Required reading -- Dave from Blazersedge: Figuring it Out

[Nikolokolus]

I woke up, made my coffee and sat down to do a little light reading and instead got my mind blown -- well not really, but it's the best prescription I've seen yet for what ails the Blazers.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/11/30/1178742/figuring-it-out

1. The Blazers must push the tempo on offense, period. No excuses. No exceptions.

We've been talking about this subject for a couple of years but it's now become critical, and not just for the reasons you think. Yes, pushing tempo generates more possessions and more easy buckets, thereby relieving some of the stress on the halfcourt sets. Just as importantly, it helps resolve one of the main chemistry issues we're experiencing right now: how to work in Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Greg Oden with their diverse, yet important, offensive styles. Pushing the ball up the court is one of the two main ways to keep LaMarcus involved. He's a gazelle with a habit of getting past his man and finishing. Generally he does well when the Blazers run.

The [next] thing that has to happen is that, to whatever extent Nate McMillan and Andre Miller are experiencing distrust of each other, they need to make peace. Miller has a point. This team is somewhere in between the freshman and sophomore year of high school in its developmental arc. They've achieved a few things. The reins are starting to loosen up. But they're not at the point of going out and living independently yet. They still have plenty to learn, both fundamentally and about the game. That's well and good, except that Miller just came into the classroom with his college degree already in hand. Re-doing all of those early-high-school lessons and living under early-high-school constraints chafes big time. Even if you know the situation you're getting into it's neither easy nor natural. Miller should be allowed to break the mold a little. Maybe he doesn't have to show every step of his work on math problems. Maybe he's allowed to show the kids a shortcut or two that subverts authority but still gets the job done. He's here to be the teacher's aide, not re-take the class. On the other hand Nate has a point as well. You can't break the mold by coming out taking (and missing) four shots in your first six minutes, matching 2 turnovers with your 2 assists, and playing lackadaisical defense when you're a point guard. That's not healthy subversion. That's not educational, nor even an example of growing up. That's walking into the classroom with a beer

A-freaking-men.

4. Everybody else needs to fill their role, period. If you can't, you can't play no matter how good you are (or might be) otherwise.

One of the problems with our deep bench is that we have a lot of pretenders to the throne. Granted this has been diminished by injuries, so right now we're actually scrambling to cover certain positions with guys not completely suited to them, but even in those cases those guys are trying to do too much. Let's break this down simply. With Oden in the post, Roy slashing, and LaMarcus running and taking the mid-range when appropriate the job description for the other wings reads "shoot it when you're open, pass it when you're not". The shooting part will become particularly critical to the extent that Roy and Miller play together in the backcourt. But Martell Webster has three-point credentials. This is also the strong suit of Blake and Fernandez. Nicolas Batum and Travis Outlaw fill the bill as well. Though we may eventually need Rudy, Nic, and Travis to do more we have to start with the basics. You're not going to get 20 shots per game. You're not going to get a quarter to warm up to the game. We don't want to see you dribbling the ball for 10 seconds. We don't want you hesitating or passing up open shots. When you are free and you get the ball, shoot it. If you are covered, make the best pass you can, choosing first to attack with the pass if possible and if not hitting an outlet player. The offensive measure that will determine your time in this lineup is how many of your shots you hit. Theoretically you should be open. If you cannot hit an open, stand-still jumper we're going to put in the guy who can. If none of you can manage to fill this role then we need to trade for someone who can, hoping that you'll get more of a shot at the role you desire in your new home. Someday there might be more room for creativity on this team, so don't despair. But we're on Square One here and for you, the writing on Square One says, "Hit your open jumpers or hush."

Obviously there are other roles to be filled. Joel Przybilla doesn't fit the above mold and neither does Jerryd Bayless. Przybilla should defend and rebound when he's in and Bayless should push, drive, and draw fouls. Everybody knows when those guys go in that's what we're looking for. The coach's job is to send them in accordingly, when their gifts are needed.

And there's the crux and the primary reason I've thought it was high time KP start trading some of this young talent for older well established roleplayers whose main calling cards are defense and playing efficient, compact, unobtrusive offense and filling holes as needed.

Right now this whole process feels like a committee meeting where a guy who has heretofore been a strong, directive leader opens up the floor for ideas and new leadership (voluntarily or not, we don't know). It sounds like a great idea, but in practice when this happens it usually results in a dozen people talking at once spraying different suggestions, critiques, and agendas all over the place. Organization goes out the window, feelings get hurt, momentum grinds to a halt. Everybody has a different method to fix it, but that's exactly the problem. You can't hear 12 people at once and you can't follow 12 agendas at once. The solution isn't necessarily returning to centralized control. The solution is narrowing your focus and having your best, most talented, most suitable and apt people take charge. They hold the floor and everybody else follows. As the committee gets more experienced with each other, their charges, and the new style of leadership more people blend in and lead, getting the chance to express their gifts more fully. But that day never comes unless the committee gets going in a single, productive direction first.

In our committee Greg Oden opens every meeting and bulls through the obvious obstacles standing in the way of the work. Brandon Roy does the lion's share of the actual work and is the main mover of the group. LaMarcus Aldridge speaks up and takes over whenever there's a suitable opening or a situation which requires his special gifts. Everybody else takes notes, volunteers to do the grunt work, and takes care of those nagging-but-important details left untended. They might have project suggestions of their own but they hold them until the group gets two or three things going successfully. Twelve people, a small handful of tasks, one direction.

And this is the part that really summed it up best for me, too many chiefs, not enough indians on the roster and it's well past time for Nate to restore order by hushing the roleplayers who seem to think they are entitled to something more than filling a role on this team.

I hope KP and Nate are listening.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Why is it that I get mocked so much when I have been saying all those things for 2 years, but Ben is required reading?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Why is it that I get mocked so much when I have been saying all those things for 2 years, but Ben is required reading?

Well that was Dave, and I think you get mocked because you bulldog the "Nate is an Assclown" meme (not that I totally disagree). Oh wait, I suppose that was a rhetorical question?

 

[VenomXL]

It was Dave that wrote the piece, not Ben.

Edit: Doh, beaten to the punch.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

What happened to that short burst where Miller was given the reins?

Simpler solution: go back to the three-guard lineup. Nobody has pointed it out, but all of our disastrous losses have come with Webster in the starting lineup. And it's not like Roy's performance has been improved since he was moved to his preferred spot. If anything, it's gotten worse. (And his worst performance of the three-guard-lineup period was against Monta Ellis, a SMALL SHOOTING GUARD, not some bulky SF.)

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Three things are going to have to happen for the Blazers to get faster. The first two are obvious: defend and rebound. ...

The third thing that has to happen is that, to whatever extent Nate McMillan and Andre Miller are experiencing distrust of each other, they need to make peace.

This misses out the glaringly obvious: Brandon Roy has to speed the fuck up. I don't share the common belief that Nate is just blowing hot air when he's been saying that he wants the team to run. I think he really does. Now, it's true he also wants to be too controlling. But he has tried to change that, and I think trying the 3 guard lineup was part of that. And I happen to think it worked fine, AND allowed Miller to start (good for Greg) AND kept his most trusted TA (to continue the education analogy used in the post) to stay on the floor. But Roy just REFUSES TO RUN. He asks for the ball and then walks...it...slowly...up...the...floor. It drives me completely insane.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Hold on a second....we're pinning the last couple of losses on WEBSTER?

In 5 games since starting again:
14 ppg
6 rpg
50% fg
49% 3pt
40% FT
.8 blk
5 PFs...total.

On the year, his PER is 14 and his PER against is 10.

Yeah, let's blame Webster.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Instead of inventing radical lineup ideas, can we not just at least attempt to start Miller, Roy, Webster, LMA and Oden a couple of times? You know, the best at each position?

But as I've stated a couple of times, a lot of heartache could probably be solved by going really radical with the lineup. But that won't happen.

Start Miller, Rudy, Webster, LMA, and Oden. Run the snot out of the other team. Then let Blanky and Roy come in and do their damage against backups. Everyone's happy, except people who want Roy to start.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Hold on a second....we're pinning the last couple of losses on WEBSTER?

Not we, me. Since I take it you're not joining me.

In 5 games since starting again:
14 ppg
6 rpg
50% fg
49% 3pt
40% FT
.8 blk
5 PFs...total.

On the year, his PER is 14 and his PER against is 10.

Yeah, let's blame Webster.

Okay!
I blame him because of his effect on the team. You can have super-duper stats and still make the team suck. (Of course, my argument is on pretty shaky ground because Webster also has a very good +/-, but I won't let that stop me.) Webster is not a good basketball player. He tries hard, he gets some nice blocks and steals and throws himself on the floor, and he can get on a tear from three. But he's a ball-stopper (or at least long-pauser) and if he EVER tries to create, it's disastrous. His mere presence on the floor dumbs down the entire team. His sole positive is to stretch the D, but Rudy could achieve that, and is a better player. Webster is making me miss Outlaw (who made me miss Batum).

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Instead of inventing radical lineup ideas, can we not just at least attempt to start Miller, Roy, Webster, LMA and Oden a couple of times? You know, the best at each position?

Too radical!

But as I've stated a couple of times, a lot of heartache could probably be solved by going really radical with the lineup. But that won't happen.

Start Miller, Rudy, Webster, LMA, and Oden. Run the snot out of the other team. Then let Blanky and Roy come in and do their damage against backups. Everyone's happy, except people who want Roy to start.

You know what? I actually agree (because Webster is a lot more use in a running game, where thinking is less required and his athleticism is a real asset). But if Roy's nose is out of joint now...

But hey, if McMillan really thought his job was in jeopardy, he should try it. At the very least, it would be sending a message to Roy that he needs to speed the fuck up.

 

[hasoos]

Instead of inventing radical lineup ideas, can we not just at least attempt to start Miller, Roy, Webster, LMA and Oden a couple of times? You know, the best at each position?

But as I've stated a couple of times, a lot of heartache could probably be solved by going really radical with the lineup. But that won't happen.

Start Miller, Rudy, Webster, LMA, and Oden. Run the snot out of the other team. Then let Blanky and Roy come in and do their damage against backups. Everyone's happy, except people who want Roy to start.

Exactly. I went through the starting lineups for pre season and regular season, and only twice in pre season did Miller and Roy start together as the starting back court with a legit SF at the 3. The Blazers lost one and won one. They have never tried it in the regular season. The only lineup they have tried, included Blake at the 2. What exactly is the problem with removing Blake from the starting lineup? WTF?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yeah, I'm not so much with you on this.

You admit he has "super-duper" stats. You admit he has a good +/-. (Both of these are small sample sizes, though, so I'm not necessarily hanging my hat on them). But you say that he's "not a good player" b/c:
"His mere presence on the floor dumbs down the entire team", yet "Webster is making me miss Outlaw"? I showed you how he's holding opposing SFs to a PER of 10, and you say his "sole positive is to stretch the D"?

Last two bad losses +/-:
UTH:Roy -22, LMA -23, Blake -22....Webster -5, Oden -2.
MEM: Roy -10, LMA -2, Blake 0....Webster +3, Oden -1

Perhaps he does "dumb down the entire team" by his mere presence. I don't think so, but since it's subjective I won't attempt to refute that. I'd respectfully suggest, then, that we start the best PG we have to attempt to overcome that.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

You admit he has "super-duper" stats.

Actually, I don't. What I said about super-duper stats was general and not about him.

You admit he has a good +/-. (Both of these are small sample sizes, though, so I'm not necessarily hanging my hat on them).

Funny that you should say that...

I showed you how he's holding opposing SFs to a PER of 10, and you say his "sole positive is to stretch the D"?

First hat-hang.

Last two bad losses +/-:
UTH:Roy -22, LMA -23, Blake -22....Webster -5, Oden -2.
MEM: Roy -10, LMA -2, Blake 0....Webster +3, Oden -1

Second hat-hang.

Re: Per. You didn't show any such thing. The best you can say is that opposing SFs have had a PER of whatever when Webster's in the game. (Or in games in which he's played, depending on how accurately they track.) There is no way in hell they're tracking the PER of opposing SFs only when Webster is guarding them. And even if they were, that wouldn't mean that "he is holding them" to that, because defense is a team game, and Nate's defense in particular involves a fuck of a lot of switching.

Re: +/-. I'm a big fan, I really am. But even its biggest fans say you can't read anything into it unless you have over a season of data. I'm more bullish than that, but single game stats? Please.

Perhaps he does "dumb down the entire team" by his mere presence. I don't think so, but since it's subjective I won't attempt to refute that. I'd respectfully suggest, then, that we start the best PG we have to attempt to overcome that.

Best is a relative measure. Miller is better at some things (passing, posting up) than Blake. He's a worse shooter and, at this stage, a worse overall defender than Blake. Miller would suit Webster in a lineup without Roy. So that's why I like your Miller/Rudy/Webster small-man combo. But Miller/Roy/Webster, not until Roy stops sulking and starts playing a bit more like Rip Hamilton and a little less like Kobe-lite.

 

[Natebishop3]

What happened to that short burst where Miller was given the reins?

Simpler solution: go back to the three-guard lineup. Nobody has pointed it out, but all of our disastrous losses have come with Webster in the starting lineup. And it's not like Roy's performance has been improved since he was moved to his preferred spot. If anything, it's gotten worse. (And his worst performance of the three-guard-lineup period was against Monta Ellis, a SMALL SHOOTING GUARD, not some bulky SF.)

Better solution: Bench Blake, Start Miller

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Why is it that I get mocked so much when I have been saying all those things for 2 years, but Ben is required reading?

Because with you we have to always consider the source.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

go back to the three-guard lineup

I'd be fine with that - as long as the three guards are Miller, Bayless and Roy. At least it would be something different to try.

Of course, then you have the problem of Roy wanting to slow down the first team and Blake slowing down the second team - but then again, isn't that what Nate really wants? He can say "Run, run, run" all he wants but his coaching behavior says "Walk, walk, walk".

Gramps...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I'd be fine with that - as long as the three guards are Miller, Bayless and Roy. At least it would be something different to try.

Not enough three-power. Miller, RUDY and Roy.

Of course, then you have the problem of Roy wanting to slow down the first team and Blake slowing down the second team - but then again, isn't that what Nate really wants? He can say "Run, run, run" all he wants but his coaching behavior says "Walk, walk, walk".

How would you know whether it's what HE wants or THEY want. He can't not play Roy. You assume that because he plays Blake, he's in favor of Blake slowing down play. But is that Blake or the fact that Blake is played with Roy? Did Blake slow down the Nuggets? I don't think so.

I say:

Starting lineup: Miller, Bayless, Rudy, Cunningham, Oden
Play until Oden gets three fouls, then sub in:
Blake, Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Przybilla

Roy and Aldridge get ALL the shots, except a few kickouts to Blakey/Webster-y.

Who's with me!!??

 

[jlprk]

Last two bad losses +/-:

UTH:Roy -22, LMA -23, Blake -22....Webster -5, Oden -2.
MEM: Roy -10, LMA -2, Blake 0....Webster +3, Oden -1

Perhaps he does "dumb down the entire team" by his mere presence. I don't think so, but since it's subjective I won't attempt to refute that.

You need +/- per minute. Here it is for the season to date.

0.452 D. Cunningham
0.206 A. Miller
0.173 S. Blake
0.168 T. Outlaw
0.162 M. Webster
0.156 G. Oden
0.113 L. Aldridge
0.107 B. Roy
0.087 J. Przybilla
0.033 R. Fernandez
-0.063 J. Bayless
-0.234 J. Howard

 

[BrianFromWA]

Actually, I don't. What I said about super-duper stats was general and not about him.



Funny that you should say that...



First hat-hang.

The "hat-hang comment" was based on the 5-game sample size of Webster starting recently. His PERagainst, which shows the efficiency of the defense he's been playing, is over the entire 19-game schedule so far. You said that "his sole positive is to stretch the D", and I used 19 games of data to (attempt to) show you that his D has been pretty darn positive as well.

Re: Per. You didn't show any such thing. The best you can say is that opposing SFs have had a PER of whatever when Webster's in the game. (Or in games in which he's played, depending on how accurately they track.) There is no way in hell they're tracking the PER of opposing SFs only when Webster is guarding them. And even if they were, that wouldn't mean that "he is holding them" to that, because defense is a team game, and Nate's defense in particular involves a fuck of a lot of switching.

I did a play-by-play of Webster defending Carmelo Anthony that showed what Webster specifically held him to, play-by-play, second-by-second, and then compared it to Outlaw, Roy and Miller. If I can do it, how is there "no way in hell" that others can't?

Re: +/-. I'm a big fan, I really am. But even its biggest fans say you can't read anything into it unless you have over a season of data. I'm more bullish than that, but single game stats? Please.

It was a flip reaction to your contention that Webster dumbed the whole team down. I don't like +/- for myriad reasons. But since you said you do, I showed how they "proved" that Webster and Oden played their ass off the last two games, while Blake, Roy and LMA, uh, didn't.

Best is a relative measure. Miller is better at some things (passing, posting up) than Blake. He's a worse shooter and, at this stage, a worse overall defender than Blake. Miller would suit Webster in a lineup without Roy. So that's why I like your Miller/Rudy/Webster small-man combo. But Miller/Roy/Webster, not until Roy stops sulking and starts playing a bit more like Rip Hamilton and a little less like Kobe-lite.

I'll grant you that, even if I don't see it, you have an argument for Blake's D being better. I grant you that Blake's generally a better pure shooter than Miller. But if neither's shot is falling (as is the case right about now), there's a better use of those 60 mpg than presently utilized. And if Blake's shot isn't falling, he isn't doing much of anything better than Miller.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I did a play-by-play of Webster defending Carmelo Anthony that showed what Webster specifically held him to, play-by-play, second-by-second, and then compared it to Outlaw, Roy and Miller. If I can do it, how is there "no way in hell" that others can't?

Because they've got lives?

But, aside from the fact your little piece of evidence is a shockingly small sample size (by which standard Monta Ellis "locked up" Brandon Roy), are you taking into account whether or not Anthony has one eye on Oden or Przybilla waiting in the paint?

But if neither's shot is falling (as is the case right about now), there's a better use of those 60 mpg than presently utilized.

Only if you assume (a) Blake won't break out of his slump ever, and (b) the opposing team will plan defenses around a non-shooting Blake.

And if Blake's shot isn't falling, he isn't doing much of anything better than Miller.

As soon as he zips his pants up, Nate will disagree with you.

(Ooh, that was cheap. I almost feel dirty.)

 

[Wheels]

Better solution: Bench Blake, Start Miller

that is Signature worthy right there my friend.

 

[B-Roy]

Because they've got lives?

But, aside from the fact your little piece of evidence is a shockingly small sample size (by which standard Monta Ellis "locked up" Brandon Roy), are you taking into account whether or not Anthony has one eye on Oden or Przybilla waiting in the paint?

Webster, as a starter this year, 10 games:

11.4 points, 4.4 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal, 1 block, in 28 mpg w/ 46% shooting from the field and 46% shooting from three.

 

[oldguy]

Webster, as a starter this year, 10 games:

11.4 points, 4.4 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal, 1 block, in 28 mpg w/ 46% shooting from the field and 46% shooting from three.

That doesn't look so dumb.

Go Blazers

 

[WillG]

Why is it, when watching other 'highly talented' teams, you can see they can use those varied talents to outplay their opposition through superior athleticism/technique/execution without having to resort to a war of attrition/grind out tactics?
At Fault: Coaching.

As a bonus, Nate has burdened this young team with worry. They worry that any mistakes, no matter how usual or trivial could result in them 'riding the pine'. This redirection of focus/energy, and the resulting inconsistent minutes,IMO; has a lot to do with why the Blazers always look 'a step behind' compared to other teams on any given night.

A solution, put forth by Dave at Bedge, has pointed out some steps that the team could take to right the ship and point them in the right direction. I agree with his points 100%, and have been at that conclusion, as have other Blazer fans, for some time now. The teams fan base knows it, the league writers know it, and now we have players bringing the coaching in to post game interviews. They know it.
Yet, Nate has been here for YEARS and still does not have a clue how to utilise the teams 'talent'. When is enough enough.
Ultimately, this team will take a giant step in the right direction when they drop the dead weight and Fire Nate.

 

[KingSpeed]

Webster is the solution. Not the problem. In the Memphis game, he started off shooting great. And we led. Then we yanked him off the floor and it fell apart. When Martell was put back in, we made a comeback. He was the only player who had any energy on the floor and who was making shots at a respectable clip. He had the only + on the team that game. He never should've been yanked early in the next game against Utah when he had it going early.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Now this is the KingSpeed I can get behind!

(Reserving the right to distance myself from you at the next mention of "Greg" and "bust" in the same sentence)

 

[magnifier661]

Blazer fans would do well to adopt some of the same short-term role narrowing and long-term patience with the ancillary players. The idea that every bench player is a star in the making isn't productive. Even if it were true (and it's probably not) this team doesn't need a star in the making. This team needs to integrate the stars that it's got. Only when that happens will we know what room is left over for another extra-special player, provided he exists on this team.

I couldn't agree more. It's time we forget about the blossoming of the possible stars and milk the stars we have now. It's obvious Aldridge is known for his pure outside shot (which again, I was wrong, saying he should score in the paint more), Roy being the best with the ball in his hands during most the half court sets and Oden getting star minutes, playing with fouls and if he fouls out, then okay that sucks and let's just play "Roy Ball". Make the other fucking team fear that it doesn't matter if you try and take Oden out with 2 fouls, he's still playing and will still fuck you up in the paint. Let him foul out each game and force the NBA, Stern and the retards calling the game to turn the fouling to the star player, not the roles tossing their bodies into Oden for a cheap foul.