Game Thread GAME# 9: LAKERS @ BLAZERS - NOVEMBER 3, 2018 - SATURDAY, 7:00 (PDT), NBCSNW

I think you're thinking about like 5 seconds left, draw up a play for a quick basket and that's not really what I'm talking about. Yesterday they came out of a time out, passed the ball in to the top of the 3 point line, did their weave at the top which everyone knows that's coming because they run it basically every play, then ET threw the ball to a laker player so this wasn't like they had trouble getting the ball in bounds or making a decision off the inbound. Then on the other end came down and left Hart wide open. Then back down the court ran one side screen then Dame shot a 28 footer (looks fine when it goes in), and then back down the court there was a wide open lane to the basket. So they're coming out of time outs, incredibly sloppy.

We can blame the type of players they have sure, but my point isn't that changing a coach would all of a sudden make them a 70 win team. I just want to see what they'd look like with someone else, because while I think Stotts is a fairly average coach, I think his "system" has gotten fairly old for me.

Stotts seems to me like Mark Jackson, a "players" coach, that has probably maxed out what he's capable of with this roster. Does that mean the next coach will come in like Kerr and make them a juggernaut? OF COURSE NOT. However, in the last couple years I've yet to really see Stotts do new things, his line up's have always been messy. I've said this same stuff after wins and losses alike, It's not an over-reaction to last night.
You're right in that I watch basically every blazer game, and a lot of other nba games (I have a basketball problem lol).

 

A turnover is not on Stotts. Even more so an Evan "Headscratcher" Turner Turnover.... Now the rest of this is simply primary offense. So yeah that would be the total scheme. Offense looks good on every team when the ball goes in the hoop. When it doesn't they look bad. You know what this offense is going to do. You watch all the time. They still score a lot of points. Like 5th in the league or something. Then there is the whole "Maxed out with this roster" thing. I guess we look at the alternative. He could not be Maxed out. That would not be good at all is my thinking.

 

LeBron has spend the last couple of Seasons disrespecting Nurkic. You right, it's totaly emberrasing man. Nurkic is so Soft

 

Of course not every turnover is on Stotts, but coming out of a TO they should have a play with multiple options set up, and crisp passing. The entire point of most time outs is to point out sloppy play and to get the team to refocus, coming out of a time out with turnovers and bad defense means either the team isn't capable of executing his plan which yes is partially based on the roster, but also part of coaching is to make plays your roster's capable of performing. Or he's not being very deliberate as to what the plan is coming out of the time out. See I try to watch basketball from beyond just the when the ball goes in it looks good, of course it's hard to do that, but there is bad basketball that wins, and sometimes good basketball loses. That's why I brought up that I bring up these things whether they win or lose. It's not just to be critical, because I don't think Stotts is "horrible" or anything like that. I'm trying to steer clear of hyperbole.
I'm just really curious what this team would look like with someone else at the helm.

 

I notice that last year too when we come out time we just don't look good. We would being go on run the other coach call time out and we just come out flat the majority of the time. To me it more the players not refocus when they come back then the coach. Due to the coach didn't change anything when they are on a run. Now I due blame the coach when a player is hot as hell and all suddenly he takes him out due to on his little card it time for him sub him out. I see that last year a lot but not so much this year maybe with Zach a little.

 

Interesting +/- for this game:
+28 Rondo (in 26 mins)
+18 Caldwell-Pope (in 15 mins)
+17 Hart (in 25 mins, getting revenge for SL)
+16 Aminu (in 32 mins)
+16 both Lillard and CJ (in 36 mins)
+12 Nurk (in 30 minutes)
-----------
-4 Curry (in 22 minutes - not that bad. PLEASE GIVE HIM LAYMAN'S MINUTES)
-9 Turner (in 24 minutes)
-7 McGee (in 27 mins - surprises me that he was negative, as he seemed to be dominating us)
-11 Layman (once again THE ONLY NEGATIVE STARTER, in 19 mins)
-12 Swanigan (in only 5 minutes! Yikes)
-13 Ingram (Still doesn't impress me. Next Durant my ass. In 33 minutes)
-15 Kuzma (in 29 minutes)
-16 HCP's favorite player, Lonzo Ball, in 19 minutes)
-21 Zach (18 mins - can't always be great I guess...)
-22 LeBron "not MVP this year" James (in 31 minutes)
-23 Stauskas (in only 16 mins)

So our starters (minus pretty-boy) kicked ass and dominated the "new Lakers", whereas our usually-good bench got dominated by Rondo and the Rejects.
Also funny that it was the reverse last time we played - even Lillard said that our bench saved our bacon (and especially Stauskas).

 

Did you actually watch the game or do you just look at a box score?

 

Reading through this:
people blaming Stotts - really? Do you even LOOK at our roster? We consistently overachieve with a cobbled-together roster. This loss was simply because we missed a bunch of shots we normally make and Rondo turned back the clock. Who you going to replace Stotts with? Luke Walton? Lakers would JUMP on that - they bitch about Walton all the time.
Unless Brad Stevens is available, let's let this one go.

 

Both. Do you actually have a point?

 

Just asking a question. I don't know how anyone who watched the game could conclude that Curry should be getting Layman's minutes.

 

A couple of nice tip-dunks do not a good starter make.

 

Curry contributed NOTHING to the game.

 

I don’t agree about curry getting layman’s minutes either. At least not right now. Curry looks slow, I wouldn’t be surprised if he still wasn’t all the way back from his injury. Not saying he’s injured, just rusty.

The guy that should’ve played more is Stauskas.

 

Curry and layman play different positions and by the way. Curry contributed plenty to the game in the 4th quarter. He was the third guard in the three guard line up. Which was what got the team back in the game. What he contributed was a shooter sitting out on the perimeter that helped open the lane for dame to drive and draw fouls.
People who watched this game should know this.

 

I heard something about Curry's brother being at the game. Can that dude play or something?

 

I dont think youre reading it that closely if thats what you got out of the Stotts conversation on this thread. Im not blaming Stotts for this loss.
I was pointing out that I think Stotts lacks in some areas and Id like to see the roster under a different system.

 

In the 3-guard, lilliputian line up, someone is going to have to play SF....which is what Layman plays most often. Especially with the size that that Lakers have, it would help on the boards where the Blazers were getting crushed on the offensive glass. So I don't get why someone like Layman (who is actually making shots shooting 50% from '3' and has an eFG of .703) can't run with that group. He gives them more of a threat off of people doubling Dame/CJ because he is making shots. Also, he was one of the top Blazer rebounders last night so he would have added that as well.