It seemed that one of the main reasons for the Blazers' late-season surge (that ended up meaning we got stomped on by the Rockets instead of perhaps facing San Antonio) was Nate's new-found commitment to running. In fact, one of the reasons that the Rockets stomped on us was that they killed our running game completely stone dead. I don't think this was Nate's fault. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that neither Steve Blake nor Brandon can be the primary ball-handler on the break. Brandon just jogs up the court with the ball (even when we're down 18 in the fourth) and Blake either doesn't even see opportunities on the break or refuses to take the risk. Is this just playoff basketball? I don't think so. The Drexler/Porter Blazers could not be stopped from running. The Suns couldn't (it wasn't the other team's defense that killed them - it was theirs). I want a PG who can run a running game. Is that Andre Miller? Should we take a shot at the newly-rejuvenated Jason Kidd? Or should we resign ourselves to being a halfcourt team and try to get a guard who can penetrate even when the defense is set up (something ELSE Steve Blake can't do)?
Yes ... He's not going to be a long term option, and with his age there's some worry about how his game will hold up, but he's been an iron man throughout his career barely missing any games and consistently producing at a high level.
Houston didn't kill our running game. Roy did. Nate implored him to push the ball but he refused. At least, that's what Rebecca and Rice reported.
everything you said is pretty much true. running is never going to be our staple with roy walking it up or blake not willing to take chances.
Well we know Blake is the worst starting PG in the L when it comes to running the break and finding teammates open buckets, Dre Miller is one of the best. He's not the 'shooter' Blake is bust he picks his spots really well and shoots great from mid-range and post ups really well for a PG. His knock is that he's not a great pick n roll buy, but we can have Brandon (or Rudy) run that anyways. Miller would be a fantastic short term fit until... Bayless is ready, Rudy is acclimated enough to run point, or we bring in someone new to develop (perhaps Koponen who Mike n Mike gush over?) I love Sergio as a 15 mpg change of pace guy (which I think Nate should've let him be more often) but he just doesn't look to ever be a starting PG. If we renounce Blake how much room do we have to sign Miller? It we be a real coup if we were able to renounce Blake, sign Miller, and trade Travis, Bayless & Sergio for Mike Conley Jr or their pick (RUBIO?, Miller would be the perfect vet to mentor him - style wise). Miller/Rubio/Koponen Roy/Fernandez Webster/Batum Aldridge/Freeland Oden/Pryz while having Bayless as a trade asset if we got Conley instead of the pick.
Roy is not a fast break type player and he never will be. He is our half court assassin and a super effective one at that. Portland needs a more aggressive player to complement Roy in the back court so Portland can take advantage of the L-Train's speed and ability to finish around the basket. Then Portland would have a team that can both run and slow it down as needed. Blake simply isn't that guy and he never will be. In other words, a multi-dimensional team that goes deep into the playoffs every year. I do think Roy can run the lane on the fast break. I just don't think he can be the main ball handler on one.
That's a nice logical argument, that I completely agree with. Too bad it took Blake's horrendous series for anybody to agree with us.
If your best player doesn't like to run (especially if he's a guard), you better have 4 other guys that like to run to compliment him. I agree that Roy doesn't like to run, so for those of you calling for Nate's head about the tempo, might want to point the finger at our team MVP.
Seattle played an uptempo style when Nate coached them. Just because a coach didn't have the skill set to run as a player, doesn't have anything to do with what he wants to do as a coach.
No, they didn't. Seattle was near the bottom of the league in pace almost every season he was the full-time coach. 2001-02: 24th of 29 2002-03: 27th of 29 2003-04: 15th of 29 2004-05: 27th of 30 Their first season after McMillan: 11th of 30 So, for one season he was middle-of-the-pack in tempo. Every other season, very low tempo.
This is not true. The only year Seattle tried to run was in Nate's 3rd year - they were not fast (15th in the league) - but they were not slow. Surprisingly enough - this was also Nate's worst year as a Seattle coach. All of his teams that were slower won more games. He never had the personal to really run with these Seattle teams - and running was not the answer for them - which was proven by the success of his slower teams. I honestly think that Nate was right to slow the Blazers up to the end of this year - such a young team that is lead by young players needs to minimize the mistakes and keep it close - where superior execution in the clutch would get them some wins. They have done that. With the added experience, better rebounding and maturing of the roster - I expect them to run more next year. EDIT - Minstrel's post above pointing to how fast Seattle was after Nate left again proves that Nate was right in slowing that team - they had a huge drop-off in production after he left. Some teams need to run - they have the personnel, experience to do it. Some do not. Running in order to run is not the answer - you do it if it fits your roster and exploits mismatches. You do not do it in order to do it. PHX was built to run - and D'antoni knew it. GSW had fantastic success running with Nellie when they had more experience on the roster - but they went young last year - and Nellie continued to run them - to dismal results. You fit the system to the roster - not the other way around.
There's one way to find out if Nate's willing to run or not, and that's to bring in a PG who can at least run the level of an average NBA starter. If we're still as simple and underutilizing our talent, well then it is Nate's last year on his contract...
