It "concerns" you that the guy who was 1-6 willingly passed to the guy who was 9-14? You sure do get "concerned" about the strangest things. Perhaps you're just obsessed with trying to find SOME reason to hate on Andre Miller. Give it a rest. Your act is beyond tired. We won by 23, the team played great, the ball movement was phenomenal (35 assist on 41 FG), and Miller had a great game. I know that's hard for you to accept, but you're going to have to learn to deal with it. It won't be the last time Andre Miller has a good game and the Blazers win. Better learn to accept it and stop being so "concerned". BNM
In fact, show me one negative thing that I had to say about Nate or Outlaw in this thread? I thought Travis had a great game. I'm not sold on this current lineup long term, but I love what Nate has done in the past two games. He's let go of the reigns.
Sorry, but I don't recall ever telling you to "give a rest" to your more pointed and more blatant criticisms of Nate McMillan. Thanks for your input, but come on now, do you really think you telling me to give anything a "rest" is going to matter? I advocated Miller starting. I'm happy the team won. I noticed something that I will be keeping an eye on regarding how Miller utilizes Roy now that he has the keys to the offense.
Actually the funny thing is that Miller was more the beneficiary of Steve Blake, LaMarcus and Greg than anybody in particular. They found him on the break, cutting to the hoop and wide open for fifteen footers on several occasions. If anybody wants to blame Miller for taking all of those "selfish" shots maybe they should have a word with our bigs and our other starting point guard.
Agree. Nate deserves some props for the change he has made. Forced upon him or not. He's bought into it. And he deserves some props for that.
In this thread? That was not my point, and you also already lied when you denied that you singled me out as a troll. You bash on Outlaw and Nate. This is a fact. I'm sorry if you disagree with me in this thread on a few issues. Perhaps you should realize that not everyone thinks like you do, and if they do so, that doesn't mean that their opinion is not valid. It certainly isn't trollish, is it?
I recorded the game; I'll watch it again to see how many times Roy touched the ball while he was in. We know from the stats that it was at least 12 times (1-6 + 6 assists). 7 rebounds means an opportunity for up to 19 plays where the ball was in Roy's hands, not counting times he touched the ball, and passed without getting an assist. But we'd need to see the game again. Roy only played 26 minutes, so it should be easy to see.
Not really, though. Most have been attacking me. You, on the other hand, have used comedy and direct questioning, which I do appreciate. If I have a concern, it's my concern. I admit that being called a troll by a moderator pissed me off, and it needlessly added pages to this otherwise boring thread.
You must have me confused with another poster. With the recent exception of criticizing his failed "small line-up" against Atlanta, I rarely criticize Nate McMillan. In fact, I've defended him far more in this forum than I've been critical of him. No, I don't. Because, I understand the definition of "obsession". You have an obsession with making Andre Miller look bad, as you have proven once again after tonight's 23-point win, and nothing I, or anyone else can say, will get you to change. That doesn't mean I don't find it tedious and pointless, but feel free to carry on if it gives you some kind of twisted satisfaction or fills a need in your life. I'll continue to pray for a cure. BNM
I lied? BNM made a vague statement and I made a vague statement. At no time was your name ever mentioned in relation with the word "troll". My point is that you bash on Miller whether he does well or not. You bash on Miller if we win or lose. I bash on Nate when the team sucks. I have never "bashed" on Outlaw. I stated that I think he has a low bbiq. I believe this statement to be fact. I also have said that I think he's a ballhog. I'm not the only one with this opinion. But I also have given both Nate and Outlaw praise over the years. It's not a one-way street for me.
You do see something worthy of concern in Miller's interactions with Roy, even when nobody else can. What you consider to be enlightened insight, other see as seeing boogiemen in the shadows. Some might go so far as to call it fear mongering, though that's MIXUM's purview.
This is my definition of you "bashing" on Miller. It might differ from your definition of me "bashing" on Outlaw or Nate.
You advocate Nate being fired. I say Miller needs to incorporate Roy into the game, but that I'm happy with the result. I'm the troll, though.
The logic is absurd in a real-world scenario, but sound in a vacuum: If Roy only scores 2ppg if we're beating the tar out of an opponent, then we would be better served by putting ourselves in that situation as much as possible. The overall situation (blowing out opponents) influences his stat line (2ppg) in this case, not the other way around. Nobody's implying we won because he only scored 2 points.
I really should have bitched about Nate. That's a rep-worthy post on this board. I'll try to dumb it down from now on. Nate needs to make Miller use Roy better.
Did you read my post that Nate was responding to with that reply? Or are you just going for cheap points in the latest pile-it-on thread?
I don't see how any of you can deny that you will be paying extra attention to how many scoring opportunities Roy has in the future when he is in the game with Miller.
Roy was incorporated in the offense and he was 1-6. He was having an off shooting night, the rest of the team was hot, and so he helped facilitate even more shots for them as you can see from his seven assists. But keep intentionally 'misunderstanding' what they're saying and making it sound like something else.
