WTF were you thinking, McMuffin?

[hasoos]

Well it looks like 82 games isn't tracking this season yet. I wish they were.

 

[BenDavis503]

I cannot stand Nate anymore. He has GOT to go.

 

[BBert]

Playing our centers a combined 10 minutes in the second half???

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Those lineups and substitutions he trotted out there in the second half were absolute garbage.

Then I just watched that fucking moron's press conference on the postgame show, and all he could say is "you gotta make shots and you gotta defend."

DUH! You think so? Holy mother of shit this guy is a god damned genius. Make shots and defend! Of course! Draw it up on the clipboard, McScribbles!

Here's an idea ... you think when the other team is absolutely raping us in the paint that it might make sense to ... oh ... I don't know ... PLAY TWO OF THE BEST SHOT-BLOCKERS AND REBOUNDERS IN THE GAME???

All of the sudden this basketball mastermind thinks we are Golden State and he's gonna trot out small-ball.

Not good enough, Nate.

You seem a bit testy, Soda. Is something bothering you?

 

[Pontius]

I'm not delighted with Nate either, but Bayless has nothing to do with it. Whether or not we play our 3rd string PG isn't the issue.

barfo

I think it's fair to ask why he is our 3rd string PG. I truly feel Bayless is better for this team right now than Blake, meaning, that by the end of the season we'd be better off with Bayless receiving playing time now. Bayless will show himself in the NBA to be a far more talented player than Blake, offensively and defensively, and if he doesn't do it in Portland it will be because of McMillan.

 

[RoyIsClutch07]

lol@McMuffin.

 

[barfo]

I think it's fair to ask why he is our 3rd string PG. I truly feel Bayless is better for this team right now than Blake, meaning, that by the end of the season we'd be better off with Bayless receiving playing time now. Bayless will show himself in the NBA to be a far more talented player than Blake, offensively and defensively, and if he doesn't do it in Portland it will be because of McMillan.

I hope you are right, but I haven't seen it myself. Then again, I'm not making any claim to be an excellent judge of NBA talent, so the fact that I haven't seen it doesn't convince me he doesn't have it. But still, I haven't seen it yet.

barfo

 

[Pontius]

I hope you are right, but I haven't seen it myself. Then again, I'm not making any claim to be an excellent judge of NBA talent, so the fact that I haven't seen it doesn't convince me he doesn't have it. But still, I haven't seen it yet.

barfo

Fair enough. But I think it's also fair to say that Bayless has at least shown enough in the past to be on par with whatever it is that Blake has shown this season(nothing).

 

[SodaPopinski]

You seem a bit testy, Soda. Is something bothering you?

Losing to inferior teams because of boneheaded coaching decisions.

 

[Boob-No-More]

When you have an advantage you should NEVER give up that advantage and play to your opponents strengths. We have TWO great rebounding, excellent defensive centers. Yet, they are both sitting on the bench while our opponent takes the lead and pulls away. Nate did the same damn thing last year in February's embarrassing loss to the Thunder. In that game, he played Greg 16 minutes and Joel 14 minutes which means we went nearly 18 minutes without one of our centers on the floor. The Blazers got out rebounded 43-37 and lost 102-93 to an inferior opponent.

Just five days later, Nate appeared to have learned his lesson. We played the Thunder again and Greg played 24:33 and Joel played 23:27. If you add that up it comes to EXACTLY 48 minutes - meaning one of our centers was on the court every second of that game. The result: the Blazers out rebounded the Thunder 48-35 and won the game 106-92. The next two times we played OKC, our centers played big minutes, and were only pulled during garbage time where we were up by 30 points. The Blazers owned the boards in those two games (57-32 and 54-36) and absolutely dominated the Thunder (107-72 and 113-83).

Seems to me we have a pretty well defined recipe for success here: play your big guys, own the boards, defend the paint and win the game. Seems simple doesn't it? We have a clear cut advantage, as long as our coach is willing to use it - which he was during last season's stretch run.

So, how did he manage to forget such an important lesson over the off season?

On opening night when the Rockets cut the lead to 6 in the 4th quarter - it was with both Greg and Joel on the bench (for no apparent reason). I remember when Budinger drove right down the lane and dunked to cut the lead to 8, I thought, "that would NEVER happen with Greg or Joel in the game". Oden came back in with two minutes left and within seconds blocked Kyle Lowry's driving lay-up. If Oden hadn't been in the game, it would have been another easy lay-up for the opposition.

So last night, when does Atlanta make their run and pull away in the second half? When Nate decides to go small and has both Greg and Joel on the bench, of course. Yeah, Greg was in foul trouble (but Nate NEEDS to let him learn to play through foul trouble - and if he fouls out we have Joel who would be starting on over half the teams in the league). So, what about Joel? He was sitting on the bench with 2 fouls. There was absolutely NO reason to go small last night. With Greg and Joel, we are one of the best rebounding teams in the league - when they are in the game. They can't pull down any rebounds when they are both glued to the bench. Last night, the Blazers were out rebounded 46-36, and predictably lost. And, it's not like Greg and Joel were playing bad. They were a combined 6-8 from the field for 12 points and 15 rebounds in 30 minutes.

Nate has now proven what I've known all along - when you have TWO great rebounding, excellent defending centers, you should NEVER go small (except during garbage time). Rebounding and defense wins ball games. When you have a clear advantage in both areas, you should never give that up voluntarily. If you do, you deserve what you get.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Why do I think that Bill Simmons might actually be on to something right now?


Oh right, it's because the team does look like they are disjointed and have tuned out the coach.

Just like Bill said they would.

Which sucks total ass btw.

Did Bill Simmons also predict our coach would inexplicably decide to play small ball when we have two of the best rebounding, best defending centers in the league on our roster?

If Nate continues to pull stupid shit like that the players should tune him out. The guy preaches defense, defense, defense non-stop and then when the game is on the line, he has our two best defenders on the bench.

BNM

 

[hasoos]

Right now when I watch this team, it seems to me that Nate is trying to make it like the Supersonic team he was on, where they had the personnel to switch everything, and they played small ball for the most part. The thing is, that team had the personnel for it. All of their guards were physical and good defenders, and interchangeable on the perimeter. Their big guys could all shoot from anywhere. Derek Mckey and Detlef Schrempf were interchangeable at forward, and had complete offensive games. Sam Perkins was more of a Channing Frye type than an Oden/Pryzbilla type.

Yet when I watch the team, its like he is trying to run that exact same system, even though the personnel isn't built for that. Very few of the players on the Blazers now is versatile enough to play more than one position effectively. Most of our forwards are not interchangeable on defense. We end up on offense a lot with our center getting the ball at the top of the key, where they are useless except for making another pass to try and get it out of there. Our bigs end up switched on guards on the perimeter, and the guards end up on bigs in the paint. Stop the madness. This isn't the Sonics of the early nineties.

 

[barfo]

Is it possible there is a method to McMadness?

For instance, let's say KP came to McMillan just before the season started and said: "I have a trade lined up for player X, but as part of the package they want Joel. Can you live without him?

Nate says, well, it'll be tough cause Oden gets in foul trouble. But let's do the experiment. Let's sit both Joel and Oden and see what would happen if I didn't have Joel and couldn't play Oden. I'll try it for several minutes each of the first few games and we'll see.

barfo

 

[Boob-No-More]

Is it possible there is a method to McMadness?

For instance, let's say KP came to McMillan just before the season started and said: "I have a trade lined up for player X, but as part of the package they want Joel. Can you live without him?

Nate says, well, it'll be tough cause Oden gets in foul trouble. But let's do the experiment. Let's sit both Joel and Oden and see what would happen if I didn't have Joel and couldn't play Oden. I'll try it for several minutes each of the first few games and we'll see.

barfo

The problem with your scenario is what if the mysterious "player x" is a center or power forward. That would negate any results of the "small ball" experiment.

A more likely scenario is they are showcasing Travis for a trade. Let him rack up as many points as possible (big scoring numbers tend to inflate a players trade value) and hope he hits a game winner that gets shown in an endless loop on Sports Center.

 

[PapaG]

Let Oden foul out. Fouling out isn't going to hurt his self-confidence any more than being parked on the bench after 1-2 minutes of play. Every time a game ends in which Oden has less than 6 fouls, there were minutes he could have played that were left on the table.

That's something that has bugged me in general...not just with McMillan and Oden, but with coaching in general. They end up artificially limiting minutes because they try to "save" their players from fouling out.

Once the fourth quarter rolls around, play Oden as normal until the game is over or he fouls out. At least that way, he gets every possible minute. Otherwise, it's essentially the same as if Oden fouls out on 4-5 fouls, instead of 6. It's just that you, the coach, are fouling him out prematurely.

So, you believe in allowing the other team to get easy scoring chances at the FT line early in the game?

Interesting. A lot of "experts" in this thread, yet not a single one has actually even set foot on an NBA floor as a player or a coach.

 

[barfo]

The problem with your scenario is what if the mysterious "player x" is a center or power forward. That would negate any results of the "small ball" experiment.

Maybe it's Chris Paul?

A more likely scenario is they are showcasing Travis for a trade. Let him rack up as many points as possible (big scoring numbers tend to inflate a players trade value) and hope he hits a game winner that gets shown in an endless loop on Sports Center.

Do GMs trade for players based on watching Sports Center?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

The same posters whining about running more are now complaining that the coach tried to run more. Experiment failed. Now stop whining about pace.

 

[barfo]

Interesting. A lot of "experts" in this thread, yet not a single one has actually even set foot on an NBA floor as a player or a coach.

Whereas, all the other threads here are filled with posts from NBA players and coaches?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Whereas, all the other threads here are filled with posts from NBA players and coaches?

barfo

This one has extra venom in it. The first post is a disgrace for a Blazer "fan" to post, IMO, and it goes downhill from there. Everything is "McMuffin's" (gee, haven't heard that one before) fault, yet he tries to run more last night, and gets clobbered for it.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The same posters whining about running more are now complaining that the coach tried to run more. Experiment failed. Now stop whining about pace.

Nice strawman. I have read every post in this thread and not one of them had any whining about pace.

Small ball does not == running. The showtime Lakers featured an old and slow Kareem. A good fast break starts with a rebound and an outlet pass. You can't break if you can't rebound.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Blazers run more, but it has to start with rebounding and defense. Hard to do when your two best rebounders/defenders are on the bench.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Maybe it's Chris Paul?

OK. I'm down with that. Although I question why NO would want Joel when they just traded for Okafor.

Do GMs trade for players based on watching Sports Center?

Does the name Chris Wallace ring a bell?

 

[Minstrel]

So, you believe in allowing the other team to get easy scoring chances at the FT line early in the game?

I don't believe in allowing the other team to get easy scoring chances at the FT line at any time of the game. I'm not sure whether you're trying to say that playing Oden would allow those chances, or letting him foul out would.

If it's the first, I disagree. He fouls a lot for a big man, but the majority of his time is spent not fouling and playing excellent defense.

If it is the second, allowing him to play to six fouls would maximize his minutes. Nursing his foul situation through the game so that he finishes the game with 4-5 fouls is costing him minutes he could have played. It means he effectively "fouls out" at 4-5 fouls, instead of 6.

 

[PapaG]

I don't believe in allowing the other team to get easy scoring chances at the FT line at any time of the game. I'm not sure whether you're trying to say that playing Oden would allow those chances, or letting him foul out would.

If it's the first, I disagree. He fouls a lot for a big man, but the majority of his time is spent not fouling and playing excellent defense.

If it is the second, allowing him to play to six fouls would maximize his minutes. Nursing his foul situation through the game so that he finishes the game with 4-5 fouls is costing him minutes he could have played. It means he effectively "fouls out" at 4-5 fouls, instead of 6.

The "majority" of his time is spent on the bench, saddled with foul trouble. I disagree in letting him just foul out. He's too important late in games. I find it an odd criticism, and one that not a single NBA coach has done with such a foul-proned player. Hell, Shaq and Duncan even come out early with 2 fouls.

 

[Ed O]

The same posters whining about running more are now complaining that the coach tried to run more. Experiment failed. Now stop whining about pace.

What? The Blazers are 28th out of 30 NBA teams in Pace right now. I'm not sure why anyone would think we're trying to run more.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2010.html

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

The "majority" of his time is spent on the bench, saddled with foul trouble.

I meant the majority of his time on the floor, silly!

I disagree in letting him just foul out. He's too important late in games.

You are misunderstanding me slightly. I don't mean that he should be played from the first minute continuously until he fouls out. Managing his fouls in the first half, and even a bit in the third quarter, is fine. In the fourth quarter, though, just let him play as normal until he fouls out. Don't lift him at the 6 minute mark in the fourth quarter because he picked up his fifth foul. As I said, every game in which he finishes with 4-5 fouls, minutes he could have played were left on the table.

I want Oden to play as many minutes as possible, since I consider him a net positive on the floor even with the fouls committed. Allowing him to foul out means he plays every minute possible. I'm less concerned with exactly when in the game those minutes come. I'd rather he squeezed out 28-30 minutes and fouled out with 7 minutes left in the game than that his fouls were managed so that he doesn't foul out, is on the floor at the end of the game and he ends up with 22 minutes.

 

[hasoos]

I meant the majority of his time on the floor, silly!



You are misunderstanding me slightly. I don't mean that he should be played from the first minute continuously until he fouls out. Managing his fouls in the first half, and even a bit in the third quarter, is fine. In the fourth quarter, though, just let him play as normal until he fouls out. Don't lift him at the 6 minute mark in the fourth quarter because he picked up his fifth foul. As I said, every game in which he finishes with 4-5 fouls, minutes he could have played were left on the table.

I want Oden to play as many minutes as possible, since I consider him a net positive on the floor even with the fouls committed. Allowing him to foul out means he plays every minute possible. I'm less concerned with exactly when in the game those minutes come. I'd rather he squeezed out 28-30 minutes and fouled out with 7 minutes left in the game than that his fouls were managed so that he doesn't foul out, is on the floor at the end of the game and he ends up with 22 minutes.

Actually Oden has shown the ability to play with foul trouble pretty well in the times he has been given an opportunity to keep playing. The problem is he isnt given a chance to keep playing.

 

[BBert]

Is it possible there is a method to McMadness?

For instance, let's say KP came to McMillan just before the season started and said: "I have a trade lined up for player X, but as part of the package they want Joel. Can you live without him?

Nate says, well, it'll be tough cause Oden gets in foul trouble. But let's do the experiment. Let's sit both Joel and Oden and see what would happen if I didn't have Joel and couldn't play Oden. I'll try it for several minutes each of the first few games and we'll see.

barfo

After these first five games I've been thinking it's more like KP went to Nate before the season and said: "I have my eye on a franchise PG in next year's draft. What can you do to tank the season?"

 

[BBert]

Losing to inferior teams because of boneheaded coaching decisions.

Just let it all out. Don't hold back. We're here for you.

 

[barfo]

After these first five games I've been thinking it's more like KP went to Nate before the season and said: "I have my eye on a franchise PG in next year's draft. What can you do to tank the season?"

Perhaps KP went to Nate and said "McMuffin I know you're not so bright, won't you bench Greg Oden tonight?"

barfo