This year might be different because last year, we really did have good chemistry and the team was overachieving. KP might have been reluctant to screw that up - after all, if you make a big trade then and the team tanks afterwards, all the blame goes to KP. If the team is tanking before the trade, though, there is much less downside to making a trade. barfo
Yeah, I'm okay with the team so far. Could be a little better, but they haven't have more than a day off for nearly a month. No team has played as many games as we have. We're top 10 in offensive and defensive efficiency. Oden is beasting on a ton of advanced stats, and even some average and total stats. Roy and LMA aren't doing as badly as some thing, either. For having lost Travis "Instant Offense" Outlaw and Nicolas "Best Defender" Batum, we're doing pretty well. This is why you play the games; on paper, this was 18-0. In person, the opponents are always more of a challenge.
And if Roy suddenly decides he doesn't want Nate around, who do you think will win that battle? If Kobe or LeBron or any number of past stars decide they don't like the coach, whom do you think ultimately loses? I think Nate has some shortcomings in regards to rigid substitutions, but I don't think he's as bad as people make him out to be. I understand starting Blake if he's looking for Dre to provide offense on the "2nd unit" because frankly there ain't much else there and if people are concerned about Blake as a PG on the first unit, wait till he tries to generate offense for Pryz on the 2nd. And no, Jerryd is not the answer. He's getting there but I don't think he's ready. I am willing to give Nate some leeway on Oden because I expect long before the All Star break he'll start extending his minutes. At the same time I hope he continues to provide Oden goals in terms of minutes played, fouls, etc. For all the complaining, I think we can all agree that Oden has learned a little more this year about avoiding fouls compared to last year when he breathed heavy and got a whistle. All in all I'm okay with the team. I'm pissed Randolph came into our place and won. But I'm willing to defer unhappiness for at least another 21 days or so.
The answer is not to have a "second unit." Have a group of reserves that you mix and match with the starters. Sure, a Blake/Rudy/Cunningham/Howard(?)/Przybilla is a pretty terrible "team." So don't try to assemble a team from the reserves. Identify your best, most useful reserves (Rudy, Przybilla, Blake, Bayless IMO) and play them intermixed with starters, getting 1-2 starters out of the game at a time. Use Cunningham and Howard as necessary, but they obviously should be at the bottom of the heap, minutes-wise. Analyzing the balance of a "second unit" is a waste of time, IMO. Reserves shouldn't play as a unit, except in garbage time. They should come in from time to time to spell starters, leaving most of the starters on the floor at any given time.
And that's pretty much what Nate and every other coach does - they don't sub en masse. But some nights you need a spark off the bench..you need to be able to sub in 2 or 3 guys who play a certain style, be it offensive or defensively, because the pieces don't mesh for that system in the first unit. You inevitable will have guys who play much better in one "style" of play versus another. Suppose you have (theoretically only), two low post players who play at different positions. Now because of a mix-and-match you have both of them in at the same time, where one is spelling a starter. But now you have two guys clogging up the lane and neither of them can be effective - not only because of their style of play but because perhaps they need X number of touches to be effective and get a feel for the game.
Exactly a point I've made several times, lately. There's not really such a thing as a "second unit" in practice (though McMillan did try to do some of that in past seasons). You have to give some thought to the dynamic of the team you're putting on the floor at any given time, but by and large you try to have your best players on the floor. You replace your starters (assuming, as is usually the case, that "starters" and "best players" are the same thing) as sparingly as possible and bring in the best reserves you can when you do have to remove a starter. Obviously, you can't bring in a guard to replace a center or power forward, and perhaps there are occasionally some issues with wanting a couple of players to play together, but I really think that's rare. If two of your best players are both low-post players, the GM should be looking to balance that out via trade...but as a coach, until that happens, you have to find a way to maximize both of them playing "starter minutes." Success depends on getting the most minutes out of your best players, not deciding "This roster is mismatched, so I'll put one of my best players on the sidelines."
The last two games have jaded the view, it's not that we lost them but HOW we did, I am very concerned.
To me, it's not that you lose, it's how you lose. And they've been losing like a team that has no interest in playing together the way the coach wants them to, no clue how to play together, and no motivation to play for the coach.
Maybe it's not that the team has given up on Nate, but that they've given up on Roy... *spooky hands* oooOOOOoooo...
