Why no Przybilla?

Pinot love · Post #21 » by **Pinot love** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:12 pm

Can anyone pull anything other than the typical PC wording from Nate in regards to why he rotated as he did?

http://www.stage6.com/user/bigmacrexdale/video/2070209/

Wizenheimer · Post #22 » by **Wizenheimer** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:35 pm

mojomarc wrote: (see above)

Bosh did drive by Joel on a number of occasions. It's not required that he score on every single occasion to prove that point.

And I do not agree that Joel is capable of guarding Bosh any more then Joel is capable of guarding Nowitski. Bosh is exactly the kind of player you don't want Pryzbilla to spend a lot of time guarding. He can start out on the perimeter and dribble-penetrate, and he's certainly quicker with the ball then Joel is defending. I think your point about the high screen and roll is a lot more valid then about Joel defending Bosh.

I don't have a problem with saying Joel should play a little more, or even that he should have played a little more in this game. I do have a problem with saying Joel would have been the difference between winning and losing this game, because that's not a provable point. Maybe he would have given portland a better chance to win, or maybe playing him 30 minutes in regulation would have seen portland down 10 points at the end.

The 2nd loss in the last 19 games; against a good team; on the road; at 9:30am pacific; in 2 overtimes; without the starting PG...and it's the coach's fault. you bet

ph1sh55 · Post #23 » by **ph1sh55** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:42 pm

This frustrated me to no end..we were fighting an uphill battle there without Joel because they had so many easy buckets. Our defensive performance was like the philly game (where..wouldn't you know it joel sat the whole 4th quater and they obliterated us inside with TONS of easy baskets...)..when is nate going to connect the dots?

We would have won in the 4th quarter with
Pryz
Aldridge/Frye
Outlaw
Webster/Jones
Roy

instead of
Aldridge/Frye
Outlaw
Webster/Jones
Roy
Jack

where we lost a lead and made it to 2 OT's with miraculous shots...all went to waste.

Post #24 » by **mojomarc** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:50 pm

Wizenheimer wrote:The 2nd loss in the last 19 games; against a good team; on the road; at 9:30am pacific; in 2 overtimes; without the starting PG...and it's the coach's fault. you bet

You may not like it, but it was the coach's fault. The game was totally up for grabs, and the difference from earlier in the game sat on the bench as the guy he would be guarding went on a tear. The players that were on the court clearly held their own for as long as they could, but the coach put the wrong player(s) on the court at the end.

listerine · Post #25 » by **listerine** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:55 pm

I was also yelling for Nate to put Joel in the game near the end. It became too obvious that our interior defense was pathetic.

But, after the game, I gave it some more thought and came up with reasons why Nate probably did what he did.

1. As Wiz has mentioned, it was note a game that is especially conducive to Joel's defensive strengths. They were shooting us out of our zone all night, so we went man-to-man. What does Joel do if he's guarding Bosh and they run the pick and roll? If he switches, then Roy ends up on Bosh and Joel has to guard Calderon or Parker. Not good. If they don't switch, Bosh's quick first step will get him right past Joel on the screen. Not good.

2. Offense. The Blazers couldn't hit their shots all night. And as much as Aldridge struggled, he's still more dangerous on offense than Joel. Aldridge's presence was pulling the Toronto defenders out of the paint and opening up penetration.

3. Rebounding. The Blazer forwards and wing players were doing a fine job of grabbing boards. So we didn't really need Joel in for that.

4. Confidence. Partly, I think Nate wanted to ride Aldridge, Roy, Outlaw, Jack and Webster down the stretch. He wanted to give these guys confidence and maybe promote some growth. It paid off with Outlaw who couldn't hit anything, but woke up at the end. I think he was hoping for a similar awakening from Aldridge and Webster.

That's all the rationalizing I can do.

All in all, I wish Joel had gotten in for a few plays. Especially on the defensive end.

trentsdad · Post #26 » by **trentsdad** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:21 pm

It was a great game, exciting as all get out, but I was tempted to put my foot thru the tv whenever the announcers mentioned where Joel could have been helping us, it was obvious they were confused by the decision also

DeezXXnutZ · Post #27 » by **DeezXXnutZ** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:19 pm

I don't see how it wasn't obvious to Nate to put The Pryz in against Bosh..Me and my buddies were saying it left and right..They were going to Bosh non stop and LMA and Frye were getting burned non stop..It doesn't take a valid dictorian to figure it out.......

Twith · Post #28 » by **Twith** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:40 pm

Wizenheimer, I do totally agree that we defended the screens horribly. Their entire offense was based around getting a big on Calderon (see: his "3" near the end of 1st OT) or getting a guard on Bosh (see: the last 22 minutes of the game). At some point you have to let your guards fight through screens to keep the matchups favorable. I've never had the impression that Bosh screens like Joel or somebody, but I guess he's above average. Fighting through one or two screens drains the shot clock, impedes offensive progress, and would usually result in Calderon or Delfino or Parker taking a contested jumper.

Still, all that said, I would have liked to see more Przy.

Post #29 » by **mojomarc** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:14 am

DeezXXnutZ wrote:It doesn't take a valid dictorian to figure it out.......

Maybe the problem is that while Nate is a dictorian, he is an invalid one???

:dontknow:

Charlie78 · Post #30 » by **Charlie78** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:48 am

Jason Quick was on the fan today and had a couple of elaborations on this topic. He said he asked nate about playing pryzbilla. nate said that that is not the rotation and that pryzbilla never plays in the fourth and that he has made a dedication to play the young guys through thick or thin and he is not going to go away from that. Even if it costs us a victory. He also said he wanted the points more than the defense. Another interseting note is that nate said he actually threw up when he got to his hotel room he was so upset about the loss.

DeezXXnutZ · Post #31 » by **DeezXXnutZ** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:40 am

Charlie78 wrote:Jason Quick was on the fan today and had a couple of elaborations on this topic. He said he asked nate about playing pryzbilla. nate said that that is not the rotation and that pryzbilla never plays in the fourth and that he has made a dedication to play the young guys through thick or thin and he is not going to go away from that. Even if it costs us a victory. He also said he wanted the points more than the defense. Another interseting note is that nate said he actually threw up when he got to his hotel room he was so upset about the loss.

Nate has no one to blame but himself..The role of the coach is to win the game and not bench a player that could come fix the one problem the Blazers were having..I don't think that it would be that hard on The Priz to play an extra 5-10 minutes considering we played an hour of game time in the game..

Post #32 » by **mojomarc** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:43 am

DeezXXnutZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Nate has no one to blame but himself..The role of the coach is to win the game and not bench a player that could come fix the one problem the Blazers were having..I don't think that it would be that hard on The Priz to play an extra 5-10 minutes considering we played an hour of game time in the game..

I agree. This only cements my opinion that Nate cost us this one, and that he has a real problem finding a good balance between good and bad rotational moves.

Clipsz 4 Life · Post #33 » by **Tim Lehrbach** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:40 am

I have no problem with Nate arguably costing us a win or two here and there when he's got the tam playing so well overall up against big odds.

I iz tipsy.

Charlie78 · Post #34 » by **Charlie78** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:29 pm

I agree with you tim. As I pointed out quick indicated that nate knew he should try joel, but what he said is at this point if its a choice between losing with joel or lamarcus he is going to take lamarcus. Anyone can say well if he had done this we would have won but as we have no basis for that other than speculation I think you have to give him the benefit of the doubt considering the level he has the guys playing at.

Post #35 » by **Spykes** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:35 pm

Tim Lehrbach wrote:I have no problem with Nate arguably costing us a win or two here and there when he's got the tam playing so well overall up against big odds.

I iz tipsy.

Iz agree with da tipsy Tim.

Seriously though, I do really agree. Nate's gonna make some mistakes here or there, but it's the kind of mistake all coaches make at some point.

ph1sh55 · Post #36 » by **ph1sh55** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:05 pm

Wait, coaches excel because they adjust game to game... did he just flat out say he didn't make a change even though he knew he should have just so he can play the young guys down the stretch? The role of a coach is to win games. Playing joel in the 4th quarter against an opponent that is obliterating us in the paint is not stunting the development of our young guys..that's just ridiculous.

DeezXXnutZ · Post #37 » by **DeezXXnutZ** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:25 pm

ph1sh55 wrote:Wait, coaches excel because they adjust game to game... did he just flat out say he didn't make a change even though he knew he should have just so he can play the young guys down the stretch? The role of a coach is to win games. Playing joel in the 4th quarter against an opponent that is obliterating us in the paint is not stunting the development of our young guys..that's just ridiculous.

Charlie78 · Post #38 » by **Charlie78** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:21 pm

I dont agree phish nates job is not just to win games. His job is to develop this team into a title contender. If you look at the start of the winning streak that is how it began. he decided to release some of his control and establish a rotation that he was going to stick with through thick and thin. Do you really think that when Jack is out there in the fourth quarter bricking it up and killing us nate doesnt consider putting Blake back in. Im sure he does, but he is trying to allow Jack to play through mistakes, Ditto for Travis , Martell, even aldridge who has had some pretty bad performances even during the win streak. What nate is saying is he made a commitment to a certain rotation that he was going to use and it has worked phenomally well. So why would he change it because of one game. Look at the Utah game that we lost, nate didnt coach and the rotation got outta whack with martell coming in when he normally didnt and guys not playing the same minutes. we looked totally out of whack and were never really in the game. Then compare that to this toronto game. Nate stuck with the usual rotation despite basically everybody outside of roy having off nights and we very nearly won despite our team playing like crap. That has been a theme of this win streak. There have been a number of times when I could not figure out how we were winning games, and its because chemistry is so much more important than individual contributions.

Post #39 » by **mojomarc** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:27 pm

DeezXXnutZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

+1. I've had issues with Nate's rotations frequently because he does seem to stick with his guys even when they're costing us the game, but I always thought it was more to do with him seeing something that I didn't in the matchups. Now, with that quote, it seems that isn't really the case and it is more him sticking to his planned rotation because it was the planned rotation.

To his credit, he did seem to play Joel more against NJ, but perhaps that was him coming to the realization that Joel could have made a difference against Toronto and changing his game plan.

I would much rather, though, that he recognize the team's deficiencies in the course of the game and adjust his lineup accordingly, so I sure hope the NJ game really was a "learning from the mistake" instead of "making the same mistake in a slightly different way and getting lucky."

DeezXXnutZ · Post #40 » by **DeezXXnutZ** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:28 pm

Charlie78 wrote:I dont agree phish nates job is not just to win games. His job is to develop this team into a title contender. If you look at the start of the winning streak that is how it began. he decided to release some of his control and establish a rotation that he was going to stick with through thick and thin. Do you really think that when Jack is out there in the fourth quarter bricking it up and killing us nate doesnt consider putting Blake back in. Im sure he does, but he is trying to allow Jack to play through mistakes, Ditto for Travis , Martell, even aldridge who has had some pretty bad performances even during the win streak. What nate is saying is he made a commitment to a certain rotation that he was going to use and it has worked phenomally well. So why would he change it because of one game. Look at the Utah game that we lost, nate didnt coach and the rotation got outta whack with martell coming in when he normally didnt and guys not playing the same minutes. we looked totally out of whack and were never really in the game. Then compare that to this toronto game. Nate stuck with the usual rotation despite basically everybody outside of roy having off nights and we very nearly won despite our team playing like crap. That has been a theme of this win streak. There have been a number of times when I could not figure out how we were winning games, and its because chemistry is so much more important than individual contributions.

Nate has to be able to adjust to the game on any givin night..He played Joel almost the entire fourth last night during the Nets game..And didn't you here Mike and Mike bringing it up numerous times how Joel didn't play in the fourth or any of the overtimes in Toronto..They were wondering the same thing everyone else was..

At least Nate learned from his mistake, Thats a good sign of a good coach....