Quick after pracice today; Lineup changes

[Minstrel]

Alright I'll call of the dogs and release my hex. I'll just say it couldn't get much worse. Everybody feel better now?

Nah, don't worry about it. I don't think whether you jinxed them or not is really very important. It literally cannot get any worse.

 

[Blazed Mania 52]

Well that depends. Would his injury prevent him from coach BJ duty?

That is a top priority obligation which is included in the fine print of Blake's contract.

 

[SheedSoNasty]

Starting Miller and having Bayless play more sounds like a dream come true... too bad it didn't happen 20 games ago.

We'll see how long this lasts. I remember when we were going to start running; and did so against the T-Wolves and then reverted right back after blowing them outta the water. We'll shall definitely see.

 

[WillG]

Starting Miller and having Bayless play more sounds like a dream come true... too bad it didn't happen 20 games ago.

Thats what, about this coaching staff, makes me want to puke.
A 10 year old child could have adjusted the lineup better.

 

[Blazed Mania 52]

Thats what, about this coaching staff, makes me want to puke.
A 10 year old child could have adjusted the lineup better.

True, but if that 10 year old was receiving expensive Christmas presents from Blake, then most likely, the lineup would be as is.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Starting Miller and having Bayless play more sounds like a dream come true... too bad it didn't happen 20 games ago.

We'll see how long this lasts. I remember when we were going to start running; and did so against the T-Wolves and then reverted right back after blowing them outta the water. We'll shall definitely see.

Yeah, and people were concerned after that blowout because Roy only scored 2 points. Yeah, what a bitch that was - your best player only scores 2 points and you still win by 23. Those were the good old days. Seems like so long ago, now.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Yeah, and people were concerned after that blowout because Roy only scored 2 points. Yeah, what a bitch that was - your best player only scores 2 points and you still win by 23. Those were the good old days. Seems like so long ago, now.

BNM

42 points in that game scored by players now injured.

If Roy is only scoring 2 ppg, this team is never going to win a title.

 

[Nate Dogg]

What about Joe Freeman's piece from the o-live dated December 14, 2009, 7:13PM.

McMillan hinted after Monday's practice that he will make a move to jump-start this transformation, saying he is considering changing the starting lineup. McMillan refused to reveal specifics, but the most likely move appears to be inserting Andre Miller as starting point guard in place of the struggling Steve Blake tonight when the Blazers host the Sacramento Kings...............last note towards bottom of article.
Rookie Jeff Pendergraph, who had offseason hip surgery, went through a full practice Monday for the first time. McMillan said he even "snuck" into some five-on-five drills without trainer Jay Jensen noticing. ... Jerryd Bayless, who has recently excelled in limited playing time, likely will get more minutes against the Kings.

I hope this works and puts Blakey Flakey on the bench. We need a new spark in combination lineups.

 

[hasoos]

My guess is Nate is just going to go back to the 3 guard lineup again, because he doesn't have any balls.

 

[PapaG]

My guess is Nate is just going to go back to the 3 guard lineup again, because he doesn't have any balls.

So if Blake is benched, does that mean that Nate has balls?

 

[Nikolokolus]

So if Blake is benched, does that mean that Nate has balls?

No, just brains

 

[PapaG]

No, just brains

Aha.

My BB IQ must be too low today.

 

[Pontius]

So if Blake is benched, does that mean that Nate has balls?

Yes, a real man can admit when he's wrong.

 

[hasoos]

Sorry to have been a stickler for details that were clearly stated in the original question and rephrasings, as well as in the original post in the thread...

Actually no, they weren't stated. First of all you stated a question, but then when I answered, you made it a "moving question" where you injected all sorts of assumptions that you had made, but not posted. It's flat out impossible to answer a moving question, and I don't want to play your games.

 

[handiman]

Actually no, they weren't stated. First of all you stated a question, but then when I answered, you made it a "moving question" where you injected all sorts of assumptions that you had made, but not posted. It's flat out impossible to answer a moving question, and I don't want to play your games.

Wow, you don't like to admit you're wrong, do you?

Original quote: "As for the team believing, the injuries are causing a lot of guys to play major minutes and out of position."

Me: "Who has played out of position because of injuries? I can't think of anyone other than Roy at the SF, but that was more because Nate refused to bench Nate than because we had injured guys at that position."

Each subsequent reply restated the above. I don't see how there was anything remotely resembling a moving target. It was a very simple question initially and never changed. You didn't like that I didn't buy your answer, even when I explained that you didn't actually answer the question...

The reason I believe the question to be significant is the original quote shows that the team is in denial. They are placing the blame (for their struggles) on injuries when in fact lineups are more due to coaching decisions. They can't solve the problem by looking the other way.