I don't recall saying Miller had even a bad game, or even that he was the reason that we lost. In fact, I posted that defense was the reason we lost, but I notice you didn't quote that part of my post. That said, I thought Miller did a nice job offensively last night. With that, though, if you're comfortable with a 20% 3pt shooter taking 3 attempts in any game, perhaps your own coaching ability should be questioned. Miller fucked up two very key possessions late in the game. A 1 in 5 shot, and then a turnover while flailing into the key. Luckily Brandon and Lamarcus gave us a chance to win it at the end of OT. The team lost in OT. Oh well.
Because it had nothing to do with what I said. You responded to me, as though you were disagreeing with something I said or discussing something I said. I couldn't really tell what that was though. If it was just random thoughts on the game, and not related to what I said, that's cool. Quoting me was confusing in that case. I'm not a coach, so that doesn't cut me very deep. I didn't render an opinion on how many threes Miller should be taking, I simply pointed out that his three-point shooting wasn't a factor. He didn't take many and the ones he took, he hit at a passable rate. *nod* Most players fuck up a few possessions a game. It's hard to play a perfect game.
I thought we lost because Brandon Roy missed a three in OT...? Seriously, the Blazers played a pretty good game, until they got tight in the 4th.
Minstrel, you're ignoring his obvious point--that Miller's errors were in key moments of the game. You're substituting Miller's stats for the game as a whole. But some moments count more than others. But Miller alone didn't lose the game. The other reasons have been mentioned. We took an equal opponent to overtime on their court, so we did alright. Going into the game, I thought the outcome was 50-50.
Good grief. Of course it wasn't Miller's three shots that cost the Blazers the game. What I'm saying is that the fact that Miller is absolutely no credible threat from distance affects how teams are able to run their defense in the 4th quarter. That, IMO, does sometimes make a difference in the outcome.
I don't agree with that. The points all add up the same. If you make a play earlier, you are two/three points ahead of where you would have been later in the game, when you don't make a play. It comes to the same. Or, at least, I've not seen any compelling reasoning/evidence that it doesn't come to the same. Certainly, possessions/play late in games feel more important, since you can see the end of the game looming...but I'm not convinced that those moments actually are any more important.
It's Nates offensive sets. They really are offensive. No movement and little player involvement for anyone not named Roy. Roy is clutch, but if you wear him out in the fourth quarter he's not gonna have the energy/focus at the end of every game. Especially coming off of 3 in 4 nights. I really hope Nates leaves this off-season. Can you imagine this athletic team, playing a movement based offense where more people get involved in a TEAM offense. I'm sure the players would be happier, Brandon should like it with reduced pressure for a lot of the game, and it should translate into more easier wins instead of the grind it out close affairs that the Nate system encourages. IMO Nate is the teams current weakness.
blaming the coach night after night is weak sauce... it's the talent on the floor that wins in the league. Portland's didn't get it done on the road vs the Bulls but tonight they stepped up making open shots vs a flat, undermanned, inferior opponent. STOMP
Every superstar in the league controls the ball in crunch time, to the point of dominating the ball. Perhaps YOU aren't convinced that the last minute of any game is more important than the 8:00 mark of the second quarter, but clearly both the coaches, who put the ball in the hand of their best players, and the players, who defer to the better players on the floor, feel otherwise. I feel otherwise as well, so we'll just have to disagree.
I disagree with your observations. I don't think coaches change their game plans significantly in the final minute or minutes. The best players are more likely to take the final shot...but they're also more likely to take any particular shot when they're on the floor, because they are their team's most efficient option. They pass up shots, throughout the game, when the defense focuses on them enough to prevent them from being the most efficient option...and the same is true, to my observation, in the final minute.
That's why they save all of their timeouts for the end of the game, right? And that's why they draw up specific plays late in games, after timeouts, compared to any other random spot in the game. Again, you have your opinion, I have mine, but I don't see coaches using all of their timeouts for random spots in the game. I think that my opinion is more in line in what the majority of NBA coaches think, but I may be wrong.
They save their timeouts because they need the ability to stop the clock if they're trailing and/or advance the ball up to mid-court. Players often blew timeouts to save losing possession out of bounds, when the rules still allowed that. That doesn't suggest to me that timeouts for creating game-ending plays were viewed as hugely important. It suggests to me that saving possessions, at any time in the game, was more important. They draw up specific plays on every single timeout. It's just that they use most of their timeouts at the end of the game, for the reason I gave above. Yeah, for the reasons I stated, I don't agree with your contention about how coaches view the final minutes.
Are you saying that coaches view a possession at the 8:00 mark of the 2nd quarter the same way they view a possession in the last minute of a close game? If so, I disagree, and the players on the court, and the emphasis of who has the ball, says otherwise. Plus, I'm not a "hater", whatever that means.
That's not true. Half of the time, the defense is reacting. Defensive timeouts are rare late in games, yet are used early in games to stem runs by the opposing team. I'm more interesting in Tince's views, regardless, since he jumped without any real input prior to his back-slapping post.
If you don't know what it means, how do you know you aren't one? If you have swastikas tattooed on your face, you may be a hater. barfo
