I can think of many reasons why Aldridge shouldn't be a 25/10 guy. Main reason? He's not talented enough
Bernie Bickerstaff knows what's up. He said that he would mute himself because it's a winning team. I hope he assertively sneaks in some corrections when Nate isn't looking.
I haven't seen the game but if it's true, I think it's excellent news. I'm a big believer in believing in your players, I think we have players such as Miller, Rudy, Roy, Batum, Bayless, Aldridge, Mathewss, Dante and even the centers, who are talented enough and understand the game well enough to flourish in an offense that allows them as much freedom as possible. Yes, it could take time to get used to, and sometimes not having a trademark move (someone said Utah's Stockton and Malone pick and roll?) will hurt you but if you give players such as the ones listed above the ability to "just play", they'll eventualy find the best ways themselves.
Also, according to the +/- section of one preseason game's box-score, there is a + lineup and a - lineup. +(in order) Rudy Fernandez 17 Nicolas Batum 15 Andre Miller 7 Marcus Camby 4 Dante Cunningham 2 6th man: Armon Jonson 2 - Lamarcus Aldridge -24 Brandon Roy -20 Jerryd Bayless -13 Wesley Mathewss -8 Jeff Pendergraph -2 Maybe the two teams should go head-to-head in the next practice...
I hate to agree with his assessment of the offense, but it sure feels like that a lot of the time. Second fiddle in the division? Maybe. Second fiddle to the Jazz? No.
The jizz fan was partially correct. We do set picks to free players for easy, wide open jump shots. I have no problem with that. But we need to continue to develop a low post game- which is difficult without Oden. But, guys, this is just one pre season game with mostly scrubs. Let's not go jumping off the fire escape just yet, OK?
Our offense is, has been, and will continue to be terrible with Nate as our coach. We are efficient because Brandon Roy makes really hard shots and Aldridge, Oden, Joel and Camby are all very good offensive rebounders. It has almost nothing to do our coach.
Good lord, the Blazers set some of the sloppiest, laziest picks I've ever seen which almost never result in an "easy, wide open" jump shot, they take a ton of contested jumpers off of swing passes and the occasional drive and kick.
In fairness to the poster, he did say "Aldrich", not "Aldridge". Possibly he was referring to Oklahoma City 1st Round Pick Cole Aldrich, and inadvertently plugged "Portland".
Has anybody ever asked Nate about implementing a motion offense? I wonder what his response would be. Watching Utah get lay-up after lay-up in the 4 games they spanked us last year, didn't a bell go off that easy baskets are a good thing? Another season of Roy Iso plays - he won't make it through. The defense is always set, and there is never a clear path to the basket unless he flat out beats EVERYONE off the dribble. He just takes a physical beating in this offense.
LeMarcus needs to either: 1) Develop a handle so he's a threat to drive around opposing 4's 2) Develop a back to the basket game Being a jumpshooter that gets occasional put backs isn't going to cut it if he wants to average 25.
"always second fiddle"?? So why did the Jazz finish behind the Blazers two years ago? Having lived in Utah (Way too many years) I can tell you that there were thousands of discussions on the sports talk radio shows over the last 10 years about how the Jazz offense was too predictable. That Sloan did not allow players with creativity to thrive in his system. That only a certain type of players could fit in. And that in the playoffs good teams shut his offense down. Now I never agreed with the Nay- Sayers about Sloan, but my point is most fans everywhere are pretty stupid when it comes to x/o's (At least compared to the coaches) The Jazz fans are no different. His offense is proven over the years. (although some say "proven" never to have won a championship)
and 3) absorb contact instead of fading away, and get to the FT line. It's baffling that a guy with his skills can't even get 4 FTAs per game for his career.
Nonsense. The Blazers beat the 76ers in the '77 title series because they had a more disciplined offense. Philly had more talent, but Portland played smarter. Likewise, the Bulls and the Lakers under Phil Jackson used the Triangle Offense, which is very structered--and obviously very successful. And the Jazz have always played smart, disciplined basketball, which allows them to often beat more talented teams. I personally hate our offense, and always have. It relies on one-on-one moves to a fault, and that lack of discipline shows up in lots of ways, including on defense.
exactly. As a Blazer fan living in the Bay Area it's interesting to read/hear fans of the local teams "nailing" their coaches GMs and players with parallel critiques to the ones I read on S2 about the Blazers. I've read Jazz fans just lambasting Sloan many times on various Jazz sites. Regardless of what view you hold you can read the comments section following a game article in the on-line version of the local rag and find someone who agrees with your take... thats not a confirmation that you're correct in holding that view, just that someone feels the same way you do STOMP
I have a lot of the same concerns as other posters here with our offense. But then I think of what it looked like with Maurice Cheeks, which makes the stuff Nate runs now seem pretty damn smart. I believe the most critical part of being a successful coach is having the interest and focus of your players. They need to be motivated and believe what you are telling them is the correct strategy. I think the players as a whole respect Nate and listen to what he wants so while I don't think he is a great coach he is not bad either and I am apprehensive of replacing him with an unknown potentially bad coach.
I'm going to start copying posts that I agree with from this board and others, and then I'm going to start threads about that post, thereby implying that my opinion has merit and is correct.
