Post game interview with Batum; Did Nate change the strategies before the game?

[number 10]

sorry but thats only your wild speculation... there is nothing obvious about it

In the immortal words of Jim Mora... "You may think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

STOMP

1) After a week of preparation, Nate changes the plans the day before the game. If it was me, I'd assume that he lost/never had confidence in me or the team.
2) The team for the most part looked scared shitless.

Speculation? Sure. It still seems a logical train of thought.

You really think their teammates were questioning their coach throughout the game?

No, but they sure looked like they were lacking some confidence throughout the game.

And somehow you're convinced that Batum was criticizing the coach despite no actual evidence?

 

[STOMP]

Speculation? Sure. It still seems a logical train of thought.

not to me... I think some here are wildly speculating and convinced they're right... see the Jim Mora quote above

And somehow you're convinced that Batum was criticizing the coach despite no actual evidence?

feel free to respond to what I wrote and not what suits your argument

STOMP

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Sergio and Batum essentially didn't play so their mental state didn't figure in the results unless they were openly moping & distracting their teammates.

The rest of the team played though. As soon as things headed to hell in a hand basket, I'm thinking a few second-guessing thoughts were creeping into the heads of Roy, Aldridge, and Blake. Wasn't it Roy that was advocating publicly for Batum to start?

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Stomp - Answer me this. You're saying it's not possible that McMillan's rotation move could have been a cause in the result we saw on Tuesday night?

I'm not saying it was the sole reason we loss. In fact, regardless whether Batum had started or Sergio had played his regular role, we would have lost. I'm only saying that we would have looked more like the Portland Trail Blazers we've been seeing in Preseason, and less like the mess we saw in the opener.

 

[PapaG]

I'm not saying it was the entire offensive plan. Only that it was an integral part of the plan.

Again, if an integral part of the offensive plan against the Lakers involves a 19 year-old rookie from France, then we have no business even discussing the play-offs at this point.

Batum's instructions on offense should have been (A) don't get the ball, and (B), if you do get the ball, pass it in to one of the big guy's or get it back to Brandon Roy.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Again, if an integral part of the offensive plan against the Lakers involves a 19 year-old rookie from France, then we have no business even discussing the play-offs at this point.

Batum's instructions on offense should have been (A) don't get the ball, and (B), if you do get the ball, pass it in to one of the big guy's or get it back to Brandon Roy.

I don't mean this an attack but have you watched Batum play? I ask because Nic does more than just avoid the ball on offense. There's a reason why the coaching staff and Brandon preferred him over Outlaw in with the starters. Defensively, he's already doing more than Outlaw is capable of. For someone his age, he reads both the offense and defense very well. I've been astounded that he's able to follow developing plays and be right where he needs to be for help-defense, a rebound, to help open up a driving lane, or to keep the ball moving.

Even when his shot isn't falling I don't get the feeling that he's necessarily hurting the team as much as Outlaw because he's doing so many other thing on the court that are apparently going unnoticed. I think he only hit like two field goals in his first game against the Clippers, but he played solid D and had 8 rebounds. And this was without hurting the offensive flow. The Blazers looked excellent that game. Granted it was the Clipps.

Outlaw is a talented player, but to use him effectively he needs to be the first or second offensive option. He's best used on the second unit, and specifically as the power forward. He also shouldn't be guarding premier forwards. He's not quick enough to guard premier forwards. He had so much success last year as the reserve 4, taking advantage of slower forwards. Nate knows this or he wouldn't have used him in that role last season or in the last week leading up to the big game. I just wish he would have stuck to his guns.

 

[STOMP]

The rest of the team played though. As soon as things headed to hell in a hand basket, I'm thinking a few second-guessing thoughts were creeping into the heads of Roy, Aldridge, and Blake.

It's possible... I certainly don't think everyone's mental makeup is the same as mine and yours

Wasn't it Roy that was advocating publicly for Batum to start?

the way I read the quotes you're refering to BR was responding to questions about the possibility of Batum starting. As I read it he was saying that NB could start and spinning positives of that move more then advocating that he should start.

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

Stomp - Answer me this. You're saying it's not possible that McMillan's rotation move could have been a cause in the result we saw on Tuesday night?

no thats not what I'm saying... I'm saying people are making wild guesses and saying these guesses are fact. We don't know and never will... we're just fans

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

I don't mean this an attack but have you watched Batum play? I ask because Nic does more than just avoid the ball on offense. There's a reason why the coaching staff and Brandon preferred him over Outlaw in with the starters.

The coaching staff obviously didn't prefer him as a starter since HE DIDN'T START, and regardless, the reasoning we were given was that Nate didn't want to disrupt the second unit, hence leaving Travis there.

I'm getting the same vibe with the Batum love on the board that I got with all of the Khryapa myopians. There seems to be a pattern in recent years. A new, unproven player is showered with unrealistic and undeserved praise (McRoberts last year/Batum this year), while a proven (yet flawed) veteran (Jack last year, Outlaw this year) is smeared in post after post.

 

[graybeard]

sorry but thats only your wild speculation... there is nothing obvious about it

In the immortal words of Jim Mora... "You may think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

STOMP

Stomp ol' buddy, your ass is sucking air on this one. Being wishy-washy in your decision making is not a desirable leadership trait. It shows lack of confidence in yourself and will certainly be detected by your employees... and lead to further loss of confidence by them. To anyone that knows anything about leadership, it is very obvious. By they way, that Jim Mora statement is arrogant and idiotic and insulting. Even brain damaged people and animals are capable of learning.

 

[PapaG]

the way I read the quotes you're refering to BR was responding to questions about the possibility of Batum starting. As I read it he was saying that NB could start and spinning positives of that move more then advocating that he should start.

STOMP

You read the quotes exactly correct. Roy was commenting on how "everyday, it's Batum" with the starters that week. He never lobbied for Batum to start, he was asked a question and answered it factually. Now, those with an agenda take his innocuous comments out of context.

 

[STOMP]

Stomp ol' buddy, your ass is sucking air on this one. Being wishy-washy in your decision making is not a desirable leadership trait. It shows lack of confidence in yourself and will certainly be detected by your employees... and lead to further loss of confidence by them. To anyone that knows anything about leadership, it is very obvious. By they way, that Jim Mora statement is arrogant and idiotic and insulting. Even brain damaged people and animals are capable of learning.

I guess we'll never respect each other then I can't stand people who are full of shit and ready to let everyone know it.

STOMP

 

[tlongII]

no thats not what I'm saying... I'm saying people are making wild guesses and saying these guesses are fact. We don't know and never will... we're just fans

STOMP

This is true. However, I believe that Nate's reversal on Batum's starting was a stupid move. Of course it is just conjecture, but it is certainly easy to make a case for a causal relationship here. My understanding is that Nate didn't inform the team of his change in strategy until game day. Why is that? To me that makes no sense. Especially after you have told the team how confident you are in them just the day before.

 

[graybeard]

I can't stand people who are full of shit and ready to let everyone know it.

STOMP

Ah, I see, you're not capable of discussing the statement, so you make a personal attack the person that made it.

I recommend that you take a leadership class or two at your community college. You'll find them in their "Manager Development Program". Then maybe you can discuss this intelligently.

 

[number 10]

not to me... I think some here are wildly speculating and convinced they're right... see the Jim Mora quote above

feel free to respond to what I wrote and not what suits your argument

STOMP

BS

the interview as it appeared was very questioning of Nate. It also didn't seem to jibe with what I saw. For instance.... "He changed the plan of attack, all the strategies, and he took me out of the starting lineup."

For me, the crucial difference is that he doesn't explicitly criticize Nate. Criticism is obviously implied, but he walked the fine line between responding honestly to the questions and openly saying: "Nate messed up, he should've played me more."

OK fine, I should've said "question" instead of "criticize," but I totally responded to what you wrote.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Do we really know what his trade value is? It's my belief that Travis isn't as highly valued league-wide as you think. Names such as Kyle Lowry were mentioned.



Again just IMO, but Webster's strengths make the starting unit much more successful. He moves well without the ball on offense, has a nose for rebounds, is a solid 3-point shooter, and plays decent defense. That package of skills IMO helps a lot more than Outlaw or Batum can.

I heard the name Mike Miller and that other teams were inquiring about Travis. We will know Travis' value by the end of the year, because if he isn't worth 4 mil/yr, the team can let him walk.

I think the difference in interpreting Nate's change of mind is this idea that they were grooming or practicing for Batum to be the starter. I see pre-season as a chance to see what different players are capable of. There was one late pre-game they started Batum, but not Oden, LA or Roy . . . so that game couldn't have been about getting ready for the season with the starters all on the floor together.

I still have the belief, this team isn't about Batum and the failure or success this team experiences does not lie in Batum starting or Nate making a last minute line up change . . . and that decision had little if any negative impact on the game against the lakers . . . in spite of what some 19 yr old rookie said in broken english.

 

[STOMP]

Ah, I see, you're not capable of discussing the statement, so you make a personal attack the person that made it.

I recommend that you take a leadership class or two at your community college. You'll find them in their "Manager Development Program". Then maybe you can discuss this intelligently.

good grief dude. Reread your completely condescending first post to me... was that your idea of intelligent conversation? I'm attacking you??? while you're taking the high road recommending I take some classes at a community college? Or that my ass is sucking air.



STOMP

 

[STOMP]

BS


OK fine, I should've said "question" instead of "criticize," but I totally responded to what you wrote.

nope, I'm far from convinced (your word) that Batum was critisizing the coach... I speculated it could have been language issues or other things.

STOMP

 

[Crimson the Cat]

the way I read the quotes you're refering to BR was responding to questions about the possibility of Batum starting. As I read it he was saying that NB could start and spinning positives of that move more then advocating that he should start.

You've inferred that I've made wild claims about knowing what the players were thinking after coach's decsion, but then you're claiming that Roy is "spinning" positives in this article. How do you know this? You're making an educated guess, right. I wouldn't say you're making a wild claim or whatever it was you've been saying.

Further, in an interview with John Canzano yesterday before the game, Mike Barrett publicly stated that it was also his opinion that the coaching move disrupted team chemistry with the first unit. Of course you'd need to take my word for it, although I'm sure I could find a clip from the interview.

And, as the we got closer to opening day, Brandon was interviewed with further support for this move. IMO, it was clear he was more advocating for this and not just trying to be a good soldier boy.

Here's the entire article:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2008/10/no_way_around_it_batum_being_c.html

A few excerpts that particularly lend credence to my argument are:

And the more Roy thinks about it, the more he likes the idea. In fact, Roy endorses Batum as a starter, having already gone to assistant Monty Williams with his support of Batum.

Plus, Roy feels it keeps Outlaw - his best friend on the team - in his comfort zone.

"On the second unit, Travis doesn't feel the pressure as much,'' Roy said. "His shots come differently in the first unit. He may still get 10 shots, but they are 10 different shots than he is used to taking. He's better in that second unit. When he misses in that first lineup, he's like 'My bad, I should have passed it to Brandon or LaMarcus'.''

Also, Roy feels that Batum is a nice fit because his game is predicated on defense and movement on offense that translates into rebounds and tipped balls.

"I see him being a potential starter at the three spot just because of the way he plays,'' Roy said. "I mean, you got me, you got LaMarcus, you got Greg. Now you need a guy who is kind of selfless - who just kind of wants to rebound, play some defense and he just fits that mold better than anyone else.''

And eventually, that will become the pressure - his man will say 'We are going to make Nicolas beat us.' Then I think it will be an adjustment. But I like him out there.''

 

[Crimson the Cat]

no thats not what I'm saying... I'm saying people are making wild guesses and saying these guesses are fact. We don't know and never will... we're just fans

Aren't we, as fans, always making "educated" guesses. As a discussion board, we're offering up our opinions and then supporting those with evidence. I think in this case you're just not agreeing with the evidence that's brought up. That's cool. Anyway, I respect your take on this, and generally agree with most of your thoughts. I suppose that's why I'm intrigued in carrying on with this.

I completely agree that no one, you or I, know for fact, what were all of the reasons for the lost and how much weight should be placed on each of those factors.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

The coaching staff obviously didn't prefer him as a starter since HE DIDN'T START, and regardless, the reasoning we were given was that Nate didn't want to disrupt the second unit, hence leaving Travis there.

What I should have said was that there were reasons why they preferred Batum starting for the last week of Preseason. I thought that was obvious.

I'm getting the same vibe with the Batum love on the board that I got with all of the Khryapa myopians. There seems to be a pattern in recent years. A new, unproven player is showered with unrealistic and undeserved praise (McRoberts last year/Batum this year), while a proven (yet flawed) veteran (Jack last year, Outlaw this year) is smeared in post after post.

I'm not being myopic about my opinions. If you'd go back and read through my takes on both Batum, Rodriguez, and how the coach's day-of-game decision could be disruptive to the overall performance of the team, you'd realize that.

Batum is not unproven. I was able to watch a few game clips of him in France and see him throughout the Preseason. I've read and listened to interviews from his peers, the coaches, our GM, and our scouts. The skills that he possesses, IMO, make him a better fit with the starters. I've supported this with facts and opinions. This is something, unless I've missed it, you haven't done. At least not enough to persuade me.

Myopic? Shit. I pride myself on being very open minded.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

You read the quotes exactly correct. Roy was commenting on how "everyday, it's Batum" with the starters that week. He never lobbied for Batum to start, he was asked a question and answered it factually. Now, those with an agenda take his innocuous comments out of context.

He went to Dean Demoposnuffaluf***ous and endorsed the decision. Pretty close to lobbying.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I heard the name Mike Miller and that other teams were inquiring about Travis. We will know Travis' value by the end of the year, because if he isn't worth 4 mil/yr, the team can let him walk.

So we know about Mike Miller and Kyle Lowry. Those seem like reasonable deals to come up from either team. At least from what was known about all players during the Summer. IMO, Miller is at the high-end of Outlaw's value and Lowry the low-end.

I would be shocked in Pritchard allows Outlaw to walk for nothing. I'm torn because I really like Outlaw as our primary back up PF, especially with Prz. And I like his poise, confidence, commitment to the team, and ability to get a bucket. I also like Frye.

There was one late pre-game they started Batum, but not Oden, LA or Roy . . . so that game couldn't have been about getting ready for the season with the starters all on the floor together.

True. But I think the decision to not play them was that it was the last Preseason game and the team wanted to rest them for the opener. I see what you're saying though, but I don't think that Batum not playing with the Big 3 proves little to what we're discussing.