Leave the players out!

[Mote]

The roster of the Portland Trail Blazers is the result of management acquisition and direction. The record, not with standing, is much better than the play has been. Considering there is a distinct cognitive disconnect within the Blazer team, where do you place the blame for unorganized, helter skelter, and plainly abysmal continuity of focus? With the understanding that ANY player cannot enter the discussion, where is the weak link. Kevin Pritchard has, for the most part, assembled the employee roster and Nate McMillan has directed their effort. Who, of the two, would you most like to ask for an accounting of disarray?

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

The roster of the Portland Trail Blazers is the result of management acquisition and direction. The record, not with standing, is much better than the play has been. Considering there is a distinct cognitive disconnect within the Blazer team, where do you place the blame for unorganized, helter skelter, and plainly abysmal continuity of focus? With the understanding that ANY player cannot enter the discussion, where is the weak link. Kevin Pritchard has, for the most part, assembled the employee roster and Nate McMillan has directed their effort. Who, of the two, would you most like to ask for an accounting of disarray?

Both. KP's reluctance to thin out and improve the roster. Nate's limited cognitive ability towards the offensive end both need to be questioned.

 

[Mote]

Both. KP's reluctance to thin out and improve the roster. Nate's limited cognitive ability towards the offensive end both need to be questioned.

That is my take also, but something has to change and I'm not sure of the direction upper management should take. Point being, from farther up the food chain, change needs to be mandated. The question our pointy eared friends and Paul Allen have to make is one of drastic change or firm encouragement to redirect focus... I'm not sure what call I would make in their shoes.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

That is my take also, but something has to change and I'm not sure of the direction upper management should take. Point being, from farther up the food chain, change needs to be mandated. The question our pointy eared friends and Paul Allen have to make is one of drastic change or firm encouragement to redirect focus... I'm not sure what call I would make in their shoes.

I would let it ride out and if the this team continues to be listless and without direction, I think you remove the coach and replace him with Monty Williams Or KP on a interim basis.

 

[BrianFromWA]

On the contrary: I've been following basketball for a bit over 20 years now, and haven't heard (though I could be wrong) of the "2 fouls per half" rule. Especially with your entire frontcourt. That's pretty creative.

 

[Mote]

I'm not ready to say that this team has problems. I think we're fine. What I don't like so far is the rigidness I'm seeing from Nate as far as his control over the players. He is still treating this team as if they're a young team trying to win. They know how to win now. They are more mature. They are talented. Give them some leeway and let them play on their own. Enough with the Sarge thing. Nate has not shown any creativity in regards to using this team talents.

I don't disagree with what you are saying other than "I think we're fine", but I asked how it could be corrected and your statement indicates Nate is the sand in the gears. What we have to ask ourselves is whether or not Nate will allow the team to mature or not. Ridged discipline is necessary in training and the field for any fruitful endeavor, however once a team is in the field of profession leeway to adapt requires free thought. Nate is an anomaly. He had great success as a pro due to his ridged approach to playing throughout his career and though it worked for him it doesn't work for most.

I'm not saying Nate's approach will not bring great success yet I fear, if it comes, it may be short lived and well down the road.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Ed O]

This is still a good team. Even good teams lose to inferior teams... it's the reason nobody ever goes 82-0.

Questioning the whole structure of the franchise and blaming perceived problems on Vulcan seems like a misdirection of frustration to me more than anything else.

Ed O.

 

[Mote]

This is still a good team. Even good teams lose to inferior teams... it's the reason nobody ever goes 82-0.

Questioning the whole structure of the franchise and blaming perceived problems on Vulcan seems like a misdirection of frustration to me more than anything else.

Ed O.

That is one hell of a straw man Ed. Show me where I questioned "the whole structure of the franchise" or Vulcan management for that matter . That's right you can't. I proposed they have a very large decision to make which would include leaving things alone. This team is good and I have not intimated anything to the contrary, however, there are some glaring issues after 14 of 82 games. If you hone your reading abilities we might be able to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[LittleAlex]

On the contrary: I've been following basketball for a bit over 20 years now, and haven't heard (though I could be wrong) of the "2 fouls per half" rule. Especially with your entire frontcourt. That's pretty creative.

No this is the first time I have ever even seen someone have such a rule.

The reason is most other coaches like to win.

I am not entirely sure what Nate is trying to do. But winning this year seems not to be one of them.