Outlaw blames himself

[Ed O]

Outlaw made a mistake, simple as that. On the other hand - he is not the only one that did it - and putting it all on him because his was late in the game while others were doing it earlier is just poor analysis. The game is played for 48 minutes - it means that you can not show up to play just at the end of the game and you can not dog it all game long and show up for a short burst at the end of the 3rd/start of the 4th as Sergio and Rudy did last night.

Rudy was taking good shots. Sergio's shot selection was solid. They didn't HIT their shots, but their execution was good.

The same cannot be said for Outlaw.

In any case, so many (not all, of course) of Outlaw's supporters have hammered away at how clutch he is and how he's more valuable to the team (and, indeed, a better player in spite of not starting and playing fewer minutes than Webster) because of his ability to close out games. Even the BEST player can't win every game, and last night was in many ways a fluke, but given how his reputation amongst some fans is built on similarly flukish (but successful) situations, I think it's fair to counter that with what he did last night.

Ed O.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You can choose to disagree until the cows come home - but if Rudy shoots 4-9 instead of 3-9 Outlaw's mistake would not matter, if Sergio realizes that he is shooting a miserable 36% from the field this year and takes only 5 shots instead of 9 - passing to someone who shoots better than him on the team (just about anyone on the team, when it comes to FG%) - we are not putting Outlaw in this position.

Outlaw made a mistake. He manned up and admitted it. This would not be a case if some people would notice their mistakes during the game and not press - there was no point for Sergio to shoot so many shots when he bricks 2 out of 3, on a night when Rudy is shooting so bad from the outside - he should drive more and shoot closer ones.

Outlaw made a mistake, simple as that. On the other hand - he is not the only one that did it - and putting it all on him because his was late in the game while others were doing it earlier is just poor analysis. The game is played for 48 minutes - it means that you can not show up to play just at the end of the game and you can not dog it all game long and show up for a short burst at the end of the 3rd/start of the 4th as Sergio and Rudy did last night.

Fine. I choose to disagree. We were up 8 with 1:40. We did not win the game. Therefore, anything happening before 1:40 is not relevant to the conversation of "who lost the game for us". Not Roy's free throws, not Rudy's shooting. Did you even look at the Sergio and Outlaw shot charts? Travis missed more jumpers than Sergio did. (Hmmm....)

But let's just focus on the last 1:40. I know you probably don't want to b/c it's not a good story for Travis. Travis made 4 mistakes in the last 3 minutes (3 in the last 1:40), simple as that. Blake made 2 huge ones. Roy should've made his FTs...but he didn't have a chance to shoot FTs b/c Blake and Travis were jacking up 3's and turning it over.

I'm intrigued about what else you plan on bringing up. It seems simple to me...but I admit my mind doesn't think the same way others' do sometimes.

 

[MIXUM]

outlaw blames himself?

lol..who the f..k cares? we lost...it doesnt change the record or the fact hes a deer in head lights who takes awful shots.

its like...great outlaw blames himself. oh well...we f@@kin lost

 

[Sheldon Shape]

How the fuck do you forget to cut to the hoop when this is the play drawn up by the coach? Words can't describe that kind of mistake. That's something you don't forget man.

 

[andalusian]

Rudy was taking good shots. Sergio's shot selection was solid. They didn't HIT their shots, but their execution was good.

I am sorry. I fail to understand how shooting 1-5 from the 3 (as Rudy did) was good execution. I do not understand how a 36% FG shooter who usually takes 3.8 shots a game decides to take 9 shots in a game and converts them at 33% is good execution.

They might have got to the spots they wanted to shoot from properly (and that part of the execution is fine) - but if you shoot 3 or 4 from there and see that you miss - maybe it is time to consider doing something else.

The same cannot be said for Outlaw.

Really? So it's bad when Outlaw shoots 50% from the field but it's good when Rudy and Sergio shoot 33%? These numbers do not mean much if Outlaw was forcing shots and Sergio/Rudy had a couple of bad ones and concentrated on doing something else - but Outlaw took just 6 shots last night - Rudy and Sergio took 9 each.

I generally speaking do not have an issue with Rudy taking many shots - because he usually converts them - but if your 3rd 3P attempt bricks maybe it's OK take a couple of steps into the 2P area and try to make an easier one before you let the 4th and 5th fly.

In Sergio's case - there is just no reason for him take 9 shots in 28 minutes, just no reason. He got into an "I am better than you" pissing match with Jameer Nelson and took way more shots than he should.

In any case, so many (not all, of course) of Outlaw's supporters have hammered away at how clutch he is and how he's more valuable to the team (and, indeed, a better player in spite of not starting and playing fewer minutes than Webster) because of his ability to close out games. Even the BEST player can't win every game, and last night was in many ways a fluke, but given how his reputation amongst some fans is built on similarly flukish (but successful) situations, I think it's fair to counter that with what he did last night.

I find it hard to understand what the problem is - Outlaw made a mistake, every one agrees to it - including Outlaw himself. No problem there - but his overall performance during this game was not as harmful as the number of bad shots taken by others (Sergio, Blake and to a degree Rudy), the turn-overs made by some (Batum, Blake) and the missed free-throws that Roy had.

Me, I like Outlaw for what he does for you and what the cost is - he is a low cost player that shoots exceptionally well from far, can bail you out with tough shots when the play breaks (and he remembers to come bail you out - which he did not do last night) and can play decent defense most nights. If there is a better option out there - I am sure KP will make a trade to make the team better - but we had no-one better last night (Batum had a bad, bad game) - and at the end of the day - his play last night was not the reason we lost the game.

 

[andalusian]

Fine. I choose to disagree. We were up 8 with 1:40. We did not win the game. Therefore, anything happening before 1:40 is not relevant to the conversation of "who lost the game for us". Not Roy's free throws, not Rudy's shooting. Did you even look at the Sergio and Outlaw shot charts? Travis missed more jumpers than Sergio did. (Hmmm....)

But let's just focus on the last 1:40. I know you probably don't want to b/c it's not a good story for Travis. Travis made 4 mistakes in the last 3 minutes (3 in the last 1:40), simple as that. Blake made 2 huge ones. Roy should've made his FTs...but he didn't have a chance to shoot FTs b/c Blake and Travis were jacking up 3's and turning it over.

I'm intrigued about what else you plan on bringing up. It seems simple to me...but I admit my mind doesn't think the same way others' do sometimes.

Outlaw was +/- 0 for the game. We did not lose because of him.

I can't imagine how his mistake is worse than Sergio missing 4 layups at range zero?

 

[BrianFromWA]

I ask again...DID YOU LOOK AT THE F'ING SHOT CHART!?!?!

Sergio shot better outside the paint than Travis did. He was 2-4 from 3, Travis 1-3. Travis was 1-2 on mid-range jumpers, Sergio 1-1. Travis took the ball to the rim one time, and made it. Sergio did it 4 times, didn't make it, though it was slammed through for a basket 3 times (no assist counted). He also had double the amount of foul shots (and made them all).

I don't understand why you're digging this hole, Andalusian. Rudy and Sergio and Roy and LMA (with Travis on the floor) brought the team back from a 10 point deficit to an 8 point lead with 1:40 left. Travis's 4 bad plays in 3 minutes, as well as Blake's 2 bad plays in 2 minutes, DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED to the team's surrender of an 8-point lead with less than 2 minutes left. There is really no other way around it. You can credit SVG for throwing a "confusing" defense at us, perhaps knowing that we didn't really have great ballhandlers on the floor, or defensive-minded players, or (in Travis' case) smart players. But you absolutely cannot deny (and still be credible) that Travis and Blake (and if you want to include Nate and Roy, I won't stop you, though I disagree) were directly responsible for the loss. Case closed. Coach said so, announcers said so, reporters say so, Travis says so....why can't you say so?

 

[mook]

OK...I have to speak up on this one.

For over two years now (some almost six), there have been people who think Outlaw is not good at understanding the game of basketball. Anytime it's brought up that he's had a really dumb turnover/play that led to us losing a game, or almost losing a game, there is a legion of people on here who decide that it's their mission in life to ensure "Travis Hate" isn't tolerated. They bring up records in close games, come up with alternate explanations for "crunch time" stats, the fact that Outlaw's loved by his teammates or anointed "Mr. 4th Quarter" by the media. Those who dare to point out flaws, bad plays, general cluelessness, etc. are effectively shouted down.

Now, in a game where a) the coach lights him up for a stupid play, b) he admits he made a stupid play, c) he admits that his play directly led to a loss; in THIS game people are posting that "his biggest mistake is that he admitted making a mistake". Nope, his biggest mistake is a toss-up between not knowing what the 24-second clock said when it's nearing zero, taking a 3 with a bunch of time left on the clock and up five (and don't mistake me, I'm even more critical of Blake's crunch time play) and his mental lapse on the last offensive play, while not denying the ball on the last defensive play. You know, the ones the coach lit him up for? And what did he say? "Eh, sometimes you just have to take it."

There are some starting to come around: "Ugh, yes - it was a mistake by Travis - but he did keep us in the game in the first half", "It's Nate's fault for putting him out there in a clutch defensive assignment", "Statistically, Outlaw had a pretty good game yesterday. However, his decision making and defense (other than the one good help play on Howard) were borderline horrible", "Travis was pretty weak on D but the entire last 2 minutes seemed like no Blazers realized that the Magic were shooting over 50% 3-pointers. ", "He just has low basketball IQ, he should have never been in there on the defensive side. It should have been Batum guarding Hedo. Man to man, Batum is unquestionably better than Travis' cement feet." But there are still apologists who think he's the Man for standing up to his mistakes without acknowledging that if he does any one of those 4 "bonehead" plays better, we win. I'm not talking about missing shots, or having someone play good D...I'm talking about bonehead plays.

This is not a "trade Travis now" post. This is a "this is who he is, and no amount of wishing from fans isn't going to change that he isn't a) trustworthy in close-and-late situations, and b) going to understand the game soon, no matter how much Nate 'trusts' him to" post. In much this situation last year, there were many (me being one of the loudest) saying that Jack should be traded not because he's a bad guy, but b/c Nate doesn't use him in situations where he can help the team out, or pull him when he shouldn't be out there. There are plenty more options. If you need someone spotted up in a corner to hit a three, Travis is your man. If you need someone to shoot a bailout shot, he's your man. If you need a rebound, defensive stop, foul drawn, average-to-intelligent play, ballhandling, etc. then he's not one of the top 5 options on the team. It's that simple.

Light me up

Salinger

Who, specifically, are the posters here who don't think Travis is a little thick? I can't think of anybody here who has ever said, "Travis Outlaw has great (or even mediocre) basketball smarts." I can't think of anybody here who "shouts down" those who point out his dumb mistakes.

The closest I can come to any of that is my point that his biggest mistake was admitting to mistakes. But that was couched in my observation about the sad state of politics, and how anybody who ever admits to doing anything wrong seems to get crucified. So it's easier (as two recent presidents did) to simply ignore everything that goes wrong.

The funny thing is that I pretty much agree with your assessment of Outlaw's basketball skills. He's not bright. But then Sergio isn't a great perimeter shot, Frye can't play in the post, Blake isn't a threat at the rim, and Rudy doesn't have a great handle. All those guys, just like Outlaw, have weaknesses. You just have to evaluate them against their strengths.

But it's silly to say that there's a witch hunt going on against anybody who speaks ill of Outlaw. He's a backup small forward with insane athleticism, a decent jumper, a nice personality, and little intelligence. I like the guy as a player, warts and all, but I'm not going to pretend he's unassailable. I think most of the people who like him feel the same.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Mook, I understand what your original post was saying...I wasn't trying to speak against yours, it was just the last one I read before I started writing.

But I could name 3 posters off the top of my head who, every time I point out a Travis flaw (even if it's couched with his strengths), come up with a "Travis Hater" holier-than-thou response. Your last post was a good example of the kind of posting I like responding to. But I disagree that most people "think he's a backup small forward with insane athleticism". Most of those I'm calling out think he's "clutch", even in the face of statistics. They think he should start. They think I'm a fool for even discussing that Outlaw should be traded. When he messes up, they'll preemptively post something like "let me beat BrianFromWA to it and totally exaggerate right now". When he plays well, I'll see things like "where's BrianFromWA now?"

Just looking at this thread, there is a poster who's not able to admit that Travis and Blake directly contributed to the loss. End of story.

 

[andalusian]

I ask again...DID YOU LOOK AT THE F'ING SHOT CHART!?!?!

Yes, I still can't believe that we have an NBA player on the roster that misses 4 layups in 28 minutes of play. Feel better?

I don't understand why you're digging this hole, Andalusian. Rudy and Sergio and Roy and LMA (with Travis on the floor) brought the team back from a 10 point deficit to an 8 point lead with 1:40 left.

I am the one digging a hole? If there is a run with Travis on the floor it is the other players that are responsible - but if we get our ass kicked with him on the floor - it is his fault only?

Travis did not have a good game. He did not have a horrible game either - and the reason we lost the game (which is played over 48 minutes, not over 1:40 as you continue to harp) is because they shot the lights out and we shot like crap - and since it was not just Travis that shot like crap... you can not blame it all on him.

Travis's 4 bad plays in 3 minutes

... and Travis did not have 4 bad plays - he had one big mistake - but he is no worse than Rudy not coming to bail Roy when it was his man that was used to trap Roy, or Blake that lost the ball or Roy that did not stop and try to move backwards when he was trapped.

Really, Travis made a mistake, no one is disagreeing. Taking this mistake however into the reason that we lost the game is a witch-hunt - when there is either enough blame to go around - or - as I like to look at it - understanding that this was overall a pretty good game for us - and we lost it on an off-night with our shot and the opponent going crazy hot from the 3 point line.

If you insist that I am digging a hole because I see that the game is played for 48 minutes - so be it.

I still stand by my theory that there were enough mistakes during the game that there is no real reason to continue the on-going witch-hunt - when the witch admits she is bobbing in the water... but if you feel the need to continue running through the street with your pitch-forks shouting at the top of your lungs... well, enjoy

 

[Ed O]

I am sorry. I fail to understand how shooting 1-5 from the 3 (as Rudy did) was good execution. I do not understand how a 36% FG shooter who usually takes 3.8 shots a game decides to take 9 shots in a game and converts them at 33% is good execution.

Then you don't understand the different between process and results. I consider execution of an offense process, while making shots is results.

They might have got to the spots they wanted to shoot from properly (and that part of the execution is fine) - but if you shoot 3 or 4 from there and see that you miss - maybe it is time to consider doing something else.

I don't think so. Rudy should shoot a three pointer EVERY TIME HE IS OPEN except in dramatically atypical circumstances. I don't care if he's 6-7 and "due to miss" or 0-7 and "shooting terribly", if he's on the floor and he gets the shot he should take it, because he's got an excellent chance of making it and by taking and making those shots it spreads the floor and opens it up for the rest of the team.

Really? So it's bad when Outlaw shoots 50% from the field but it's good when Rudy and Sergio shoot 33%? These numbers do not mean much if Outlaw was forcing shots and Sergio/Rudy had a couple of bad ones and concentrated on doing something else - but Outlaw took just 6 shots last night - Rudy and Sergio took 9 each.

That's a straw man. Outlaw's shot selection is not determinative of how he played overall. He wasn't where he was supposed to be. He didn't do what he was supposed to do.

I don't see how you can read what has been admitted to and then deny it or try to equivocate it with a few missed layups by Sergio.

I generally speaking do not have an issue with Rudy taking many shots - because he usually converts them - but if your 3rd 3P attempt bricks maybe it's OK take a couple of steps into the 2P area and try to make an easier one before you let the 4th and 5th fly.

I totally disagree. Taking a step or two in will not increase the chances of making the shot by 50%, which is the additional value of a made three pointer.

In Sergio's case - there is just no reason for him take 9 shots in 28 minutes, just no reason. He got into an "I am better than you" pissing match with Jameer Nelson and took way more shots than he should.

Again: totally disagree. Sergio did a very good job of breaking his man down and getting to both the rim and the line. He should have converted a few layups, but even when he missed it put our guys in a great position to rebound.

I find it hard to understand what the problem is - Outlaw made a mistake, every one agrees to it - including Outlaw himself. No problem there - but his overall performance during this game was not as harmful as the number of bad shots taken by others (Sergio, Blake and to a degree Rudy), the turn-overs made by some (Batum, Blake) and the missed free-throws that Roy had.

I'm focused on the last two minutes or so. You are the one trying to expand the inquiry to deflect criticism of Outlaw, for some reason.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

The only thing I said is that the game is played for 48 minutes - so there is more than one play that determines the outcome of the game. I also did not say that Outlaw was right (nor did he)...

This is like groundhog day (or spin-cycle). I think I should just quit.

I can't wait for the NBA100 - where all games are played for 100 seconds...

 

[mook]

I actually used to think he should start, mostly for lack of better options. (I still contend he's better than a healthy Webster, but that's setting the bar pretty low. There are around 28 better NBA starting Small Forwards than Webster. There are about 23 better than Outlaw.) Outlaw is pretty clutch, in the respect that doesn't underperform when the pressure is on.

Batum has hit something of a wall lately, but he's still better than Outlaw. He's by far the best defender of the three and he seems like he'll be a competent scorer, and really, what else do we need at SF?

None of the three will likely ever be top 10 small forwards. But Batum is definitely the best player, and the best fit, of the lot.

 

[andalusian]

None of the three will likely ever be top 10 small forwards. But Batum is definitely the best player, and the best fit, of the lot.

I am wondering if you consider Prince, in his prime, to be a top-10 small forward - because I hope he can be that good at some point.

But - generally speaking - I agree.

Of course, it does not matter - what's really important is to understand that Von Wafer is the best SF ever in the NBA100 - where every game is won and lost in 1:40 minutes;

 

[hasoos]

Add up what all the players put out on the court, and you have a TEAM result. No one play made or broke the Blazers. What did lose the game was that the team effort was short. Defensive lapses for almost whole quarters of the game. Falling in love with the 3 pointer when Orlando was in the penalty. Lack of touches in crunch time for the players who bring the scoring to the team (ROY, Aldridge, Rudy.)

If anybody was playing badly in the game, the coach can always pull them out. Nate chose to have out there, who he felt was best. Sometimes, it just doesn't work out. When you have a young team, sometimes they don't make the best decisions, or become confused easily and over think things. All you can hope for, is they learn from the experience, and get better.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You have to be kidding. I'm looking for the "/sarcasm" at the end of one of your posts.

Lemme spell this out: Travis Outlaw and Steve Blake were almost entirely responsible for our team blowing an 8 point lead with 100 seconds left in our last basketball game. Travis made 4 mistakes: 1) not looking at the 24 second clock (to be fair, iirc this was with about 3 min left) and getting a shot clock violation without even realizing he needed to shoot, 2) taking a contested 3 from the top of the key with over 10 seconds left on the shot clock up 8 with less than 90 seconds left, 3) not remembering/understanding his assignment on the last offensive play, and 4) not denying the ball on the winning play, or realizing that you have to be up on Turk, b/c a 3 kills you, while if he drives by you and somehow scores it just goes to OT. Since no one's talking about Blake right now, I won't go there.

Your penchant for putting this on Sergio/Rudy/Roy is comical, as is trying to say "it's a 48-minute game". If that's the case, why have you and PapaG made a living the last few weeks of telling me how "clutch" Travis is? You've lost a lot of cred with me about this. You're almost in PapaG territory, though I won't go there b/c you don't call me names .

Quitting with dignity on this point might be the best option. But I'm not trying to tell another person what to do.

 

[Ed O]

If Portland is a 6 seed and we end up losing on the road in game 7 of the conference semi-finals, can we point to that game as the reason we were eliminated?

Or should we remember that the reason we were on the road is because we lost a few more games than we should have during the regular season, so that ONE game wasn't the reason that we were knocked out.

Or last night... did Hedo's shot not win the game for the Magic? After all, Nelson and others scored earlier in the game. His shot was the last part of the game, but it didn't really WIN it since it was only in the last three seconds of a game.

Back to Outlaw and the rest of the guys that were in the game for the last one hundred seconds: they lost the game. They had the lead and they blew it. That Frye did something or that Sergio did another in the second quarter is not relevant to the lead that was lost and the fact that Roy, Outlaw and the rest of the guys fucked it up.

I fail to see why those last 100 seconds are less subject to scrutiny and less worthy of attribution of responsibility than the last play on its own or the final game of a season.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

No, no, Hasoos, what you say makes sense - and this is the Blazers board. We do not work this way. The game was lost by ZBo.

Oh wait, my calendar was wrong. It was Jack.

Shoot. Mistake again. It's Outlaw. I really need to get a better calendar.

Sorry for the mistakes.

 

[BrianFromWA]

When you have a young team, sometimes they don't make the best decisions, or become confused easily and over think things. All you can hope for, is they learn from the experience, and get better.

The two that hosed this game up most at the end were a 6th year veteran in Travis and a 6th year vet in Blake. Why are people making excuses? They're grown men who messed up, should definitely know better, and deserve to be called out on it. Nate obviously thought so.

I don't know why Blake's getting off relatively free on this.

 

[BrianFromWA]

No, no, Hasoos, what you say makes sense - and this is the Blazers board. We do not work this way. The game was lost by ZBo.

Oh wait, my calendar was wrong. It was Jack.

Shoot. Mistake again. It's Outlaw. I really need to get a better calendar.

Sorry for the mistakes.

As long as we trade Travis like the other two for better fits, no worries. And by better fits, I mean people that won't consistently contribute to our team losing. But keep thinking everything's ok, if that's what helps you enjoy the game better. Far be it from me to take that from any fan.

 

[andalusian]

I fail to see why those last 100 seconds are less subject to scrutiny and less worthy of attribution of responsibility than the last play on its own or the final game of a season.

They are not. And there is not controversy. Blake and Outlaw fucked these 100 seconds. But the game was not lost because we were perfect the other 2780 seconds - it was lost because we played about one very good quarter of basketball, one OK quarter and a couple of questionable ones - the only difference is that these 100 seconds were at the end of the game.

 

[Freshtown]

i still blame blake. His turnover WAS the turning point of the game.

 

[Ed O]

They are not. And there is not controversy. Blake and Outlaw fucked these 100 seconds. But the game was not lost because we were perfect the other 2780 seconds - it was lost because we played about one very good quarter of basketball, one OK quarter and a couple of questionable ones - the only difference is that these 100 seconds were at the end of the game.

No one is claiming we were "perfect".

However good or bad we were, it was good enough to be ahead by 8, though.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

No one is claiming we were "perfect".

However good or bad we were, it was good enough to be ahead by 8, though.

Ed O.

Yes, but we were also down by 9 in the first quarter.

There is a big deal about it because it was the end of the game and we made 2 big mistakes in 100 seconds. I understand it. It is also clear that Outlaw was one of the guys that made one of these mistakes - heck - he understands it. But overall - there really was no better option last night - because Nic had a miserable game and Outlaw was not stinky-bad (shot a decent percent, got to the line, no turn-overs).

What I am saying is that if we took Outlaw's 100 seconds of stink and switched them with his play in the 2nd quarter when he was balling - the outcome would be exactly the same and no one would be getting their pitch-forks for him.

Overall, during this game, Outlaw was not bad. He shot a high-percentage, he did not fire like a black-hole, he did not cause turn-overs.

He broke a play at a bad time, he admitted to it (No one else said anything about it to the media - so you have to give him props for that). That's all that really happened.

 

[Ed O]

Yes, but we were also down by 9 in the first quarter.

Who cares?

Seriously. Why even mention this?

Overall, during this game, Outlaw was not bad. He shot a high-percentage, he did not fire like a black-hole, he did not cause turn-overs.

Again: who cares? Why even mention this?

He fucked up repeatedly at the end of the game. That has nothing to do with how he played earlier NOR how Sergio played.

Of course, Outlaw is not the only one who fucked up repeatedly at the end of the game, but that's not relevant to the fact that he fucked up.

He broke a play at a bad time, he admitted to it (No one else said anything about it to the media - so you have to give him props for that). That's all that really happened.

I don't care if anyone says anything to the media. Players could never say one thing in public in their lives and it wouldn't impact me one iota. I give him no credit for publically admitting his mistake because it won't help us win the game just finished nor win the next one.

Ed O.

 

[ucatchtrout]

Outlaw takes blame for Orlando loss

T. Outlaw fessed up to the press and took the blame for the fouled up play at the end of the game which resulted in a shot clock violation. When asked about the play Nate was willing to tell reporters only that it wasn't executed properly. Outlaw threw himself under the bus and accepted responsibility for not cutting to the ball the way he had been instructed to do.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2008/12/blazers_slip_down_stretch_agai.html#more"

I admire Travis for his accountability. He made a mistake. He owned it.

But the loss shouldn't fall completely on his shoulders. The fact we blew an 8 point lead in less than two minutes was not something he alone was responsible for. I'm a fan of our coach, but I do question some of the choices he made during the last minute and fifty seconds of the game.

1. In retrospect from the comfort of my couch its easy to see that pulling the guy who had the hot hand (Sergio) in running the offense and inserting Steve Blake stalled the offense. As did changing the offensive plan to Brandon Roy ISO. Brandon didn't execute at the foul line, and that resulted in a 8 point lead turning into a two point lead with just thirty seconds to go. That of course left us just one more screwed up posession and a Turkoglu 3 pointer away from a loss.

2. When the only plays you run at the end of the game are Brandon Roy ISO's other teams ARE going to figure it out, and they are going to come up with ways to stop it. Time to mix things up a bit, our offensive strategy is becoming predictable and thus vulerable to being shut down.

3. The zone defense Portland had been using to neutralize Dwight Oden was broken down by the Magic. They scored at will at the end of the game and there were no adjustments made. From the comfort of my couch its easy for me to say that a move back to a man to man D would have made a difference.

Losing a game this way bugs me. But the one catchphrase you always hear analysts say about games like this is that the next game is never far away. So tomorrow night we travel to Utah to play Jerry Sloans Jazz. Sloan just this week won his thousandth game as a head coach. Even though it was announced today Carlos Boozer isn't expected to play, Paul Milsap has been playing very well in his absence. Along with the suitcases and the jerseys we better bring our A Game if we expect to beat the Jazz in Salt Lake.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

We have a gaping hole at SF right now.

Batum is a 19 y/o rookie - he's not ready for big minutes.

Outlaw's lack of basketball IQ kills us.

Webster's status is unknown. Will this be a lingering injury?

I can see KP packaging Raef for a Caron Butler, Gerald Wallace, or [pipe dream]Rudy Gay[/pipe dream].

 

[STOMP]

We were up 8 with 1:40. We did not win the game. Therefore, anything happening before 1:40 is not relevant to the conversation of "who lost the game for us".

so you're saying that you've chosen to live life in a vacuum... fine for you, but it's not for me. I prefer to look at the big picture which had a lot of Blazers contributing to the loss and a prayer answered by Turk to seal it

STOMP

 

[ucatchtrout]

He just has low basketball IQ, he should have never been in there on the defensive side. It should have been Batum guarding Hedo. Man to man, Batum is unquestionably better than Travis' cement feet.

Travis made his mistakes in the game. But he did have a hand in Turkoglus face. Turk just made a great shot.
Look at the video at this link and you can clearly see for yourself.
http://www.clubblazers.com/post11892.html#p11892

 

[BrianFromWA]

Please, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm asking a question. Mainly at STOMP and Andalusian.

Please tell me, please....how does being up 108-100 with "100 seconds left" and then losing, due in very large part to the multiple boneheaded moves by 2 players, how is that "living in a vacuum"? So you're saying that the aforementioned multiple boneheaded moves wouldn't have been boneheaded if Turkoglu misses the shot? Seriously? Or that they wouldn't have been boneheaded if Roy makes 2 more FTs, or Sergio's layup goes in?

How is that living in a vacuum?