I don't think adding Batum is the answer. He struggles defending Artest, and even worse, our offense has been horrible with him on the court. I feel like we're always getting outscored when he's on the court. I would like to see more pick & rolls with Greg. I would also like to see the people that think they know more than Nate, get in touch with reality.
Nate seems to write his substitution patterns before the game, not based on game flows. There is no excuse for not having a timeout at the end of the game.
Watch the Lakers against the Jazz, they have the same substitution patterns every game. The Cavs are the same way. This is very common in the NBA. What good would it do to have 4 timeouts at the end of the game, if you were down 10? You use your timeouts when you feel like your team isn't making the proper reads or adjustments on their own. If we had a team full of veterans, I'm sure we wouldn't use near as many timeouts earlier in the games.
We had zero. That caused us to force up really bad shots and not be calm. And one of the timeouts, Nate took it to correct his shitty twin towers substitution.
Too bad you didn't answer my question. I'll just assume you'd rather be down 3 with no timeouts. Nate made a substitution mistake, or Adleman made a great coach move (maybe both); believe it or not, no coach makes the right decision every time. If a coach is making tons of decisions during a game, I expect him to make a few mistakes.
Your question seemed more rhetorical than anything, which is why I didn't bother answering it. I'm not saying that he should save 4 timeouts...but most basketball coaches would want at least one time out just in case the game HAPPENS to be close (and based on the momentum, it would have been). But if I am a coach, I would remember to save a timeout if the game is going to be close or even reachable...and it was reachable for the Blazers. He had terrible management of the time outs. Your question is moot, since Nate's timeout he had to take as a result of a substitution mistake did not make any sense whatsoever at the time, and he realized and had to get Aldridge back in the game. I mean, how dare I question us not having a time out in a game where it would have been useful. Down 3 points, we could have used that time out instead of Steve Blake forcing up that airball...we could have run a play. We have to second guess Nate's coaching on these types of plays, to ignore it would be idiotic.
Nicolas hasn't really given us much offensively, and we don't really need his defense as much as against other teams. I just want to see more Rudy out there. No way should he have played just 22 minutes with the way he was going and B-Roy in foul trouble, and Travis shooting like shit.
To ignore the consequences of not taking a timeout earlier the game would be equally idiotic. If Nate felt like he needed a timeout to stop a problem he's seeing being repeated or to take advantage of something the Rockets were giving us, then it's just as valuable in the 2nd quarter as it is with 10 seconds left in the 4th quarter.
Then why did Nate bother to take a timeout just to get the substitution? That timeout was wasted it seems..but it was just to quickly correct his mistake in sub patterns....he had to get LaMarcus in there because the offense was stagnant with two low post centers. If you had watched the game, you would have seen it, but again with the box-score junkies.
The timeout he took to replace Pryzbilla with LMA was to correct his substitution mistakes in playing the "twin towers". Yao was minimially effective..the Blazers were losing by the Rocket's jump shot...why would he want to do a defensive lineup to contain what is not an offensive threat? Before we dismiss second guessing his moves, it is important to provide justification for them...because it didn't make any sense from my perspective.
tince, i'm not sure why we can't blame this loss on nate? he sat rudy when he was the only one hitting, he used up all his timeouts when one would have been really nice to have instead of blake throwing up the ugly ass shot he did and all in all he has been out coached in this series. once again, show some passion nate. get a T for your guys, they are getting raped on alot of these callls but you stand there with your arms folded and you don't do jack shit. i'm tired of it. this is playoff basketball, the rockets weren't pleased that game 2 wasn't called for them like game 1 was. what did they do? they bitched and moaned, and conincidence or not, they got the majority of the calls tonight. this is how the game is played, play it or get the hell off our sideline.
I thought before the series that this would be LaMarcus' coming out party where he'd really show he belongs among the top PFs in the game. This was his chance to shine in the national spotlight, but instead, he's sort of wilted under the pressure of being the No. 2 guy on this team. Brandon cannot do this all by himself, and Aldridge needs to man up and play like he did at the end of the regular season. We need him to be a consistent option, and right now, he's running really hot or really really cold offensively.
Do you have a link or an interview that says he took that timeout to make a substitution? Or do you assume anytime a substitution is made during a timeout, that's why the timeout was called? You seem to throw out a lot of statements without any proof, in hopes that nobody will call BS. For instance, you implied I never watched the game and only look at boxscores. I haven't seen a box score, and I've watched the game twice already.
Aldridge and Outlaw were at the sidelines waiting to check in. As you said, the blazers were only outscored by one point. You must have an excellent...almost photographic memory to recall that the Rockets outscored the Blazers by one point when the twin towers were in there for that short period of time. When the game was happening, I knew they had to get that twin towers lineup out of there...there was no stoppage of plays and I am just assuming that Nate had to use it up to make a lineup change.
You can blame Nate, I just don't agree. I'd rather blame Outlaw, Roy, and Aldridge for not converting a lot of easy opportunities. I also think you can lose a game without blaming anyone, but rather, give credit to the winning team for making plays on the offensive or defensive ends.
The twin towers lineup came in around the 10:30 mark in the 4th quarter. There was a TV timeout at the 8:50 mark, so he easily could have taken one of them out there. I think it's much more logical to assume that Nate would rather have LMA in at PF than either Greg or Joel. However, LMA gets his normal rest at the start of the 2nd and 4th quarter. It's possible he thought the team would be better off not waiting a few possessions for a dead ball to get LMA in, but that doesn't mean he thought the twin towers lineup was a total disaster. It's possible he wanted to change the tempo of the game. I don't know what he was thinking, but they certainly outscored Houston after that point, so whatever adjustment was made seemed to be a good one. If LMA could have played the entire 2nd half, maybe he wouldn't have had the twin towers in, and we would have had an extra timeout. Maybe we should blame LMA for not being in the best shape ever, and not being able to go for 24 minutes in the 2nd half. I don't think that makes sense either, but all these options are possibilities that we don't know the answer to. It's foolish to assume that the one we want to believe is the gospel and state it as fact.
Listen to Jeff Van Gundy when Aaron Brook is shooting free throws with 2.7 seconds left. "Far too many people criticize coaches for not having timeouts left at the end of the game. If Nate hadn't used those timeouts earlier, they wouldn't even be in the game now." It's amazing that he said exactly what I've been saying, especially for someone who "only looks at boxscores".
