Brief Review of Blazers/Hornets

by Dave on Nov 3, 2007 7:26 AM PDT in News

This is only going to be a quick, incomplete, and only semi-coherent reveiew because:

A. I had company last night so I didn't get to watch as intensely as I usually do.

B. We shut the game off with about 6:00 to go in the fourth because it became obvious there would be no real contest. I never do this but it was in deference to my company.

C. I've been up all night without sleep as I type this.

and...

D. That game should be forgotten and never spoken of again.

It was obvious from the jump that we were toast. That first quarter defense was french-kissing-your-sister bad. Just gross. Even Joel was pretty much checking out of plays on defense and when that happens we're in trouble. We tightened up in the second quarter (or New Orleans eased up) but the third was just as bad. By the time we got to the fourth period it just didn't matter. At no time were we really in the game and it seldom looked like basketball from our end.

--Brandon Roy eventually came on to have a great game but from what I saw he's having major problems with his elevation and it's just killing him. Maybe he looked livelier after I quit watching? I don't know. I just know he looks really tentative with his vertical leap and if that doesn't change his scoring will get exponentially harder.

--I liked Martell's first half a lot. Still strong.

--This was a game that really showed what Sergio can do for us. The stats don't necessarily reflect it but the tempo and energy went way up when he was in there.

--This was also a game that showcased Frye and Jones a little. You could see some second-unit offensive potential there.

--As I said above this was a disappointing game for Joel in almost every aspect.

--Lamarcus got 9 rebounds but only scored 8 points. He has to put the two together.

--I thought Jack had another pretty flat game. Blake was unimpressive also.

--Despite ending the game with 48% shooting I pretty much hated our overall offensive game tonight. It looked kind of pretty because a lot of shots fell for Jones and Roy but it was way too much one-on-one and WAY too much perimeter shooting. New Orleans was exploitable on defense and we made it easy for them.

Game Summary in One Sentence:

I'm not sure we could have won with a better effort but it shouldn't have been that ugly.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not only did we lose...

But I think I scored a grand total of 3 points on the jersey contest. I did not expect this game to go that badly.

by T Darkstar on Nov 3, 2007 8:02 AM PDT reply actions

nate not trying to win?

Our second unit came in at the beginning of the second quarter and cut their 11 point lead down to 6, and it wasn't all against their second unit, paul and peterson were in for half of that time--specifically the time during which they lost their lead. Sergio got hot and hit a 3 and then back to back driving layups to go 3-3 on the next possesion he bounced the ball off his foot (a mistake, NOT a bad decision) and he gets yanked by Nate. After only 5 minutes and leading the team to a +6 during that time, Nate pulled the hottest guard we had. It just makes no sense. 6 minutes later we has lost two more points and were down by 8. And we all know what happened with our starters in during the 3rd quarter.

I have no idea why Nate pulled Sergio, maybe he was only going to get 5 minutes no mater what happened, maybe there is something i don't know about. But it couldn't have been his defense, NOT in this game at least, when our defense was terrible all around, and not to mention that even if Sergios defense was bad, it still resulted in us scoring 6 more points than they did, against their starters, which kind nullifies the complaints about his D. and it couldn't have been because of one turnover after 9 possessions, 7 of which we scored on, and NOT in this game where Jack and Roy were turnover machines, and NOT on a turnover from a unlucky dribble off the foot and not a bad decision like a crazy pass or out of control drive. sigh, it just makes no sense.

Anyway, I guess my point is that this game was winnable, we were down by only 6, with the ball, with 6 minutes left in the second quarter, with great momentum and energy, with a group of guys who actually seemed to know how to handle the Hornets out on the floor, and Nate pulled the rug right out from under us.

by sergioFTW on Nov 3, 2007 8:50 AM PDT reply actions

I agree...

Nate puzzled me with a couple of his decisions in that first half. In his defense, Chandelor went down and sat on the floor for about 10 minutes. During that extended timeout, Nate probably decided that the 1st unit was rested and ready to close on the 6 point gap. Unfortunately Jarrett Jack was playing point guard and he single handedly fumbled away the ball and dribbled his way into terribly well contested shots.

Then what does Nate call to end the half??? Jack, who is CLEARLY struggling to that point, gets the call to run a pick and roll to end the half. wha??? Roy was right there, Jack dribbled the ball for 15 seconds before making a move, that ball should have been getting dribbled by Mr. Roy.

Jack has really got me annoyed, so I am gonna rip a little deeper. Why does he always give Joel the ball at the top of the key? Is that Nate's idea of good offense? The problem is that Jack does this religiously and no other point guard does. He gives Joel the ball where he isnt comfortable and it led to at least 1 turnover on Joel. Also, everytime Jack pushes the ball I close my eyes. All he tries to do is run by people and usually picks up his dribble at a full sprint(likely cause he realizes he is out of control), and then has two steps to make a decision. Needless to see it is usually the wrong one. Jack can play better, here is to hoping it happens. Can we please start Blake???

RUDY > MJ

by myemic23 on Nov 3, 2007 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Thank the lord for a Breath of Sanity!!!

I'm sorry I'm REALLY tired of people saying we shouldn't call out the obviously lackadaisical play of Jack. He has had plenty of chances to shine in the past 8 games (Pre-Season included) and he only really impressed in one game due to his offense.

He is not I repeat NOT a starting PG. Blake has been boring but at least he isn't turning it over like TO's were a stat you WANTED to get. Sergio blew Jack out of the Arena and we don't see him again until it's a blow out? We are getting anhilated by a penetrating PG and we don't even try Green for a bit when it's close?

I'm sorry but I'm very tired of the double standard for Jack. I want to see equal treatment for all our PG's. If Taurean comes in and shines he should play until he doesn't. If Blake is on fire let the man play. If Sergio is going nuts and carving away at an NO lead for GODSAKES keep him in!!! I'm sick of seeing Jack play like garbage through tons of mistakes and then Sergio or Green get yanked INSTANTLY if they make a mistake. That's absurd and I don't want to hear about Jack's greater experience or what have you. He only has one year on Sergio and it does NOT show. Blake is more of a Vet and plays like one. Nothing flashy just lunch pail PG who can hold down the fort. Lets start Blake and use the Rookie ans Sophomore guards as mismatch creators or defensive specialists. Jack should spell Roy and maybe MAYBE get PG minutes if he starts looking to pass again. When T. Green plays the way Jack has been playing he doesn't see the light of day for ages. Don't even get me started on Sergio's short leash.

October, October, October, October, October...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)

by Idog1976 on Nov 3, 2007 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions

My guess is

if you're the starter it takes more that 1-2 games to lose your job, otherwise he'd be switching every couple of games and also hurting the point guards' confidence. If we don't see improvement I'm sure we'll see Jarrett go to the bench at some point but it will take longer than the first week of the season to make that call. I don't see that as favoring/excusing Jack. It would be the same no matter who was the starter.

--Dave

by Dave on Nov 3, 2007 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions

I hear what you're saying Dave

and I agree that (Sadly) we won't see JJ benched until he keeps his streak of poor play going a bit longer. This 4 PG situation just does NOT work. I think KP had a trade in the works this summer that didn't go through. Otherwise I have to question KP having 4 PG's with one stashed in Europe. I however, have more faith in KP and feel that a trade involving Jack never materialized.

I know Nate loves Jack but it's bizarre to me because Jack plays NOTHING like Nate used to. He looks for his own offense first and mails in his defense, the opposite of Nate's game. That's a recipe for disaster in your starting PG. If Jack could score at will like a young Steve Francis or C. Paul I might be more lenient. The problem is he scores less and doesn't have 1/10th the passing skills and bball IQ that Paul does.

I'm not looking for the next Steve Nash. I'm looking for the next Terry Porter. A steady hand that plays decent defense, runs the break and only looks for his own offense when it's needed or in the flow. Jack needs to quit Jacking up ill advised shots to prove himself.

A line up I'd like to see Nate try is:

PG Roy
SG Martell
SF Outlaw
PF LMA
C Pryz

I think you would see a VASTLY more controlled offense with occasional foolish decisions by Martell.

I would accept:

PG Blake
SG Roy
SF Web
PF LMA
C Pryz

but only for the sake of T.O. being a spark on offense off the bench.

My fantasy lineup because I love the kid is:

PG Green
SG Roy
SF Web
PF LMA
C Pryz

but I know Green isn't ready by a long shot. I just like his defense on opposing PGs, outside shooting, and the thought of Roy running the offense once over the time line sounds like something Green can deal with.

In another thread I saw someone I think her name was Ann the Fan or something say she wonders if Nate isn't proving to JJ that he is better as a spark off the bench. In my opinion Jack's strength has always been a Vinnie "the Microwave" Johnson type niche as a scoring combo guard off the bench. I just don't think Jack will settle for that and he will disrupt the locker room if he doesn't start. He is the only guy I worry about in the locker room on our team...at least until Miles suits back up.

October, October, October, October, October...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)

by Idog1976 on Nov 3, 2007 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Sergio

is the only guy who has gotten what I'd call an "honest" start to the season in the sense that you're seeing what he can do. He's going all out when he's in the game and making his mistakes up front too. Blake and Jack just kind of look mushy out there. That actually makes me view their mistakes more harshly because they're not giving us enough upside.

If this current situation keeps up I can almost guarantee that Sergio will start moving up the rotation and the other two will see their minutes reduced. But two games just isn't enough to make that kind of move with.

--Dave

by Dave on Nov 3, 2007 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions

If you want to look at what has been done

this year. El Mago should be starting. It's a bit soon but he had some real flashes during the pre-season and has been the best PG thus far on the team. No Knock on the Magician, but it's sad that he has so outperformed our cough veteran PG's. It does seem to be a mental/heart type situation. I think Blake will play through it. I think we are seeing Jack's swan song. Nate can like him all he wants but KP has clearer vision and will make the move.

Oh and one last thing. I've seen big mental lapses from Surge on defense but I've seen occasional flashes of really good defense from him too. Much like Webster, who was the only one to really play paul well on defense (it was a mismatch at the time), Sergio has shown that he is attempting to work on his defense while still showing confidence on the offensive end. Thank god for Martell or else we'd REALLY be hurting. He has been our rock thus far.

Man somebody pinch me Martell is our rock AND we're not winning?!?!?!? What kind of weird dream is this????

October, October, October, October, October...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)

by Idog1976 on Nov 3, 2007 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Whoops

I said occasional lapses by Martell and I meant Outlaw. Sorry web if you're reading this!

October, October, October, October, October...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)

by Idog1976 on Nov 3, 2007 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

That game should be forgotten and never spoken of

Amen.

"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 Nov 3, 2007 9:00 AM PDT reply actions

Why would Nate try not to win

Sounds like sour grapes to me. The idea that Nate would try to avoid winning is preposterous. Not only that, it is a completely irrational conclusion to draw from the facts. Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. Your explanation defies Occam's Razor.

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

by fisheyes on Nov 3, 2007 9:00 AM PDT reply actions

what is the simplest explanation?

That he is a very weak game-time coach?

by BrailleTaser on Nov 3, 2007 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions

Maybe Nate is using

psychology on JJ1 early in the season. He's allowing JJ to see for himself that he'd be better coming off the bench. This way his ego won't be so bruised. Ultimately Jack wants to see his team win so he'll accept his role and thrive in it. I hope.

by annthefan on Nov 3, 2007 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmm the Razor

I love how often that gets pulled out. So many Zebra's get mistaken for horses due to the concept of Occam's Razor standing in the way of a true read on reality. The use of the Razor is often a sign of a weak argument so it's a pet peeve of mine when I see someone bust it out. In this case however, you are right on my man with one caveat. Nate has some serious favoritism issues with PG's Sergio gets little to no love, Green apparently did something really wrong and Jack well who knows what's going on there but he sure has a man crush on the Boy Blunder (Jack). Due to this Nate makes BIZARRE choices when it comes to who is running the point and ignores hot or cold streaks in favor of who he likes better or what style his comfortable with.

October, October, October, October, October...... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)

by Idog1976 on Nov 3, 2007 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Aren't you guys being a little quick

to jump to so many conclusions?

It was the second game of the season. We have a 2% data set. Either you all are some of the world's greatest basketball analyists or you are over reacting.

Green's done something wrong? Our 4th string, 2nd round pick rookie point guard doesn't get into the second game of the season and you've already concluded Nate has it in for him because he's messed up somehow.

And it's sooo obvious that McMillan has a thing for Jack. That he's getting starter minutes has nothing to do with the fact Jack, by all accounts, worked harder than anyone over the summer and in camp, or that he was our starting point guard last year.

by timg56 on Nov 5, 2007 6:43 AM PST up reply actions

Jack pretty flat?

that's the understatement of the year. Jack was groan-and-clutch bad every minute he was in. And it is not the kind of 'off your game' bad game that everyone has (like BRoy in the first game). There is something dreadfully wrong with his game. I wouldn't mind him as a 2-guard off the bench. But not in his current role on the team -- and I don't understand why Nate insists on playing him.

by BrailleTaser on Nov 3, 2007 9:07 AM PDT reply actions

Maybe

If he plays like this for a long stretch, like 10 games or so, I will start questioning why he is out there. He has not played well in 2 games on the road against good teams so let's at least see if he will get it together before we start talking about benching him.

He deserves a little slack based on past performance and this preseason, but I would agree if he keeps performing like this he may drop in the rotation.

by tssbro on Nov 3, 2007 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Problems with his elevation.

That's probably the scariest observation. You can believe that he is rusty, that he is out of synch, even somewhat out of condition, and you can attribute that all to missing most of pre-season.

The reality we aren't facing is if he is struggling with his lift, it probably is his heel. The big question is, Is he physically feeling pain, or is it more just psychological?

A lot of the struggles we are having through these two games are what I think a lot of people should expect. This team is going to have growing pains with the new uptempo style, and perimeter defense, rebounding....I expect improvement.

But Brandons situation is becoming troublesome. Problem is he is such an intelligent and competitive player that against most players, and on most nights, I think he can be at 70-75% and still play what most people will consider a pretty good game. But even given that I'm becoming increasingly concerned.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Nov 3, 2007 9:08 AM PDT reply actions

elevating Roy

The first couple of games I saw him go up strong a couple of times after rebounds but NOT when he had the ball. He says his heel doesn't hurt,but he hasn't convinced himself totally. Also, I'm not sure that working out a like madman for the two days between the SA and NO games in order to get in shape was the correct solution for his conditioning issues. Even though his shot was dropping, he still didn't look comfortable out there -- no explosion, lateral movement issues on D, tentative. So: he had a better shooting game; but he's not all the way back.

by barryj on Nov 3, 2007 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Question

I didn't see the game last night, so here's a question for those who did: Could any of this just have been the Hornets playing out of their mind because it's their first time playing in New Orleans since Katrina?

by Toast on Nov 3, 2007 9:41 AM PDT reply actions

Hornets played well

But we made it easy on them. They hit their open shots, and pretty much had their way on offense. And they had a defensive plan and managed to do a pretty good job with it. But we were far worse than we should have been -- there were stretches in the third quarter where, for three or four possessions in a row, ALL of the offense was going through JJ and Przy, while Roy, Webster and LA were not involved. It should be the other way around. Anyhow, yeah, they played well, but our play made it no contest.

by BrailleTaser on Nov 3, 2007 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions

If we were going to beat NO...

...it would be with a bruising inside game. We're not going to outshoot them.

Chandler was taking rebounds away from Pryzbilla, and effectively denied position to Aldridge.

You KNOW that Paul is going to rain down 3's if you give him space, and tear up the lanes if you get too close. You KNOW that Peja is going to rain down shots from 15 - 30 feet unless he's wearing a defender like a rain slicker.

Even with our weak perimeter defense, we can hang in with good teams. But, we can't do it if our frontcourt is getting manhandled. Joel committed a few dumb fouls and let himself get boxed out on both ends, LMA didn't fight for position, and Frye doesn't seem to really like being under the hoop.

I liked the fact that once again, Joel was trying to be aggressive on the offensive end. Unfortunately, Aldridge wasn't. LMA has to learn that part of being the go-to guy means selfishly demanding the ball and hammering away at his guy. The key to beating these guys is going to be getting Chandler off the court. That's LMA's job. I'm betting he looks a lot more aggressive when NO comes to town.

-t

by webted on Nov 3, 2007 10:42 AM PDT reply actions

Man

It's a lot more brutal to read it here than the Yahoo or ESPN recap. My theory is they are starting the opposite of last year. They'll find their rhythm soon.

I had to change the game in last year's Las Vegas Bowl. Everyone else was uncomfortable and uninterested in the game. I felt like I was punishing my guests.

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 Nov 4, 2007 1:34 PM PST reply actions