I was just running about town and listening to John Canzano he was really being critical of Nates decision to go with last years starters. His interpretation is that Nate is just being "Safe" going with what worked last year. He said each year is new players change from one season to the next and you simply can't expect the team to give you the exact same results, especially when there are players like Oden who have done everything asked of them and is clearly outplaying Joel. To me I question Nates ability to make decisions. By choosing to go with last years lineup, which as far as I am concerned he decided prior to camp, it shows that rather than make a decision he simply defaulted to not having to make a decision. It's kind of like getting up in the morning and going to the closet to pick out clothes and simply putting on what you wore yesterday because you aren't sure how the green shirt looks with your jeans, but you know the red one looked good yesterday.
Personally, I'll be much more interested in who is playing in clutch situations in the 4th quarter than who starts. As long as Travis Outlaw's minutes go significantly down, we'll be fine.
Nate has been very stubborn and frustrating through out this process. But what are we to do? To me, The cost of Greg Oden's psyche is not worth the comfort level Nate has with starting the same five guys he started last year. What's more important here Greg Oden's Pscyhe or Nate McMillan's Apparent Comfort Level?
Interestingly, the reason why Nate feels more comfortable with Joel in the lineup is due to his work on the defensive end compared to Gregs. If that is the case, wouldn't you rather have Joel in at the end of the game as well?
Canzano basically implied that Nate is contradicting his own coaching. Last year Oden was handed the starting job without earning it, this year Oden has clearly earned it and Nate isn't giving him the starting job. John wondered if Nate feels more comfortable with Joel down the stretch why not use Oden like Batum, start him then let the backup play the bulk of the minutes, or leave him in if he's tearing it up.
Dwight Jaynes brought up an interesting point today. How many 54-win teams have had 3 open competitions for the starting line-up the following season without losing a starter? I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing in terms of this season, but it sure did make me think.
That's what I was going to post--that we won 54 games, so you don't make changes without them really proving themselves to be necessary. It's true that other 54 game winners have made trades, so what's new about this, but in those cases, the guy coming in usually replaced a guy going out. GMs usually make sure that happens, in order to avoid unhappiness over the new guy and the old starter splitting time. But Pritchard seems to think that it won't be a problem.
What does this have to do with what Jaynes said. Have other 54-win teams that lost in the first round had open competitions at three starting spots without losing any starters from the previous season. Your strawman doesn't address what was posted. I also posted I'm not sure if this is a positive or a negative. So, instead of your strawman, why not address Jaynes' commentary on the competition for starting spots?
We got schooled by the Rockets, or rather Nate got schooled by Rick, because Nate didn't stick to his game lineups. He totally re-arranged his bench substitutions and tried several new bench lineups that frankly fell flat due to no chemistry. Had he stayed with what was working we'd have won that series easily.
Blake worked hard all summer and showed up early to work out with players. That's how he rolls. Miller showed up when required, said he never works out off season, said he'd never have signed if Nate hadn't lied to him, and is still a chubby butterball trying to catch his breath. This is by his own admission. So it would make a mockery of everything Nate has demanded of the team to reward Miller with a starting spot until he at least shows consistently and convincingly that he is the better guy to be out there with Roy and Co.. Roy has yet to have a good game with Andre starting. In the end, I think it will be Rudy who takes Steve's starting spot later this year. Oden is still a clumsy foul machine with terrible footwork who will improve much faster if he's not matched against wiser vets who will get him in foul trouble. Neither Travis nor Martell has been consistent yet and Nic has always been consistent especially on defense so there's no hurry and no reason to take Nic's spot from him. Gotta agree with Nate on all 3 to start the season. You want to have a solid familiar base to expand on, and if anyone steps up and improves their game and chemistry with the starters they will get the chance eventually.
Not so much with this point (and now getting off-topic, but you asked...), but I'm absolutely tired of "54 games! 54 games!" 54-win teams solve world hunger, give AIDS training in Africa and will rebuild America. Unfortunately, ours also got manhandled in the first round of the playoffs, including a world-class ass-kicking on our home floor in Game One to give up the home-court advantage those "54 games!!" got us. The same things that were brought up all year long were exposed in the playoffs. Much of our offseason plan seemed to (eventually) be tailored toward fixing the flaws that were exposed. Miller. Getting Oden into shape by practicing at TOSU and working out with USA basketball. Getting some veteran help for locker-room presence. Unfortunately (for those who want to see the team win championships, not "co-division tiebreaker loser" banners), Nate has somehow decided to stay with the same lineup that got hammered in the first round. And, predictably, we're not playing well against good teams. So to recap, you (and Jaynes) are probably correct in that there aren't a whole lot of 54-win teams that have 3 starting positions up for grabs. So I get the reasoning that there is some uncharted territory here. But that shouldn't mean that you stick with the lineup that, the last time it was seen, was not producing well, and hadn't been producing well against good teams--just because many 54-win teams don't mess with their starters.
Well...assuming that it's okay with Clownzano if Roy and Aldridge start...let's look at the rest. Oden has started more than Przybilla. Webster has tied Batum in starts now with 4 and he's getting more than 2x the minutes. So the theory already has two big holes in it. And that leaves ONE position of concern...Blake and Miller at PG. Miller has clearly outplayed Blake, but Miller is getting quite a few more minutes, so I guess I don't see the big deal here.
But, he doesn't feel more comfortable with Przybilla starting...Przybilla has 2 starts. Oden has 4. What's the matter with you people? Can't you pay attention? Clownzano is never right.
While that is important, I would rather have a coach who dictates the tempo of the game and dictates what matchup problems are going to be out on the court rather than one who sits back and waits to see who the other coach puts out, and matches up. The best coaches dictate how the matchups are going to go from the start of the game, not just the 4th quarter. The good coaches also make sure that a given lineup has played together quite a bit before using it in the playoffs, rather than using it for the first time in the playoffs. Nate continually plays into the hands of the other coach. The only positive thing Nate has going for him is he tends to play his best 5 at the end of the game. That is the only thing that has saved his ass so far. Besides that, he pretty much uses a set rotation every game for good, or for bad. With the occasional player yanked for bad play.
i don't understand the idea that joel should start because he was the starter on a 54 win team when oden started 39 games last year. they basically split the starts 50/50. but i still think that oden will be the opening day starter despite what has been said thus far. and the idea that the blazers got their ass kicked or hammered in the playoffs is simply wrong. they lost in 6 games. it happens. two of the losses were by a combined 4 points. portland lost but they didn't get dominated or anything.
Have you watched even one highlight of the pre-season? Fouls are questionable but MUCH better then last year and that is with replacement refs. To say Oden's footwork sucks shows you haven't watched a bloody thing.
