Game 33 Recap: Blazers 115 Bulls 109
Hooo boy! What a game that was. It's been ages since we've seen double overtime. Neither team exactly played its best but it turned out that our pretty good matched evenly with their pretty good, but in the end we wanted it and hustled for it a little bit more. Happy times in Blazer land!
Let's talk about the big picture for a second first. I said in the GameDay Thread that this game and Saturday's were crucial for the Blazers if they wanted to make a good showing this month. It's going to be hard playing 7 games straight on the road no matter how well we're showing. There was a very real possibility that we could get dumped on our teakettles this game and then fly home needing to beat Utah...who I'm sure doesn't think their vengeance is complete. Now we have some leeway with the Jazz contest. That's huge. Entering a long road trip on a 2-3 game losing jag would not have been pleasant.
Team Observations
Two words describe the reason we won tonight: guts and poise. First the poise. We started the game WAY off of our usual track. The first unit was playing so-so. Lamarcus was missing everything he threw up. Roy was pressing a little. Martell was up and down. That took the heart out of our game. No problem, right? Just bring in the White Unit. The problem was the White Unit played worse than the starters. They started coughing up the ball left and right, they couldn't hit a shot, the Bulls were getting out in transition. It was scary. The guys that usually calm us down screwed us up. It looked for all the world like it was going to be a disaster. We had at least 5, maybe more, turnovers by the end of the first quarter alone.
We turned all that around though. It was slow, but we did it. Our turnover total at the end of two overtimes was 10. It took us three full quarters and two overtime periods to equal our total from the first. We also knuckled down on defense. You didn't see the Bulls running much later in the game. Part of it was fatigue and part of it was the absence of Luol Deng but part of it was also our defense and hustle.
Still we did fall down by 14 at one point, which is where the guts come it. We never gave up on this game. We never put it in cruise control. We ran over a few curbs and garbage cans but our foot stayed on the pedal and our hands on the wheel. In the end this game came down to one thing. Not execution...though that usually decides close games. Not talent. Not luck. When everybody was exhausted, shoulders stooped, and tongues were dragging on the floor, we wanted it more. We made those extra defensive plays that allowed even our flagging offense to pull out the game. It's great that we won the game with defense too, rather than hoisting the last attempt in an all-out shot-fest. We beat Chicago to the spot, kept our hands up higher, moved our feet faster, and finished the job. And from this team, that doesn't surprise me.
The only part of the game where you have a major quibble is rebounding. We actually won the overall battle 51-49. But letting the Bulls or any team grab 18 offensive rebounds makes the game exponentially harder. The step forward we've made this season is that it no longer cost us the game outright. That kind of flaw doesn't make us a bad team when we have other strengths to ride. I think you saw clearly tonight how that kind of flaw can (and does and will) keep us from being a great team. It's like wearing a $5,000 suit but having a piece of toilet paper stuck to your shoe. The individual parts are nice, but the overall effect is ruined. Let's skip over the talk of playoffs for a minute and talk playoff success, which is really what it's all about. We cannot even begin to dream of achieving our goals without patching up the gaping holes of rebounding consistency and team physicality.
Of course--as Doug Collins point out repeatedly tonight--the answer for at least 75% of that issue is sitting over on our bench right now in street clothes. He's not lying either. If Oden is healthy and gets a few months under his belt...scary, scary, scary.
Individual Observations
--Who is Brandon Roy? No really, who is he? Are we on Candid Camera or something? Is some guy going to come out and say, "Gotcha! These games were rigged to make you think you had an amazing talent who sees the floor better than any mortal should and who plays at his own pace so well that he might as well be on a different planet from anybody trying to guard him." Brandon just dominated that game for us. It wasn't even one of his best outings. He just warped reality out there to suit him. 25 points, 11 assists, 6 rebounds, NO turnovers...15 total shots plus 11 free throws. Show me a guy who has a bigger effect on the game taking 15 shots. Even 20 if you count the times he was fouled. It didn't matter that he didn't hit the game winner...he WAS the game winner.
--Lamarcus had a miserable first half...first three quarters really. He just faded out there. Then lo and behold when we need it in the fourth he starts hitting. More importantly he started rebounding. He ended up with 13 total rebounds for the game. As I said last night, here's a guy who really listens to what we need and then goes out there and does his best to provide it. Everybody will have off-nights. Guys who can produce on their off-nights are worth their weight in gold.
--Did I miss Travis Outlaw's 21 points? I was all ready to say what an off night it was for him and then I look at the boxscore and he's near 50% shooting and throwing down the blackjack. He did hit some poised shots when the game was on the line. That's becoming a nice habit for him. Thanks Travis! Sorry about the overlooking thing. I'll pay better attention next time.
--Jarrett Jack really came on strong in the fourth period and overtime and helped save this game for us. You all saw the steal and three-point layup conversion. He was the only guy scoring for us in the lane all night. On this night he made a bigger impact than his 17 points, 5 assists, and 4 rebounds would indicate. We lose if he isn't doing his job.
--James Jones played a heady, veteran defensive game even when his shot wasn't falling. How about that last-second block of Nocioni to (in essence) end the game?
--Steve Blake provided a fantastic shooting outlet on a night when other people handled the ball more. His 3-3 beyond the arc cemented our 50% shooting pace from distance. He and his compatriots also conspired to hold their Chicago counterparts to rotten shooting percentages.
--Martell was on and off with his shooting. Unlike his teammates I didn't feel like he contributed as much outside of his shots. I really want to see more of the Martell we saw to start the season.
--Joel Przybilla made the best of his 15 minutes, grabbing 6 boards and throwing his body around.
--Channing Frye did fine too...hitting a couple shots and grabbing a few rebounds.
One-Sentence Game Summary
A double overtime victory was thrilling, but one more rebound could have salted it away in regulation.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
28 comments
Comments
Brandon Roy...
I love when a player struggles early on and guts out a good game. Outlaw has done that a lot with 4th quarter heroics, but LMA's play tonight later on really impressed me. He seems very intelligent and knows what he needs to get better at, and we all know he works hard to improve those areas. I think some forget he's a 2nd year player who came out of college early... AND is a big man. He isn't supposed to be this good this early, and he will defintely improve all the areas he is relatively weak in.
Watching the Suns/Sonics game, and the in game announcers are talking it up about how awesometastic Roy is. We are so lucky we have him.
Oden, LMA, and Roy. As much fun as this season has been, it's only gonna get better. I hope I don't get TOO used to it and don't enjoy it as much as I should, considering how far the team has come.
Great recap as always, Dave.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on
Jan 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Near breakdown at the end
Luckily, that also includes the Bulls.
The announcers started talking about fatigue for both teams late in the game, and that makes sense. But it still doesn't make sense to stop passing the ball, no matter how tired they are. They've been very successful with passing into the lane and passing out to the perimeter. Why stop now?
Being in New York, I only get to see the team in little snippets, so that's the little bit that I saw tonight.
by qiaoshun on
Jan 3, 2008 9:48 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Just curious
Dave was asking people to rate the Blazer players as either "Stars," "Starters," "Subs," or "Scrubs." A surprsing number of people who responded refused to designate Roy as a "Star," preferring to use the much more conservative label of "Starter," instead.
Granted, these comments were made pre-streak when Roy was mired in the worst slump of his brief career. Still, I'm curious: If that same question were asked today, would there be anyone on this site who would contend that Roy is not a bona-fide star? And, should the Blazers find themselves in another losing streak and/or Roy fall into another slump, would the collective evaluation of him be once again downgraded? Are perceptions of players' abilities really as fungible as all that?
by knickfan on
Jan 3, 2008 9:51 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
my take
He's well on his way to becoming a bona-fide star. I'd say he's got to do it a little bit longer before I can confirm it completely.
by jksnake99 on
Jan 3, 2008 10:35 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Need to be better with last shots
It seems like they should set up plays to run someone off a screen toward the basket and throw an alley-oop. That would be a higher percentage shot closer to the basket. Or better yet, what if Jack took the pass from Roy, act like he is shooting but instead passes to someone already close to the basket. Remember North Carolina State beating Houston in the NCAA final.
by blazerbill on
Jan 3, 2008 9:56 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
totally agree
by sergioFTW on
Jan 4, 2008 8:53 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just checked out Blogabulls comments
He can't rebound also and won't improve in that area because of his bad work ethic. Sure, he had 13 tonight, but if you play long enough you get rebounds. And in this one game he struggled to finish down low, so I think you can say he can't ever score down low in any game he has ever played in. One game is more than enough of a sample size.
I thought some of us were kinda annoying when we were playing badly, but they aren't a happy bunch over yonder in Blog a Bull land. I understand expectations were high, but that crowd sure didn't help in a tight game and there is lots of season left.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on
Jan 3, 2008 10:01 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Blogabull
by Sabonis4Ever on
Jan 3, 2008 10:11 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's funny...
As for the substance of those criticisms of LMA, sure he looked weak tonight trying to finish in the paint against Ben Wallace. Lots of guys do--especially players LMA's age. But if you could fast forward a couple years, you'd see a very different LMA down low. Last year he was practically a beanpole of Kevin Durant dimensions (does Texas feed its players?). Now, a year of maturing and weight-lifting later, LMA resembles an NBA player. Soon, he'll be holding his own down low.
Considering LMA's intelligence and skill level, that's frightening. A bigger, stronger LMA will be dominant. And playing alongside Greg Oden, he'll comprise 1/2 of one of the greatest "twin towers" in league history. Eat your hearts out, Bulls fans.
by hurryup09 on
Jan 4, 2008 3:53 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I was thinking the same.
Trading Aldridge for Thomas may end up ranking up there with the Pippen for Polynice gem.
by timg56 on
Jan 4, 2008 7:04 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah jeez, I get the frustration but
by leeroyjenkins on
Jan 4, 2008 11:21 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Knickfan- When there isn't a resume in place
It is after Roy came through controversy of losing and the shooting slump, adapted to being the center of the opponents defensive game plan and led this team to a new level that we were able to see that his rookie year was not a fluke and that Brandon is actually better than anyone thought he was going to be.
He has "IT". We have seen "IT" and now we know that if he hits a rough patch it is just that, a rough patch.
Vince Carter has the same talent as MJ and Kobe. But he doesn't have "IT".
You know what "IT" is. Brandon has it. Few others do.
by jferg on
Jan 3, 2008 10:06 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh, yeah
In fact, he consistently showed "it" last season by coming up big at the end of several games. The poise and savvy he demonstrated as a rookie certainly convinced me that he was going to be a bona-fide star in this league. And that's the opinion of a non-fan, not inclined to overvalue the local talent.
So, yeah, I was surprised by how many people were down on him when he slumped earlier this season. In fact, I even stated my belief back in that late November thread that Brandon Roy already is a star. But seeing how things have been playing out recently, he's proving to be even better than I thought - by orders of magnitude. If he manages to maintain his current level of play, it will not be a stretch to label him a "superstar" one day, i.e. someone who carries his team to victory not just by virtue of his talent, but also through the sheer force of his will.
by knickfan on
Jan 3, 2008 10:25 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also
--Dave
by Dave on
Jan 3, 2008 10:28 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jack's Defense
by BlazerBandit on
Jan 4, 2008 12:39 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Hustling does not equal good defense
by sergioFTW on
Jan 4, 2008 8:57 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Rebounding
Will Oden help next year? Of course he will--he's a monster in the paint. Also, another year of physical maturation for the Baby Blazer forwards (LMA, Travis, Martell, & Frye) will mitigate things somewhat. In part, those guys are getting pushed around because they're often playing against full-grown men.
But ultimately, the Blazers have got to acquire at least one--and probably two--bruising forwards (think Paul Millsap) that can come off the bench and restore order. The Blazers are getting beat by gang rebounding. In Utah, you had three frontline players at a time--all built like linebackers--throwing Trout, LMA, and Frye around like they were little kids. Poor Joel was like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike. Oden alone won't solve this problem, IMO.
by hurryup09 on
Jan 4, 2008 4:13 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Early in the season
First off, I think Oden will make a huge difference. Next year, Oden eats Ben Wallace alive. Whatever advantage Ben has in experience gets buried by Oden's height, youth and athleticism. Wallace won't even have his usual advantage of strength, as Greg has already shown he can be as strong as he wants.
With Oden in the lineup you then get a trickle down effect (yeah, I voted for Ronald Reagan). Aldridge, Webster & Roy find it easier to grab loose balls because at least two guys are concentrating on trying to keep Oden in check. Meanwhile Joel, Travis and Frye get to compete for rebounds against bench players. Maybe that's a wash against Utah, who can bring Milsap and Fesenko (who I think is going to be a beast) in, but it will be an advantage over at least half the teams in the league.
Second, I think there is still significant room for improvement with several of our guys. Aldridge, Frye and Outlaw all have the potential to 2 - 3 boards per game to their averages. Combine these guys becoming better rebounders with rebounding becoming easier with Oden in the lineup and you now have Portland becoming one of the better rebounding teams in the league.
by timg56 on
Jan 4, 2008 7:22 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"Trickle down"??
So that's the first assumption you make that I question: that Oden will have a significant "trickle down" effect on the starters--at least next season. Your second questionable assumption is that Aldridge, Frye, and Outlaw (add Martell) will all significantly improve as rebounders. Do they have the POTENTIAL to improve? Of course. As I mentioned, their physical maturation will help a bit in and of itself. But rebounding--particularly boxing out--is a technique and a habit--actually a group of techniques and habits--that must be developed. Miracles happen--Joel became a decent foul shooter--but they can't be expected or presumed. Those guys all have a long way to go to be good rebounders. Right now, they're terrible.
Finally, even when he isn't in foul trouble, Oden will need to rest. And remember, the "white team" includes the Blazers' worst rebounders--Outlaw (who, befitting his name, deserves a western-style "wanted" poster for his complete inability to block anybody out), Frye (who has done much better lately but is still a very soft big man), and Sergio (put him in Outlaw's category). Of course, Joel will shore up this group somewhat. But they still will be below par as a rebounding unit. (Jones and Jack are decent rebounders, but not standouts by any means.)
So, without the addition of at least one "bruiser off the bench" next season, you're left with a Blazer team that, more than likely, will still be no better than a decent rebounding team. Remember, they're currently TERRIBLE at the defensive end (not only Doug Collins et al, but Brandon Roy himself has called rebounding the Blazers' "Achilles heel.") Depending on matchups, decent rebounding will get by. But against physical teams like Utah, who at times send Boozer, Millsap, and Harpring to the boards as a group--the Blazers will still be at a big disadvantage, particularly when the white team is in there.
Can the Blazers win games with mediocre rebounding? Sure: they've won games this season with BAD rebounding. But I don't want the Blazers to be an OK rebounding team. I want rebounding to become a Blazer STRENGTH, as it is for most championship teams. Oden will help get us there, but he can't do it alone (or even 75%, as Dave suggested). The other guys need to improve significantly. And, IMO, at least one truly physical forward needs to be added to the roster.
I'm not actually worried about this: I think KP is probably all over it. I just disagree with those who say this additional piece won't be necessary. When the Blazers have a Millsap all their own, their fans will fully appreciate what's been missing. Some nights you don't need a guy like that. But on other occasions--particularly in the playoffs--that type of player is truly worth his weight in gold.
by hurryup09 on
Jan 4, 2008 10:18 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I pretty much agree
I might quibble some on just how foul prone Oden will be, but overall, I'm in full agreement that even with a GO playing 30 minutes and pulling down 10+ boards, Portland will just be a decent rebounding team next season. But I also think they will still be on the upward portion of the curve.
That said, I'm still open to adding a rebounding machine off the bench. I'll qualify that by saying I don't see it as being quite as critical as I did earlier.
by timg56 on
Jan 4, 2008 11:09 AM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ever hear of Bill Bayno?
I also think you can book it that Channing wants to stay on this team, and that he knows that upping his game on rebounding is the best thing he can do. I expect him to work his tail off over the summer on this.
The guys you are talking about are all young and thin, and are likely to muscle up more with extra maturity.
I think that replacing Joel with Oden is going to markedly improve our starting rebounding, and putting Joel in the white unit is going to do wonders there. Adding in the "trickle down" effect means that adding Greg will solve 75% of the problem, and I'm not persuaded that the rest of the solution is not to be found with improvement of our young guys.
LMA will be a little bigger and stronger next year. So will Channing. Both will be smarter.
KP is all over it, you say? So are Nate and Bill Bayno. Before moving anybody for a bruiser, I hope we develop the guys we've got.
by jscot on
Jan 4, 2008 2:06 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No real argument there
If said extra piece turns out to be unnecessary, that's better yet. Clearly KP has held off to see how things develop this season. I like all the guys on the current roster and would hate to see any of them go. (Except for Miles and the game but aging Raef, of course.)
by hurryup09 on
Jan 4, 2008 5:40 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We won't see his full effect next season
--Dave
by Dave on
Jan 4, 2008 4:33 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But the Dutch boy actually got the job done
by fisheyes on
Jan 4, 2008 5:54 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
I read in another post
Trusting that winning is fun and that the chemistry really is uniquely positive, let's allow that this rotation going to work through the end of 2008/2009 season.
I hope that Greg, LaMarcus and Joel split the remaining 70 minutes up front during the same time frame. Perhaps LMA gets 30 minutes, Greg 20 and Joel 15.
Twelve months from now who does the bruiser-to-be (or Channing, McRoberts, and Darius for that matter) put on the bench in order to play?
by ojala on
Jan 4, 2008 6:38 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
The officiating
by robrun2 on
Jan 4, 2008 11:58 AM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
Officiating and Joel
On a completely different topic, can anyone explain why Joel is not in the game when we need rebounding ior defensive stops? Can anyone honestly say we are a better team with either Travis or Channing as our second big in end-game situations? Is it a free throw thing? We don't want him getting the board and getting fouled? Because as Dave points out, we won that game several times before the final buzzer, then salted it away with poor defensive rebounding. SEems like a defense-for-offense sub pattern at PF/C at the end of the games is called for and being ignored by Nate. Thoughts?
by blazer91 on
Jan 4, 2008 2:28 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs


















