Game 66 Recap: Blazers 85, Kings 96
Well, that wasn't exactly our finest hour. We looked, for the lack of a better word, very vanilla out there. And not the luscious bean-y kind of gourmet vanilla either. More like the last two spoonfuls of that non-fat, sugar-free, freezer-burned stuff sitting in the very back of your freezer from last year's summer diet attempt.
The thing that surprises me most--OK, "surprise" isn't the right word, but it does make me shake my head still--is how easily we slip into semi-passive jump-shooting against a team like this. I know that's our bread and butter, but you have to vary your game somewhat based on your opponent. Sure Sacramento packed the middle, but we didn't even test them. We just heaved and heaved and heaved after one or two passes around the edge. You can count our serious drive attempts on your fingers. Shooting 38.5% and only scoring 85 against the Kings is like going to a Vegas buffet and only having carrot sticks.
We also committed 19 turnovers and gave up 27 points off them. That's a big no-no for this team, especially since you can't credit it to aggression in any way, shape, or form. Ron Artest once again sent Brandon Roy into his own, personal shame spiral. The dude ended up with 6 steals all on his own. It's easy to forget because of all of the other things that surround him, but Artest is a massive talent. It kind of makes me sick when I think if he had a reasonable amount of dedication and sanity he probably would have been ranked at least as high as Scottie Pippen in the annals of NBA history. The guy has everything you'd want, and yet he's going to schlep around the league wearing out welcomes until he gets too old to play. A head-screwed-on-straight Artest would be exactly what our team needs, but if his head were on right he'd never be available.
We also had a real problem getting back down the court in transition defense. I'm a little tired of seeing only one or two Blazers get back and everyone else giving up on the play. I thought Lamarcus Aldridge looked particularly slow as he trotted back and forth. I wonder if he's having foot troubles again.
We did outrebound the Kings, which was good. I thought our guards played better defense than they usually do as well. We never let their guards get off, which is no simple task. It's too bad we couldn't capitalize. You tell me Kevin Martin and Beno Udrih only hit 8 shots and score 20 points between them and I'd tell you we probably walked away with this game. In reality it was never close.
I hate to keep using poker analogies, but they're simple and they work. This was a game where we only checked, called, or folded. We never raised or pushed or came anywhere near a bluff. Artest kept giving them the flush, which is exactly what I'd like to do with this game.
Individual Notes
--Brandon Roy scored 21 with 9 rebounds and 6 assists but he looked uncharacteristically sloppy out there. His 5 turnovers tell part of the story. He wasn't really hustling for passes or trying to drive much. I mean, that's a brilliant stat line by any measure, but this isn't a game he'll save to show his grandkids.
--Lamarcus had 20 again, with 6 rebounds. He also had 6 turnovers. (The Kings pretty much knew the players they wanted to harass I guess.) A couple of them were cheap, but he also earned a few. Not a bad game overall, but not his best either.
--Joel Przybilla had 10 rebounds and 3 blocks and pretty much did his best to light a fire under us. It looked to me like he was getting frustrated at the beginning of the second half though. He started jawing at the Kings and collected a couple of silly fouls. Joel does become a little bit of a loose cannon at times. I guess I didn't mind it in this game. At least he tried something.
--Martell scored 10 points on 3-6 shooting in 23 minutes. I didn't notice him much I guess, outside of that one Sportscenter-ish dunk he couldn't control.
--I noticed Steve Blake missed a few shots tonight, going 2-12. He also had 3 turnovers to go along with his 6 assists. He was part of the defensive crew though.
--Travis Outlaw was the bench star tonight, scoring 13 points and grabbing 5 rebounds in 28 minutes. He wasn't taking the best shots but it's Travis. I wanted him to drive more.
--Channing Frye had 7 rebounds in 18 minutes, which is fantastic. He also had 4 fouls. He's becoming quite the foul machine lately. I wonder if this is aggressive Channing or tired Channing. He did hit that nifty buzzer-beater from a few feet inside the halfcourt line to end the first period. That was cool. I like that the Blazers will dare to take those shots.
--James Jones hit one 3-pointer but was basically a non-factor.
--Jarrett Jack once again shot an 0-fer. On the bright side he only had 1 turnover. On the other hand he had no assists. These last two games have been two of his most ineffective of the season.
--Sergio Rodriguez was basically a placeholder tonight, though I guess that's better than a bench-groover. I was hoping he could spark some penetration or tempo (which we sorely needed) but other than one nifty entry pass to Frye off of the pick-and-roll (which Frye subsequently borked) there was no real action.
--Von Wafer! Von Wafer! Von Wafer! That was one more mention of his name than he had minutes on the court but he got a rebound and an assist. That makes his Per-48 right around 24 rebounds and 24 assists! I told you he was good!
Random Question: Does anyone else find it mildly patronizing when the broadcast picks out girls in the crowd to show after EVERY break? That's pretty much what happened on the Sacramento feed. I mean, I like seeing pretty women as much as the next person I suppose, but they started making me feel a little bit slimy, like that guy in the crowd who stares a little too hard at someone's cleavage.
One-Sentence Game Summary:
I can't believe I missed my Hee-Haw reruns for this.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ugly
As far as the camera crew goes, having worked at the Rose Garden for a few years, I can tell you that the feed that gets looped through the closed circuits in the arena shows their "footage" during non-game time. Hilarious. I think "it", "it" being a penchant for buggery, might be a prerequisite to being an NBA cameraman.
Ogling
Two things
- Considering how sloppy the Blazers were playing that was the only thing that kept this East Coast person awake to watch the whole contest (One because I had a hard time believing it was happening and two because I was curious if there were that many good looking girls in Sacramento. Turns out they repeated a couple of times)
- Remember it is the Maloof brothers who own the Kings. I think they own a casino in Las Vegas that caters to the good looking crowd.......
by blazermaniac32 on Mar 14, 2008 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Every time I see a kings game I
I didn't see the game, only the box score, but ...
And the shooting wasn't even that bad -- except for Blake (2-12) and Jack (0-5). If they had gone a hardly-extreme 5-12 and 2-5 with a three-pointer, that's the difference in the game.
by qiaoshun on Mar 14, 2008 2:40 AM PDT reply actions
Travis was NOT the bench star
Then who
Don't forget about Travis's 2 blocked shots. He was playing some defense too.
lol
Nobody was a star last night, the entire team was terrible.
by leeroyjenkins on Mar 14, 2008 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions
There's a difference
I'll be more precise in my description next time.
--Dave
I never have issues with looking at attractive
I do have a few with watching uninspired basketball though.
I was pumped for a banner evening last night. I figured to split my time between the Maryland ACC Tourniment game against BC and the Blazer game. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the Terps game was on something called ESPN FullCourt, which I don't get. I was hoping for a Maryland victory, followed by a Blazer win followed by ...., well lets just say it involved my wife. Didn't happen.
You may call me crazy
YOUR'RE CRAZY!
Defense Wins Ballgames
Travis had two blocks (one great one on Hawes), but you can't expect him to guard artest in the post. Ron-Ron is just too strong and gets away with a TON of contact.
Joel got pretty pissed a few times (getting in Miller's face and then in Kevin Martin's), but I like that. We need someone who will throw down on a team that is man-handling us. Watching all the jersey and hand-grabbing that went on made me angry at the Kings, at first. And then I started to get annoyed with the Blazers, who would either let it happen and take bad shots or would get called for a stupid offensive or retaliation foul.
Guys like Artest and Bruce Bowen play aggressive, physical defense that borders on dirty. If we had someone other than James Jones or Joel who'd play that kind of defense (especially in the post), we wouldn't have gotten destroyed in points in the paint.
It takes a very mature team to play great team defense. There are definitely flashes of this in every game, but not consistently. Hopefully as LMA, Frye, Outlaw and Martell mature, we'll see more and more lock-down D when we need it.
Gotta stop giving up so many freakin points in the
by leeroyjenkins on Mar 14, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Dreadlocks
Roy/Blake
Steve Blake is initiating the offense to often and leaving Brandon as a decoy or observer.
I like Steve, but we run way to many unsuccessful pick and rolls with him and leave Brandon out of the game.
We need to run the offense through Brandon as our first option, and LA as our second.
The rest of the guys are role players and will get plenty of shots because of all of the attention the defense must give to BRoy and LA.
Blake got stuck forcing up several ugly shots
by leeroyjenkins on Mar 14, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Blake
I just think Brandon should have the ball more, he seemed to initate the O alot more during our streak. When he does have the ball, he gets a good shot or someone else does because of his ability to penetrate.
On the bright side Rebecca Harlow is looking
Great summary Dave
Now back to my stale vanilla yogurt.
Assists
Too many minutes for LMA and BR (and Jack)
Likewise, LMA's production goes down if he plays too many minutes. It may be that his feet are killing him, but it seems like he, too, is suffering from both mental and physical fatigue. Many of his fouls (offensive or defensive) seem like fatigue fouls (i.e., his body is not able to do what his mind commands).
And for all those who say, "Oh, no, players have to tough it out for 40 minutes a night for 82 games!" I say "Hooey." It makes no sense to run injured players into the ground and risk greater injury when there is no tangible reward for the risk. (We're not going to make the playoffs and would still make a quick exit if we did.)
I think Jack's overage in minutes falls into a different category. Jack plays too many minutes because Nate seems fixated on small ball and avoiding turnovers from aggresively pushing the pace. (Ironically, Nate seems to tolerate passive, bone-headed turnovers [i.e., stepping out of bounds, weak passes] by Jack more than any other player.)
I'd like to see the Blazers experiment a bit more the balance of this year with Roy playing fewer total minutes but more time at the point; less time for Jack and Blake at the "2" with more time there for Martell, James Jones, or even Wafer [kind of a pre-Rudy test to see if we will switch B-Roy from 2 to PG.]. Play LMA only the minutes his feet let him play effectively -- and don't play him at center. Let's assume next year that Oden and Pryzbilla will cover center so let's give LMA a break from center duties, but play PF more effectively.
Finally, let's try to reduce passive turnovers but not be mortified if we commit some aggressive turnovers. Again, I'd be inclined to see less Jack and more Sergio but I'd put that in the fat chance category.
Seems to me that we need to protect some of our most valuable resources (B-Roy and LMA) while we find out what might work in the Oden/Fernandez era (i.e., Roy more at point and LMA exclusively at PF).
As for last night's loss, anytime we shoot under 40% (.385), have 20 turnovers, and only 13 assists, we're going to lose. Why do we play our shooters (Jones, Webster) less and our short guards (Jack, Blake) more when we aren't scoring?
Fat chance indeed!
Hooey
Last night I was looking at this hooey chick with this hooey da kine, and I was all like, "Damn, if I wasn't married, I'd hooey that like a hooey hooey."
To paraphrase George Carlin...
by ken @ Blazer's Edge on Mar 14, 2008 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay 2 things...
#2. No it doesn't bother me when they show girls in the crowd before each break. If I can sit in the comfort of my own home and see a good looking woman before the break, and let some distant camera man take the heat for being a leach, then great for me!
Really whats the option. Fade away to the antics of the annoying mascot? The players? Or the Dancers? (same difference). Staring at cleavage may not be the classiest act, but YOU know we all do it. Who say's the glance isn't classy? It's a chance for a girl to be on Television, if you are thinking "dirty" with each fade away that's your problem.
I see a beautiful woman and I say, I bet she's a wonderful well rounded human being!....and then I stare at her cleavage. I need a pair of Brandons X-Ray glasses.
Two many fouls on the Blazers in this one.
by artybobb on Mar 15, 2008 1:53 AM PDT reply actions

by 



















