Props for Nate?

You lost me right there. Really, you don't see what he brings to the table. Please.

Ok. So you didn't completely lose me. Maybe he believes that one really good possession is better than two piss-poor ones.

Are you serious? You're in the huddle? The one thing I know is that leading out of the timeouts last year and this year, the team performs very well. I actually believe there was statistic that Portland converted more field goals out of timeouts than any other team last year. I'm noticing the same thing again.

After the first game of the season I would have agreed with you, but since then I've found his rotations to be working real well. I like what we're doing. I don't think many of us understand how difficult it is to juggle a roster this deep and talented.

From what you've said, you'd think we were 0 and 12 or something.

 

I am one of the biggest critics of Nate's. But I do give him credit last night for pressuring Derrick Rose upcourt last night and shadowing him with Aldridge. It'll be interesting to see if we imploy that strategy going forward, since one of our biggest defensive issues has been allowing the opponent's point guard to get into the lane at will. By pressuring upcourt, we get their offense out of a rhythm and force them out of their comfort zone with running their sets.

I also saw a more concerted effort to run last night, even off of made baskets. I had heard Wheels or MB talking about how the Blazers were working on this in practice more, and you've got to credit Nate for that if it becomes a pattern.

-Pop

 

I think the pre-occupation with "running" is misguided. It's fun but, to be honest, it's almost a gimmick. Teams that have the talent advantage on the league tend to play half-court offense. Playing a high-paced, up-and-down game increases the risk/reward...which is actually an equalizing factor when you're weaker in talent. The more chaotic the game, the more good fortune can help you. Playing a deliberate half-court game exposes the talent difference, just as a seven-game series exposes talent difference more than one game.

The Showtime Lakers are one of the very few teams that both had the talent advantage and were a running team. But even that is overstated...they didn't run every possession. They were excellent in the half-court and ran whenever they had a good opportunity. And even that is a rarity among the best teams. They also had one of the most special transition players ever, in Magic Johnson.

I don't think McMillan is doing the wrong thing. If Portland resembled the Warriors in roster, I'd want them to run. Don Nelson is smart to have them run. They defeated a more-talented Mavericks team a couple of years ago in the playoffs because their high-paced style turned the game into a shooting and turnovers match and the Warriors had sizzling shooting. The Mavericks would have had much more success had they kept it a half-court game.

The Blazers, however, are shaping up into a team that will be one of the most talented teams in the game, if not the most talented. Running may be fun, and I think they should run when they get long rebounds and have the numbers...but trying to push the pace throughout the game probably isn't going to be in their best interests. Playing disciplined half-court offense and defense, and bludgeoning teams to death with their superior talent, will be most favourable to Portland.

I'd love to see more motion in their half-court sets, but I don't blame McMillan at all for the pace of the team. They're near the bottom of the league in pace and near the top in offensive efficiency. Offense isn't the problem. If the Blazers were playing above average defense, they'd have a top record (of course, considering the early schedule, their defensive numbers are a little less worrying and their offensive numbers are even more impressive).

 

I noticed this one too. Seems like whenever a Chicago big inbounded the ball after a made shot, Aldridge would linger in the back court to create pressure on Rose, even to the extent that he'd let that big get well ahead of him. It's a great strategy when you've got a guy like Aldridge, because he can cover so much ground so quickly. Recovering isn't a big deal for him.

Portland never created a turnover with this tactic, but it shaved off four extra seconds off the clock. May not sound major, but it's the difference between initiating your offense with 17 seconds or 13 second left. Over time, it gets teams thinking they have to hurry everything.

Better-coached teams will figure this out and just have the SG inbound to the PG, and we'll be forced to play it more traditionally. But it should be a basic rule that Aldridge always shadows the PG if another big inbounds on a made shot.

 

I tend to agree with the "one good shot outweighs two bad shots" philosophy; rushing on offense usually leads to bad looks and turnovers.

Nate must understand the laws of probability then. depending on the shooter, let's consider a typical shooter who hits around 80% from the foul line and shoots 40% from three, statistically there's a 51.2% chance of hitting all three foul shots, compared with probably less than 40% chance of hitting a three if players are actually keyed on preventing the shot.

I guess you know this from all the long talks you've had with Brandon, Lamarcus, Travis, etc.? Whatever your impressions of his ability to inspire, the numbers don't lie. Last year the team was the most successful at converting for points coming out of a timeout http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120846936079424371.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I guess he must be doing something right?

He's still got an insanely young team, and has added even more rookies to his roster and got hit with more than a few major injuries to starters, so mix and match rotations are going to be the norm until you hit on a formula that produces the consistent results you're after. As for a replacement who's out there that so intrigues you? and how is a 7-5 record after one of the most brutal starting schedules I've ever seen underachieving?

 

Nate doesn't keep his philosophy a secret. He has always said he wants his players to push the ball up the court quickly and look for an early opportunity before the defense is set. If it's not there, you pull back and run your set.

Until last night, I hadn't really seen the guys do that, so I'm wondering if they have been making a more concerted effort in practice to instill that in the team.

I actually like Nate's philosophy here - my criticism had always been that the way the team played didn't always match the philosophy.

I'm like you - I don't need to see the team play run-and-gun like the Warriors or the D'Antoni Suns. But I'm all for getting as many easy opportunities as you can, and that means pushing the ball upcourt to get a good shot before the defense sets.

-Pop

 

Brother, we led the league in point scored coming out of timeouts last year! At Golden State the other night we scored right after 3 timeouts. He's drawing up something right!

 

Well, whatever McMillan says his philosophy is, what he has his teams do is pretty evident over his coaching career: play half-court by default and run only in obvious fast-break situations (long rebound or turnover leading to numbers).

I don't think McMillan's demonstrated philosophy on that is much different from coaches who have had great success, like Popovich, Jackson, Sloan (of course, Phil Jackson does more innovative things within the half-court, which is why he's the best coach in the NBA, IMO). They all want their teams to play disciplined offense and defense and run only when a clear opportunity to do so presents itself, not to push the tempo just for its own sake. IMO, the Blazers have been playing that way under McMillan and I don't have a problem with that.

My only gripe with McMillan is that his half-court sets seem too stagnant. Too much static spacing and swinging the ball around the perimeter, leading to either an outside shot or an isolation by Roy or Aldridge or Outlaw. The team has the athleticism, passing skill and shooting skill to employ a much more dynamic, motion offense.

 

Often, when a team gets a big lead there is a let down. While the team did stall a bit,
they never let the bulls back into the game. The bulls never really had any hope of catching
us after the first quarter.I attribute that to good coaching, especially considering how young we are.

 

I'm curious. How many of these people who do not like Nate have coached at a high school level or higher?

It's similar to someone who has never picked up a golf club, saying, "How hard could it be to his a little white ball with a stick?"

 

Well, I'm not in the group of people who don't like McMillan, but I don't agree with that sentiment. By that token, none of us should really be criticizing any GM or coach. Or, really, any player. Playing basketball in high school doesn't really give you much experience-based foundation for criticizing professional basketball players.

Nor could we praise any of those people. If we're not qualified to render negative opinions, we aren't qualified to render positive opinions.

This forum would be rather boring with no appraisals, negative or positive.

 

This made me curious. So, I looked up the 1980's Lakers (Magic era) and their Pace factor ranged from 4th fastest to 12th fastest in the NBA during that time.

There are no fast break statistics, and Pace does not mean the same thing as fast breaks, but it gives us a clue that they didn't push the ball as much as several other teams of the era.

 

True, but they probably pushed it the most among the top teams. Teams like the Nuggets, Warriors and Suns pushed it to ridiculous levels, but were also lesser teams that tried to run better (and worse) opponents out of the gym.

But I agree, and it was part of my point, that even the Showtime Lakers did not constantly push the tempo. They were just the closest example I could think of to a dominant team that was known for high pace.