Props for Nate?

[KingSpeed]

Nate is so often criticized when we're losing. But tonight we killed our opponent. Can we give props to Nate for this one?

 

[JAFO]

Great win tonight against the Bulls, Nate! Fantastic job, props, kudos and other assorted "you dun good's" to you and the team. Keep it up! You just demonstrated why I love the Blazers and basketball so much. Looking forward to the next one.

GO BLAZERS!
波特兰篮球队好棒 很利害

JAFO

 

[Entity]

另外的篮球队应该害怕

 

[KingSpeed]

另外的篮球队应该害怕

please translate

 

[bluefrog]

波特兰篮球队好棒 很利害
Portland basketball team is great interest is

另外的篮球队应该害怕
In addition the basketball team should be afraid of

 

[Entity]

Well, he said "Portland's basketball team is very good, very..." well, essentially a force to be reckoned with. Literally fierce or tough. Then I said "Other teams should be afraid!"

 

[Jayps15]

Nate did coach a good game last night and he does deserve some props for it.

The defensive pressure he had us put on Rose with Aldridge applying full court pressure and coming over to double and trap him constantly really really through Rose off his game, never allowed him to get comfortable in their offense. It hurt the rest of his teammates too, by cutting off the drive and dish looks they were getting used to seeing and forcing them to try and create their own shots the Bulls ended up looking like a team in complete disarray.

He also didn't allow the team to takes it's foot off the gas and become complacent, we were up by as many as 30pts in the 1st half but Nate continued to play starters through the 3rd quarter and not allow the Bulls to chip away at the lead to get back in the game. This team was given up big leads before and a lot of that falls on Nate's shoulders, but the opposite is also true, that when this team can keep a lead and even expand it some more there has to be a lot of credit given to Nate and his decisions.

 

[Magnum]

Nate is so often criticized when we're losing. But tonight we killed our opponent. Can we give props to Nate for this one?

No...

 

[Nikolokolus]

No...

Typical. If they struggle it's Nate's fault, if they win, it's because the players played well despite him. No?

 

[DaRizzle]

yes

 

[THE HCP]

Coaches in general get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. You really think Avery Johnson is a good coach? He inherited a team with great talent and just rode the wave. Nate I think is a perfect fit for this squad. He has the players respect, and that's half the game.

I'm sorry, but if I say so myself, that was a nice post........ repped!

 

[andalusian]

I'm sorry, but if I say so myself, that was a nice post........ repped!

That's great. You pleasure yourself with a rep. You are a masterrepper!

 

[THE HCP]

That's great. You pleasure yourself with a rep. You are a masterrepper!

Why thank you. In fact. I'm about to go rep myself repeatedly in the shower!

 

[mook]

Nate likes to play slow ball. Our biggest advantage most nights will be with our hulking centers, and our star SG plays slow too.

Nate's only real successful season coaching was a lethal three point shooting Sonics squad. We're currently the second best three point shooters in the game.

Nate is known for developing young players. We've got the second youngest team in the league.

Nate is known for getting the most out of young point guards (Blake, Telfair, Jack, Ridnour). We've got four guys with a lot of promise at PG in Rodriguez, Fernandez, Bayless and Roy.

It's hard to imagine a team better suited for Nate. Is he the best possible coach for this team? Maybe not. But he's a pretty good fit.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Congratulations Nate. It only took you 3 years to figure out that this team should be running more.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Congratulations Nate. It only took you 3 years to figure out that this team should be running more.

Or it took him 3 years to have the right mix of defensive players and got the team to buy into it so that they could run. He's been talking about playing the right way since the start of the season. Last night it all came together.

He deserves props for this victory. That was all Nate.

And good for him. He stuck with it, the team bought into it, and now he can use this game as an example throughout the rest of the season.

 

[alex42083]

Nate's got the respect of his players, once he loses that, it's time to move on.
And I think most fans think Nate's doing a good job, it's just a vocal minority here that think he sucks.

 

[Magnum]

Typical. If they struggle it's Nate's fault, if they win, it's because the players played well despite him. No?

typical can also be correct.

What does nate bring to the table? We pass up 2 for 1 opportunites all the time. He refuses to believe in fouling to prevent a 3 with a 3point lead. he gives unintelligent, uninspiring "coaching" during timeouts. He constantly tinkers with lineups and playing time negating any attempt at creating consistency. He starts players only to leave them on the bench for the rest of the game (przybilla last year, batum this year). If he were replaced by someone else, the results would likely be as good or better. he's not overachieving with the roster given to him.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm not as fierce a Nate-hater as some, but here's my take in general...

It's because THIS GAME is the type of ball we should be playing every game. I'm not saying we'll win by 40 every game, but we should be getting over 100, we should be taking open threes and being aggressive for dunks and layins, with the occasional -oop thrown in b/c the guards aren't worried about Nate yanking them for having fun.

We should be pounding the boards. We should be aggressive on D. We shouldn't have to wait for 1 out of every 11 games for an effort like this. That's what I get upset about after many games. Now that we've seen it can be done (as opposed to extrapolating a good few minutes) for a whole game, then it's up to Nate to keep it going.

So yes, I'll give him props. As stated, I loved using LMA's speed for something more than sprinting down the court on a non-existent fast break when he was doubling Rose in the backcourt and then getting quickly to his man. I loved that we were taking open 3's. I loved that back-and-forth two-man game that Rudy and Oden had. Are there times I was yelling at the TV because we were getting sloppy? Sure, and Nate did well to get a TO and squash that.

Learning how to win and learning how to crush are two different things, and I think we just started figuring out the second one.

 

[BrianFromWA]

typical can also be correct.

What does nate bring to the table? We pass up 2 for 1 opportunites all the time. He refuses to believe in fouling to prevent a 3 with a 3point lead. he gives unintelligent, uninspiring "coaching" during timeouts. He constantly tinkers with lineups and playing time negating any attempt at creating consistency. He starts players only to leave them on the bench for the rest of the game (przybilla last year, batum this year). If he were replaced by someone else, the results would likely be as good or better. he's not overachieving with the roster given to him.

I disagree...we can all point out a fault he has from time to time, and I'm not saying he's at a Pop or Phil or Sloan level yet. But he's not Tim Floyd. Carlesimo and Flip Saunders couldn't hold his jock. What would Avery Johnson do differently?

I think Nate needs to improve, but that's it. Don't start over with someone else and figure out that they need to improve. If anything, I think Nate needs a Del Harris/Tex Winter-type assistant to help him get to the next level.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

What does nate bring to the table?

You lost me right there. Really, you don't see what he brings to the table. Please.

We pass up 2 for 1 opportunites all the time.

Ok. So you didn't completely lose me. Maybe he believes that one really good possession is better than two piss-poor ones.

he gives unintelligent, uninspiring "coaching" during timeouts.

Are you serious? You're in the huddle? The one thing I know is that leading out of the timeouts last year and this year, the team performs very well. I actually believe there was statistic that Portland converted more field goals out of timeouts than any other team last year. I'm noticing the same thing again.

He constantly tinkers with lineups and playing time negating any attempt at creating consistency.

After the first game of the season I would have agreed with you, but since then I've found his rotations to be working real well. I like what we're doing. I don't think many of us understand how difficult it is to juggle a roster this deep and talented.

From what you've said, you'd think we were 0 and 12 or something.

 

[SodaPopinski]

I am one of the biggest critics of Nate's. But I do give him credit last night for pressuring Derrick Rose upcourt last night and shadowing him with Aldridge. It'll be interesting to see if we imploy that strategy going forward, since one of our biggest defensive issues has been allowing the opponent's point guard to get into the lane at will. By pressuring upcourt, we get their offense out of a rhythm and force them out of their comfort zone with running their sets.

I also saw a more concerted effort to run last night, even off of made baskets. I had heard Wheels or MB talking about how the Blazers were working on this in practice more, and you've got to credit Nate for that if it becomes a pattern.

-Pop

 

[Minstrel]

I think the pre-occupation with "running" is misguided. It's fun but, to be honest, it's almost a gimmick. Teams that have the talent advantage on the league tend to play half-court offense. Playing a high-paced, up-and-down game increases the risk/reward...which is actually an equalizing factor when you're weaker in talent. The more chaotic the game, the more good fortune can help you. Playing a deliberate half-court game exposes the talent difference, just as a seven-game series exposes talent difference more than one game.

The Showtime Lakers are one of the very few teams that both had the talent advantage and were a running team. But even that is overstated...they didn't run every possession. They were excellent in the half-court and ran whenever they had a good opportunity. And even that is a rarity among the best teams. They also had one of the most special transition players ever, in Magic Johnson.

I don't think McMillan is doing the wrong thing. If Portland resembled the Warriors in roster, I'd want them to run. Don Nelson is smart to have them run. They defeated a more-talented Mavericks team a couple of years ago in the playoffs because their high-paced style turned the game into a shooting and turnovers match and the Warriors had sizzling shooting. The Mavericks would have had much more success had they kept it a half-court game.

The Blazers, however, are shaping up into a team that will be one of the most talented teams in the game, if not the most talented. Running may be fun, and I think they should run when they get long rebounds and have the numbers...but trying to push the pace throughout the game probably isn't going to be in their best interests. Playing disciplined half-court offense and defense, and bludgeoning teams to death with their superior talent, will be most favourable to Portland.

I'd love to see more motion in their half-court sets, but I don't blame McMillan at all for the pace of the team. They're near the bottom of the league in pace and near the top in offensive efficiency. Offense isn't the problem. If the Blazers were playing above average defense, they'd have a top record (of course, considering the early schedule, their defensive numbers are a little less worrying and their offensive numbers are even more impressive).

 

[BrianFromWA]

Isn't it different in college, though? When I watch tournament games involving 1 vs 16 or 2 vs 15, I see the better team pressuring and turning it into a running game. The scrub teams are the ones that can get lucky by forcing the good teams to slow it down, run lots of time off the clock, drop # of possessions, limit turnovers that the "talented" teams capitalize on, and hope to shoot really well. (See Princeton for more details).

The ones that run in college are the Dukes, the UNCs, the Texases...not necessarily the SW Missouri States and Princetons. Though Navy has focused a lot on the transition 3 lately.

Not saying you're wrong Minstrel, but it does seem odd that there's the difference in the two levels. Maybe b/c once you get into the L, the talent drop is not as much?

And I think (with you, it seems) that stifling defense and bigs crashing the boards leads to running, not vice versa. Running will be a byproduct of our good D and rebounding, if Nate lets it happen (which he seemed to enjoy last night).

 

[mook]

I am one of the biggest critics of Nate's. But I do give him credit last night for pressuring Derrick Rose upcourt last night and shadowing him with Aldridge. It'll be interesting to see if we imploy that strategy going forward, since one of our biggest defensive issues has been allowing the opponent's point guard to get into the lane at will. By pressuring upcourt, we get their offense out of a rhythm and force them out of their comfort zone with running their sets.

I noticed this one too. Seems like whenever a Chicago big inbounded the ball after a made shot, Aldridge would linger in the back court to create pressure on Rose, even to the extent that he'd let that big get well ahead of him. It's a great strategy when you've got a guy like Aldridge, because he can cover so much ground so quickly. Recovering isn't a big deal for him.

Portland never created a turnover with this tactic, but it shaved off four extra seconds off the clock. May not sound major, but it's the difference between initiating your offense with 17 seconds or 13 second left. Over time, it gets teams thinking they have to hurry everything.

Better-coached teams will figure this out and just have the SG inbound to the PG, and we'll be forced to play it more traditionally. But it should be a basic rule that Aldridge always shadows the PG if another big inbounds on a made shot.

 

[Nikolokolus]

typical can also be correct.

What does nate bring to the table? We pass up 2 for 1 opportunites all the time.

I tend to agree with the "one good shot outweighs two bad shots" philosophy; rushing on offense usually leads to bad looks and turnovers.

He refuses to believe in fouling to prevent a 3 with a 3point lead.

Nate must understand the laws of probability then. depending on the shooter, let's consider a typical shooter who hits around 80% from the foul line and shoots 40% from three, statistically there's a 51.2% chance of hitting all three foul shots, compared with probably less than 40% chance of hitting a three if players are actually keyed on preventing the shot.

he gives unintelligent, uninspiring "coaching" during timeouts.

I guess you know this from all the long talks you've had with Brandon, Lamarcus, Travis, etc.? Whatever your impressions of his ability to inspire, the numbers don't lie. Last year the team was the most successful at converting for points coming out of a timeout http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120846936079424371.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I guess he must be doing something right?

He constantly tinkers with lineups and playing time negating any attempt at creating consistency. He starts players only to leave them on the bench for the rest of the game (przybilla last year, batum this year). If he were replaced by someone else, the results would likely be as good or better. he's not overachieving with the roster given to him.

He's still got an insanely young team, and has added even more rookies to his roster and got hit with more than a few major injuries to starters, so mix and match rotations are going to be the norm until you hit on a formula that produces the consistent results you're after. As for a replacement who's out there that so intrigues you? and how is a 7-5 record after one of the most brutal starting schedules I've ever seen underachieving?

 

[SodaPopinski]

I think the pre-occupation with "running" is misguided. It's fun but, to be honest, it's almost a gimmick. Teams that have the talent advantage on the league tend to play half-court offense. Playing a high-paced, up-and-down game increases the risk/reward...which is actually an equalizing factor when you're weaker in talent. The more chaotic the game, the more good fortune can help you. Playing a deliberate half-court game exposes the talent difference, just as a seven-game series exposes talent difference more than one game.

The Showtime Lakers are one of the very few teams that both had the talent advantage and were a running team. But even that is overstated...they didn't run every possession. They were excellent in the half-court and ran whenever they had a good opportunity. And even that is a rarity among the best teams. They also had one of the most special transition players ever, in Magic Johnson.

I don't think McMillan is doing the wrong thing. If Portland resembled the Warriors in roster, I'd want them to run. Don Nelson is smart to have them run. They defeated a more-talented Mavericks team a couple of years ago in the playoffs because their high-paced style turned the game into a shooting and turnovers match and the Warriors had sizzling shooting. The Mavericks would have had much more success had they kept it a half-court game.

The Blazers, however, are shaping up into a team that will be one of the most talented teams in the game, if not the most talented. Running may be fun, and I think they should run when they get long rebounds and have the numbers...but trying to push the pace throughout the game probably isn't going to be in their best interests. Playing disciplined half-court offense and defense, and bludgeoning teams to death with their superior talent, will be most favourable to Portland.

I'd love to see more motion in their half-court sets, but I don't blame McMillan at all for the pace of the team. They're near the bottom of the league in pace and near the top in offensive efficiency. Offense isn't the problem. If the Blazers were playing above average defense, they'd have a top record (of course, considering the early schedule, their defensive numbers are a little less worrying and their offensive numbers are even more impressive).

Nate doesn't keep his philosophy a secret. He has always said he wants his players to push the ball up the court quickly and look for an early opportunity before the defense is set. If it's not there, you pull back and run your set.

Until last night, I hadn't really seen the guys do that, so I'm wondering if they have been making a more concerted effort in practice to instill that in the team.

I actually like Nate's philosophy here - my criticism had always been that the way the team played didn't always match the philosophy.

I'm like you - I don't need to see the team play run-and-gun like the Warriors or the D'Antoni Suns. But I'm all for getting as many easy opportunities as you can, and that means pushing the ball upcourt to get a good shot before the defense sets.

-Pop

 

[THE HCP]

typical can also be correct.

What does nate bring to the table? We pass up 2 for 1 opportunites all the time. He refuses to believe in fouling to prevent a 3 with a 3point lead. he gives unintelligent, uninspiring "coaching" during timeouts. He constantly tinkers with lineups and playing time negating any attempt at creating consistency. He starts players only to leave them on the bench for the rest of the game (przybilla last year, batum this year). If he were replaced by someone else, the results would likely be as good or better. he's not overachieving with the roster given to him.

Brother, we led the league in point scored coming out of timeouts last year! At Golden State the other night we scored right after 3 timeouts. He's drawing up something right!

 

[Minstrel]

Nate doesn't keep his philosophy a secret. He has always said he wants his players to push the ball up the court quickly and look for an early opportunity before the defense is set. If it's not there, you pull back and run your set.

Until last night, I hadn't really seen the guys do that, so I'm wondering if they have been making a more concerted effort in practice to instill that in the team.

Well, whatever McMillan says his philosophy is, what he has his teams do is pretty evident over his coaching career: play half-court by default and run only in obvious fast-break situations (long rebound or turnover leading to numbers).

I don't think McMillan's demonstrated philosophy on that is much different from coaches who have had great success, like Popovich, Jackson, Sloan (of course, Phil Jackson does more innovative things within the half-court, which is why he's the best coach in the NBA, IMO). They all want their teams to play disciplined offense and defense and run only when a clear opportunity to do so presents itself, not to push the tempo just for its own sake. IMO, the Blazers have been playing that way under McMillan and I don't have a problem with that.

My only gripe with McMillan is that his half-court sets seem too stagnant. Too much static spacing and swinging the ball around the perimeter, leading to either an outside shot or an isolation by Roy or Aldridge or Outlaw. The team has the athleticism, passing skill and shooting skill to employ a much more dynamic, motion offense.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Often, when a team gets a big lead there is a let down. While the team did stall a bit,
they never let the bulls back into the game. The bulls never really had any hope of catching
us after the first quarter.I attribute that to good coaching, especially considering how young we are.