Dwight Jaynes: The State of the Blazers isn't anything new...

[Buzz Killington]

Nice little blog by Dwight.

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/the-sta...ghtJaynes+(Dwight+Jaynes)&utm_content=Twitter

I’ve always felt that you can tell easily how disciplined a basketball team is — is it doing what its coach wants it to do?

If you apply that reasoning to the Portland Trail Blazers, the answer would have to be “No.” And even though coach Nate McMillan has that reputation of a tough guy and a nickname (”Sarge”) to match, I don’t believe the Trail Blazers are a very disciplined team. Certainly, they can’t be doing what their coach wants them to do — not just in the last two games, but for most of this season.

Fact is, what’s going on now with these guys isn’t new. It’s the way they’ve been playing all season. They’ve just been getting away with lackluster defensive rotations, allowing lots of open shots and, in general, not moving the ball or moving bodies on offense. They have become VERY stagnant, in fact, on offense — four guys standing around watching one guy with the ball.

Its very concerning. I think it will work it self out or this self-destruction is actually good...just need to "speed" the process up.

 

[Shooter]

Excellent column by Jaynes. I agree especially with the following:

Of course, this team has been undercoached. I don’t think there is any question that so much of what goes wrong is systemic in nature. This is a team that isn’t getting points in the paint and isn’t getting many fast-break points. It allows a lot of open shots. Those are system-related problems.

That means the coach is at fault.

This Blazer team looks apathetic and unorganized on both offense and defense right now, and that's the fault of the coaching staff. I'm personally ready to bring somebody like Jerry Sloan to Portland to enforce some discipline on this team. McMillan may be the "Sarge," but it's Sloan's teams that always play with the efficiency of a military unit.

 

[mook]

Meh, I think there's only so long you can live with a disciplinarian-type coach and be effective. That's what we're seeing now. It's been too mechanical for too long.

The players aren't dumb. They can read a box score and see that mediocre-to-bad talents like Frye and Sergio are positioning themselves for better contracts on other teams. They can see that Oden is vastly superior to Joel, and that he's getting too few minutes. They can see LaMarcus who can outrun practically every big in the game, not being used in transition. They can see Miller's body of work and how under-utilized he is here. They can see the major strides Bayless has made, yet still gets few minutes. They can see that they are, yet again, last in the league in pace despite years of lip service from the coach.

Anybody who has ever worked in a badly managed environment knows how de-motivating it is. In the Utah game I saw Carlos Boozer easily beat Aldridge down the court for a layin. That should never, ever happen. Roy had complete mental lapses at the end of quarters in consecutive games. That also should never happen.

The team just quit on their coach. Too many bad decisions coupled with a little exhaustion. Now have they quit permanently? I don't think so. The ship can be righted. But it's not going to come from more discipline, either from Nate or another coach.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The team just quit on their coach. Too many bad decisions coupled with a little exhaustion. Now have they quit permanently? I don't think so. The ship can be righted. But it's not going to come from more discipline, either from Nate or another coach.

Should the players be rewarded for quitting on their coach?

Why is it that Jerry Sloan keeps his job? Every season, the Jazz go through a worse patch than this. It's almost as clockwork as the Bulls' Circus Trip. And Sloan is a disciplinarian as they get. Yet they bounce back. How come they're not quitters?

 

[Shooter]

I think there's only so long you can live with a disciplinarian-type coach and be effective.

Jerry Sloan is a disciplinarian, and he's been coaching the Utah Jazz for 22 years. His teams are always very efficient, and he gets his guys motivated to play every game.

Have they quit permanently? I don't think so. The ship can be righted. But it's not going to come from more discipline, either from Nate or another coach.

Oh, contraire. I think this is a team crying out for discipline. Roy is acting like a spoiled child, and somebody needs to kick his butt. We also need to start running a more structured offense, and that requires discipline, as well.

 

[Shooter]

Every season, the Jazz go through a worse patch than this. It's almost as clockwork as the Bulls' Circus Trip.

What the hell is a "Circus Trip"?

 

[mook]

What the hell is a "Circus Trip"?

http://tinyurl.com/yenuz5y

 

[mook]

Should the players be rewarded for quitting on their coach?

Why is it that Jerry Sloan keeps his job? Every season, the Jazz go through a worse patch than this. It's almost as clockwork as the Bulls' Circus Trip. And Sloan is a disciplinarian as they get. Yet they bounce back. How come they're not quitters?

I could be wrong. Sloan is the obvious exception. I just look around the league and I don't see a lot of really disciplinarian coaches who last long in one spot. Or really any coach last very long.

Seems to me there's a natural rhythm to NBA coaches. You run a highly disciplined coach for a few years to right the ship. Players eventually tune him out, so you move to a more free-wheeling system. Players get too crazy. So you go back to discipline. Adelman --> Dunleavy--> Cheeks --> Nate.

Really great coaches like Jackson and Popovich seem to walk the tight edge between both systems, sometimes loose and sometimes more disciplined.

 

[LittleAlex]

I don't know if any of the quotes I am reading the paper are truly what was said.

But I can see Roy doesn't pass the ball to Oden nearly as often as he does Joel. The reasons for this are beyond me.

Someone needs to show Roy what teams won the title in the last 30 years and what almost all of them had in common.

It isn't a high scoring shooting guard or a jump shooting power forward.

Unless Roy believes he is in the same league as Jordan. In which case perhaps he has been spending too much time with Willy Stoudamire.

 

[mook]

Woops. Just realized I forgot Carlisimo in there. *shrug*

 

[Uther TheGardener]

its the adelman curse.....we have not had a good coach since....

 

[Minstrel]

Should the players be rewarded for quitting on their coach?

No, but you seem to be talking about what's deserved. Deserve's got nothing to do with it. If the players have tuned McMillan out, the team can either get a new coach or get new players. The first option is more feasible.

Why is it that Jerry Sloan keeps his job? Every season, the Jazz go through a worse patch than this. It's almost as clockwork as the Bulls' Circus Trip. And Sloan is a disciplinarian as they get. Yet they bounce back. How come they're not quitters?

Maybe Sloan plays his best players the most minutes. I don't think "disciplinarian" is the issue, really. I think that if McMillan has lost the team, it's because the players think he's not rewarding the best players with the most minutes.

 

[mook]

Maybe Sloan plays his best players the most minutes. I don't think "disciplinarian" is the issue, really. I think that if McMillan has lost the team, it's because the players think he's not rewarding the best players with the most minutes.

Yeah, you're most likely right.

But I think there could be an element of "Nate fatigue" as well. He's now in his 5th season coaching the Blazers. Not a lot of coaches make it beyond that. Dunleavy, Woodson, Pop, Sloan and Jackson are the only ones longer than that. So 24 of the 30 teams have turned over coaches since Nate was hired.

I think there definitely could be something to having a new coach come in and look at this team with a fresh set of eyes.

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah, you're most likely right.

But I think there could be an element of "Nate fatigue" as well. He's now in his 5th season coaching the Blazers. Not a lot of coaches make it beyond that. Dunleavy, Woodson, Pop, Sloan and Jackson are the only ones longer than that. So 24 of the 30 teams have turned over coaches since Nate was hired.

I think there definitely could be something to having a new coach come in and look at this team with a fresh set of eyes.

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with turning over the head coach/manager in basketball and baseball. In those two sports, I think that, with the exception of a few guys, the coach/manager has very little impact, overall. So, unless you have a game-changer (like Phil Jackson or Rick Adelman), there's little risk to bringing in new blood. Probably not a lot of reward, in terms of strategy, but maybe some dividends in terms of player energy (assuming the players are on board with a switch).

If the team has "Nate fatigue" (which I think is entirely plausible), then I'm all for a new coach, even if it's a lateral move, like Jeff Van Gundy. Is that fair to McMillan? Maybe, maybe not. But ultimately, it's all about what will keep the players at their highest level of energy/focus. Head coaches (outside of aforementioned exceptions) are expendable. Burn them when you have to...there's an endless supply, really.