Post game interview with Batum; Did Nate change the strategies before the game?

1) After a week of preparation, Nate changes the plans the day before the game. If it was me, I'd assume that he lost/never had confidence in me or the team.
2) The team for the most part looked scared shitless.

Speculation? Sure. It still seems a logical train of thought.

No, but they sure looked like they were lacking some confidence throughout the game.

And somehow you're convinced that Batum was criticizing the coach despite no actual evidence?

 

not to me... I think some here are wildly speculating and convinced they're right... see the Jim Mora quote above

feel free to respond to what I wrote and not what suits your argument

STOMP

 

The rest of the team played though. As soon as things headed to hell in a hand basket, I'm thinking a few second-guessing thoughts were creeping into the heads of Roy, Aldridge, and Blake. Wasn't it Roy that was advocating publicly for Batum to start?

 

Stomp - Answer me this. You're saying it's not possible that McMillan's rotation move could have been a cause in the result we saw on Tuesday night?

I'm not saying it was the sole reason we loss. In fact, regardless whether Batum had started or Sergio had played his regular role, we would have lost. I'm only saying that we would have looked more like the Portland Trail Blazers we've been seeing in Preseason, and less like the mess we saw in the opener.

 

Again, if an integral part of the offensive plan against the Lakers involves a 19 year-old rookie from France, then we have no business even discussing the play-offs at this point.

Batum's instructions on offense should have been (A) don't get the ball, and (B), if you do get the ball, pass it in to one of the big guy's or get it back to Brandon Roy.

 

I don't mean this an attack but have you watched Batum play? I ask because Nic does more than just avoid the ball on offense. There's a reason why the coaching staff and Brandon preferred him over Outlaw in with the starters. Defensively, he's already doing more than Outlaw is capable of. For someone his age, he reads both the offense and defense very well. I've been astounded that he's able to follow developing plays and be right where he needs to be for help-defense, a rebound, to help open up a driving lane, or to keep the ball moving.

Even when his shot isn't falling I don't get the feeling that he's necessarily hurting the team as much as Outlaw because he's doing so many other thing on the court that are apparently going unnoticed. I think he only hit like two field goals in his first game against the Clippers, but he played solid D and had 8 rebounds. And this was without hurting the offensive flow. The Blazers looked excellent that game. Granted it was the Clipps.

Outlaw is a talented player, but to use him effectively he needs to be the first or second offensive option. He's best used on the second unit, and specifically as the power forward. He also shouldn't be guarding premier forwards. He's not quick enough to guard premier forwards. He had so much success last year as the reserve 4, taking advantage of slower forwards. Nate knows this or he wouldn't have used him in that role last season or in the last week leading up to the big game. I just wish he would have stuck to his guns.

 

It's possible... I certainly don't think everyone's mental makeup is the same as mine and yours

the way I read the quotes you're refering to BR was responding to questions about the possibility of Batum starting. As I read it he was saying that NB could start and spinning positives of that move more then advocating that he should start.

STOMP

 

no thats not what I'm saying... I'm saying people are making wild guesses and saying these guesses are fact. We don't know and never will... we're just fans

STOMP

 

The coaching staff obviously didn't prefer him as a starter since HE DIDN'T START, and regardless, the reasoning we were given was that Nate didn't want to disrupt the second unit, hence leaving Travis there.

I'm getting the same vibe with the Batum love on the board that I got with all of the Khryapa myopians. There seems to be a pattern in recent years. A new, unproven player is showered with unrealistic and undeserved praise (McRoberts last year/Batum this year), while a proven (yet flawed) veteran (Jack last year, Outlaw this year) is smeared in post after post.

 

Stomp ol' buddy, your ass is sucking air on this one. Being wishy-washy in your decision making is not a desirable leadership trait. It shows lack of confidence in yourself and will certainly be detected by your employees... and lead to further loss of confidence by them. To anyone that knows anything about leadership, it is very obvious. By they way, that Jim Mora statement is arrogant and idiotic and insulting. Even brain damaged people and animals are capable of learning.

 

You read the quotes exactly correct. Roy was commenting on how "everyday, it's Batum" with the starters that week. He never lobbied for Batum to start, he was asked a question and answered it factually. Now, those with an agenda take his innocuous comments out of context.

 

I guess we'll never respect each other then I can't stand people who are full of shit and ready to let everyone know it.

STOMP

 

This is true. However, I believe that Nate's reversal on Batum's starting was a stupid move. Of course it is just conjecture, but it is certainly easy to make a case for a causal relationship here. My understanding is that Nate didn't inform the team of his change in strategy until game day. Why is that? To me that makes no sense. Especially after you have told the team how confident you are in them just the day before.

 

Ah, I see, you're not capable of discussing the statement, so you make a personal attack the person that made it.

I recommend that you take a leadership class or two at your community college. You'll find them in their "Manager Development Program". Then maybe you can discuss this intelligently.

 

BS

OK fine, I should've said "question" instead of "criticize," but I totally responded to what you wrote.

 

I heard the name Mike Miller and that other teams were inquiring about Travis. We will know Travis' value by the end of the year, because if he isn't worth 4 mil/yr, the team can let him walk.

I think the difference in interpreting Nate's change of mind is this idea that they were grooming or practicing for Batum to be the starter. I see pre-season as a chance to see what different players are capable of. There was one late pre-game they started Batum, but not Oden, LA or Roy . . . so that game couldn't have been about getting ready for the season with the starters all on the floor together.

I still have the belief, this team isn't about Batum and the failure or success this team experiences does not lie in Batum starting or Nate making a last minute line up change . . . and that decision had little if any negative impact on the game against the lakers . . . in spite of what some 19 yr old rookie said in broken english.

 

good grief dude. Reread your completely condescending first post to me... was that your idea of intelligent conversation? I'm attacking you??? while you're taking the high road recommending I take some classes at a community college? Or that my ass is sucking air.



STOMP

 

nope, I'm far from convinced (your word) that Batum was critisizing the coach... I speculated it could have been language issues or other things.

STOMP

 

You've inferred that I've made wild claims about knowing what the players were thinking after coach's decsion, but then you're claiming that Roy is "spinning" positives in this article. How do you know this? You're making an educated guess, right. I wouldn't say you're making a wild claim or whatever it was you've been saying.

Further, in an interview with John Canzano yesterday before the game, Mike Barrett publicly stated that it was also his opinion that the coaching move disrupted team chemistry with the first unit. Of course you'd need to take my word for it, although I'm sure I could find a clip from the interview.

And, as the we got closer to opening day, Brandon was interviewed with further support for this move. IMO, it was clear he was more advocating for this and not just trying to be a good soldier boy.

Here's the entire article:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2008/10/no_way_around_it_batum_being_c.html

A few excerpts that particularly lend credence to my argument are:

 

Aren't we, as fans, always making "educated" guesses. As a discussion board, we're offering up our opinions and then supporting those with evidence. I think in this case you're just not agreeing with the evidence that's brought up. That's cool. Anyway, I respect your take on this, and generally agree with most of your thoughts. I suppose that's why I'm intrigued in carrying on with this.

I completely agree that no one, you or I, know for fact, what were all of the reasons for the lost and how much weight should be placed on each of those factors.