start at point with the first unit. The team just semed to run a little more smoothly with him on the court. Also, I would have liked to see a bit more of Sergio. I thought he did ok in his short stint.

We all know Jack had a poor game. He get's the benefit of doubt from me. I can easily see him putting in 20 pts the next game. I do think we would be better served with Jarrett teamed in the back court with Rodriguez.

Channing Frye - soon to be playing on some other team. Seriously, this guy has a long way to go before he looks to be able to contribute. To me he looked soft, slow and confused. I hate to criticise the guy, but his play devolved past unimpressive into down right sorry.

by timg56 on Oct 31, 2007 7:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

two more observations to add...

Looks like the Blazers got the right contributions from their big two (LMA & Webster). Now if they can just get that kid Roy to show he's not a waste of a lottery pick they should be okay.

I see from the box score that Green didn't get to play. I'm shocked Nate didn't put him in when the Blazers were close with 2 minutes left so he could lead the team to one of those victories Nate said Green would get them.

Otherwise a decent enough start.

by jon on Oct 31, 2007 8:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Martell seemed to me...

like the 'tempo' guy for the first unit. I wasn't expecting that. He really seemed to be the catalyst for getting the ball moving up the court quickly. I can't pin my finger on what exactly it was, but it just looked like he was doing what you want for an uptempo offense: passing the ball up the court quickly, and speeding up the movement in the offensive sets. I was really impressed. Way to go, Martell!

by webted on Oct 31, 2007 9:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Recap

I few comments on the game.

Why didn't LMA play center with the second unit. Every time Frye was in the game he was playing center with TO at the 4 and we were getting killed inside.

The Spurs just killed the zone. Oberto and Elson found gaps in the middle or the ball was rotated to the wide open wing for an easy shot. It seemed we had no idea how to rotate and cover everyone.

I think Sergio could have been the most productive point tonight. Our guards were able to get into the lane fairly often but the Spurs were collapsing into the lane when that happened and Jack just kept forcing shots. Sergio excels at kicking the ball out to the open shooters in those situations. It looked like Roy figured this out and started getting assists on his drives. With Martell, Blake, Travis all shooting the ball well from outside we had the people to make those open outside shots.

Great games from Martell and Joel. Martell looks so much better this year. He never looked comfortable with the ball in his hands in previous years. He looked really confident and was able to consistantly get touches even when he wasn't shooting. Joel's shot looks fantastic. Every free throw make was a swish and even the miss was perfectly on line it was just short.

LaMarcus is an absolute stud. We can't forget that he was going against the best defender in the league tonight. He was able to get good shots off over and around TD all game long. He never settled for the long jumpers. The lesser PF in the league should be very worried.

by malarky on Oct 31, 2007 9:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Roy

I know Bowen is a good defender, but you have to wonder to Roy's heel is still bothering him.

If I were the Blazers I woudl sit him down and have a very serious conversation about risk versus reward. Roy is a competitor and he undoutedly will feel that he is letting his teamates down if he can not play. But his long term health is the most important issue herre. If they need to operate and he is out half a season then so be it.

Get this issue fixed so that we can have a breakthough year next year.

by khryse on Oct 31, 2007 9:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Also...

I know that he only got like 7 minutes of playing time, but James Jones really attacks the offensive glass. He had one play that resulted in 2 points out of pure hustle, and he almost got to another loose ball.

I think once he works himself into shape, Travis Outlaw and him will make an interesting combination on the second line. If Travis learns how to pass off the dribble, he'll create a lot of easy opportunities for Jones.

I know the Blazers had him thin down so he could be a "running" post but Channing Frye needs some beef. He looks like a bowling pin in the paint...

Finally, I just have to repeat what's already been said about a million and a half times... With Greg Oden down low, we are a scary team. Joel looks like the perfect backup center and he'll be a great insurance policy, but seriously: where is our ceiling? There's never been a team with a Greg Oden (assuming he's even 80% of what he was at OSU) and a LaMarcus Aldridge. It's like Duncan and Robinson except Robinson is a second year player instead of one year away from retirement.

Then, you add the new Martell, who had me wondering when the Blazers acquired Joe Johnson for a 12 minute stretch... Rudy Fernandez... Travis Outlaw if he continues his steady improvement... And the steady direction of Brandon Roy? I'm legitimately SCARED of the 2009 Trail Blazers.

by Champs2009 on Oct 31, 2007 9:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In reality

even though 17 points on 16 turnovers sounds like a lot, it's really about average. You can pretty much count on about half your possessions ending up with two points, which equates to about one point per possession. 17 on 16 isn't as bad as it looked last night. I agree they were quite sloppy looking--however, it is also the first game of the season, and against the quick hands of the Spurs.

"Now, we understand, you're a bug. And bugs will be bugs. But you're our bug now. Don't screw up, and you won't get squashed." - webted

by jamon51 on Oct 31, 2007 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

1st Game

I was just excited to be able to watch them play live. It was the best part of my day, and I only watched the last quarter in an Irish pub with no sounds from the game.

I think if Roy would have been on his game, there is a chance the Blazers could have won that game. The starters cannot have an off night and beat the Spurs.

Overall, I cannot complain. The first game of the season against the defending champs and they had a respectable game. They put up 96 on the Spurs, granted, the Spurs were not playing lock-down defense.

How long before the announcers and ESPN guys stop making Oden/draft references while discussing the Blazers? It's like the Curse of the Bambino and the pre-2004 Red Sox.

Fatty, Big Daddy on the BE, Man o' international renown, Postin' from his own thrown, Tellin' us what we couldn't see

by tominhawaii on Oct 31, 2007 11:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

nate decision making

skills seem to be a little off. I'm no NBA coach, but how many times do you need to see your zone defense get burned before you switch back to man to man. I love Nate's vision, but sometimes his in game decision making leaves me scratching my head, I understand you want to let the team play it out, but with a chance to win late in the fourth is not the time to experiment with the zone. There were more holes in the zone then the dikes in New Orleans.

Our guards lost that game last night. JJ is not the answer, neither is Blake or Sergio. If they cannot play D, they will never get us to a championship. We better be looking for a point guard free agent with all that cap money. I know it was only one game, but sometimes you only need to see one game to see how bad we need to improve that position. Roy was shut down partially because no other guard could keep the defense honest and Roy had to fight help defense and double teams on the pick and roll. I don't recall seeing any point guard take it to the hole and hit a shot at all last night. Only outside jumpers which will not help us at all with playoff teams.

I know I'm being hard on the guys, honestly there was a lot of good things last night, but our guards were not part of that unfortunately. Roy's sitting out for so many games in preseason hurt us pretty bad last night. I second the get it done now opinion for his ankle if it flares up again. We can't expect Roy to carry the load on a bad ankle and be read for next year if he waits for surgery until the off season, what would that do to us next year? Shouldn't we be looking at the long term on this one? I know one game isn't a make or break situation, but Roy had much better hops in college then he has right now and playing hobbled doesn't help our team right now. We need a point guard sooner rather than later to take off the pressure from Roy so he can play his game.

I was actually surprised to see Sergio before Green in this game, just based on defensive posturing with Parker being so fast, I don't think that Sergio was the proper choice on this one. But, I guess letting your man drift into the open lane in the zone will getting you extended playing time in Nate's zone. One thing I don't understand, Nate's very quick to pull Sergio in games that we have little chance of winning, but in a close game he gives him room to hang the team? I can see why he had such a hard time picking the starting guard if this is any indication of our ability.

At least twice last night, JJ dribbled right into a double team. What the heck? It's one thing to get doubled after a trap or pick and roll, but another to just dribble right into it. Wow? That's our starting guard on a uptempo team? We need a 1 guard that lifts up his head to see the court, not just his own hand and the ball. JJ sucks on the fast break, (he showed it again last night) and apparently can't see more than 5 feet in front of himself when running the half court offense. And Blake didn't do much better, in fact, he did worse on defense than JJ. This simply will not do it. I sincerely hope this was all first game jitters against the defending champs.

I know I've rattled on about our deficiencies last night, overall we played well, just the glaring holes at our guard spots. I still give a mighty shout to our effort last night, we will get better, but how long before we address the guard position. I personally think Blake was a great addition, but we need better than what we have. Are we going to wait a year for that?

Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.

by pdxborn on Oct 31, 2007 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Our guards lost the game

That's ture. JJ had 2 forcing layup challeging Duncan and got burned. Not smart plays. He also did NOTHING to help run the team offense. I know he can play better but he just had a terrible night.

Blake seemed a little better but he made some turnovers under NO pressure. He also made his own shots in final minutes and failed when he had Aldridge & Webster who were both HOT last night. I'd rather he passed the ball the Roy and let him run the offense in final minutes. Roy might not be able to make a jumper but he had the ability to create better opportunity for his teammates.

Sergio showed some flash right after he entered the game(we got 7 quick points in the beginning of the 2nd quarter.) but overall he's too young and not ready. I still have high expectation for him but right now he has A LOT to improve.

Green? According to his preseason performance he's not yet a NBA player. He's a poor version of J.Jack right now. He can't shoot. He can't pass and his D is not good. He's also too short. I don't expect anything from him.

by spring610 on Oct 31, 2007 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blakes Defense

Was abhorent last night. It seems like everyone keeps saying JJ had the bad game, but really he just struggled on offense. Blake was getting killed on D. One play he got burned on a cut by Parker because he didn't even have an eye on him. Really Blake, your not gonna keep an eye on the reigning finals MVP . . . quickest player in the league . . . with lane wide open right behind you . . . really. The biggest low point of the game was Blake's defense as far as I was concerned.

by TearsforDuckworth on Oct 31, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

I recorded the game and gave it a 2nd viewing. Yes Blake did get burned by Parker, but so did Jack. I liked some of the things blake did, I cant say the same about Jack. He really, really struggled in every aspect, but he will bounce back...

RUDY > MJ

by myemic23 on Oct 31, 2007 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs