wasnt able to watch the game, so not sure if this is serious or not. He seems he had a decent game on the Box. But I know that doesnt tell the story.
It's because at the end, it's all Roy, Roy, Roy. Whoever's fault (Roy, McMillan, or the other players), it's a big weakness. Look at how few players are in boldface on the left side, vs. the variety on the right. overtime http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/playb...iod/5/portland-trail-blazers-vs-chicago-bulls see last 3 minutes of regulation http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/playb...iod/4/portland-trail-blazers-vs-chicago-bulls ..I guess the lack of clutch feeds into what Outlaw used to do. (didn't mean to go there)
I just noticed that in the last 7 minutes of regulation, Roy accounted for all baskets, if you include assists. He decides all. And I think it's McMillan's system, not finding another clutch player. They need quick passes to the big guys, who need to attack the basket. But iso's are an old story. Everyone's heard it before.
with the emergency of Stephen Curry, maybe Monta will be more available this summer...... in any case, Miller has been good...but I'm getting worse and worse feeligns about the team in general, some glaring weaknesses in many of our players...maybe they have mailed it in already. They are playing like shit.
Too much Rudy in the 4th. He's a huge liability on defense and helped the Bulls come back for the lead in the 4th. He so 1-dimensional it hurts.
The Blazer bus has a weak clutch. As much as they were denigrated around here for their shortcomings, Outlaw and Blake were guys who could hit a big shot at crunch time. Now we're left with only Roy. Please spare me from seeing Miller hoist another 3 point shot in a fourth quarter situation. Ugh.
He's also the reason the Blazers lost to the Bulls in the 1992 Finals. If you don't see how, you simply don't get it. Sorry, but it's the truth.
Miller shooting three's isn't really his fault... Why do you pass the ball to the guy standing at the three line that you don't want to take them when the shot clock is low? Last night I can't remember the second one he took, I don't think the clock was low, it was that he was so wide open anyone would take that shot.
Agreed, but the price of having a PG who can't shoot threes well is that opponents often cheat off of them so that they'll be tempted to hoist one.
He shot 3 three-pointers last night and hit 1. Not dazzling shooting, but not inept. Nor did he take a lot of them. Miller's three-point shooting wasn't a factor, good or bad.
the bench collectively played 68 minutes and gathered 2 boards. That didn't help the cause much STOMP
Hmm, I thought it was because we gave up 57% FG along with 10 offensive rebounds. Damn, I really need to pay better attention.
He bricked a three late in OT. He had no business taking that shot. He then had a turnover. Not a great finish for 'Dre, but he played well offensively for most of the game. The reason we lost was because of defense. Nobody could match up with Derrick Rose, just as nobody on Chicago could handle LaMarcus.
I thought the 'reason we lost' that game was the same reason they've lost a bunch of others in the 4th quarter this year: while the other team was moving the ball and their bodies around the court looking for easy baskets, and in the process hustling their asses off, the Blazers (Nate) was running the same POS ISO Stagnation offense we've all learned to know and . There are some who wanted to give Nate credit last season for the team's success late in games; in reality it wasn't anything Nate did, it was Roy who pulled those games out for us. Just like "Nate's" high success rate out of time outs, where the call nine times out of ten was to give the ball to Brandon. Hell, any couch potato can call that play. The problem is, Brandon started off the year out-of-sorts, then got injured, and it isn't working this year -- and that's all Nate's got. I think Nate is often pretty good at developing young players, and getting them to focus on a singular aspect of the game to increase their on-court success rate. I'm pretty sure he expects his players to grow and develop and improve with experience. Nate seems to have the 'coaching a singular aspect of the game' part down, but when is he going to grow and develop and improve? Who is going to help (make) him do that? And how? My bet is on 'not while he's coaching the Blazers.'
Yes, that was accounted for in his 1/3 shooting from 3P%. I'm not sure what you're trying to disprove. I don't think anyone said he had a flawless game. Accounting for all the positive and negative things he did in the game, he had a solid performance. He wasn't the reason Portland lost, and his three-point shooting wasn't a significant factor for good or ill. He only took 3 for the game and hitting 1 of them is mediocre but not poor.
