Bye Bye Leash

Post #1 » by **Billy** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:46 pm

Didn't see this posted, it was up before the MIL game last week. But here is a Quick blog post about some of the minutes of some of the guys: Link

Sergio Rodriguez has not played in four games. Martell Webster, who did not so much as attempt a field goal against Phoenix, is averaging less than 17 minutes in the last three games. Channing Frye has registered single-digits in minutes played in five of the last seven games.

What does it all mean?

"The rope has been cut short," Blazers coach Nate McMillan said. "It has been tightened and what I'm doing with all of our guys is (not) giving that extended ... opportunity to find that rhythm. Right now we're trying to win games and we've been trying to win games, but this time of the year we just can't have that many mistakes.

I like how Martell has responded over the past two games averaging 16 points on 10/19 FG's and making 8-8 FT's while also grabbing 7 boards a game. I like that we're starting to see the leash tighten some. Some of the guys have been way too loosey goosey. IMO the only guy that can make mistakes without repercussions is Roy and possibly the other being Aldridge.

Post #2 » by **BlackMamba** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:01 pm

yep, totally agree.

this is a young team, and of course the players are unexperienced and will make some mistakes, sometimes too many mistakes.

but being young isn't an excuse that players should use to make mistakes.

so this should be an atention call for players like frye, sergio, martell, even jack (and also for the rest of the team) that they better get their act together and start showing some improvement and start making better and smarter decisions or else it's not going to be a shorter leash but no leash.

TBpup · Post #3 » by **TBpup** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:48 pm

Nate said in that article something about players focusing on defense and that being a big part of who got minutes. Nice to see him stick with that as Jack and Blake gave up 45 points to Nate Robinson...

Khazim · Post #4 » by **Khazim** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:08 pm

TBpup wrote:Nate said in that article something about players focusing on defense and that being a big part of who got minutes. Nice to see him stick with that as Jack and Blake gave up 45 points to Nate Robinson...

Well, first of all that's Nate freaking Robinson. Name me one player who can stay in front of him. Second of all, I won't defend Jarrett, but I will defend Steve. He isn't the quickest but he plays his freakin heart out on D and plays smart and tough. Sure I'd like a better defender but he's the best we got and you can't knock his effort.

Post #5 » by **Billy** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:19 pm

TBpup wrote:Nate said in that article something about players focusing on defense and that being a big part of who got minutes. Nice to see him stick with that as Jack and Blake gave up 45 points to Nate Robinson...

I'm not totally sure who could have stopped Nate that night--but that is a good point. But I don't know who else would have had a chance? I guess Taurean Green if he was still around could have been a good pick.

SinceClyde · Post #6 » by **SinceClyde** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:44 pm

Blake knows is fundamentals on defense, iMO. Like Khazim said, he plays his heart out on D. Why do you think Kobe hates him so much? I like the leash tightening idea; we'll see who steps up or steps out.

ebott · Post #7 » by **ebott** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:20 pm

I'm totally cool with Nate only playing guys that are going to put in the effort on defense. I like that he's yanking guys that aren't putting forth that effort. It's too easy for guys to forget about defense. A lot of NBA players just use the defensive side of the court as a place to rest before it's their turn to score again.

What I'm not so wild about is that he's not even giving the kids a chance to go out there and play the defense he wants. How does Nate know that Sergio isn't going to put forth the effort if he never sees the court.

I'm also not happy to see Brandon playing 40+ every game. If Nate keeps this up Brandon's gonna get hurt and then our season will really be over.

Yadadimean · Post #8 » by **Yadadimean** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:36 pm

^^^Sergio is worse than Jack!

Post #9 » by **Billy** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:07 pm

I have to admit I think we know the answer on Sergio thanks to past performance. Not like Jack is better since he runs so hot and so cold. If Nate could I'd have to think he wouldn't play either of those two.

ebott · Post #10 » by **ebott** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:28 pm

Billy wrote:I have to admit I think we know the answer on Sergio thanks to past performance. Not like Jack is better since he runs so hot and so cold. If Nate could I'd have to think he wouldn't play either of those two.

If Nate could he would have Brandon play both guard spots all game long.

Seriously, if Nate had some kind of time machine where after playing one game he could then transport Roy back in time he totally would. Have the fresh Roy play the 1 and the Roy that already played a game at the 2.

Post #11 » by **Billy** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:00 pm

ebott wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

If Nate could he would have Brandon play both guard spots all game long.

Seriously, if Nate had some kind of time machine where after playing one game he could then transport Roy back in time he totally would. Have the fresh Roy play the 1 and the Roy that already played a game at the 2.

I think Paul Allen probably has the money to make it happen. Then maybe bring Oden from next year back in time and make a run for the playoffs this year.

ebott · Post #12 » by **ebott** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:41 am

Billy - your thread title doesn't make any sense. Bye bye leash is the exact opposite of what the article is about. Shouldn't it be HELLO LEASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UGotThrilled · Post #13 » by **UGotThrilled** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:03 am

ebott wrote:Billy - your thread title doesn't make any sense. Bye bye leash is the exact opposite of what the article is about. Shouldn't it be HELLO LEASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe the subject was a reference to the decreased amount of leash that the players are being given, as in they are now on a tight leash.

Post #14 » by **mojomarc** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:48 am

UGotThrilled wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Maybe the subject was a reference to the decreased amount of leash that the players are being given, as in they are now on a tight leash.

Unless they're named "Jarrett Jack."

TBpup · Post #15 » by **TBpup** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:50 am

Unless they're named "Jarrett Jack."

Mojo....are you saying you are less than thrilled with Jarrett's stellar 4th quarter performance against the Cavs? And that Nate left him in for the majority of the quarter when he was stinking up the place like month old limburger cheese?

:starwars

Post #16 » by **mojomarc** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:58 am

TBpup wrote:
Unless they're named "Jarrett Jack."

Mojo....are you saying you are less than thrilled with Jarrett's stellar 4th quarter performance against the Cavs? And that Nate left him in for the majority of the quarter when he was stinking up the place like month old limburger cheese?

And I said that in the Philadelphia game, and I've said that a few other times this season. For whatever reason, Nate will pull just about any other player not named "Lamarcus" or "Brandon" in an instant, but he won't pull Jack when he is ineffective.

I guess I'm most pissed off about the "leash" comments because at this point we really don't have a shot at the playoffs unless a miracle happens. Why tighten up now? Why not see what Sergio in games where Jack clearly doesn't have it in him like tonight? I'm not even suggesting that Nate not play Jack first, but just to recognize when one of his favorites isn't delivering and try to make an adjustment.

d-train · Post #17 » by **d-train** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:53 pm

I don't care about making the playoffs this season. I want to start working on making the playoffs next season. I want Roy, LMA, and Outlaw to finish the season fighting hard to win every game. And, I want the 9th through 12th guys on the bench to stay there.

Ca · Post #18 » by Ca » Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:40 pm

From what you guys always say, Nate sounds like post-sixers-finals run Larry Brown. He was a good coach, but couldn't develop the young guys unless they were already ready. Although, I assume he's developed Alridge, but, from what I recall of him in college his game was developed; just not his body.