Two and You're Out

[Tyrant of Ants]

.

 

[B-Roy]

It's been used on LMA before, and apparently it stayed.

Watching Howard bobble pass after pass almost brought me to tears.

 

[Sedatedfork]

It's been used on LMA before, and apparently it stayed.

Watching Howard bobble pass after pass almost brought me to tears.

Watching Howard play made me really question whether he was an NBA player. How hard is it to catch a ball?

 

[BrianFromWA]

My question at the time: Who cares if Oden fouls out in the 3rd quarter if we're up 25? He was on his way to a 40-point night, and no GSW big was able to handle him. One-on-one, they had to foul him. When they doubled he got two quick assists. They stopped doubling. He started dunking on people. And collecting fouls on him.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Watching Howard play made me really question whether he was an NBA player. How hard is it to catch a ball?

I think Dante is going to get his shot sooner rather than later. That was some seriously disappointing play from a guy who's been playing ball for so long ... Howard looks like he's about half a step from being sent to the glue factory.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

This two foul and you're out rule Nate has created helped cost us the game tonight. Disappointing to fail to see him adjust.

Preserving the lead with LMA in the game would have made it easier to stomach if he got to four quickly in the third. Instead we lost the lead and LMA never fouled again. While Greg played the 4th without picking up a 5th foul.

Like Minstrel said a few weeks back: holding your players out because you fear them fouling out is essentially fouling them out yourself. You can never get those unused fouls back.

 

[STOMP]

ya'll are so silly. LA picked up two fouls in 6 minutes despite playing with kid gloves. I predicted this would happen before the game. It's the exact same nonsense as last year in GS... this isn't Nate's fault that Portland's Bigs aren't allowed to play

STOMP

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Except he was allowed to play in the second half because he received no fouls. So who cares if he had picked up a third in the second while trying to adjust and keep our lead?

This is very much Nate's fault.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

Yeah, I've noticed. I'm not one to call Nate an assclown, but this rule is fucking beyond idiotic. I would like to see how the Nate Apologists defend this action by Nate.

LaMarcus and GO were on their way to fouling our their entire frontcourt. We had complete control of the game. We dictated the game by going inside repeatedly to GO. This game could have ended early in the 3rd quarter. Nate saved our guys to play in the 4th quarter when we could have put them away early. I've honestly never been this upset at any Blazers coach in all the years that I've been a fan.

It's Mickey Mouse. Just like everything else Nate does. It's all Mickey Mouse. It's how he thinks and processes things.

Period.

 

[STOMP]

STOMP, I had no problem with Nate taking LaMarcus out for the rest of the 1st quarter. I really don't think anyone is complaining about that. It's that Nate never put LaMarcus back in until the 3rd quarter that I'm upset with. Not just LaMarcus, GO was also not re-inserted until the 3rd quarter. The game was turned 180 degree when we lost our BIG advantage by taking out GO and LaMarcus.

Are you sure you understand what us silly fans are complaining about?

yes I do as I attended both games in Oakland last year. Do you recall what happened or are you trying to dig a hole?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200811180GSW.html

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

Sorry, you're going to have to be a little more specific with the point you're trying to make. Maybe I'm just a bit slow tonight. My points were simply: 1. I think the 2 fouls and you're out rule is stupid. 2. It's even more ridiculous to use that rule against LaMarcus, who has never shown to be foul-prone. 3. I thought that rule cost us the game tonight.

If you're going to argue, please make a real attempt at it instead of calling me silly.

LA had 6 fouls in under 20 minutes last year in the game I linked... the other game was more of the same. With this game starting out exactly the same way, should Nate continue to play him and lose him prior to the 4th quarter or should he try something new?

I thought the officiating was predictably atrocious

STOMP

 

[Mediocre Man]

Well I am one to call Nate an Assclown, and this is one of the many reasons why. Oden's impact on the game is such that with him in the game early, we should open up big leads. The forth quarter is Roy's, so that is not the time to save Oden for anyway. I am obviously not an NBA coach, but I have coached for almost 25 years, and this goes against everything that makes sense to me.


I also think leaving Oden in the game will force the refs not to call such ticky tacky fouls on him. If they do, bitching about it in post game pressers shold do some good in changing it.

 

[Nate Dogg]

Blazer fans time to make signs at the RG
"Nates 2 Foul Rule is stupid"

 

[BlazerBeliever]

Let me preface this: I'm not here to call Nate an idiot, an assclown, or call for his firing. So the Nate Apologists can calm down.

I want to know more about this two foul in the first half and you're out until the 3rd quarter. I thought this rule was only going to be applied to GO. But apparently the same rule applied to LaMarcus and others? I hated the rule when I thought it was going to only be used for GO, but this is beyond idiotic if this is going to be used for LaMarcus as well. LaMarcus has never shown to be a foul-prone player. So why use this fucking stupid ass rule for him? Nate took him out in the middle of the first quarter, and didn't put him back in until the 3rd quarter because LaMarcus had two fouls. LaMarcus ended the game with two fouls. I guess we can save the fouls for the next game? GO ended the game with 4 fouls.

It was clear to me the game was turned in the Warriors' favor when we took LaMarcus and out GO. GO, in particular, was killing them in the paint. They had no answer for him. We could have won this game by default because GO could have foul three of their guys out. They had only 8 guys suited up. Without our big inside advantage, the game was lost. We played rat ball, and the Warriors are better at that type of game.

This game is on Nate and his fucking stupid ass rule.

You are so on the money!!! I restrained myself from coming on the board until now just to calm down. I also am not a Nate basher but tonight this loss is 100 percent on him. Great post.

 

[LittleAlex]

To be fair the team didn't really go to Oden or LMA in the second half even when they did play.

Nate took them out of the game for the first half and their team mates did it in the second.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

I'm still (barely) on board with the Oden 2 foul rule. Especially when those fouls came so quickly on top of each other like they did. If he stayed in I think he would have made it one or 2 more possessions before getting a third.

LA should not have a 2 foul rule.

 

[hasoos]

Look at the following games: Atlanta, Detroit, and now Golden State.

In every single one of these games, Portland went inside to Aldridge and Oden, and got out to leads. Remember last year folks, and the year before? We were falling behind early.

Now Watch the pattern. We get out to a lead by going to our bigs.

Then in every single one of the games we go small, and we lose the lead. This isn't fucking rocket science.


Why are we seeing Aldridge and Oden get into the teens in a half, and then we see them get about 2 to 4 points the rest of the way?

It is really simple. If the Blazers did what got them the lead in the first place instead of going small over and over again, they would win these games walking away. The strength of this team is it's interior size. Not it's small players. The small players are a weakness.

Use the strength. Not the weakness.

 

[STOMP]

Yes. Different scenario. Hindsight being 20/20, was this rule not a failure tonight? LaMarcus ended up with only 2 fouls. We lost control of the game when we took out both our bigs. I thought Nate should have stopped the bleeding in the 2nd quarter when the Warriors were making their run by putting GO and LaMarcus back in and re-establish our inside dominance. You apparently disagree with that?

Greg and LA are clearly two of Portland's better players... if the refs are calling them for fouls when they're retreating and guys are throwing themselves at them I don't know what the right plan is. Thats a tough one.

STOMP

 

[mook]

I haven't been too critical of the 2 foul rule on Oden. I think it's Nate's way of trying to get his attention, and to be fair I think it's working. Oden seems to be picking up fewer fouls lately on ticky-tack stuff. He's making his fouls count more. Hopefully he keeps progressing.

That said, it makes absolutely no sense to use such a rule on Aldridge. STOMP brings up a good point that LA fouled out last year in 20 minutes under similar circumstances, but I think you have to realize that every game is different. There were different refs, and some different players.

Spread it out evenly for 4 quarters. Two fouls in the first quarters and sit them for the rest of the quarter. 3 fouls for the half. 4 fouls by the end of the third quarter. Even so, Nate need not be rigid about this. For fuck sake, be judicious of when and who you take out of the game because of possible foul trouble later on. Guys who aren't normally foul-proned, give them some room. This is why I think this rule for LaMarcus is just too fucking stupid. The guy is not a foul-proned player like GO. He has played through being in foul trouble many times before. So why the fuck does he need to be protected now?

Exactly.

 

[STOMP]

I would take the risk of them picking up another foul. As I said in another thread, by taking them out, you are guaranteed to reduce the maximum potential of minutes that they could play.

true, but I'd argue that the refs aren't going to let Portland blow out the home team, so it's best to have your best for when the game is winnable.

I'd rather them having a chance to stay on the court. Players can pick up fouls at any juncture of the game equally. What good of "saving" a player do if he picks up another foul instantly once he's re-inserted?

see above

the claim LaMarcus has never shown to be a foul-prone player didn't sit well with me, so I did a little bumping around

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01/splits/2009/

last season he averaged very close to the same amount of minutes at home as on the road (37:23 vs 36:45). Looking at the home and away stats he apparently was much more active at home, as his stats were up across the board including shooting 33% more FTs. Yet somehow he averaged a foul more a game (3.1 vs 2.1) playing on the road...

STOMP

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Yeah, I've noticed. I'm not one to call Nate an assclown, but this rule is fucking beyond idiotic. I would like to see how the Nate Apologists defend this action by Nate.

LaMarcus and GO were on their way to fouling our their entire frontcourt. We had complete control of the game. We dictated the game by going inside repeatedly to GO. This game could have ended early in the 3rd quarter. Nate saved our guys to play in the 4th quarter when we could have put them away early. I've honestly never been this upset at any Blazers coach in all the years that I've been a fan.

Nate took the big guys out of the rhythm by pulling them with two. I felt like their two fouls each were reasonable fouls, and the guys were playing under control, and I think that Nate should have left at least one of them in. I could understand to some point being conservative with one of your low-post scorers. But both? The general rule in the NBA has always been 3 fouls in the first half. I don't see the purpose for trying a new strategy with all your solid low-post scorers.