Game 73 Recap: Blazers 95, Warriors 111

by Dave on Mar 27, 2008 11:32 PM PDT in News Comment 22 comments

Ah well...we weren't going to win this game and we sure didn't. We did make a nice go of it at the start, with Lamarcus tearing them up in the post, Przybilla rebounding everything that came within six feet of him, Jack pinballing down the lane for layups, and Steve Blake impressing chicks with the long ball. We also got back well in transition at the start of the game. The W's caught on quickly though. After a shell-shocked first quarter they started hounding Lamarcus low, rightly figuring that he was the key to our offense. Not surprisingly he was. Blake kept our heads above water for one quarter but the Warriors called for the blitz package coming out of the halftime break. We started missing shots. They started pressing the tempo after our misses. 40 points later the third-quarter buzzer sounded and the game was essentially over. I didn't get to see garbage time because I was cradling and singing to a baby with a cold but I don't think I'll be rewinding it to see what transpired. That would be masochism.

You don't have to look very far to see where this game fell apart. Getting outrebounded by the Warriors is a bad sign. Falling behind by 9 free throw attempts also. But we got a bloody nose in fast break points (-14, 23-9 for the Warriors) and thus points in the paint (-16, 28-22). Giving up 9 steals didn't kill us, but it didn't help.

When our defense started crumbling it pretty much collapsed. We didn't have a lot of interior help, either because we weren't alert or because, being short-handed, we were trying to avoid picking up fouls. We saw slow (or no) rotations to the outside shooters. We got beat down the court. From the start of the game our wings were in way over their heads trying to defend Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, and Monta Ellis. By the end of the contest the trickle had become a downpour. But then anyone who didn't see that coming wasn't looking very hard.

And that's basically the point of the game. We got overwhelmed just like we were certain to. No need to be particularly grumpy. There's just a world of difference between that Golden State backcourt and our short-handed crew.

Individual Observations

--Lamarcus had a dominating first quarter, ending up with 11 points in the period off of some solid post play. He scored well and passed appropriately. You will know Lamarcus has arrived when 11 points in the first turns into 40+ for the game. It could have tonight, as he was our primary option. He only had 6 for the rest of the game though. He got pushed further outside and bothered by multiple defenders. Great talent...still a ways to go. General thumbs up though. 17 points, 6 assists, 5 rebounds.

--Steve Blake almost destroyed the Jersey Contest by becoming the game's leading scorer. (Fess up...how many of you REALLY put "Someone Else" for that question?) He was BURNING the nets, knocking down threes like they were body shots at a Playboy party. He became our life preserver in that second-quarter storm. He ended up with 22 points and 6 assists. Every once in a while he'll pull these games out of his hat and he's really fun to root for when that happens.

--Jarrett Jack showed some of his fearlessness by driving into the teeth of the Warrior defense and converting the layups and fouls that have become his bread and butter this season. His scoring game in Roy's absence was good...19 points on 7-13 shooting, 2-3 from distance, 3-3 from the stripe. As long as he was playing off-guard and was on offense he had a great night. When he switched to point, however, the Warriors had his number. They pretty much ate up every scoring pass he tried to complete. Maybe the best way to say it is that Jack can play some point as long as the other team doesn't see it coming. But when they're focused on him he has trouble. Like the rest of the guards he had trouble defending his Golden State counterparts, which doesn't really bother me. However he did look to be giving up on a couple defensive, rebounding, and transition plays. That did bother me a little. 19 points was not too shabby. 1 assist and 4 turnovers was yucky.

--Martell Webster had one of his partly great outings. He had a dunk in the first period that was FEROCIOUS! He also hit some long ones early. He cooled considerably, however, and couldn't connect even on open shots. You want him to drive more when he starts missing, but then his driving is a distant second to his shooting, so maybe not. This is the issue with Martell. He did get 14 points, 6 rebounds, and a nice 3 assists.

--Joel Przybilla started out as a monster on the boards but appeared to fade as the game progressed. He dropped a couple passes on offense and couldn't quite pull the complete game together. He also had to make repeated choices between drawing fouls or allowing layups as the perimeter defense was non-existent. He mostly chose to allow the layups. Between Golden State's made shots and his futile attempts at blocks he never got to really uncork on the rebounds, finishing with 9 in 25 minutes.

--James Jones had a mini-comeback tonight, scoring 10 on 4-9 shooting off the bench. He also added 5 rebounds.

--I want to completely applaud Travis Outlaw's overall effort tonight. He had 8 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2 blocks. I shuddered at his shooting, however. As usual there was little way to determine what was a good shot or a bad one for him, but on nights when they aren't falling...ugh. He never really looked comfortable on offense and we really, really needed his offense. He ended up shooting 3-10 for 9 points.

--Channing Frye had 4 points and 4 rebounds in 13 minutes. It's so hard to leave him out there because of the people he has to play with. If he's teamed with Przybilla we have zero post presence. But teamed with Outlaw or Aldridge we're too weak on interior defense and usually rebounding. I can see Channing is trying hard and getting way more production than he did early in the season. But it's just not a great fit in this particular lineup. It's probably good for him that we're about to undergo some changes.

--I didn't get to see Wafer and Rodriguez play so I can't comment on them. It's hard to make much out of mop-up minutes anyway.

One-Sentence Game Summary:

Any chance we could just play 12 minute games?

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I got the worst of it

I only saw the (painful) third quarter, but the thing I noticed was LMA and others going basically 1-on-3 in the paint and missing shots. Also missing rebounds the same way, 1-on-3. The first half must have looked a lot better than that.

by qiaoshun on Mar 27, 2008 11:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Tons

The Warriors tried to guard Lamarcus straight up or with late, light doubles in the first quarter. Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! He ripped them up or passed to an open shooter.

Then like I said, they looked around and saw who else was playing alongside him and decided, "Alright...enough of THAT. Let's make somebody else beat us." Thus the 1-on-3's that you saw. We just didn't have enough threats.

One thing to understand about the recaps is that when I say people had a good game in most cases I'm grading on a curve, meaning they had a good game for a player of their capabilities on this team at this time. That doesn't mean that they are Baron Davis-Stephen Jackson good. Blake and Jack had great scoring outings (all things considered) but there wasn't a lot of doubt which team had the better guard options. That made it pretty easy for the W's to decide how to defend.

--Dave

by Dave on Mar 28, 2008 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 guard rotation next year?

If Rudy comes over and is as good as advertised, I think we are going to see a 3 guard rotation most of the time. I think we get a PG upgrade, coupled with Roy to start. Rudy comes off the bench and Roy plays some point during the game when Rudy is in. Backup PG plays about 10 minutes a game in that scenario??

As that relates to this game? We get a lot less mediocre guard play and have a lot more firepower when someone goes down. Watching our guard play in the second half was gross.

by BlazerD on Mar 28, 2008 2:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's an interesting thought

and certainly one of the things that will be considered, I'm sure, if not in the short term then before the team really hits its stride. The main thing is how well Oden and Aldridge gel defensively. If we can create an impenetrable barrier inside much like San Antonio had in Duncan's first years with David Robinson then it doesn't matter what we throw out there at the wing positions. Sure somebody's going to get knocked around by hyper-athletic small forwards but if we can channel them into a blocked or bothered attempt (or a long jumper) we'll live with that. It won't happen until we're sure Oden has learned enough to help in the lane without getting into massive foul trouble. Your guess is as good as mine when that will be.

--Dave

by Dave on Mar 28, 2008 4:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 guard lineup

You only play a 3 guard lineup if you are forced to. You need the athleticism or shooting and defensive length and versatility of a true small forward at that position, and putting a 6-5 SG at the 3 just doesn't cut it long term. There's a reason the positions are balanced size- and ability-wise, and that's because it is the most potent combination.

Of course, if you get a guard like Lebron James, all that goes out the window--he can play any position but maybe center. But then I don't consider him a guard anymore.

by jamon51 on Mar 28, 2008 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As I read it

BlazerD is suggesting they go to a 3 guard rotation, not a 3 guard lineup. There'd still be a small forward (i.e. Martell if nothing changes) but for the most part you'd see Roy, Rudy & PG to be named later taking up virtually all the backcourt minutes. This would be a lot like this year's team playing Blake, Roy, and Jack almost all the backcourt minutes in rotation - only next year it wouldn't be Jack.

I've been suggesting for most the season that when the Blazers hit their playoff stride it'll be Roy playing a lot of pg minutes, Rudy at 2 and a PG (probably Blake) as the backup and Roy sliding over to 2 when Blake comes in. I think BlazerD is suggesting it be someone other than Blake but I hesitate to put words in other people's mouths.

by jon on Mar 28, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

I misread his post. Sorry!

--Dave

by Dave on Mar 28, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense to me

by jamon51 on Apr 1, 2008 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He had a decent 1st half, disappeared in the 2nd

LMA could've done a lot more. I wish he'd wipe that grin off his face sometimes and get angry instead.

by leeroyjenkins on Mar 28, 2008 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree with the assessment of Aldridge

Last night was a pefect example of what he has to work on to become the player most of us think he can be. He should have torn GS a new one. Instead he let Stephen freaking Jackson keep him out of the paint. Now I like Jax and think he's a guy whose reputation is mostly over blown and undeserved. In fact I would take him in a heart beat as our SF. The guy can play defense and is a smart player. But there is no way that Aldridge shouldn't be able to take advantage of him. Aldridge is more than quick enough to neutralize Jackson's primary edge in quickness, leaving what? At a guess, I'd say Jax also had an edge in strength.

Watch tape of LaMarcus' possessions after the 1st quarter. I think nearly every time he turns away from the basket and his defender. How much damage do you think Jackson and Harrington would have done sitting on the bench with 4 - 5 fouls apiece? Aldridge did a bit of that the first quarter, getting Harrington to pick up 3 fouls in the first half. But then he stopped. I do not understand why he doesn't drive to the basket. The Blazers need to order another set of those pads that Bayno utilizes and give them to Lucas. Let Bayno and Mo both beat the shit out of Aldridge. Better yet, make him run a gauntlet of guys with pads. Lets hire Karl Malone, or better yet, Ray Lewis, as a toughness coach for Aldridge.

Another criticism, though not solely directed at Aldridge, is of how Portland's bigs allowed GS to drive to the hoop unchallenged. I would have grabbed them after the second drive and instructed them to lay the next Warrior out on the pines when he came into the paint. My preference would have been to have Aldridge be the guy to do it.

And Monta Ellis with 10 rebounds? What's up with that?

I still love me some LMA. I still think he is going to be a repeat All-Star. I'm just pointing out that games like last night show us he still has a ways to go to get there, at least in the toughness aspect of the game.

Oh, last night also showed us what Steve Blake can do when he decides to play his game and not defer to others. He'll never be able to handle super quick point guards, but otherwise he's a pretty decent defender. He can shoot and he's not a bad driver. Best of all, he thinks pass first. I do wish that Nate would try turning the offense over to him, rather than having Brandon handle the ball so much. Have Roy play the Clyde Drexler role. Clyde handled the ball a fair amount, but Porter was still the guy who ran the offense.

by timg56 on Mar 28, 2008 7:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nate's right, GS is just better right now

Especially without having Roy. The difference is GS has hit their ceiling while the Blazers haven't.

Blake was the only player who played a very good game. LMA and Prz were adequate.

JJ's time has got to be running pretty short here. His offense is spotty and basically consists of bouncing off of people until he gets a foul call or turns it over. Some nights when he is hitting his jumpers, he's adequate. But that's not very often. In addition to his offensive woes, he can't guard anyone. GS running a lay-up drill might not bother some folks, but it bothers me - especially since it's not not just Golden State's guards, but it's the entire league's guards. I think the decision to start JJ instead of Travis was more to showcase him on national TV for trade purposes. Maybe he could start in the East.

Martell was typical, scored a few points in bunches here and there. Meanwhile, he had absolutely no effect on the game. He did have that great dunk in the first half because gasp he cut to the basket! I remember remarking to my wife "Wow, Martell actually moved without the ball" Alas it was the only time all night. Martell shot under 33% last night to put his FG% at 42% on the season. This after two consecutive seasons under 40%. And he's our 'shooter' :)

Travis was back to his old tricks, forcing up &#^$&^#$ fadewaways. One step forward, ten steps back. He was totally lost tonight, on both ends.

The rest of the guys did stuff. Not well enough obviously.

Just another blah mistake-filled game that hopefully we'll see less of next season.

by leeroyjenkins on Mar 28, 2008 7:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey, Leeroy

I wish Martell shot better, too. But I was thinking about it the other day, and realized it isn't quite as bad as it looks.

Another SF might get 1/2 of his shots inside the paint, easier shots, some easy baskets. Let's say he shoots 65% on shots in the paint (which includes layups, etc.). If he hits 35% of his shots outside the paint and 65% of those in the paint, he's a 50% shooter, and everyone thinks he's decent.

I think Martell's shooting percentage looks worse because he rarely gets the easy shots, the shots in the paint. His problem isn't really that he's shooting that poorly on the shots he takes, it's that he doesn't get to the hoop for the easy shots often enough. If he did, his percentage would be a lot higher. If he had two additional drives to the hoop per game, and on average converged 1 1/2 of them, his percentage would look a lot better.

Am I making sense? I think I've been focused on his FG%, when really, the focus should be on his failure to drive to the hole.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 28, 2008 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree completely

FG% is a very misleading statistic if it's the only thing you look at. eFG% or a similar statistic gives a much better picture, I think. To take Webster as an example, he hit effectively 4.5 of his attempts, for an eFG% of 51.7%. By contrast, the Blazers' best FG shooter, LMA, has an eFG% which is the same as his FG% (48.9%) because he doesn't hit threes.

(Aside: Yahoo! Sports and several other sites list Webster's birthplace as "Edmond, Washington". This is the same site that put Bo Outlaw's photo next to Trout's boxscore. Their website is still easier to work with than nba.com, though.)

by royroty on Mar 28, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Martell's shooting

Martell has hit 45.7% of his 2's and 38.5% of his 3's. 47.3% of his shots are 3's, making his overall shooting look a lot worse than usual. While one could argue whether the increased number of missed shots is better or worse (lack of consistancy and opponent fast break opportunities vs explosiveness and more offensive rebounding opportunities), he does have an eFG% (shooting percentage adjusted for 3's) of 51.4%, or over 1 point per FG taken. That's the 5th best on this team, and 4th best if you remove McRoberts's 5 of 7 shooting for the season.

by poster on Mar 28, 2008 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I've been noticing that Martell is moving a lot more without the ball lately - the problem is that nobody is finding him for the pass. He was running around quite a lot in the Seattle game trying to shake his defender.

by DonkeyShins on Mar 28, 2008 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Random notes

Joel appears to be trying to be more aggressive on offense. There was one play where he was just inside the free-throw line, got the ball, went strong to the hole... and ran out of gas. In other plays, he forgot to remove the stone mittens on his hands before trying to catch the ball.

Jarrett Jack, late in the game, standing and watching as Stephen Jackson (I think) drives right past him to the hoop. Even the turnstiles at Oracle Arena were offended by his defense.

LMA's only inside move seems to be right-handed hook shoot in the paint. Can't the coaches show him some video of Zach in action?

Steve Blake was hot. Why then, when the rest of the team is sputtering offensively, does he not take every shot until GS starts doubling him? Seems like he decides at some point he's being selfish and stops shooting.

Obvious flaws aside, these guys are young, but they work hard and they're getting better. A winning season is still possible.

Who do you want in charge when it's 3 a.m. and someone needs a diary?

by MiledAnimal on Mar 28, 2008 10:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Joel's summer job

I've read comments like this on this site, about Przybilla failing to catch passes, and it was really visible yesterday (one of the few games I've had a chance to see from out of town).

Here's the thing -- catching the ball is a really teachable skill. Do you think he should spend the summer catching passes? He could be a whole new threat next year if he did that.

by qiaoshun on Mar 28, 2008 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

GS's small ball players are better than PDX's

so why do we attempt to play small ball without our best small ball player?

We started strong with LMA scoring down low and with Pryz getting rebounds. When we went away from an inside game (or even if GS took away the LMA portion), we got whupped.

I realize that Joel's hands do not inspire confidence in anyone, but there were numerous times when Joel was/could have been open. No doubt there are those who are saying, "If only Oden were playing, we'd be killing them inside." Not so if no one delivers the pass to him.

I still think the Blazers should finish out the year playing as if Oden were the center and we have an athletic (and big) 2-guard. Play Joel or Raef at center and Martell or Wafer at the 2-guard. Play a point guard that can deliver the ball when players are open, and run plays to get people open.

We cannot play small ball better than teams who have better small ball players and run; we can use what can be/will be our strength inside and win.

Anyone else puzzled by the Nate quote at the end of the Oregonian article today, "Just seeing us in this situation, it was clear that (GS) was bigger, stronger, and faster than us. We were dominated." Bigger?! If it was so clear that we were so dominated by the small ball lineup, why did we counter with an inferior small ball lineup?

by vcubed on Mar 28, 2008 12:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

the 3rd Quarter was Awesome

I put my underwear on backwards, just went with it, and pretended I was a Golden State fan. We freaking dominated, it was awesome. It's great to watch your team make so many easy buckets at and above the rim.

Blazer's Edge #1 Trusted Relationship Site, Move Beyond "Traditional" Online Dating and Blogging

by tominhawaii on Mar 28, 2008 12:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs