Hornets @ Blazers 1/25/2010 Game Thread (1 Viewer)

[RR7]

I apologize for mist interpreting your point. I thought you were upset he only played 15 minutes and wanted him to play significantly more. I didn't know you were just talking about three minutes.

I'm also confident Batum could have played more, but stupid Jensen limited him to 7 minutes a half. Oh well...

Wait, limiting him was a bad idea? Gimme a break. I can't imagine this place if he went over his limited amount, and aggravated his injury.

 

[LittleAlex]

I apologize for mist interpreting your point. I thought you were upset he only played 15 minutes and wanted him to play significantly more. I didn't know you were just talking about three minutes.

I'm also confident Batum could have played more, but stupid Jensen limited him to 7 minutes a half. Oh well...

It wasn't the amount of minutes, it was when they were played that bothered me more.


Comparing the situation of Batum (out for 4 months after shoulder surgery) to Bayless (listed as day to day with a moderate ankle sprain) is absurd. I kind of think you are smarter then that.


A bigger issue is that without Bayless or Roy on the floor Portland doesn't have anyone that can attack the rim and get to the line. Miller can do it from time to time but not with the same consistancy as Roy and Bayless.


All of this is a long way of saying I wish Portland's second best player was more aggressive and got to the line more. He doesn't and it hurts the team badly.

 

[cdub503]

wasnt bayless the one to get under pauls skin when they were trying out for the USA team or was that another PG?

 

[LittleAlex]

wasnt bayless the one to get under pauls skin when they were trying out for the USA team or was that another PG?

It was Bayless. He and Paul got into it during a scrimage when Bayless wouldn't back off on defense.

 

[Tince]

Wait, limiting him was a bad idea? Gimme a break. I can't imagine this place if he went over his limited amount, and aggravated his injury.

I'm confident Batum could have played more (same with Bayless) but that doesn't mean I think it would have been a wise move. I understand/agree with the idea of limiting minutes of players coming off an injury.

 

[Boob-No-More]

He sure didn't look gimpy nor did he look like he wanted to come out of the game.


So yes I considered his injury and no I don't think it should have prevented Nate from putting Bayless back in the game for the final 3 minutes.


I don't understand why in the world you would defend this. I get that Nate is a good coach and all. Far better then I would ever be.

But this isn't some obscure concept. Portland couldn't get points at the line because the one guy available to play who could do so was played as few minutes as a guy who has been out for the last 4 months.



And frankly, if Bayless was so fucking gimpy why the hell was he in the game for the last shot. Nate sure felt he could go then. Why not 180 seconds earlier?

When Blake came in for Rudy with 1:42 left in the game, I turned to my son and said, "they brought in the wrong player, they should have brought in Bayless".

It's not that I think Blake is useless. He has his place, but this wasn't it. In addition to Bayless doing a good job guarding Paul in the first half, he also absolutely killed Collinson who was attempting to guard him on the other end. Unlike Miller (and Blake), Bayless has the quickness to take Collison off the dribble. Combined with his size and strength advantages and Collison looked totally helpless trying to stop Bayless in the first half.

So, instead of bringing in Blake and letting Paul guard him and trying to let Andre Miller unsuccessfully repeatedly beat the much quicker Collison off the dribble, Nate should have brought in Bayless and let him abuse Collison like he did in the first half. This would have the added bonus of Bayless, rather than Blake, guarding Paul on the other end.

There was so much wrong with Nate's play calling and substitions during the last three and a half minutes of that game I don't see how anyone can possibly defend him. Nate cost the team that game, and should receive the blame (just like the Memphis loss on the 5th).

And before we get another round of the "if you're so smart why aren't you coaching in the NBA" chorus, I have never claimed I'd be a better coach than Nate McMillan. Roger Ebert has never directed a successful movie, but he's certainly capable or critiquing them. Nate's mistakes are so obvious they are easy to spot - especially as they are part of an established pattern that I've seen all too often. Even smart people occasionally make mistakes. Truly smart people learn from those mistakes and avoid repeating them. I'm waiting for Nate to learn from his mistakes. If he can't/won't, I'm all for not offering him a new contract when his current one expires. He's a good coach in some ways, but his offensive play calling and subsitution patterns cost this team wins. If this team is to truly contend for a title, they need a coach who won't cost them games they should have won.

BNM

 

[EGame]

When Blake came in for Rudy with 1:42 left in the game, I turned to my son and said, "they brought in the wrong player, they should have brought in Bayless".

It's not that I think Blake is useless. He has his place, but this wasn't it. In addition to Bayless doing a good job guarding Paul in the first half, he also absolutely killed Collinson who was attempting to guard him on the other end. Unlike Miller (and Blake), Bayless has the quickness to take Collison off the dribble. Combined with his size and srength advantages and Collison looked totally helpless trying to stop Bayless in the first half.

So, instead of bringing in Blake and letting Paul guard him and trying to let Andre Miller unsuccessfully repeatedly beat the much quicker Collison off the dribble, Nate should have brought in Bayless and let him abuse Collison like he did in the first half. This would have the added bonus of Bayless, rather than Blake, guarding Paul on the other end.

There was so much wrong with Nate's play calling and substitions during the last three and a half minutes of that game I don't see how anyone can possibly defend him. Nate cost the team that game, and should receive the blame (just like the Memphis loss on the 5th).

And before we get another round of the "if you're so smart why aren't you coaching in the NBA" chorus, I have never claimed I'd be a better coach than Nate McMillan. Roger Ebert has never directed a successful movie, but he's certainly capable or critiquing them. Nate's mistakes are so obvious they are easy to spot - especially as they are part of an established pattern that I've seen all too often. Even smart people occasionally make mistakes. Truly smart people learn from those mistakes and avoid repeating them. I'm waiting for Nate to learn from his mistakes. If he can't/won't, I'm all for not offering him a new contract when his current one expires. He's a good coach in some ways, but his offensive play calling and subsitution patterns cost this team wins. If this team is to truly contend for a title, they need a coach who won't cost them games they should have won.

BNM

I agree, but I was called out on the bashing of him. Nate may be doing well with the pieces he currently has, but last night was not a job well done with the rotations especially because our bench was outplaying the starters for the most part last night. I try to keep my bashing of Nate limited, mainly because other have that job under control, however, I found it necessary to do so last night especially putting Blake back in.