Overall, I think Nate is a fairly good coach, so I'm not trying to pile on the blame after a loss. However, I hope he was paying attention to Boston's substitution pattern during the game. The Celtics have one of their stars on the floor at all times, and other than the opening and closing minutes, usually one of the three getting a brief rest. We, on the other hand, got killed by the platoon substitution pattern that Nate seems very fond of. It looks good against middle of the road teams, but it's suicide against the upper echelon of teams that understands role players do not grind out wins. Depth is nice, but you don't have to display it all game every game... With the starters sitting for long stretches, the bench players get exposed against the other team's top players. By the time our starters come back in, they're ice cold and it takes a couple minutes to warm back up and right the ship (tonight they couldn't do so in the 2nd quarter). It's not just one game, it's a pattern that's been developing. When has a platoon substitution system succeeded? I remember Chuck Daley back in the day suggesting that was the reason his Pistons were superior to us. I'm all for learning from the past ... what example has Nate learned from that suggests it's a good way to go? (The Lakers seem to be pushing down a similar path, but I suspect they'll veer off it when the games become more meaningful.) Step on toes, hurt some feelings, I don't care. Yank Frye the moment he has a 20 second span consisting of an up-and-down turnover, lazy fast break foul, and air ball jumper... Those are momentum killing moments that would not be allowed with leadership on the floor.
The trouble is, this team is still like an uncooked ball of dough, while the Celtics are a nicely baked loaf of bread. The Blazers still don't know who and what they are, and part of the process of finding out who or what you are is to play a lot of guys in different combinations, especially when most of your active roster is 24 or younger. I get the distinct impression that KP and Nate are basically running an audition this year to see who stays and who needs to be replaced.
Nate is bad at adjusting. If the bench is playing poorly, he still leaves them out there for however long they usually play. It's not terrible, but gets frustrating at times.
I hate the idea completely. I also caught a part where ESPN had a mic in the team's huddles in about the third quarter I would say. I was not impressed with ours. Nate was saying boring cliche type crap when he should have been saying stuff like Frank Barone said to his kids on Everybody Loves Raymond. edit...there was one part where Nate said something like "cut to the basket with scoring in mind" or something like that. JEEZ
Except that he's not really trying a lot of different combinations. Just the opposite, really. Nate is very set in his rotations, as evidenced by things like Roy and Rudy never seeing time together in practice before their first shared game time. Trying lots of combinations would be the opposite of platoon substituting. Leaving 2-3 starters on the floor at all times and rotating in various bench players, now that would be variety in the lineup. I thought Nate was starting to figure it out in the 2nd half against New York earlier in the week, but it didn't take... Dan
yup nate needs to tighten the rotation in big games like that. instead he starts wholesale expirimenting and punishing starters. dumb.
I don't really see the problem with this during the first week of December. We are getting 10 people valuable experience, with an 11th on the way. Our 2nd unit has done a good job holding or expanding leads in many games, allowing us to bring in our starters fresh to continue the momentum. I seriously doubt Nate plays 10 in the playoffs, but injuries are part of the game, and Portland is better prepared for them than anyone. Did anyone catch the part of the broadcast where Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy were talking about how Nate isn't just a good coach, he's a great coach? I think that was telling....
If the plan is to change to a shorter rotation in the playoffs, then it makes no sense to be so rigid in playing two 5-man lineups now. Mix and match, in that case. Preparing depth in case injuries strike is a losing mentality.
http://www.82games.com/0809/0809POR2.HTM I could be wrong but it sure seems like Nate has used a variety of lineups to me. I do have one question though, why is that people disproportionately emphasize losses and jump on somebody's nuts the second after the team drops a game (against the defending world champs in this case) and disregard all of the good things that have gone on this season? Here's a dose of perspective, this team is actually playing .667 basketball with these supposed terrible substitution patterns, when most "experts" predicted this 14-7 record could possibly be inverted at this point of the season. Nate isn't perfect and I'm not saying it's completely out of line to criticize the coach or players for bad decisions or play, but all this team has done under his watch is improve every year, with either (mostly) talentless or extremely young rosters.
I think you're missing the point of how substitutions work. Rarely do all 5 guys come in off the bench together - usually it's spread across a couple of successive timeouts (causes a lot of different lineups statistically) - but the same group of 5 bench players is usually on the floor for extended minutes in Nate's system. Go back to a couple of the things I said in the first post... 1) I think Nate is a good coach for the most part. 2) The opponent highlighted the right way to do things, thus the timeliness of pointing out my primary concern with his system. 3) This isn't a one-game problem. It nearly cost us wins in Detroit, NY, and Washington on this same trip, and there were several similar showings previously. We were able to recover from those long bench cold spells against the weaker teams, but we were exposed badly against Boston. The bench itself isn't the problem. We've got some of the best bench players in the league. The problem is how they're being utilized. They would be much better mixed in with the starters. Plug in which ever guy fits the needs of the moment best. Leave in whoever is hot.
I do see part of your point, but it seems like it's kind of imperative to play ten deep at least for part of this season, giving as many guys as many minutes as possible just to see what you've got. The flipside of leaving 2 or 3 starters in at all times and then rotating individual bench players in and out is that most of your bench gets less floor time and you might wonder if those bench players are riding the coat tails of your starters (so to speak) instead of producing results on their own. I don't have a problem with this platoon substitution pattern right now because I believe two things are going on: 1) The team is trying to figure out who stays and who goes this coming off season and 2) I suspect that a consolidation trade is on the way before the deadline and the only way to inflate the value of some of our bench players is to give them as many minutes as possible.
because IMO nate started expirimenting and went away from what has worked so far. for example playing roy/rudy/batum with no PG in the first half for even a few minutes was a disaster and helped lead to our meltdown. also not bringing oden back in when joel was clearly tiring out at the end of the first half was baffling.
I can't remember exactly what they said but it was something along the lines that coaches are impressed by him because his teams always play hard and demands respect of his players. Players respect him because he played the game and his no nonsense approach. They went on to talk about what he's done with the 2nd youngest team in the league, getting them to do things that veteran teams have done. He's probably the favorite to win coach of the year, coming off being an assistant coach for the Olympic team. The best players in the league think highly of him, the best coaches in the game praise him, yet some fans seem to think he's so-so. I'll side with the all-stars, hall of fame coaches, and legends of the game.
You misunderstand me. I'm not against criticism of Nate or anybody on the team, but on the flip side I hear almost no credit being given to him when things are going well. Maybe people are just keeping it to themselves, but the net effect is all of the warts are being magnified and successes seem diminished. If I didn't know the team's record, but just took a census of all the posts on this board (and others) I would probably be lead to believe that this team is somewhere around 7-14 on the season.
Yeah, you are correct. I didn't understand those moves either. I really think that even though we are 21 games into the year, we are still trying to find our set rotation. Webster still isn't here, and Oden isn't in shape yet, which limits his minutes, and people may be playing their way in and out of the rotation.
Was that about the same time(s) Van Gundy was ripping the team for being so lackadaisical getting back on D? Oh, and wasn't it Wade that said after the Olympics that D'Antoni would be a lot more fun to play for than Nate? In other words, we're talking about perceptions here, and those change by the minute depending on context. Perhaps, but I'd rather see what we've got in the framework of how we're hoping to use it down the line, i.e. in the playoffs. I don't care how Outlaw and Frye play alongside each other at the forward spots. When Aldridge or Batum need a breather, put in which ever of the two (or Webster/Rudy, you get the idea) is playing the best. We've been expecting that for about 4 years now... How long were Telfair and Shareef showcased prior to finally being moved, and how much trouble did that cause along the way? Telfair at least brought back good value, but that was more because Roy was so undervalued than anything. Bottom line is, you play who deserves to be on the floor, not who you're hoping to promote.
That just further reinforces my belief that people are basing their opinions off of personalities and the appearance of things other than demonstrating factual things he has done. Or in game situations where people point to the moves he made that produced a certain result. Young team? Yes. Talented? Very much so. I would like to see this team with a coach that people describe as brilliant, not one that demands respect.
[bump] That 2 minute stretch to open the 2nd quarter against Utah is directly attributable to the loss. A 2 point game instantly became a 10 point affair and it was an uphill battle the rest of the way. Not an easy way to win on the road... That god forsaken substitution pattern resulted in a waste of Roy playing the entire 2nd half. Had he (and Aldridge, especially) been left in more of that first half, they could have played less minutes overall and had a bigger impact. Once you give away momentum to a good team on the road, everything has to go nearly perfectly the rest of the way to turn the tide back in your favor.
