Portland's first three games are home against Houston and Denver, then at Houston. Who'd Portland lose to in the playoffs last year? So I'm saying the opponents are tough and letting Oden get acclimated to playing big minutes against those teams' second units, and along side Miller, might not be such a bad thing. It's not like Joel sucks or anything, and he deserves some loving from the coach for being such a fine veteran. I'd be at least a little patient with Nate at this point.
I'd rate the importance of starting, finishing, and overall minutes in the reverse order I just listed them in. I'd also rate the importance of the playoffs way over the regular season... there is plenty of time for Nate to sort matters out. btw, given his horrible track record on such matters, I can't believe so many of us get worked up over Quick's speculations... which is all this is. STOMP
I've always thought he had his strengths and his weaknesses. I never thought he was this incompetent.
Houston isn't the same team that beat us in the playoffs last year without Yao. Oden should be able to beat up on all of Houston's big men.
We lost to Houston because the lineup we had basically had two people who could create offense in LMA and Roy. This Houston lineup will sans Yao, McGrady and Artest with a front court that has one 7 footer, and everyone else 6'9 or under. Oden would have a distinct advantage to get Scola, Hayes, Landry and Andersen into fast foul trouble with his quickness returned as well with his massive size in comparison. As much as I, and most people, love Joel he simply cannot do this and we often are playing 4-5 on offense with him on the court. This leads to double teams on LMA and Roy (who will be contending with Ariza and Battier because Batum doesn't really hurt people on his own) and we again have the same problems we had last year with this starting lineup. Nate has this set in his mind where we must divide lineups to even them out and that players must come and go at specific times in the period. Almost every single Blazer fan could probably tell you at what time Joel Przybilla or Greg is going to sub out for the other, same with Nic for Outlaw just because Nate is extremely rigid. The argument that many players bring their third best player off the bench is valid but to be fair doesn't really apply to Portland, especially in regards to Outlaw. Outlaw comes off the bench because he is an absolute wreck when he starts at small forward. He makes bad decisions, is indecisive at other times, is lost on defense, and is much better at power forward. But he cannot start at power forward with LMA at center because Travis is a poor rebounder, where Joel and Greg are absolute beasts. Ginobli, Terry, Odom etc coming off the bench are fine because their starting lineup isn't playing 4-5, 3-5, and sometimes 2-5 on offense with them on the bench. Steve Blake is a great three point shooter but he can't really create for other people where Miller is able. I'm fine with Batum starting over Webster because the three in our lineup basically stands in the corner and Nic is pretty good defensively. Joel is a great rebounder and defender, but Greg is a great rebounder and improving defender while providing the offense (and even just the hands) that Joel does not possess. People will point out that we're fine offensively because we were the most efficient team; however, I will respond we were the most efficient team because we had great offensive rebounders. Overall our offense depended far too much on Brandon Roy isos if Blake and Batum weren't hitting their three pointers because they couldn't do much else.
three seasons ago(06/07) the spurs won the championship. their starting lineup was tony parker, tim duncan, michael finley, bruce bowen, and fabricio oberto. finley was strictly a spot up shooter at that point taking 60% of his shots(in the playoffs) from 3 point range. bowen just stood in the corner on offense. oberto was a guy who played 20 minutes a game and rebounded the ball. does that sound similar to a lineup people are going crazy about right now?
Finley started 16 games out of the 82 he played, and Ginobili started 36 of 75 games he played. Oberto started 33 of 79 games, and Bowen was a better player than Batum is at this point. Finley did start all his playoff games (20) but I feel he is better than Blake is and much more heady.
This is great! So many opposing opinions! For all of you bringing up Odom, and Ginobili, and using them as examples for sitting Greg, I agree. But as I posted a couple of days ago (which was pipe-dreamish even for me): we have a player who takes the first quarters off to "conserve energy". Fact: Our Point Differential was significantly lower in the first quarter than in was in total (I don't have the exact numbers---if someone has quarter-by-quarter splits i'd love to see them) and we were down in over half our games. We have a player who is below average on defense because he's conserving his energy on offense. Which was fine: he was really one of the only options we had to create offense. We have a player who has said he likes playing with the 2nd-best PG on the team, and is playing poorly right now trying to acclimate to a "passing" PG. We have a new addition PG who seems intent on getting our franchise center involved, but b/c our star player is not acclimating well, the franchise C and the passing PG are relegated to the bench. So that we can start a lineup that wasn't close to winning a playoff series. Start Miller/Rudy/SF/LMA/Oden and bring Roy in to play with Blake, Outlaw and Joel on the 2nd unit--just like Ginobili. I don't care that he's a high draft pick or all star or max contract guy. Ginobili is an all-star, makes over 10M a year (and will probably get a bump this year) and comes off the bench: Instead of starting potentially 3 worse players than their backups so that Roy and Nate are comfortable, why not start 4 of 5 who deserve it (and who seem to be meshing relatively well together) and bring Roy off the bench in much the same role he had last year: shouldering a bit of the scoring load with Blake, Batum, and Przy; and using the same energy (in less minutes) to play some All-NBA D, like Nate wants him to?
and you know this because you were at the game last night? No, you don't know that because you weren't at the game and you like to make shit up.
It's not as easy as that. Aaron Brooks had his way with your guards. If he gets around your guards again, Oden will be fouling him. FWIW, that's how I see it.
yes, i was talking about their playoff starting lineup but i feel like it's still relevant. oberto doesn't matter. him and elson split the starts. does it matter which one we include? i don't think so.
I think your argument would be more favorable if the Blazers had a player of 06/07 Duncan quality, if Blake was better than Finley, and if Batum was better than Bowen. I do not feel any of these are the case, and McMillan is not as good as Pop at this stage in his coaching career. We both seem to agree that Greg should start, and I could go either way on Miller. I understand that Blake is essentially unproductive without Roy on the court so starting Blake makes him into a better player. But it isn't like Roy couldn't play with Blake when Blake was on the floor, but Nate seems convinced he cannot find a way to break his rigid rotations where there is a set time a player must come in and out of the game.
Brooks did have a couple of good games, but if you take a look at the overall stats from that series he was pretty mediocre... games 3-5 he went a combined 10-36 from the field. This year Portland has Andre who should be able to absolutely punish him on the other end. As a Blazer fan I really like that matchup. STOMP
All you need is some quick guard getting to Oden a couple of times and it's a couple of fouls. Early and he ices on the bench. I always thought of Miller as a very good passing combo guard. Physical post up kind of player against smaller guys. He's got a bit of grey in his beard to be chasing around the super quick PGs, IMO.
Hopefully, Nate figures out the mistake that going with last year's lineup would be- sooner rather than later. In any event, I can't see Blake getting more minutes than Miller- Blake may become a nominal starter like Batum was last year. If Nate is worried about not enough firepower left on the bench if he starts Miller, Roy, Webster, Aldridge and Oden- then he can leave one of the starters in with the bench..or perhaps move Bayless above Blake- Bayless can find his own shot.
Similar, if Portland had any player on the team as good at Tim Duncan. Similar if Portland had a point guard as quick as Parker. Similar if Portland had a single player on the team as good at defense as Bowen. Similar if Portland was even half as good at team defense as the Spurs are. Similar if Portland had a coach even half as good as Popovich. Unfortunately, none of above are true. And before the Lakers get mentioned, Portland doesn't have any single player on the team as good as Denver Rapist. I love Roy but he isn't in the same league. They don't have a multiskilled big man as good as Pau. And they certainly don't have anyone remotely like Odom. These two teams can afford to bring great players off the bench. Portland isn't in that realm yet. BTW, when did the Celtics decide to bring Ray Allen off the bench to strengthen their 2nd unit? You mean they were able to play their best 5 players at the same time? That's crazy talk!
starting your best 5 players is fine. it's also fine to not start your best players. it depends on how your players fit together. but insisting that you have to start your best 5 is stupid. and the spurs example obviously isn't an exact match, but every two teams are different so there isn't going to be one. the point was that yes, teams can win championships with only 2 offensive options starting.
