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

[Crimson the Cat]

IMO, you are badly misusing the concept of causal relationship. It may have contributed in part to the discombobulation on offense, but the fact that we lost GO after 10 minutes of play, and the Lakers are fucking retarded good probably had a whole lot more to do with the L than anything else.

But that's my point. It contributed to their poor showing on offense. To what level? Well that's debatable. I firmly believe that had the rotation not been messed with Portland would not have started off so poorly.

Nate had no control over losing Oden or our go-to's shooting woes, but he did have control over the damn rotation. He hurt the TEAM with that decision.

 

[Nikolokolus]

But that's my point. It contributed to their poor showing on offense. To what level? Well that's debatable. I firmly believe that had the rotation not been messed with Portland would not have started off so poorly.

Nate had no control over losing Oden or our go-to's shooting woes, but he did have control over the damn rotation. He hurt the TEAM with that decision.

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but you said caused not contributed ... and yes I agree that it probably played a role in the loss ... not a huge role, but certainly a role and I don't know how you can quantify the magnitude of the effect, especially when Travis seemed to have a decent night (at least offensively).

I do hope Batum gets reinjected into the starting rotation, as I think his defensive contributions and passing far outweigh his lack of experience and iffy offensive production, esepecially considering that that alternative is Travis.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I suppose it is possible that at some point the Blazer's coaches realized Lakers would be playing basically a zone defense and felt like they needed another jump shooter in there, at least for this particular game. The question is, why did it take them so long to figure this out?

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Reckless? Isn't that a bit much? I can not believe our Fans in the last 24 hours. I realize we are all a little nuts but the hyperbole has gone to another level.
As far as the Sergio move in the second half....we were getting our asses kicked! So he tried something different. I have seen Hall of Fame coaches bench their entire first team to try to mix things up under those circumstances. That doesn't mean he has lost confidence and has scrapped his long term plan.

No. He made a decision without thoroughly weighing the consequences. That's reckless IMO.

Not sure why you're labeling my stance as "hyperbole". I don't feel my thoughts are exaggerated or unwarranted.

Look I like Nate as a head coach. I think he's the perfect fit for this team. He's a Trail Blazer (sorry Sonic fans). But, for me, for the first time, he made a strange move and it backfired. I'm not jumping off the bandwagon. I'm not wanting Nate's head. I'm just very puzzled by these couple of moves. It goes against everything the team has been working on during Preseason. It just doesn't fit.

It may seem like a small thing, but the Blazers have built a certain amount of trust with one another. To pull Batum, Outlaw, Rodriguez, and Bayless from their respective roles the morning of the game demonstrates a lack of trust in what they've been developed over the past two to five months.

And who's to say that after adjusting and storming back after halftime, that subbing in Sergio's second unit wouldn't have held been a better move then so quickly turning to Bayless?

Last time I looked this is a sports forum to discuss the Portland Trail Blazers. I'm not down on the team. I'm extremely excited about this coming season. I just have some worries about how Nate is handling things presently.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but you said caused not contributed ... and yes I agree that it probably played a role in the loss ... not a huge role, but certainly a role and I don't know how you can quantify the magnitude of the effect, especially when Travis seemed to have a decent night (at least offensively).

I do hope Batum gets reinjected into the starting rotation, as I think his defensive contributions and passing far outweigh his lack of experience and iffy offensive production, esepecially considering that that alternative is Travis.

So that's where you were going with that. Yes, you're being nitpicky. To be more precise, IMO, Nate's decisions were one of the causes. Better?

While Travis played very well, there were four others on the court that weren't. Coincidental?

 

[tlongII]

I'm curious about what the repercussions are going to be for Nicolas for making those comments. Do you think Nate will punish him?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

He was asked directly what happened to him in the starting line-up, right? Why wouldn't he discuss that by talking about himself?



No, but it caused them to lose badly IMO. So your take is that Nate made the right call by starting Outlaw on a whim. It's one thing to be secure and another to be reckless.

CtC, I see you are discussing this with several posters and I'm not here to pile on (I agree this is a Blazer discussion board you are just raising an issue).

But how do you know Nate decided to start Outlaw on a whim and therefore was being reckless? I think it is just as easy to say Nate said he would start Batum on a whim and after careful consideration (and a sleepless night) he decided wrong call to start a 19 yr old opening night on the road against the Lakers.

My take is Nate announced that he was going to start Batum . . . he felt uncomfortable with that decision and after giving it a lot of consideration (I'm assuming that because it is his job and Nate has shown he is a reasonably intelligent person) he decided to correct his mistake and start Outlaw . . . which yes I do think that was the right call.

 

[STOMP]

Personally I could do without Batum's whiny ass comments. "he told me I was going to be in the starting five . . . blah balh balh . . . then he took me out of the starting line up". Me, me me.

Batum, and the decision not to start him, did not cause the Blazers to lose. I'm glad Nate has the nads to make a change when he realized he made the wrong call. He is secure enough to do what he thinks is the right thing to win the game instead of worrying what people think about the fact he changed his mind.

Nate's trying to win games and doesn't seem afraid to step on toes doing it. Get this squad down to a 9 man rotation Nate . . . we need the best nine to take us to the playoffs.

couldn't agree more. It's laughable that fans are so sure they know whats what with personel and personalities from watching preseason games and reading a quote or two to the point that they're calling for the coach's head after one game.

This little guy reminds me of most of the posters in this thread.

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

Batum should have started, but Outlaw was solid.

Hopefully Batum starts from now on... If Batum continues to improve, I think that makes Travis EXTREMELY expendable once Webster comes back, since we got Rudy as our main player off the bench.

If Travis plays solid and Batum continues to improve, it's not Travis who is EXTREMELY expendable once Webster comes back. It's Martell along with his 10M+ cap hold figure... those dots are pretty easy to connect.

STOMP

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If Travis plays solid and Batum continues to improve, it's not Travis who is EXTREMELY expendable once Webster comes back. It's Martell along with his 10M+ cap hold figure... those dots are pretty easy to connect.

STOMP

Sounds like we are on the same page on this thread. It was Outlaw who had the break out year last year and was the one most teams were trying to get this summer. Nate came out this summer and talked about the value of Outlaw and no trades were made. Now the Blazers have a good asset in Outlaw in that he can create his own shot, teams want him and he is locked in at 4 mil/yr . . . reasonable contract.

This was the year to see if Webster would have a break out year. He could do what Travis did last year and show he is a legit NBA player . . . and maybe even increase his value over Outlaw's because he is more of a natural SF. But the burden is on Webster this year to prove himself.

It's funny because there wasn't a lot of Webster love last year (not a lot of hate either) but as soon as he goes down, all of sudden he is the answer to the Blazers problems at SF. I don't think so, I think he was a potential answer, but this year was suppose to decide that and I could see Webster going before Outlaw. (Of course if it is by trade, maybe Blazers trade Outlaw because you can get more for him.)

 

[Stepping Razor]

couldn't agree more. It's laughable that fans are so sure they know whats what with personel and personalities from watching preseason games and reading a quote or two to the point that they're calling for the coach's head after one game.

This little guy reminds me of most of the posters in this thread.

STOMP

You don't think that erratic, confidence-crushing coaching moves just before tipoff -- after spending two weeks practicing a completely different gameplane -- has an effect on a team's play?

I'm not saying Batum is better than Outlaw, or that he (individually) would have played any better if he had started. I just think that making what seems like a huge panic move, as the coach, on the day of the season opener can mess with a team's mental state... especially a team full of young guys who need their confidence boosted.

To me, at least, it was just a move that exuded lack of confidence. I think that's contagious.

Obviously there's a strong case to be made that that game was so comprehensively disastrous that it's pretty pointless to try to single anyone out for particular blame; after all, who *wasn't* terrible in that game? But I do think Nate F'd up.

Here's to taking a mulligan on Friday.

SR

 

[STOMP]

You don't think that erratic, confidence-crushing coaching moves just before tipoff -- after spending two weeks practicing a completely different gameplane -- has an effect on a team's play?

I think it's near baseless to claim his move was confidence crushing... seriously. How many practices have you attended that would give you any footing for such an over the top claim? How about team meetings when they talked about their first game? Did Nate only talk about one possibility scenario with the guys? Was Niko possibly giving Nate good reason to hold him back? Though I'm very high on the kid, I thought it was risky to his confidence to have him starting day 1. But to say that the starters have their comfort zone tied to a 19 year old rookie without much of an offensive game just seems silly... I'm waiting for everyone to let on that they're kidding

Travis has practiced and played with these same guys (sans Oden) for seasons now... he's the longest tenured vet on the club. They've ran dozens of different lineups this preseason. It seems much more reasonable that guys know and trust the team and their own individual abilities more then a particular lineup.

My best guess is that players came out too hyped up and laid an egg... and I'd put that more on them and their youth then Nate. I'd also give the Lakers a bit of credit. Call it a hunch, but Brandon is not going to be chunking 5 foot bunnies on a regular basis no matter who he is playing with.

STOMP

 

[Jack RamsaysPants]

What caused us to lose was 2 things, good defense by the Lakers and a team that seemed totally out of sync... Now Batum says that Nate Changed the schemes after practice which means they didn't et to practice the new schemes.

It's not like he made an adjustment between a back to back, he had a whole week to prepare for this game. He flinched. Nate is to me building a reputation f being indecisive. Each year is an evaluation, he reverts to a slow plodding game that hasn't proven to be overly successful. He seems to micro manage.

 

[STOMP]

What caused us to lose was 2 things, good defense by the Lakers and a team that seemed totally out of sync... Now Batum says that Nate Changed the schemes after practice which means they didn't et to practice the new schemes.

Two things... Batum's meaning often gets lost in translation and I'd guess thats the case here. I hope he's not so stupid as to openly question the head coach at the start of his rookie season. Also, I hardly think they turned their whole basketball scheme world upside down having Travis in instead of NB... Travis has been running Nate's various plays for years now it's not brand new for him like it is for Batum.

Much to do about nuthin' but a bad loss.

STOMP

 

[THE HCP]

Maybe we just lost the game because we aren't as good as the Lakers yet.

 

[number 10]

Two things... Batum's meaning often gets lost in translation and I'd guess thats the case here.

So what exactly got lost in translation? This interview, especially the two questions about strategy for the Laker game, wasn't that hard to translate.

I hope he's not so stupid as to openly question the head coach at the start of his rookie season.

There's absolutely no reproach in the interview. Disappointment, obviously, but no "Nate should've played me", despite the questions setting him up for such a response. What exactly makes you think he's questioning Nate?

 

[Uther TheGardener]

Agreed. Looks like right at the last minute, we completely ignored what we learned the entire past month.
We talk about players buckling under the pressure, but I think coaches can too, and Nate sort of did here in the opener.

yup thats pretty much what happened and it took us out of our flow and once the flow ws dead so was the game before tip off.

 

[mgb]

Maybe we just lost the game because we aren't as good as the Lakers yet.

Come on, you are really reaching on that one!

 

[STOMP]

So what exactly got lost in translation? This interview, especially the two questions about strategy for the Laker game, wasn't that hard to translate.

I don't speak french or know whats common in french BB lingo. I'm hoping I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and the interview just seems over the top in it's criticisms of NMc.

What exactly makes you think he's questioning Nate?

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."

It seemed to me that their initial strategy was to get the ball inside to Greg just as they'd said they'd do throughout preseason. Maybe NB was just talking defensive strategies??? To me he comes off as petty and not grasping the big picture that comments like these will only make matters more complicated for him and the guys dealing with our local gossip mongers. Regardless of what he feels, he'll fare better playing it closer to the vest in future interviews.

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

But that's my point. It contributed to their poor showing on offense. To what level? Well that's debatable. I firmly believe that had the rotation not been messed with Portland would not have started off so poorly.

Nate had no control over losing Oden or our go-to's shooting woes, but he did have control over the damn rotation. He hurt the TEAM with that decision.

If the entire offensive plan depended on Nicolas Batum being in the game, we as fans have no business even discussing play-offs this season.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

But how do you know Nate decided to start Outlaw on a whim and therefore was being reckless? I think it is just as easy to say Nate said he would start Batum on a whim and after careful consideration (and a sleepless night) he decided wrong call to start a 19 yr old opening night on the road against the Lakers.

But it wasn't a spur of the moment decision to start Batum or that Travis fits best on the 2nd unit. We've known since last season that Travis is best off the bench. The team plays better in stretches that way. Batum had been practicing for a week, and played, I think, three Preseason games with the first unit. The results were good, IMO.

Nate's move to try Batum with the starters is like any Training Camp or Pre-season move, a way to see what he's got. It doesn't directly affect the team in the regulars eason win-loss column.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

If Travis plays solid and Batum continues to improve, it's not Travis who is EXTREMELY expendable once Webster comes back. It's Martell along with his 10M+ cap hold figure... those dots are pretty easy to connect.

STOMP

I don't see it that way at all. If Travis plays solid then he's as valuable to the team as he was last year, as a reserve SF/PF with limited abilities (he is very good in iso sets though, which is why he's been so successful in 4th quarters). If Batum continues to improve, he only solidifies his place among the starters. That doesn't necessarily mean that a further improved Batum is going to be better than Webster. We won't know that until we've seen more from Webster. He looked better than ever in that one Preseason game.

 

[maxiep]

Maybe we just lost the game because we aren't as good as the Lakers yet.

We haven't been as good as the L*kers for the past few years, and they've never blown the doors off of us like they did Tuesday.

 

[SpanishFly]

We haven't been as good as the L*kers for the past few years, and they've never blown the doors off of us like they did Tuesday.

Maxie, wothout a doubt we were BAD, but as much as I dislike the lakers objectively I think they are on a mission and THE team to beat fot the title this yr, they are my pick if they stay reasonably healthy.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Sounds like we are on the same page on this thread. It was Outlaw who had the break out year last year and was the one most teams were trying to get this summer. Nate came out this summer and talked about the value of Outlaw and no trades were made. Now the Blazers have a good asset in Outlaw in that he can create his own shot, teams want him and he is locked in at 4 mil/yr . . . reasonable contract.

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.

It's funny because there wasn't a lot of Webster love last year (not a lot of hate either) but as soon as he goes down, all of sudden he is the answer to the Blazers problems at SF. I don't think so, I think he was a potential answer, but this year was suppose to decide that and I could see Webster going before Outlaw. (Of course if it is by trade, maybe Blazers trade Outlaw because you can get more for him.)

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.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

I think it's near baseless to claim his move was confidence crushing... seriously.

Isn't it a near baseless claim either way. You don't know. I don't know. We don't know one way or the other. We just have our opinions. I know personally that if I was in either Batum's or Sergio's place, my confidence would be shaken. As one of their teammates, I would also be questioning these decisions and that would eat at me throughout the game. This is something I know about myself. It's a possibility that any of these players would feel the same way.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

If the entire offensive plan depended on Nicolas Batum being in the game, we as fans have no business even discussing play-offs this season.

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

 

[number 10]

I don't speak french or know whats common in french BB lingo. I'm hoping I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and the interview just seems over the top in it's criticisms of NMc.

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."

It seemed to me that their initial strategy was to get the ball inside to Greg just as they'd said they'd do throughout preseason. Maybe NB was just talking defensive strategies??? To me he comes off as petty and not grasping the big picture that comments like these will only make matters more complicated for him and the guys dealing with our local gossip mongers. Regardless of what he feels, he'll fare better playing it closer to the vest in future interviews.

STOMP

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."

Your also ignoring another important quote, maybe harder to translate concretely, but means something like:
On peut imaginer votre déception a la fin de la rencontre...
Oui c'est vrai que je l'ai mal pris au début. Mais bon c'est comme ça.
One can imagine your disappointment at the end of the game...
Yes it's true that I took it badly at first. But oh well, it's like that

That shows that he's moved on. And for a player who at times is too passive, he put himself about in the few minutes he got.

Also, IMO, Nate deserves criticism. You don't tell a player (any player, I'm not just a Batum fanboy) that he's going to start only to change your mind the day before the game, and then not play him. It shows a lack of confidence in yourself and your players, and it obviously rubbed off on them. If Nate didn't have confidence in a shy 19 year old frenchie (and I wouldn't blame him for it at all) he never should've publically given him the start.
Coupled with Sergio's situation, it shows (of course, very early to draw playing time conclusions from only 1 disastrous game) that preseason competition is fairly meaningless.

 

[STOMP]

Isn't it a near baseless claim either way. You don't know. I don't know. We don't know one way or the other. We just have our opinions.

That was my point and why I labeled my near baseless opinion as a guess. I'm certainly not going to get riled up over something I'm only speculating on.

I know personally that if I was in either Batum's or Sergio's place, my confidence would be shaken. As one of their teammates, I would also be questioning these decisions and that would eat at me throughout the game. This is something I know about myself. It's a possibility that any of these players would feel the same way

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. You really think their teammates were questioning their coach throughout the game? Once I start playing hoops any moral quandaries I might be experiencing in any part of my life go out the window as I just try to perform my best while living in the moment. As an observer I might sit and stew especially if the game isn't going how I'd prefer, but not as a sweating player.

All of these guys have been playing hoops for a while and they've all seen teammates of theirs get the short end of the stick a few times... probably they've personally suffered a disappointment or two in their pro careers as well. They may be young but I doubt they're as wet behind the ears as you seem to be inferring.


STOMP

 

[STOMP]

You don't tell a player (any player, I'm not just a Batum fanboy) that he's going to start only to change your mind the day before the game, and then not play him. It shows a lack of confidence in yourself and your players, and it obviously rubbed off on them.

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