good thing the player we refused to include in trade talks for chris paul or carmelo got a nice 13 minutes tonight. i do wonder though at this rate, if he is now on the trade market.
Nobody on this team is untouchable ... unless you are another team, then I'm sure there's a couple of untouchable players on this roster.
When looking at whether a player is untouchable or not, ask this question instead: Does he have two good knees? If the answer is yes, the answer to your other question is also yes. So sayeth the oracle.
Well, I think he was offered for Paul and I don't think we ever had a chance of Carmelo coming here so I don't think we refused to trade him for Carmelo. However I do think we could have got Gerald Wallace and we refused and that was definitely a mistake, although who knew Wallace would come back so strong after injuries?
I wouldn't judge anyone's talents under Nate McMillan. It isn't unreasonable to believe that Batum and others would be playing much better under a different coach with an actually offensive scheme.
Incorrect reversal? I think so. Wes Matthews is torching more under McMillan than he did Nate McMillan, does that mean McMillan is more conducive to a player's growth than Jerry Sloan?
Great post. I was thinking the same thing. I know Matthews is playing well, but even if you decide to start him, you need to get Nic more minutes. Shuffle things up and take minutes away from Dante, or Armon, or Rudy...I don't care. But Nic needs to play more than he did tonight.
If you are comparing Sloan to Nate, then you won't get much of a debate from anyone. You think Sloan will finish out his career in Portland? Me either.
They were saying on the "sportspage" show this morning on 95.5 that Batum will become a "stiff" if he isn't played.
Coaching is 1/2 the problem. The other half lies squarely on Batum. We see how Wesley just gets aggressive with the ball and good things usually happen. Batum has the green light, but treats the ball like a hot potato and doesn't even pretend to drive anymore.
Who is to say that the first coach a player has doesn't affect their whole career? There isn't any real way to test that theory unfortunately but I believe that a large part of a players success is directly related to how much they think they can succeed. If a coach takes that away from a guy perhaps he never gets it back?
I'm sure those players got plenty of coaching before going to the NBA. They probably started getting "serious" coaching between the ages of 12-14.
