The reason we lost...

[tlongII]

Miller... Sorry but you guys don't get it...

 

[Wheels]

wasnt able to watch the game, so not sure if this is serious or not. He seems he had a decent game on the Box. But I know that doesnt tell the story.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Because we didn't have Travis Outlaw [/KingSpeed]

 

[jlprk]

It's because at the end, it's all Roy, Roy, Roy. Whoever's fault (Roy, McMillan, or the other players), it's a big weakness. Look at how few players are in boldface on the left side, vs. the variety on the right.

overtime
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/playb...iod/5/portland-trail-blazers-vs-chicago-bulls

see last 3 minutes of regulation
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/playb...iod/4/portland-trail-blazers-vs-chicago-bulls

..I guess the lack of clutch feeds into what Outlaw used to do. (didn't mean to go there)

 

[MIXUM]

this summer the blazers need to find another guy who can create his own shot

 

[jlprk]

I just noticed that in the last 7 minutes of regulation, Roy accounted for all baskets, if you include assists. He decides all.

And I think it's McMillan's system, not finding another clutch player. They need quick passes to the big guys, who need to attack the basket. But iso's are an old story. Everyone's heard it before.

 

[J~Rush]

I feel that if Roy was 100% we would have won this game with the same strategy.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

with the emergency of Stephen Curry, maybe Monta will be more available this summer......

in any case, Miller has been good...but I'm getting worse and worse feeligns about the team in general, some glaring weaknesses in many of our players...maybe they have mailed it in already. They are playing like shit.

 

[craigehlo]

Too much Rudy in the 4th. He's a huge liability on defense and helped the Bulls come back for the lead in the 4th. He so 1-dimensional it hurts.

 

[e_blazer]

The Blazer bus has a weak clutch. As much as they were denigrated around here for their shortcomings, Outlaw and Blake were guys who could hit a big shot at crunch time. Now we're left with only Roy. Please spare me from seeing Miller hoist another 3 point shot in a fourth quarter situation. Ugh.

 

[Minstrel]

Miller... Sorry but you guys don't get it...

He's also the reason the Blazers lost to the Bulls in the 1992 Finals.

If you don't see how, you simply don't get it. Sorry, but it's the truth.

 

[Rhal]

The Blazer bus has a weak clutch. As much as they were denigrated around here for their shortcomings, Outlaw and Blake were guys who could hit a big shot at crunch time. Now we're left with only Roy. Please spare me from seeing Miller hoist another 3 point shot in a fourth quarter situation. Ugh.

Miller shooting three's isn't really his fault... Why do you pass the ball to the guy standing at the three line that you don't want to take them when the shot clock is low? Last night I can't remember the second one he took, I don't think the clock was low, it was that he was so wide open anyone would take that shot.

 

[e_blazer]

Miller shooting three's isn't really his fault... Why do you pass the ball to the guy standing at the three line that you don't want to take them when the shot clock is low? Last night I can't remember the second one he took, I don't think the clock was low, it was that he was so wide open anyone would take that shot.

Agreed, but the price of having a PG who can't shoot threes well is that opponents often cheat off of them so that they'll be tempted to hoist one.

 

[Minstrel]

He shot 3 three-pointers last night and hit 1. Not dazzling shooting, but not inept. Nor did he take a lot of them. Miller's three-point shooting wasn't a factor, good or bad.

 

[STOMP]

the bench collectively played 68 minutes and gathered 2 boards. That didn't help the cause much

STOMP

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Hmm, I thought it was because we gave up 57% FG along with 10 offensive rebounds. Damn, I really need to pay better attention.

 

[Natebishop3]

Hmm, I thought it was because we gave up 57% FG along with 10 offensive rebounds. Damn, I really need to pay better attention.

I thought it was because we didn't trade for R-Jeff.

 

[BGrantFan]

He shot 3 three-pointers last night and hit 1. Not dazzling shooting, but not inept. Nor did he take a lot of them. Miller's three-point shooting wasn't a factor, good or bad.

He bricked a three late in OT. He had no business taking that shot. He then had a turnover. Not a great finish for 'Dre, but he played well offensively for most of the game. The reason we lost was because of defense. Nobody could match up with Derrick Rose, just as nobody on Chicago could handle LaMarcus.

 

[BBert]

I thought the 'reason we lost' that game was the same reason they've lost a bunch of others in the 4th quarter this year: while the other team was moving the ball and their bodies around the court looking for easy baskets, and in the process hustling their asses off, the Blazers (Nate) was running the same POS ISO Stagnation offense we've all learned to know and .

There are some who wanted to give Nate credit last season for the team's success late in games; in reality it wasn't anything Nate did, it was Roy who pulled those games out for us. Just like "Nate's" high success rate out of time outs, where the call nine times out of ten was to give the ball to Brandon. Hell, any couch potato can call that play. The problem is, Brandon started off the year out-of-sorts, then got injured, and it isn't working this year -- and that's all Nate's got.

I think Nate is often pretty good at developing young players, and getting them to focus on a singular aspect of the game to increase their on-court success rate. I'm pretty sure he expects his players to grow and develop and improve with experience. Nate seems to have the 'coaching a singular aspect of the game' part down, but when is he going to grow and develop and improve? Who is going to help (make) him do that? And how? My bet is on 'not while he's coaching the Blazers.'

 

[Minstrel]

He bricked a three late in OT.

Yes, that was accounted for in his 1/3 shooting from 3P%.

He then had a turnover.

I'm not sure what you're trying to disprove. I don't think anyone said he had a flawless game. Accounting for all the positive and negative things he did in the game, he had a solid performance. He wasn't the reason Portland lost, and his three-point shooting wasn't a significant factor for good or ill. He only took 3 for the game and hitting 1 of them is mediocre but not poor.

 

[BGrantFan]

Yes, that was accounted for in his 1/3 shooting from 3P%.



I'm not sure what you're trying to disprove. I don't think anyone said he had a flawless game. Accounting for all the positive and negative things he did in the game, he had a solid performance. He wasn't the reason Portland lost, and his three-point shooting wasn't a significant factor. He only took 3 for the game and hitting 1 of them is mediocre but not poor.

I don't recall saying Miller had even a bad game, or even that he was the reason that we lost. In fact, I posted that defense was the reason we lost, but I notice you didn't quote that part of my post. That said, I thought Miller did a nice job offensively last night. With that, though, if you're comfortable with a 20% 3pt shooter taking 3 attempts in any game, perhaps your own coaching ability should be questioned. Miller fucked up two very key possessions late in the game. A 1 in 5 shot, and then a turnover while flailing into the key. Luckily Brandon and Lamarcus gave us a chance to win it at the end of OT.

The team lost in OT. Oh well.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Too slow a defender for fast PGs!

 

[Minstrel]

but I notice you didn't quote that part of my post.

Because it had nothing to do with what I said. You responded to me, as though you were disagreeing with something I said or discussing something I said. I couldn't really tell what that was though.

If it was just random thoughts on the game, and not related to what I said, that's cool. Quoting me was confusing in that case.

With that, though, if you're comfortable with a 20% 3pt shooter taking 3 attempts in any game, perhaps your own coaching ability should be questioned.

I'm not a coach, so that doesn't cut me very deep. I didn't render an opinion on how many threes Miller should be taking, I simply pointed out that his three-point shooting wasn't a factor. He didn't take many and the ones he took, he hit at a passable rate.

Miller fucked up two very key possessions late in the game.

*nod* Most players fuck up a few possessions a game. It's hard to play a perfect game.

 

[Public Defender]

I thought we lost because Brandon Roy missed a three in OT...?

Seriously, the Blazers played a pretty good game, until they got tight in the 4th.

 

[mgb]

Our bench suck mostly. Either getting us in a hole or giving up leads.

 

[jlprk]

Minstrel, you're ignoring his obvious point--that Miller's errors were in key moments of the game. You're substituting Miller's stats for the game as a whole. But some moments count more than others.

But Miller alone didn't lose the game. The other reasons have been mentioned. We took an equal opponent to overtime on their court, so we did alright. Going into the game, I thought the outcome was 50-50.

 

[e_blazer]

He shot 3 three-pointers last night and hit 1. Not dazzling shooting, but not inept. Nor did he take a lot of them. Miller's three-point shooting wasn't a factor, good or bad.

Good grief. Of course it wasn't Miller's three shots that cost the Blazers the game. What I'm saying is that the fact that Miller is absolutely no credible threat from distance affects how teams are able to run their defense in the 4th quarter. That, IMO, does sometimes make a difference in the outcome.

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel, you're ignoring his obvious point--that Miller's errors were in key moments of the game. You're substituting Miller's stats for the game as a whole. But some moments count more than others.

I don't agree with that. The points all add up the same. If you make a play earlier, you are two/three points ahead of where you would have been later in the game, when you don't make a play. It comes to the same. Or, at least, I've not seen any compelling reasoning/evidence that it doesn't come to the same.

Certainly, possessions/play late in games feel more important, since you can see the end of the game looming...but I'm not convinced that those moments actually are any more important.

 

[WillG]

It's Nates offensive sets. They really are offensive. No movement and little player involvement for anyone not named Roy.
Roy is clutch, but if you wear him out in the fourth quarter he's not gonna have the energy/focus at the end of every game. Especially coming off of 3 in 4 nights.

I really hope Nates leaves this off-season.

Can you imagine this athletic team, playing a movement based offense where more people get involved in a TEAM offense.
I'm sure the players would be happier, Brandon should like it with reduced pressure for a lot of the game, and it should translate into more easier wins instead of the grind it out close affairs that the Nate system encourages.

IMO Nate is the teams current weakness.

 

[STOMP]

blaming the coach night after night is weak sauce... it's the talent on the floor that wins in the league. Portland's didn't get it done on the road vs the Bulls but tonight they stepped up making open shots vs a flat, undermanned, inferior opponent.

STOMP