The Last Stand

by Dave on Jan 31, 2008 2:22 AM PST in News Comment 62 comments

Much is being made of LeBron's final layup last night. Obviously since he made it there are a ton of complaints. As a way to ease into that conversation I thought it would be interesting to see what the alternatives could have been.

Keeping in mind that I don't know jack compared to Nate and the assistants, if it were my call this is what I think I would have drawn up.

Keep in mind there are 4.9 seconds left in the game and Cleveland has no timeouts remaining. Everybody and their uncle knows where the ball is going for them. I like the idea of Roy on James but as soon as the ball is inbounded I also want Travis in there doubling him hard. Between Roy and Travis throwing the trap up at the top of the key LeBron either has to launch a tough shot over the top or pass. I suppose he could try to split the double team but that's going to take some extra maneuvering and thus extra time.

I know this is leaving a man uncovered so I want the rest of my guys playing a modified zone. I think I have Martell and Jones on the wings, spread wide of the key a little below the free throw line. If anybody tries to cut down the middle to receive an easy pass they have to slide over and cover. It's not likely that LeBron would be able to get a direct pass through the double team but a guy could cut diagonally into the key and create an angle so these guys have to cut that off. More likely LeBron is going to have to pass around the perimeter. With only five seconds left and him having taken at least 2 of those seconds to figure out he can't move past the double team that's going to leave time for only one pass...two at the most. If LeBron passes sideways then Martell or Jones follow the ball to cut off the potential shooter. Hopefully the game ends with somebody besides King James hoisting a covered, perimeter shot.

I still have a fifth man and that's Lamarcus. He's down near the basket as a safety valve. If LeBron somehow gets past the double team he says a quick prayer and then moves to intercept. Ditto if they somehow get a pass to a cutter because Martell or Jones blew it. Other than that Lamarcus' job is to watch for the pass. If they try an alley-oop to a baseline cutter he can cut that off before it even starts. However if LeBron passes left or right Lamarcus immediately moves to cover any possible second pass on that side. This will probably involve charging the corner to cover a potential corner three by someone lurking.

Also should LeBron pass Brandon stays with him while Travis immediately rotates down in the lane to cover the spot that Lamarcus just left. If LeBron dives down the lane hoping to receive a return pass both Travis and Brandon should be there. Otherwise Travis prevents any easy passes or cuts to the bucket.

In summation:

Brandon--Watch LeBron and stay with Lebron
Travis--Double LeBron and dive down to cover the lane if he passes
Martell--Play the right wing and follow any pass to a player on that side
Jones--Same as Martell except on the left wing
Lamarcus--Cover the middle initially but run hard to prevent any secondary pass or open shot on the side the ball's on once Webster or Jones have committed to their men.

One way to foil this that I can see is if the Cavs held a man down low to keep Lamarcus at home. In that case we'd likely be risking two quick passes to the corner for a game-winning attempt. However after two passes that shot is going to be rushed and at least it's not LeBron taking it.

Another way would be to put a really tall guy right in Martell or James' kitchen...a guy they couldn't prevent from getting the pass. That would mean they were stuck guarding him because Lamarcus couldn't come over without leaving a pass to the middle free. Again, though, time becomes an issue. That big guy either has to shoot quickly or get the ball to someone else for a rushed shot. And again it's not LeBron.

In the end I'd be the mostly likely scenario would be James dribbling back and firing the long ball.

Notice also that I don't have Joel in there either, just like Nate didn't. He doesn't give me enough coverage and footspeed, nor the versatility to harass the different players he could be facing while playing goalie against superior numbers. He could be of more help stopping a pure drive than Lamarcus would be but if they're getting down that deep with the ball something went horribly wrong with my scheme anyway and it's likely to be a foul at the very least.

It's easy to second-guess. Had the results been the same as they were Sunday when Brandon was covering Joe Johnson we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since we are I thought I'd take my shot.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

0 recs | Comment 62 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ew

"You gotta tip your hat to LeBron," Przybilla said. "He showed tonight why he is the best player in the league, especially those three's. There's not much you can do right there."

Well, except for put a hand in his face.

by leeroyjenkins on Jan 31, 2008 6:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Interesting point

on the foot speed.

Not able to watch, I can't really see those sort of things.

"No way. I love this town. We're gonna bring back the glory years. These boys are my boys. This is my team and my town." - Greg Oden when asked about leaving.

by ratbastird on Jan 31, 2008 6:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't really have any real criticism of

the last possession. We got beat by one of the top 3 - 4 best individual players in the league. If fact that describes the last 2:30 minutes of the 4th quarter.

Were I to criticize anything, it would be the Blazer's last possession. We came away with a terrible shot from Brandon Roy trying to beat the buzzer and then failed to get the rebound. This seemed to me to be due to our reliance on the clear out. Granted, it's a play that has worked numerous times before, but there was one big difference last night. We were asking Roy to perform his magic against a guy bigger, stronger, faster and with longer reach - our 6-6 All-Star against their 6-8 super Star.

Also, why are we shooting a jump shot? The play should be going to the rim, as a foul almost assures a tie at worst. For all I know, Nate drew it up that way and Cleveland took it away. But I would have liked to see Portland going to someone else for the last shot, ala Travis in the first Atlanta game.

Last night was one of the most dissappointing losses of the season for me, ranking up there with the Philapelphia loss. I was on cloud nine for the entire game. We were in control nearly the whole way. Everytime the Cav's made a run we opened it back up and then rebuilt the lead. I had already registered a 9-5 month. Instead, we saw what Charles Barkley was referring to. A jump shooting team that has trouble getting it inside for a high percentage shot or the foul.

Still, I'm not going to be critical. Aside from the final result, there was a lot to like about this game. As I said, Portland was in control of the game against the defending Eastern Conference champions and one of the hottest teams in the league right now. They didn't let one of the better rebounding teams dominate the boards and they were pretty successful at making James a jump shooter. (Note: I was greatly impressed by the job Martell did on defense.) They flirted with a double digit lead for much of the game even though they couldn't hit the ocean with their shots.

All in all they played one of their better games last night and in the end were beaten by Labron James doing his Kobe immitation and canning 3 consecitive 3 pointers. There's really not much you can do about that. Except find a player who can slash to the hoop. (I'm hoping to see Webster add that dimension to his game in the next couple of years.)

by timg56 on Jan 31, 2008 6:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

What?!

You have an 11 pt lead with two minutes left. The only way the Cavs can win is by shooting 3-pointers. The only guy on the Cavs who can score is Lebron. The Cavs predictably handed Lebron the ball and sent one guy to screen for him at the top of the key which led to three consecutive wide open 3-pointers!!!

It's one thing to let him have one wide open 3-pointer.

Three is inexcusable.

Add an uncontested lay-in into the mix and you've just gift-wrapped the game for the other team.

I'm sorry but people make too many excuses for this team. Playoff-type teams don't give games away like that. If they learned a lesson, then maybe it's worth it. If not, that was a waste of 48 minutes.

by leeroyjenkins on Jan 31, 2008 6:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Big Picture

Before the season did you believe the Blazers were going to make the playoffs? Did you peg them for over 30 wins? With GO out for the year, not many of us did. The fact that they are even in these kind of games and are competitive on EVERY single night is new for this team and I for one LOVE it. Although I wasn't happy with how the game ended (I would have instructed LMA to foul the heck out of Lebron if he entered the key), we still need to really take a step back some times and realize that what we have here is 1 million times better than what we expected for this season. I don't know about everyone else at the game but I thought that the crowd was GREAT and the atmosphere was amazing there. The end did suck but I still had a good time at the game and lost my voice a little cheering from the 300 level like I do for every home game.

My final thoughts. Big Picture. With GO in the game at the end, Lebron wouldn't have even attempted to go to the hole, he would have beat BRoy and then went with the fade away jumper. Good for him. Next season, we win this game, hands down. The Blazers are still the best ticket in the NBA for my money. Bring on the Knicks and ZBO, I'll be there Friday and can't wait for us to get back on the winning track!

Go Blazers.

by TKEskippers on Jan 31, 2008 7:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When I see the video

of you playing flawless basketball, then I'll give credence to your criticisms.

You try contesting a 3 pt jump shot by a guy 6-8. Exactly how is that done? And if I recall correctly, at least two of those occurred with James bringing the ball up court and then popping for a three. I doubt you can name a more difficult shot to stop than that. It's also the shot you want the Cav's to take. James shoots under 30% from behind the arc (and that's with last night's heroics included).

I'll apologize for making this a bit personal, but jeez Leeroy, quit finding fault with this team all the time. It's one thing to be disappointed in the outcome. But our team had a really good game last night. Look past the dissapointment and you will see that we did a lot of things right on a night when our shooting was off.

by timg56 on Jan 31, 2008 7:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dude. LeBron is shooting

.298 from the three this season. Normally going under screens and encouraging him to shoot threes is the best defense against the guy. But he's a streaky long distance shooter, and sometimes he's hot. When he's hot from distance, he is literally unstoppable, no matter what defense you put against him.

We lost because we're a jump shooting team, and we're bad when our jump shots aren't falling. Other teams get dunks and layups, putbacks, and fast breaks. All we have is high screen and rolls, penetration and kickouts to open shooters.

by howlingfantods on Jan 31, 2008 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

a touch of hyperbole

I'm always confused when you use the phrase "inexcusable"--what are you going to do, fire them? Facts are: we're an inconsistent young team with no inside presence. LeBron is one of the top five players in the league, and the Cavs, even though they're not impressive outside of him, are a strong defensive club. They were just in the Finals, we were just in the lottery. These statements are cliches by now, but it's because they're completely true. We're a playoff bubble team with flaws, we're not world-beaters or contenders or top-tier yet. Those aren't excuses, that's the truth.

We're going to lose some games that a more experienced or mature team would have won, particularly in the second half of the season as the vet teams rachet up the intensity and we hit that wall that Nate is concerned about. Sometimes we'll give games away, sometimes a singular force like LeBron will just take them away. That being said, the last cliche I'm going to throw out is that you can't win 'em all--even the '95-'96 Bulls lost ten games, including a 72-104 blowout courtesy of the Knicks. If the Blazers don't win the game, was it a waste of 48 minutes? If they don't make the playoffs, was it a waste of 82 games? If they don't win the championship, was it a waste of another two months they could have been at home practicing? I don't think so, anyway.

by abdelnaby on Jan 31, 2008 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LeBron's last drive:

I rewound TiVo, played it several times and have concluded that Aldridge's and especially Outlaw's defense was totally lame on the play. Although James was driving to the basket, LMA sort of stepped away from the basket toward the baseline just as James was arrving (although he did manage to reach over and actually have his hand on the ball for an instant.) And Outlaw who was in good position right at the rim DIDN'T EVEN APPEAR TO JUMP. James actually charged into him, but of course Outlaw's feet were way inside the circle so no chance of a foul.

Nate finally gave Joel some P.T. during 4th quarter crunch time (and Joel responded wonderfully) but then decides not to play him on that last defensive play????!!!!

I - like SergioFTW - feel this was the most stinging defeat of the season because it was on National TV, because of James prescence and because I was getting tired of the announcers going on and on about James.

We did a lot of things wrong down the stretch and this one hurt a lot.

by TwoDeep on Jan 31, 2008 8:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

damn

that was real tough to take.

why in god's name was james able to drive at will? would someone PLEASE knock him on his... oh sorry, would someone please deliver a hard foul and put him on the floor!!!

by rburg on Jan 31, 2008 8:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

That would have been

even worse--allow him to win it from the line? No thanks. Play good D and if he makes a difficult lay-in, so be it.

The good thing about Jack inbounding is that he's already standing out of bounds. - Fizbin

by jamon51 on Jan 31, 2008 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, but

how about knocking him down in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, of 4th quarter? he was going to the rim at will anytime he wanted to. Maybe that makes the last drive a little more difficult. maybe not. but no way he should be allowed to score at will that way.

by rburg on Jan 31, 2008 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Defense starts from the post...

The Blazers have ONE authentic low post player on this team and there is no excuse for Joel not to be on the floor the last 5 minutes of each and every game with the score within 10 points, ahead or behind (pulling him only if the Blazers are 4+ down in the last minute).

You can scheme and dream a double-team and a hokey pokey rotation scenario all day and half the night, but if you can't cork up the key, you lose to a garbage layup. Like the Blazers did...

This is not debatable, this is true at every level of basketball. If you can shut down the layup, you can't win in that situation. You will lose to a drive to the rack, every time. INSIDE-OUT DEFENSE.

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 8:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

There is no way we could have stopped that layup

no matter who was in.

"But Joel blocked LeBron's shot earlier" you will say.

Look at that possession and you will see a thicket of defenders close to LeBron, of which Joel was one. LeBron was also coming at an angle from the left, which left him only one possible path to the rim.

Look at LeBron's final drive. Nobody was close to him except Aldridge who came over to help (which would have been Joel's position). He was coming straight down the lane, leaving him a couple of possible paths to the basket. Joel would not have stopped him. At best it would have been a foul.

Let's put it this way. Put Joel in the lane against a driving LeBron one-on-one. Run the possession 100 times. We'll bet $5 per possession--you take Joel, I'll take LeBron. I'm going to walk away with enough for a nice flat-screen TV. You're going to walk away with a Slurpee.

If you want to blame somebody (which I don't) blame Roy for letting LeBron get by him so easily. He completely exposed the interior defenders. At that point the possession was done. One the boat is half over the brink of the waterfall it doesn't matter who is rowing anymore. You're going over.

--Dave

by Dave on Jan 31, 2008 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take my chances...

....with a big body in the key against a big body driving the key.

As opposed to olé-olé LMA three steps late and out of position forward-faking-the-center-position defense.

Not saying Pryz WOULD NECESSARILY have stopped him. Then again, he probably wouldn't have had to -- because a 7'1" true center in position would have ALTERED THE PLAY.

This one goes on Nate's "I Lost It" slate. That makes two.

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you guys watch LeBron regularly?

some of these questions about what we woulda coulda shoulda done seem like you guys just don't know the player.

Why was Brandon going under screens? Because LeBron's very inconsistent at the three, shooting at the anemic .298 clip from range. To put it in perspective, Sergio is averaging .289 and Jack's averaging .330. Expect to see them hitting three in a row anytime soon?

Why didn't we foul him and put him on the line? Because he's so big and strong that you pretty much have to take a flagrant to make sure that he won't still make it on the continuance and convert a three point play on you.

Look, Lebron hit some big shots, no doubt, but we lost because of our offense, not our defense. Cavs scoring by quarter? 20/22/20/22. Blazers scoring by quarter? 29/19/20/15. We went a stretch of almost nine minutes at the end of the game where we scored a total of 7 points. Against most anyone, that usually means a loss.

by howlingfantods on Jan 31, 2008 8:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It was a combo

I don't care what the guy is shooting, he's the best offensive player in the game and he always has great fourth quarter. Get a hand in his face. Especially after he makes a couple. Especially when you are nursing a 10 or 12 point lead at the end of the game. TWO POINT BASKETS DO NOT HURT YOU.

But yeah the offense that last few minutes was really stagnant. Nobody moved to help Brandon. Nobody cut to the basket. Nobody did much of anything except stand around and watch Brandon dribble around. Not that Brandon did much of anything either.

by leeroyjenkins on Jan 31, 2008 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It was pretty much our normal offense.

But, say it along with me and Chuck Barkley, who knows all, "live by the jumpshot, die by the jumpshot". We had plenty of decent looks. Sometimes they go in. Sometimes they don't. That's why jumpshooting teams are always inconsistent.

I'd hoped that Barkley was wrong because we just have so many quality jumpshooters that they won't all go bad at the same time, but the thing about jumpshooters is that poor shooting is contagious. Jones misses a couple and all of a sudden Martell, Trout and Jack are all struggling to find iron. Marcus (I'm taking away the "La" until he gets his jump shot back - without his jumper, he's just a Marcus, not the Marcus) misses a couple and suddenly Frye can't hit either.

Jump shooting teams will always have good moments and bad moments on offense. We've seen plenty of bad moments over the past two weeks. That's why it's not crazy for KP to be thinking about ways of getting different skillsets, like Devin Harris and his one man break and dribble penetration, on to the team.

by howlingfantods on Jan 31, 2008 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way, not sure if anyone's mentioned it

but notice the players that were most off their feed were the ones mentioned in the trade talks?

Trout - 4 for 10, 13 points 3 boards
Jack - 0 for 6, 3 points 2 dimes
Frye - 2 for 6, 7 points 4 boards
Sergio - 0 for 6, 0 points 4 boards 1 dime

Whatever happens, I hope it wraps up soon.

by howlingfantods on Jan 31, 2008 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

MY DESIGNATED PF OF CHOICE...

...Shelden Williams (ATL) had 4 pts. and 2 boards in 5 minutes of action the other night. The dude is riding pine, KP could get him.

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 7:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Tim, are you regretting the choice

of Sheldon Williams for your fantasy team?

The only other reason I can see for your man-love is he's related to you.

I'm not saying Williams is a scrub. I actually liked him in college (which, as a Maryland grad, is saying a lot). He could be a decent reserve PF for Portland. But I just don't see where he is an improvement over Channing Frye. If anything, I have to give Channing a slight edge, as he has both a height and athleticism advantage over Sheldon Williams and, at least in my opinion, more room to develop.

by timg56 on Feb 1, 2008 7:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

have you watched him

in the nba, or are you basing this on his college performance? he's looking like the second biggest bust of the 2006 draft.

by howlingfantods on Feb 1, 2008 7:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One team's "bust"...

....is another team's "steal."

There are a very limited number of legitimate low post players who are potentially available for trade who don't have franchise-impaling contracts.

Shelden Williams is riding pine, plain and simple. There is no game action to judge anything by because he's not in the Hawks' current rotation. They would be happy to make him go away. There's nothing else to go by except his past and his stats.

The Hawks' blog said he rocked a practice the other day, that's the only report I've heard this year.

by timbo on Feb 1, 2008 8:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

last second strategy

Suppose that you have more that 24 seconds on the clock, a 1 point lead and the ball (as the Blazers did in their last possession). It seems like the best outcome would possession and a new 24. Could you have your best driver, drive to the basket and intentionally bounce the ball off the bottom of the rim to allow him or a teamate (who knows what he's going to do) the best chance to get the offensive rebound and a new 24, call timeout if possible, or get fouled? Is that just too difficult to do? Not allowed?

by blazernerd on Jan 31, 2008 9:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

big gamble

Cleveland's one of the best rebounding teams in the league (tied with Boston for highest total rebounding percentage), and we're among the very worst. That sounds more like a strategy you use if you're playing against Portland, not if you are Portland. Classically the best way to get two possessions in this case is to score, then get a steal (or if you have to, foul a cutter to prevent an easy layin) at the other end. Not that this strategy is a simple one either.

by abdelnaby on Jan 31, 2008 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

gamble?

I'm not suggesting you just take a shot and hope to get the rebound. I would think that you have the advantage over the defense since they assume that you are trying to make a shot - which you are not. Just take a close range shot at the bottom of the rim (from close range) so that you can get the rebound. For example, if you had one of your bigs just try and bring the ball to the rim and hit the rim with the ball in their hands. Maybe that's easier said than done. Wouldn't a defensive player typically not be too concerned if you were trying to take an impossible shot from underneath the rim. Would the defensive rebounders anticipate this? It seems like you would have better odds with this "trick play" than to try to score (maybe miss) and then try to steal (< 5% chance of success) without fouling.

by blazernerd on Jan 31, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Przybilla

I guess I wouldn't put Przybilla in for that play either, but mostly because he blocked King James close-in a couple times earlier in the game, and I think it's just rude to block Lebron three times in one game. What would David Stern say?

Truth be told, the Blazers should have been blowing out the Cavs by the 4th quarter. King James can't bring them back from 25 points down with 2 minutes. It never should have come down to that last play.

But if it has to be a 1-point game with 5 seconds and the ball in Lebron's hands, why, oh god why, wouldn't you put in our only legitimate interior defender?

by grizzo on Jan 31, 2008 10:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hey Grizzo--

Nate McMillan is NOT god!!!

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oh?

can we agree to disagree on that one? :D

actually, i will back Nate's decisions all day every day. i'm not trying to play coach-- i hate it when people do that. i just feel like Joel still doesn't get the respect he deserves, and i really want to see him in at the end of Blazer games... and this time, i cannot accept that he wouldn't have made a difference.

with that said, when i try to imagine why Nate chose LaMarcus over Joel, there's always the "looking towards the future" justification. put Joel in against Lebron, and Joel does what Joel does. put LaMarcus in, and maybe LaMarcus learns something important... who knows?

by grizzo on Jan 31, 2008 11:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He Has Risen!

In my opinion doesn't matter too much what you draw up on that last play. You don't want the youngest team in The N.B.A. to have to be trying to stop one of the best players if not THE best player in the N.B.A., for the game, with 4.9 seconds left. What happened was really pretty inevitable. Re-Run the scenario again sometime when we have a paint monster like Oden. In the meantime just hope you don't get down to those type of 4.9 second moments very often.

Just a tough game for a team on the rise, and a LeBron moment from one who has already risen.

I know Blazer fans, and The Blazers themselves are probably upset, but we've won some games that we probably did not deserve to win, and now the balance of fate took one away that we probably should of been able to win. This is what happens in the course of an N.B.A. season.

We forced LeBron James to have one of his best quarters of the season, just to give the Cavaliers a narrow win. They are defending Eastern Champions. Great game. Unfortunate ending. Given our run lately, seems this type of ending was due.

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

by Krang on Jan 31, 2008 10:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You assume...

....that Nate is smart enough to play Oden. He doesn't play his one and only low post defender this year, does he suddenly learn something next year?

Actually, I think I figured it out. Nate has distributed all the players to the various assistant coaches. And Nate has --- Roy and LMA. They review film together and that's his close personal connection. So when it came to crunch time, THE pivotal moment in the game -- Nate cast reason aside and played favorites.

Pretty sure that's right. Putting a weakish defending power forward in the center position in that situation makes ZERO sense in any rational universe. It's a theory at least...

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 7:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you nailed it dave...

but I have to disagree with one thing, you can question Nate for this. Single covering Lebron James in a game winning situation is like kissing your sister. You just dont do it...

RUDY > MJ

by myemic23 on Jan 31, 2008 11:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you

Hasn't Nate seen how other teams have defended Roy on the last possession? He has been double teamed. Isn't that the reason Outlaw took the shot at Atlanta? I would be fine with the loss if Lebron was double teamed then fouled and hit his free throws or someone hit a jumper. My guess is that Nate was challenging Roy. If Nate is cool with giving away games, then I guess I should be too.

Our blog administrator could beat up your blog administrator.

by tominhawaii on Jan 31, 2008 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like...

......the attitude of either Nate or KP about this season.

They are treating it like a long pre-season to the "real season," which apparently starts when they get the use of the golden child Oden.

Guess what?

THIS is the real season. And they are flushing it.

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm on the fence

I imagine Nate had Brandon guard Lebron one on one to showcase him. I'm not the coach, so I have no idea what he had in mind. The entire team and Nate, probably learned a lesson, it just feels like the end of the game was coached more as a lesson, and to showcase Brandon on national TV, rather than coached to win the game.

Seriously, if I am being serious, then something went wrong. This loss is behind me from now on, I am moving onto Friday's game.

"I knew a guy who was dyslexic. He was also cross-eyed. So everything came out right." Tummler from Gummo (1997)

by tominhawaii on Jan 31, 2008 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

showcasing him for a trade

I'm hoping the All-Star berth ups his trade value. Maybe we can swap Roy for some inside muscle, some post player who could net us 20-10.

by abdelnaby on Feb 1, 2008 12:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fewest points in the paint in the NBA...

Universally recognized as a bad rebounding team.

That's the Blazers.

You are being sarcastic, of course, but you tell me where the Blazers' great weakness is...

KP may not be able to fix the hole with a trade. But it is his job and duty to TRY.

Golden State is our clone in that regard. They added Webber, which may not do jack to fix their problem. But at least THEY TRIED.

And the Blazers?!??!?!

by timbo on Feb 1, 2008 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

we've got that olden guy riding the bench

maybe we could trade him for Shelden Williams? Williams just kills him, statistically.

Seriously though, if signing Chris Webber to shore up interior D counts as "trying", I would rather KP didn't try at all, thank you.

by abdelnaby on Feb 1, 2008 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hear

Zach Randolph is available. He qualifies as an inside 20 & 10 guy and I bet the Knicks might be interested in that trade.

by jon on Feb 1, 2008 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the problem with a young team

is that your window of contention is so narrow. Our shot at a title is slipping away!

by abdelnaby on Feb 1, 2008 12:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a title...

....we're trying to make the playoffs.

Playoff race.

Regular season playoff race.

Going on now, a regular season playoff race.

And the Blazers are still in it, at the moment....

by timbo on Feb 1, 2008 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Seems to me that whatever way they are treating it

something is going right.

Some of you guys really slay me. This team is one of the biggest surprises of the season and is performing beyond all but a few folks expectations and yet you are finding fault with the coach, with some of the players, with team philosophy...

I bet if you came across a sack filled with a million bucks, you'd complain that the bills were not new and uncirculated or that they were in small denominations or why did the sack have to be at the farthest point from your house, making you carry it all that distance.

by timg56 on Feb 1, 2008 7:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be really

upset if all the bills were from the San Francisco federal reserve office.

by jon on Feb 1, 2008 8:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I get this.

But it sounds funny.

by timg56 on Feb 1, 2008 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If you look at the old dollar bills

they listed the federal reserve bank they were out of where the big letter on the left front was. L was for S.F. D for Cleveland. They've seemed to have done away with that on the new bill designs.

by jon on Feb 1, 2008 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hadn't noticed that.

Thanks.

Now I'm going to wonder why they changed it.

by timg56 on Feb 4, 2008 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nate said

they were defending against the pick and roll that the Cavs had been running all night. If the Cavs had run that play, a better player to defend the pick and roll was Aldridge, not Joel. Hindsight is 20/20--now, we know the play went to an iso instead of a pick and roll.

I'm tired of fans second-guessing what is obviously a very competent and smart coach. He guessed wrong on a play that could have gone either way. So be it...move on. It seems like some fans' expectations rise with every win and they become demanding and petulant if they don't get their candy.

Here's an idea: just enjoy the games for the basketball (not just the W), take the wins with the losses, and don't base your happiness on whether Joel Przybilla plays the last 30 seconds of a game or not.

The good thing about Jack inbounding is that he's already standing out of bounds. - Fizbin

by jamon51 on Jan 31, 2008 1:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

it's also possible

that Lebron (or his coach) saw the personnel on the floor and opted to go iso instead of the pick and roll. I don't know why we assume it's a Nate decision that determines wins or losses, like one choice is a guaranteed 100% success and the other is a 100% fail, and he flipped a coin the wrong way. The other team has set plays, scouting reports, and players who see the floor and react too, y'know.

by abdelnaby on Jan 31, 2008 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

that's why i don't buy Dave's assertion that Joel wouldn't have made a difference on that last play. King James may have decided to take a jumper rather than attempt a layup against Joel. he may have decided he needed to rush, and he may have made a mistake. what i'm saying is that Joel had blocked him twice, LaMarcus didn't block him at all.

with that said, he sure did seem to be hitting jumpers pretty well at the end of the game. but what is Joel thinking while he sits on the bench and watches Lebron win the game with such ease?

by grizzo on Jan 31, 2008 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

>> Hindsight is 20/20

We're not TALKING hindsight.

We're TALKING basketball 101.

If you give up the key, you lose to a garbage layup, like the Blazers did.

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 7:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point on that Joe Johnson reference.

"Had the results been the same as they were Sunday when Brandon was covering Joe Johnson we wouldn't be having this discussion."

Well, there ya go.
The defensive scheme dubiously to blame for the Cavs loss may also deserve credit for the Hawks victory.
Much more sane-looking a ploy if it's a one-for-two success rate rather than oh-fer-one.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jan 31, 2008 2:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not prone to 2nd guessing, but ...

I don't like to think this way having been
a coach for years, but ...

1. King James is a beast ! He's 6'8", 255 at
8% body fat. A true BEAST !
2. You knew he was going to have the ball and
was going to iso and go to the rim. We have
seen it over and over and over !
3. The Blazers didn't play 48 minutes. We know
this and hopefully this will be one more
lesson in the school of hard knocks.
4. Smooth is not a physical player !!!!!!!!!!
I love his long athletic frame, his speed
up and down, his beautiful "top of the reach"
jumper and his weakside blocks. I love
his competitive drive, his work ethic and
his desire to get better/great, but he is
not an inside force or presence ! He needs
to continue to work hard in the weight room
on CORE strength, leg drive and perhaps
with a sports psychologist on improving his
aggressive tendencies. Obviously GO will
help take up the slack in "paint physicality"
but Smooth as a starting PF has to get
tougher, period !
5. The Natural had a tough assignment, but
Smooth & Outlaw played passive or perhaps
OLE' defense. LMA moved out of the way
first before deciding to reach from out
of position. Joel would have been a much
better last play defender, as he is the only
Blazer player/Big that plays physical. Joel
is also very good at drawing charges, and
we knew James was going to the hole. He
knew it was bucket or the foul.

Analysis - Thousands upon thousands of
games played, coached and watched makes
me think ...

With 4.9 seconds left, you double James
immidiatly with Outlaw (a taller player)
and force him to have to drive really hard
around the (aggressive) double, and either
hit a jumper or pass to another shooter.
Joel is in guarding against a drive to the
middle or a cutter recieving a pass from
LeBron.

Ahhh, 2nd guessing, an American
pastime.

COINCAST SUCKS ! DOWN WITH THE MONOPOLY !

It's GO time !

by walkoff41 on Jan 31, 2008 3:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Last possessions

I'm not sure if LA stepped up like he needed to when Roy couldn't get through Z's screens (which were moving anyway). I'm not sure if Travis couldn't have fouled to prevent the bucket. But I do know that our last offensive possession, which would've put the game away for us, was horrible. You shouldn't have to settle for an off-balance trey when you have a 1 pt lead. If you only get a two, you are still guaranteed OT at the very least. The Cavs were able to force us into an extremely difficult shot and we weren't able to do the same, plain and simple.

by bensonblazer on Jan 31, 2008 3:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

And here is Henry Abbott of TrueHoop's take:

>>LaMarcus Aldridge is young. Super young. And super good at many things. But he's not so great, yet, at protecting the rim. Watch those highlights. Both times you see LeBron James storming down the lane, you'll see Aldridge not get to the right spot, not keep on his feet, and not affect the shot in a meaningful way. He pretty much just jumps in place and waves at James as he goes by. Some guys own the paint. Other guys rent. Aldridge? On those plays he was just visiting.

http://myespn.go.com/nba/truehoop

by timbo on Jan 31, 2008 9:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Nice input.

I read that and the first thought that comes to mind is - Nate is going to use this as a teaching tool.

He's already on record about having his core players learn through experience. What better way for Aldridge to learn than to have to watch that play 50 or 100 times while Lucas drills into him what he's supposed to be doing?

Look, I'm with those who would have had Joel in there, as well as having Outlaw on James, rather than Roy. But I'm not the coach. And I'm not going to castigate McMillan for managing the team how he sees fit.

Has it occured to anyone how much Nate is giving up here? If you know anything about McMillan, it's that he is driven to win. That he's willing to risk some losses this season in order to ensure he has a better team down the road says volumes.

by timg56 on Feb 1, 2008 7:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

50-100 times?

How many times do you think Roy is going to get to watch Lebron blow past him?

Someday, in a Finals, when Lebron has a decent teammate or two, we're going to need someone to put a stop on him late in the game. That someone is probably going to be Brandon.

I'm glad he got burned now rather than then.

by jscot on Feb 1, 2008 7:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LeBron is a tough stop...

The way I see it, LeBron is a lot like Shaq -- he's so big and strong and quick that there's really not a guy on many rosters who can defend him 1-on-1. It's an instant mismatch, like Randy Moss or Plax on a 5'10" cornerback.

Roy, even at 6'6" -- and even a great defender like Roy -- represents a mismatch.

Travis is long enough, but not strong enough. He would have been a good choice in that last play, just as a change of pace that would have confused James momentarily -- and that might have been all it would have taken. And we needed to have Pryz playing Center, and in position (as he would have been).

As Brandon says in the interview on Blazers Courtside that's now up on Mike Barrett's site, the Blazers didn't show James a wall in the key (because LMA was out of position) and he took advantage of it. That's what happened there.

Even if everything was in position, James might have hit a long jumper or dished to Ilgauskas for the winning bucket -- impossible to say. But a perimeter shot is lower probability than a comically easy layup by James.

by timbo on Feb 1, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Reference to the old Shaq...

....in his prime, of course.

by timbo on Feb 1, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

doesnt lebron lead the league in scoring?

well, he at least averages right around 30 a game. he, uh, knows where the basket is.

but of course if przybilla wouldve been in lebron wouldnt have noticed and joel wouldve blocked his shot.

sure. absolutely. every time.

ignacio

by ignacio on Jan 31, 2008 11:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

let's obsess on this a little more

since it's so productive and uplifting.

ignacio

by ignacio on Jan 31, 2008 11:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Obviously

We're streets better than Detroit or the L*kers. That's why our fans are so upset that we can't stop Lebron from singlehandedly beating us. I mean, it's only terrible teams like Detroit and the L*kers that he can do that to. Oh, I forgot, and Toronto. And, oh, about 15 other teams that he's beat all by his lonesome in the last couple of years.

And only against terrible defenders like Kobe, too.

That's why I'm upset about it. Really. He should only be able to do that to the bad teams like Detroit that don't have strong inside defenders, or teams with mediocre perimeter defenders like Kobe, not tough teams like us.

I mean, if this guy was good, coaches like Phil Jackson might find it difficult to come up with a defensive scheme to stop him, but not our Nate. Nate is obviously loads smarter than Phil, so he should have found the solution.

What a bunch of crybabies. We got beat because the best player in the world went on a tear, and because we didn't shoot well. Guess what? Next year, when we win 60+ games and contend for the championship, we will still have games where we don't shoot well, a superstar on the other team gets hot, and we lose.

And some guys will demand a trade, gripe at the coach, and insist that the loss is all his fault. Someone else will say it's unacceptable. But guess what? You'll have to accept it, anyway, because it happens to the very best teams. And when you are playing a team with Lebron or Kobe or Nash, stuff is going to happen sometimes. Live with it.

by jscot on Feb 1, 2008 5:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Late, Late comment

Sorry I came to this late. I like this discussion topic. I like it, not because I like to criticize coaches, but because it is about basketball, the nitty gritty details of basketball. In addition, I guarantee you that the coaching stuff discussed this same question after the game. If Nate has confidence in himself as a coach, then he'd be more than willing to consider the alternative options. There are no obviously right answers because history only happened once and no one will ever know what will happen IF the Blazers used a different strategy. Moreover, part of the fun of being a fan is imagining that you are in the shoes of the players and coaches and thinking about what you would do if you were them.

That being said, I think one point being missed is that Travis did an excellent job guarding Lebron for a stretch in the second half. Because of his quick leaping ability, Outlaw could hang back a bit from Lebron and still contest his outside shot... Lebron didn't look comfortable offensively with Travis on him, perhaps because he knew Travis could block his shot and as "The King" that's embarrassing. I know Roy is considered our best clutch defender, but Lebron is just not a good match-up for Roy. Of course, he's a bad match-up for anyone, but I think he's one guy that Travis would defend better. Lebron got hot right when Roy started guarding him at the end of the fourth quarter.

I like Dave's ideas in his post, but I would also consider putting Travis on Lebron and having him defend Lebron straight-up with normal help defense.

by PoliSam on Feb 1, 2008 8:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs