Links
Since I couldn't give you my own recap here are a couple of others:
Jason Quick hits the 48 minute theme.
Mike Barrett praises the Pacers and Outlaw.
A note on the Oregonian recap...
There's a quote in there that has been commonplace among all the Blazers lately. Rough translation: "We lost because we were missing shots we're capable of hitting." OK, one or two games I buy that. When it's said every other day...not so much. At what point do you admit that you're NOT getting shots you can hit, that you're too covered, too far out on the court, or too invested in the wrong people shooting? After a certain sample size "shots you can hit" starts to equal "shots you do hit". We're not quite there yet, but we're getting closer to the time that this statement will be false by definition. I wonder if we shouldn't be working on solutions before then.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
9 comments
Comments
Ball Movement
Also, the defense of the second unit was what really helped the Q4 comeback -- they were putting good pressure on the Pacers as they were bringing up the ball and we putting forth a noticable effort. Seems like the first unit wasn't brining as much defense and the first unit...
by pantelakis on
Nov 29, 2007 6:16 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
It's all about stress
Players have limited control over how well their opponents defend them. The best way is to learn to run their offensive sets to perfection, which gets them their best looks at the hoop.
And to make open shots when they have them. Why do the Blazers seem to be missing so many of these? I think it's simply because they haven't yet learned how to control their emotions, which interferes with their concentration.
There's a lot at stake when a player shoots, not just two or three points. If the game is close, the team might need those points to win. The player wants to please his coach, teammates, and fans. He knows that his future in the league, reputation, and earning power depends on how well he plays, and missing too many sitters is a fast track to the CBA or Europe, unless he has other skills to enhance his value. That's a lot of pressure.
I don't think all these things run through players' conscious minds much if at all during a game, but I do think that young players worry about these things on a subconscious level. Good shooters have learned somehow not to worry, even subconsciously, about what making or missing shots means. That takes the emotional pressure away, which allows them to relax and focus on the task at hand, which allows them to hit their shots.
How do good shooters get to that point? I'm as slow a learner as anyone, and even I, in my tennis days, was eventually able to stop worrying about losing matches and concentrate totally on what I was doing. It didn't come easily or quickly, though. It came about as a combination of growing more mature with age, of blowing points and games so many times that the possibility of doing so stopped bothering me, and of gaining more confidence as my skills improved and my knowledge of strategy and tactics widened.
Veterans in any sport have been through all those stages and reached the point where they can relax and focus during each game. Young players haven't. I hate to say it, but the Blazers are the youngest team in the league and there's no getting around the fact that it will probably take them longer as a group to reach that veteran level of relaxation and focus that permits them to make their shots consistently and play to their potential.
Is there anything that the players or coaches can do to help the players get to that level? Yes -- by avoiding doing things that increase the players' stress about shooting and, conversely, finding ways to help them get the right perspective about their play and the importance of each shot and each game.
For example, yelling at players who miss shots is counterproductive. No player ever misses shots intentionally, and yelling at a player only increases his stress level, which makes him more nervous the next time he takes a shot. I'm not saying Nate is guilty of that, but if he is, he might want to stop. He does seem to have a reputation for yanking players for making mistakes, but whether that's a bad thing for the players depends on how he does that, to which I can't speak.
A productive thing to do is to keep things positive and fun. People usually perform best when they work in a positive, upbeat situation and it's hard to be stressed out when you're smiling and laughing. The late, great Bill Walsh knew this, which is why he once posed as a porter when the 49ers arrived at the airport en route to a Super Bowl. It cracked the team up and kept guys loose. And of course, the older the players get and the more experience and knowledge and skills they acquire, the more confidence they will have.
We Blazer fans must be patient with the players. They're doing the best they can. It will just take a while. It will be worth the wait.
by MiledAnimal on
Nov 29, 2007 1:03 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The good and the bad
Travis took the ball to the hole FINALLY and WOW!! he got fouled every time. Just like the end of last season. SHOCKING!!!!!!! He did throw up at least one ill-advised 20-foot fadeaway jumper in the fourth, but maybe he's finally starting to figure out how to be an effective basketball player. But I said that exact same thing about him last season so who knows. His defense was much better as well, still not fantastic, but adequate. Travis played a good game, and you can't pin any bit of that loss on him.
LMA went inside more than he usually does, I think I counted three or four dunks. Getting closer to where he needs to be. Pretty solid game from LMA.
Now to my gripes:
Why is Scott Foster killing us on the boards? He's a career 7 rpg guy, but c'mon...17 rebounds (that was actually more like 20)? Unacceptable.
I'd like to see Brandon Roy post up some of those smaller guards that are guarding him. 6'6", 229 lbs is plenty big to do so. Some of the bigger guards in the league do this pretty frequently, Baron Davis and Chauncey Billups come to mind. Even Tinsley did it successfully a few times last night. Brandon can distribute from down there too. It's worth a shot, right now every team knows his signature move: get the ball at the top of the lane and penetrate left. And they are stopping it for the most part, especially when it counts.
Is Martell a shooter or isn't he? The team can't afford to have him missing all those open shots. The other things he is doing are great, like some decent defense and rebounding, but the shot has to fall for him to be effective. If it isn't, he's scrub material. THERE ARE NO OTHER SHOOTERS ON THE TEAM (James Jones doesn't count for this rant), my God, why does Nate think they should be taking and making a bunch of jump shots??!
I only buy the youth and inexperience stuff so much. The only way you can say the team isn't underachieving is if you had the barest of expectations for it. Youth and inexperience excuse some mistakes, but they doesn't give you free reign to make the same mistakes over and over and over and over. That's something else entirely. I don't know if Nate doesn't want to take the responsibility for not having this team ready to play every night or what, but excuses are lame.
Play better.
by leeroyjenkins on
Nov 29, 2007 7:09 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Scuse me, Jeff Foster
by leeroyjenkins on
Nov 29, 2007 7:10 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The reason you don't know his name....
Trying to blame the poor play on Nate not having the team "ready to play" is ludicrous. We are a team of mostly average players and a couple of guys who have potential but still need much more experience to develop. Our outside shooting is streaky at best (as always...). We lack toughness which can't be taught or coached. Joel is our "toughest" player and he's not even tough. He get's pushed out of position a lot and and generally relies on his size as much as anything to get boards.
Were we a good team last year? No. So why do people suddenly think we should be now, especially when we traded our most experienced starter in the off season? People need to face reality.
by R11 on
Nov 29, 2007 11:18 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jeff Foster is also...
the guy who nailed Prz in his manhood last year. I can sorta understand how he got 17 boards. :)
by EngineerScotty on
Nov 29, 2007 1:07 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jeff Foster
by timg56 on
Nov 30, 2007 7:01 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708POR.HTM
While I can rationalize my "less small ball, less Jack, more Pryzbilla, and (somewhat surprising) more Outlaw" bias, others will probably come up with different conclusions.
Still, I think we play small ball too often. I can't work it out, but I would be curious how often we win when our guards total more than 96 minutes of playing time. When we're down to crunch time and have Roy, Jack, and Blake (or Rodriquez) playing at the same time we almost always lose ground (the exception seems to be when Roy truly takes over in a positive fashion).
So, I don't think the problem is not playing 48, but the guards playing more than 96.
by vcubed on
Nov 29, 2007 8:58 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs

















