because it's not the same as he ran in Portland? Nate ran different offenses just in his tenure here, and he ran different offenses in Seattle as well.
No. It doesn't say anywhere that it is his offense. I had also read in the past, when we were looking at Shaw as coach, that Indiana basically runs Frank Vogel's offense. I am sure he has input, and has suggested adjustments, but Indian's offensive sets are pretty much exactly the same as last years Offensive rating 2012-2013 104.3 Offensive rating 2013-2014 104.2
What's amazing to me is how Neil took just a select few, put them together and sudden chemistry happened. There was no trial and error. You almost feel like he or Paul has a computer program, a formula that told them to go this direction, to get these players, put them together and you will see wins. These aren't stars they put together. They are ordinary average players that are getting it done.
I think it was pretty simple. Every guy we signed knew ahead of time whether they were a starter or a bench player. Neil only signed guards and wings who can really shoot the 3 and a bigs who could rebound. He also signed mostly high character guys. Really, the only guy who doesn't know his role is Leonard, who we already had.
True and he personally knew some of these guys he brought in by working with them in basketball camps. Still...
Be careful, carlito will tell you the blazers don't have a pitching staff, baseball and pitch hitters.
Chemistry Matters I'm not surprised by the Blazers’ success. I'm not surprised these guys genuinely like each other and work well together. Shared goals and a group working together to achieve what they could not individually is a requirement to maximize success, and they are doing just that. Winning basketball teams have great chemistry. This is common sense to some, and not so much to others, perhaps because not all people have been in leadership roles, or achieved shared success as a member of team competing for something greater. Who really knows? Just my guess. Some value characteristics differently: temperament, personality, sense of duty, respect, integrity, loyalty, selflessness, will power, and other values - that combined, form one’s character and ultimately lead to success or failure. There are other elements of course: skill, athletic ability, physical size, intelligence, ect. We're talking about NBA players here. What makes basketball unique from many other sports is that it requires a great deal of team work. It’s not enough to have the best players, or a team like Miami would have won the championship during LeBron’s first year in South Beach. It’s the combination, and interaction - the chemistry that enhances, and maximizes, and creates the reaction that leads to failure, mediocrity, or an NBA championship. Why is such a seemingly simply concept such as chemistry valued highly by some, and not so much by others? Chemistry is more than personality or getting along. It is how different elements react with each other across several fronts. That Portland has several 3 point shooters that fit into the system, or that Lopez fits into a system well with his able to be left alone in the paint and not needing help to double team, is as much what constitutes chemistry as whether or not they get along in the locker room. An individual filling a role that maximizes their skill set within a system, to produce the most successful reaction, that's chemistry. Ultimately, I think the argument between skill and personality is the wrong line to draw when talking about chemistry. They should not be looked at as mutually exclusive elements, but rather combined, as individuals’ characteristics, which reacts to other elements (teammates) in a reaction (a team). How they get along in the locker room, is as a part of chemistry a how well they interact on the basketball court. You can't simply separate them, because people aren't robots. And while having the best player in the NBA helps, it pails in comparison to the value of chemistry. Does having the most skilled player make the following phrase true? "There is no limit to what can be accomplished when you don’t care who gets the credit." If not, then we cannot keep trying to split hairs and draw distinctions between skill and personality in terms of chemistry. On an NBA team, chemistry trumps everything when the goal is to win it all. I don't think any of this makes me smarter than someone who doesn't see, or doesn't place such a high premium on how important chemistry is. I would liken it to one of those 3D hidden images in a repeating pattern of digital shapes. Some can pick out the hidden picture right away, others it takes greater focus and time, some need to be shown or told what to look for, some don’t have the time or patience to see the image, and others simply can’t see it at all. That hidden image is revealed because of chemistry. Without it, it's just a picture of digitally repeating shapes, a group of athletes on a basketball court, a lottery team. If everyone could see the hidden picture right away, and understand it is the result of chemistry, I have no doubt that people wouldn't make so many GD trade threads. So, yes, the moral of the story is, when you feel like suggesting a trade, don't. lol - rook
Quote Originally Posted by Mediocre Man "Me and my two sons have great chemistry, but we'd lose 100000000000000 to 0 against 3 NBA players who have never met each other" So you're saying that even though my dog and neighbor's dog have great chemistry, me destroying them on the basketball court has nothing to do with what we're talking about? I'm so confused. lol
I would just like to point out that 2000 Blazers team. That team was arguably the best Blazer team assembled. That Blazer team was built on more skill than chemistry.
Nate's system brought 3 playoff appearances with a core that was flawed. The 54-win team may be the best NBA coaching job of the last decade, IMO.
This is the fourth year of Matthews, Batum and Aldridge playing together. I think it helps being around the same teammates, knowing where they want the ball and what their strengths are. Wings are the hardest positions to fill right now so there could be a great argument to be made that Lillard is the fourth most critical piece on this team.
No one said talent is unimportant, which is why a mediocre NBA team, hell, a mediocre college team, would beat a poster and his sons (or daughters). But in the NBA, which IS what we are talking about, the big majority of players have pro talent or they would not be here. So what is the difference between, say, the 2001 Blazers with far more big name stars and this team? I think if Tevye saying "everyone here knows who he is and what god expects him to do". Substitute team/coach for god and that's this year's Blazers.
Nate's system was iso Brandon Roy at his peak, with some vet talent infusions that kept the bottom from falling out. He was good at motivating under talented squads into competitive respectability. That 54-28 team had the 62 game Oden season, which easily made a 6-8 game difference, just in intimidation alone.
Losing preceded and caused arguing. Not vice versa. Yes. We perceive chemistry in a winner and no chemistry in a loser. But that may be wishful thinking.
That article is dated July 14. It says nothing about how an assistant coach's system is powering the Pacers in November.
Oct. 27, right before the 1st game. Still not justifying your statement. Hurry, I'm 2/3 through the thread.
Finished. Thread says nothing. Best chemistry for the team is to all drop acid. I'm going to the old ice box and looking for some chemistry right now. I keep my old rusty can opener behind my ear.
