The problem is not necessarily first half/second half, it is the middle. I took the last 10 games (four home and six on the road) and compared the quarter-by-quarter point differentials (positive Blazers score more, negative they scored fewer): First Quarter: Home 3.5, Away 3.5 Second Quarter: Home 11.75, Away -1 Third Quarter: Home 12.5, Away -4.8 Fourth Quarter: Home -0.5, Away 0.5 A caveat on the fourth quarter away positive, four out of the six games were negative but the two positives were +2 and +10 (Hawks). The +10 Hawks game skews the overall average. In the third quarter on the road, we lost five out of six quarters. Still using the averages as they exist: First half: Home +15.25, Away +2.5 Second half: Home +12, Away -4.3. So, on the road we give up an average of 12.75 points in the first half and another 16.25 points in the second half. Over the last 10 games that amounts to giving up 29 points per game in point differential when playing on the road as compared to playing at home. Do we have a problem? You bet. Yes, the players are the ones playing, but such a total discrepancy speaks also to the quality of the coaching. It would seem the players are playing more for the crowd than the coach. At home they have the crowd, on the road, not so and if your coach cannot inspire, then you see the kind of differential we see here. Gramps...
I'm telling you it would actually be a better situation for us. Nash would resign, IMO. We will match any offer for Batum; so he's a lock. I think E. Will will be something special. Camby will probably have 1-2 more years left. If we make some noise in the playoffs; then we have a really good shot at getting a free agent as well. Maybe not a Deron Williams type; but definitely something good. Rebuilding in the draft isn't good; especially when we have a player in his peak. Nash can be the Batman for 2-3 years, Aldridge will be Robin and Batum will be Alfred.
I thought your assessment that the Blazers "probably" lose Camby and Wallace and "maybe" Nic as well is a pretty negative viewpoint, particularly when used as a justification not to make a trade this season. If you actually think the Blazers will lose all of those pieces next summer, that means the team is pretty much in a rebuilding mode, in which case it seems to me that taking a stab at a guy like Nash turning the team into a contender makes perfect sense. OTH, if the Blazers are going to continue to build around the current nucleus, including at a minimum re-signing Batum and getting something out of Wallce and/or Camby, then giving up significant assets for Nash may not be the smart thing to do. Part of the decision would certainly include discussions with Nash about whether he is willing to sign with the Blazers for another year or two.
Camby's contract expires ... and he's pushing 40. Wallace probably has to opt out to get his last major contract, if you want to get Nash you're going to almost certainly have to part with Nic.
Camby is pushing 38 and has said he wants a contract to play for another couple of years. He's also said that he wants to retire as a Blazer. I don't see any overwhelming issue there about the Blazers re-signing him. Wallace is opting out to get a final big contract. He's said he's open to re-signing with the Blazers. They need to decide whether they want to do that or whether they'd be ahead to use him in a trade. If the price for Nash includes Nic, I'd pass, but you shouldn't just assume that it does. Remember the lovely parting gifts the Blazers got when they let Clyde go to Houston? Deals are done in the NBA for all kinds of reasons that we message board gurus don't understand.
So let's blame Nate for the road losses but give him no credit for the fact the Blazers have the best home record in the league? Truth is Nate's coaching didn't cost the Blazers the loss last night, the players did (for a running team we sure do suck at the fast break) Nate also isn't responsible for the best home record in the league, the players are. In sports there needs to be a scapegoat when things are bad. Without a GM, the only spot to look is the coach and Nate must know that goes with the terrritory. I agree with the post about Nate may be getting stale and a new look might give new motivation to the players. I can't believe grown men making millions of dollars need extra motivation, but it appears they do. Other than that, this last lost is due more to the players who should be putting games like this away rather than a coach who has a different roster this year with little to no practice time.
What really upseets me about last night's game, is that the Kings are who we thought they were....the kings are who we thought they were, and we let 'em off the hook! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYKIcnj1MJY
Perhaps there is a loophole in the new CBA that would permit BRoy to come back as Coach/Player? HMMMM
What makes it more insane is it would work better than what we've seen so far on the road this season. Even with Roy having no meniscus
Nah, we saw first hand what he looked like last year when his knees couldn't take the nightly abuse. His FG% plummeted as he had to settle for more pull-up jumpers and he couldn't finish around the rim like he used to. It would certainly look a little different with him running end-of-game situations, but the outcome would probably be the same. C`est la vie'
Ugg was kinda making a joke on our current offense. Basically meaning, broy playing with no knees is better than the guard play we have now. Basically our guard play now is just that bad.
