...why doesn't Nate? http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/index.ssf/2012/02/blazers_insider_players_arent_only_ones_feeling_si.html What also bothers me is when I see guys like Elliot Williams rotting away on the bench when we play a team like Houston who starts Chandler Parsons (a 2nd round pick). Williams is a better talent than Parsons, yet Nate can't find atleast a little bit of minutes for him even though our guard play has been atrocious. Look at Jeremy Lin for example. Sometimes its all about an opportunity.
Quick never "gets" anything. Here's the thing: it's easy to point to young players doing well elsewhere in the league. You can even point to Henry Abbott's whole "Royal Jelly" (David Thorpe's phrase) stuff on TrueHoop, and his praise for Poppovich emptying the bench in a game against Dallas a week or so ago, and sticking with them all the way. BUT: First, it's obvious that Nate WILL trust young players. He trusted Brandon Roy. He trusted Batum (who looked awful in Summer League - so awful that I was amazed that the Blazers kept Batum and sent the seemingly much-more-ready Koponen back overseas) in his rookie year. Second, our rookies just aren't very good. Yes, Eliot looks good. But he's VERY selfish. He looks to score every time he gets the ball. That might explain why the other team goes on big runs whenever our young players come in. EVERY TIME. I think Nate would love to be able to keep them in and give the other players a break, but he just can't - the team totally collapses when we have the young'uns in for any time at all. And Nolan is just blah. And Armon appears to have regressed drastically to the point that Nate has ceased even to pretend than he's a point guard. So, the fault there is in our drafting. (I think the mistake of drafting Nolan over Nicolas Mirotic will become more and more glaring in the future.) The thing about Batum this year is that he plays the wing position and we have Wesley and Wallace there. And while I think Batum actually is more talented than either, he doesn't play harder than either, and I think Nate is understandably averse to "punishing" either guy by moving him from the starting lineup. There's also the obvious point that the bench has only Crawford who can be trusted with the ball, so you need Batum with him, because a bench backcourt pairing of Crawford and Matthews would be very poor at ball handling and distribution. So I don't think Quick gets it: I think the problem is that the roster is very unbalanced. Trade Wallace for Scola (like Houston would do that) and you get a better balance. Get better than average talent. Undo the Andre trade. All of these would be better. Bring back Trader Bob! (At least, for one week before the trade deadline, then let him go again.)
I think Quick is right. Batum is a better player than Matthews. And I think he might play better with Failton as well as he's a better floor runner. Besides, what do we have to lose?
And Elliot is trying to prove himself in garbage time. Of course he's going to take more shots. I'd much much much rather have him taking the shots then see him dish it to Babbitt or C.Johnson.
lol yeah. agreed. However, at least Crawful will hit big shots a good portion of the time. (no diss against E.Will) I would love to see Batum start. I was at the game yesterday and Mathews and Failton SUCK. Not to mention our offense in person is the most terrible predictable offense I've ever seen. Watching from upper bowl you can definitely tell who is getting the shot everytime. If I can see that up stairs, then those guys surely know whats going on everytime we go down to score.
Our starters are not actually the problem. It's the bench. Why would you make the bench worse? My idea: start Babbitt! Why not? I think part of the problem is that we don't have enough shooters. Last night our offense stalled because the Houston defense just totally packed the paint. That's why LaMarcus was neutralized. And Gerald Wallace is part of the problem. WHEREAS, if we have Batum AND Wallace coming off the bench, I think we've got an intimidating bench mob that can really change up the pace. In fact: our starters should be Crawford, Matthews, Babbitt, Aldridge and Camby. As we saw against OKC, with Felton out, the entire offense ran through Aldridge. He had a monster game because OKC had to guard Crawford outside (they don't have to do that with Felton) and because Crawford is not a regular PG and was just told to dump it in to Aldridge every time. With Babbitt in there (who, incidentally has hit 2 of his last 3 threes, so he's on track!) Aldridge shouldn't be as swarmed. Then, if that's not working, you bring in Felton, Matthews and Batum all at once and PRESS LIKE CRAZY. With Batum playing with Felton, he's going to get the ball more often than when he plays with Crawford and our bench might actually INCREASE the lead, instead of collapsing like a bad souffle.
I agree with all of Jason's points, though I'm not too sure the coach should be held blameless. This team has NEVER been a good fastbreak team under Nate, and has always had this problem getting stagnant and tight etc.... It very well could be the players, but this roster has been completly overhauled, several times under Nate's tenure. And it's filled with guys that suceeded in other running systems like Felton, Crawford, Wallace. I mean, those guys are professionals and shouldn't have forgotten how to run one....but I don't get what it is about putting on a Blazer uniform that makes guys do such silly things.
