You're exactly right...it's a wonder we even won one game this year at all, let alone games against Dallas and the Spurs..oh and Miami..oh and Denver. And last year? It's so last year. Heck, we should just start twelve new players every year because last year means nothing. Neither does the year before.
But that's not true, because according to you we lost every game last year ENTIRELY because of Mr. Sonic. And this year, too. And the only reason they are winning is because the team somehow struggles monumentally to overcome Nate's coaching and practices, ignoring him entirely in some games just long enough to win. Whew! Let's hope KP gets their rescue messages while being trapped in that Chinese laundry..err basketball team.
It seems like every day Nate proves me right, just a bit more. Andre Miller not playing the way he wants him to play? Like on his way to a triple double?
He was shuffling his feet, walking to his spot on the floor and watching people shoot and not moving until someone had the rebound, taking flat-and-short-even-for-him jump shots, and was grimacing and stretching his back every chance he could. The dude was worn out and becoming a sandbag around our necks, and Nate sat him.
Nate was going to get blasted either way for his substitution pattern against Memphis because the same people take two separate stances depending on what happens. 1) Nate sticks with Bayless and the group that led the come back - He isn't smart for benching some of his better players for the majority of the 4th quarter. 2) Nate stick with Bayless and the group that led the come back - Nate is stubborn and rigid with him substitution pattern and needs to play the hot hand.
I sort of see it the same way. If the Blazers lose that game, Nate gets blamed for either putting Miller in and Bayless out or for keeping Bayless in and keeping Miller out. If Blazers win, Nate is smart for keeping Bayless in (especially if Bayless makes the two freethrows) or Nate was smart for putting Miller back in. Unless of course you are MM, than Nate is an idiot no matter what he does or who wins.
I sure would like to see our win-loss record when Miller and Roy play the majority of the fourth quarter together. I'm not wanting lay it on Miller. I really like him. I just haven't seen the two of them work well together in our half-court sets. Broken plays, yes, but the half-court it's not been pretty. That's what I see. That's what a lot of people see, including the coaching staff. For those that are in favor of Miller playing the fourth quarter please tell me what we're not seeing.
Not moving until someone had a rebound? He had the second most rebounds in the entire game. Behind Zach, and tied with Gasol. And 5 were in his last period. Looks like he was really wearing down. How is that not moving at all? Fighting for rebounds when your PF is reluctant to? Or were you referring to LMA in your post? Because that's the way he looked the entire game. Generally the person he watched get a rebound was Zach right in front of him. The last quarter he played in the game, so the last chance to see him struggling was the 3rd. He had 5 rebounds in the 3rd. 3 offensive. He gets a -9 in the period, as does Roy, which makes their stupid +/- look bad. But Roy played a good quarter. Miller shot 1-2. Hit 2 FTs. Had 2 assists. 2 TOs. And, again, 5 rebounds. 3 offensive. Aldridge shot 1-3. NOTHING else. No rebounds. Also no defense. No rebounds from howard. Z-Bo. 8 points, 3 rebounds, 2 offensive. Gasol, 10 points 3 rebounds, 1 offensive. 18-6 out of their front court, including 3 offensive rebounds. In a quarter they won 30-21. But yeah, Miller was the sandbag around our necks. he's what held us down, and Bayless somehow would have grabbed mroe than those 5 rebounds, and also played D on the bigs. Flat shot. Yeah, what a horribley flat looking 7-11 performance. I wish all our guys could shoot so flat. Gimme a break.
We're not seeing a good coach. If a Top-10 PG isn't excelling in the half-court sets, McMillan should re-design them. Miller has starred on several NBA teams playing as he does, under experienced NBA coaches. It's the coach's job to design his system around the talent he has.
Starred? Andre Miller has been playing at an all-star level (20+ PER) twice in his career, his 2nd and 3rd years in the league. Both of those teams never managed to win more 30 games per season. (Good player on bad team syndrom). Andre Miller is a starting level PG in this league, but the entire "star" treatment is a propaganda hoax (and the Blazers are just as guilty of propagating it as any). Dude is not a star, and quite frankly, never was. Star PGs leave a mark on their team-mates and teams. Star PGs elevate their teams to dominate, to go past the first round of the playoffs. Andre Miller is no Star PG. He is a nice vet, a good starter level PG in this league - but that's where it starts and where it ends. Dude is not a top-10 PG in this league and have not been for quite some time. He is currently ranked #25 in the league, among PGs, in PER. Last year he was #19. The most wins an Andre Miller team (were he played the entire year) ever had was 49 wins, in 6 playoffs appearances Andre Miller teams won 7 games (on average, less than 1.2 game per playoffs appearance). The problem is that this dude is not a star player, but some people (and apparently he, himself) think he should get the star treatment. He is a role player. Simple as that.
The problem with Nate in the last game was not the substitution pattern. It was calling that same fucking retarded Ice play over and over again. Nate seems like a smart guy. I have no clue why he doesn't learn from his mistakes. Every single time Portland plays not to loose in a game they end up getting beat. You get a 10 point lead and suddenly you change the way you are playing to protect. It's insane. And it happens time and time again.
Miller is consensus Top-10. As for the definition of "star" I'll just say that I've often seen his name in articles about the best PGs in the league. If you have to be an all-star to be a star, then forget the semantic arguments, I'll just use a different word. As for the many posts about whether Bayless should have been in in the 4th quarter, remember that Miller was having the greatest game in Blazer PG history (on his way to 20 assists and 30 points) before not playing in the 4th quarter.
you're thinking of the Clippers game (22pts, 16 ast)...where he did play the 4th. Last game he had 16/11reb and didn't play the 4th.
Thanks to the good people at Comcast I did not see the end of the game - so I am not talking about what he should or should not have done at the end of the this game - but the reality is, that since the start of the season the entire team (and the fan base) seem to be discombobulated about what should or should not happen with Andre Miller - and I, honestly, find it pretty silly - because the guy has never been a guy you can count on to lead you to greener pastures or to dominate night in, night out. He is a good player, he is a starter level player, no doubts about it - but at the end of the day, he is not a guy you build around. The place where I come in when you see this - is the idea that the system (which is based around Brandon Roy who is someone you can build around, someone who can dominate year in, year out and every night) needs to be changed to accommodate him. You build a system around the stars of the team. Not around the role players. Andre Miller has never been a star of a team that went far or won a lot. Never. He is a grade A role player, might have been a border line star in the past. He no longer is. It makes no sense to build around him, change the play dramatically to accommodate him. At this point - you try to tweak to make him better, but if you find out that you can not use him efficiently in a system that is built around your real stars - you need to acknowledge the mistake and move on. Andre Miller is not the answer for the Blazers problems, and never was. The team knew it as well - which is why he was #4 (at best) on their signing list. He is a consolation prize, and once you found out that he is really a consolation no-prize, it should be time to move forward and ship him out for something/someone that is a better fit. Heck, at this point, you ship him just to right the ship and restore the chemistry, it seems, even if you lose his production. This is exactly what happened when they shipped Zach to free playing time for Aldridge (who never matched Zach's offensive production). Same should happen now. You free the playing time for Bayless, who will not be as good a player on offense anytime soon - but will make it better if only for the better chemistry and (again, like the Zach for Aldridge swap) his ability/willingness to play defense.
I'm assuming you're exaggerating to make a point. I think think of numerous games we've ran pick & roll or iso the last 4 minutes and either came back or held on for the victory. I don't blame you for not liking the predictability.
I was exaggerating because it is horrid to watch. It does work sometimes though it seems as though in the games it worked they started playing that way later in the game (like the last 90 seconds or so). This last game they started with 3 and half minutes left. I think it is not the play itself, but the number of times it is called in a row that is the problem. Further, players will pass up wide open shots when playing this way. Can't Portland mix it up even a little? I understand that the last play or two the ball should be in the hands of the best player. But the last 10 plays seems excessive and asking for trouble.
