I'm sorry. I didn't mean to anger you like this. Miller was trying out there, but the results when he shot the ball were not good. It was the heat of the moment.
Why wouldn't it work that way for fouls 1-4? If your assumption is that any penetration toward Oden will pretty much assuredly result in a foul if Oden doesn't shy away, shouldn't teams be trying to "attack Oden" from minute 1? Either he fouls or shies away, and it's a win-win for them. The answer to that, as far as I'm concerned, is that your implied assumption is wrong: "attacking Oden" doesn't mean a certain foul unless he shies away. He's more likely to foul than most other big men, but not all that likely to foul on any given possession. It's generally not worth disrupting your entire offense, and making it utterly predictable, in the hopes that you draw a foul on Oden. Regardless of his foul count. Unless you think that it's absolutely imperative to the other team to get Oden out of the game...in which case, he must be pretty damn valuable and it's crazy to keep him on the bench when he hasn't fouled out.
that's why you just leave him in and tell him to play. if it takes the other team out of their offense so they can focus on trying to get that foul, great. their opponent playing to get a foul rather than playing to score is a good thing for portland. if the two choices are to have oden sit or to just tell him to play and not worry about the fouls, how could you not pick the 2nd one? at least that way you get some more use out of him rather than just sitting him on the bench. and it's not like they are less likely to attack him if he sits down for a few minutes and then comes back in.
I give this thread 5 stars for "China Syndrome" totally spectaculawesome! Seriously this one rocks an instant classic. I am SOOOOOOO glad I missed the game tonight. At this point I'm kinda hoping they lose a couple more and Nate gets fired. I've been critical of him, but at this point I want his head. I had forgotten my occasional axe sharpening at his rotations last season due to that awesome win streak to end the season. At any rate I'm pretty much in the fire Nate camp. I feel that a lesser coach, who understands the hot hand and game flow, but not other things would take this team MUCH further. I call Nate the Anti-Phil Jackson as he is the worst player/talent manager and game flow reader I have ever seen. He's seriously worse then coaches like Mo Cheeks in this department. Carlesimo and Shuler really sucked balls so they might give Nate a run for his money, but other then that this guy is tops.
I think teams do attack Oden, and I think it does work a lot of the time. Look at Denver's success, where driving did mean a foul every time. Again, I'm not trying to paint a picture that's black and white here; matchups have to be exploited, and offenses have to be mixed up. But Oden is averaging 5 fouls a game only because he's being taken out before he can average 6 a game. It's obvious that somebody is taking advantage of Oden's propensity for fouling.
If you think they do it all game (when he's on the floor) and are successful with it then why do you want him on the floor ever? Why do you only want (or see as reasonable) him lifted in the fourth quarter with foul trouble? Because this post of yours seems to contradict your earlier response that you feel Oden is a net positive "from fouls 1-4." If the other team can get foul shots or layups almost at will against Oden's defense, all game long, he's definitely not a net positive.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the following: 1 - Attacking Oden is in the team scouting report, and that teams will try this often 2 - Any player who gets their 5th foul is susceptible to being exploited because they'll very often either be too cautious or foul out. We've seen our own players take advantage of this in the past. This is generally considered a Good Strategy 3 - At this point, after foul 5, Nate considers Oden a net negative, and benches him (usually until 2 minutes left in the game) I'm not saying the following: 1 - teams run every play to try and foul Oden 2 - teams try to exploit the Oden foul machine at the expense of exploiting other matchups I'm definitely, positively NOT saying the following: 1 - Oden should never be on the floor because he's always a net negative
It's generally considered a Good Strategy among fans. I really don't see it done much in actual games. Because there's little logic to it. Either a player can defend without giving up too many free throws in the process or he can't. If he can't, he'll either become "too cautious" or give up free throws at any time in the game, no matter what his personal foul count is. So I really don't see how a player with 5 fouls is more susceptible to being attacked. Teams like free throws at any point in the game. I realize that you weren't explicitly saying any of those things. My point was that those were the natural consequences of your argument. If attacking Oden is smart when he has five fouls because he'll either be tentative or foul out, and that makes him a net negative, then that really should hold true all game long...because even at 1 foul, you can say the exact same thing if you replace "either be tentative or foul out" with "either be tentative or give up free throws."
6.4pts, 3.4asts, 1.9rebs, 2.0turns, 35%FG, 39%3pt in 26 mpg. Ladies and Gentlemen, your starting Point Guard. Would Bayless really be any worse?
To be fair mojomarc from realgm said it from the day it was announced so you may have some intergalactic competition.
My observation: This picture sums up our perimeter defense outside of Martell against KD and partially against Carmelo the entire year (and previous years).
Kevin McHale would be a top-notch coach. Although if Nate rights the ship, this talk will stop. You guys might be interested to know who on the ESPN board was first to call for Mo Cheeks to be fired. It was Maris. I was second. It took courage to oppose everyone on the board, who saw us as traitors. Maris has always been braver than me, and I admire him for it. I had been thinking it, but I didn't have the nerve to say it until he did. And that's a great picture of them holding up their arms but not stepping in to block the path.
Haha, that's when I said it. The Fan had on a beat writer from Seattle who corrected Ian Furness when he said Nate liked to push the ball. The beat writer said "Actually, no he doesn't. Nate's offense is hurry up and wait. Most of his teams shots come against the shot clock." That moment I posted on BBF, or whatever it was called then, that he was not the right coach for us. Kudos to mojomarc for haveing the same gut feeling though.
What sucks, looking at that picture, is Joel is up at the top of the key/gree throw line area, and Horford is down on the low block by Roy. There were times last night where on a normal possession with Atlanta bringing the ball up the court, we were already lost on defense. Saw one instance like that with Travis on the PG, Blake on a PF, Roy down low or soemthing, and was very annoyed at it. I can understand getting crossed up on a fast break. Or after a couple of screens. This was just getting back on defense, and already, you all went to the wrong guy. I blame most of our defensive woes on Nate. I think it;'s bullshit that he tries to say we don't plan to switch on screens. Either every team defends the pick and roll really well, or we suck at running it, then. because why is it Brandon ROy gets strung 25 feet away from the basket on every screen, but when we defend it, it's generally just an immediate mismatch or layup? Also, why the FUCK did we start double teaming Johnson basically every single time he touched the ball last game, but didn't think to do that at any point against a much better Carmelo Anthony in the 4th quarter when he was kicking our ass?
