Failing badly? They lost in 6 games to a team that took the eventual champions to 7 games. They failed - but it was not such a surprise. Experience is very important in this league and they had almost no experience in this environment.
Is Nate being defensive? I could see how some would interpret his comments like that. But in the context of a coach who refuses to sigh more than a one year deal because he wants to make sure he earns an extension each year . . . an attitude like that, I'll put up with him being defensive (which I don't think he is) to micro scrutiny by the media.
Have you listened to it? He (Greg) said that he lost the ball so he did not deserve it. Apparently he was lost on offense a couple of times (lost his place in the set). No motivation issues - sounds like it was a clear case of someone that actually does not have delusions about his play. He was also apparently very happy about his performance defensively.
This is micro-scrutiny? Talking about why one of the best center prospects in a decade got to touch the ball 10 times on offense in nearly 30 minutes? Ed O.
Wait, Nate's playing and not just coaching? How does Nate control a pass off of the PnR? Do you think he honestly says if the guy rolls well, and is open, DON'T pass to him?
I swear I counted 11 offensive opportunities, and that didn't count 3 offensive rebounds that he kicked out and the handful of times he reversed the ball to start our offense (which he commonly does). I'm wondering if whoever made this log confused touches with offensive opportunities. Either way, if you are turning the ball over 30% of the time you TOUCH the ball, that is worse. I don't buy the accuracy of this log.
It is true I am assuming he is being defensive, but in my defense Quick has mentioned multiple times in the past how Nate is defensive when he is questioned about lineups, rotations, and the team defense (in particular on whether they switch too much or not).
Don't buy it? Okay. Here's the source: http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/10/28/1105221/charting-greg-odens-touches
Well, if you look at the chart presented above - you will see that in the first quarter, when Oden was on the court - there were 5 plays for Oden, 5 for Roy, 4 for LMA, 1 for Blake and 2 for Outlaw. During that time Oden had 3 turn-overs, 1 assist and 1 miss. Sounds to me like they saw that Hayes was giving him a real hard time on offense in the first quarter - and decided to let him concentrate on the defense for the rest of the game instead of getting frustrated with his botched offense. And guess what - it worked. He did great on defense and the team won by 9 points. Look at that, Nate had an in-game adjustment and "the clueless" are still upset. Good on Nate for doing the in-game adjustment, and good on Oden for being positive with his game and his success on defense.
I'm saying that Joel, before Nate got here, actually wasn't a non-factor on offense like he is regarded as now. He wasn't a force, he wasn't some dominating post scorer, but other teams had to respect that Joel could actually catch the ball at the rim on a pick and roll. When Nate got here we pretty much cut that play to Joel out of the proverbial basketball picture. We're much more a pick and pop team, and we're ignoring an option that would at least make teams stick with Joel on offense more than they do now. The same should be applied to Greg, and even moreso.
I caught that it was on Blazersedge, thanks for the link. I'll use Synergy to check this out tomorrow. When Greg had 3 TO's with the ball in his hand, 3 FGA, and 4 offensive rebounds that is 10 touches right there. I know for a fact he reversed the ball a handful of times, had an assist for a layup, and kicked the ball out a couple times. So if the boxscore accounts for 10 touches along, I think it's safe to say that log is not accurate.
Except you're counting one of his offensive rebounds which led to a field goal as two separate touches when it was the same touch.
I think so, because the point seems to be the dominating idea after the Blazers won and Oden had a good defensive game. As Nate expressed (so I read) "they just don't know what they are talking about" referring to the criticism of Oden not getting the ball enough. This isn't about Oden getting a certain amount of touches down low . . . it should be about whether the Blazers are playing well as a team. In fact the biggest concern I'm guessing Nate has and should be the issue is the number of TO the Blazers had. But of course if this board made that the issue, than that would weaken all this Oden should get the ball more talk. So the media and this board will raise some small issue (at least a small issue in the minds of the coach and players). You said it best yourself in another thread . . . the fact he was "one of the best center prospects in a decade" is really irrelevant to what he is today. If he has a top center post up game, feed him the ball. If he doesn't, slowly work him into the offense. It's not about what he was as a prospect but what he can do now. (Didn't you raise that point, which i I thought was a good point . . . I know you raised in in the context of if they drafted him for defense but he is an offensive Juggernaut, then adapt. I agree but thinks it goes both ways.)
Excellent point! So subtract 1, add in the play he had an assist and that still gets us 10 documented touches based off the box score. So now I'm supposed to believe I never saw Greg get the ball in the post and kick it out, or reverse the ball to get us in our offense. I think Ben defines touches differently than I do.
Then you get 3 TOs, 3 FGA, and 3 offensive rebounds(excluding the 4th, as it is included in the FGA), and the one assist. 10 touches. As was mentioned, I know I saw him swing the ball from the post, I don't know where those are included, or how the touches is calculated.
So, Nate gave him no chances to change up his moves and become more assertive? How about feeding the ball on the move (see the P&R stuff TSE's talking about)? I just don't understand how you justify him touching the ball 5 times in three quarters as Nate making a positive change.
This board is so screwed up that I do not know if you are serious or sarcastic. I will go with you agree with me an you are sarcastic... until told otherwise.
