Why no Przybilla?

[DeezXXnutZ]

-= original quote snipped =-
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."

I was just saying pretty much the same thing but you put it way better then I can (I'm a slow typer)..I just wish we used Joel when we needed him and not when we were destroying the Nets by 30.....

[Charlie78]

I just couldnt disagree with you guys more. We are building for a championship run. I would love to see us get to the playoffs this year. But not at the expense of future growth. If it is so important to win games then why not trade some of our excess pieces for veteran guys who can help. Im sure we could get some very nice vets for Travis martell and jack. But that isnt the point of this season. I know we have got all hopped up now that we are competing but when we were losing everyone was on nate for not having a rotation and for not developing the young players. Now that they are playing well it is nate isnt doing enough in game stuff. How can he win with you.

Also it wasnt a direct quote but more of an inference from quick on what nate was doing. the only direct quote was nate saying he never plays joel in the fourth thats not the rotation.

[Milkdud]

I really hope the NJ game changes Nate's mind about his subbing patterns. I can understand having a Frye/LA combo out there to bring in more offense but Joel has shown he can get us some points and controlling the glass can and does equal out the points. Nate has admitted that letting the reins loosen has help the team I just hope he doesn't have a hard headed approach to his sub patterns.

[DeezXXnutZ]

I just couldnt disagree with you guys more. We are building for a championship run. I would love to see us get to the playoffs this year. But not at the expense of future growth. If it is so important to win games then why not trade some of our excess pieces for veteran guys who can help. Im sure we could get some very nice vets for Travis martell and jack. But that isnt the point of this season. I know we have got all hopped up now that we are competing but when we were losing everyone was on nate for not having a rotation and for not developing the young players. Now that they are playing well it is nate isnt doing enough in game stuff. How can he win with you.

Also it wasnt a direct quote but more of an inference from quick on what nate was doing. the only direct quote was nate saying he never plays joel in the fourth thats not the rotation.

I don't see how putting The Priz in against the Raptors when we're getting chewed up by Bosh has anything to do with trading away all our youth ala Webster, Outlaw, and Jack for vets..It's not even close to the same thing..LMA was practically useless in the game for some reason and The Priz was playing great..I have no issues with Nate and like having him as our coach, I just wish he would have given Priz the chance to stop a guy they went to about 30 times in a row in the 4th and in two OT's.....

[Milkdud]

I really agree with Deez, LA couldn't hit the broadside of a barn that game not to mention he was getting abused by Bosh. Thats not to say Priz would come in and do any better but I mean at least give him a chance. I also didnt get the leap you made about trading away our youth either Charlie.

[mojomarc]

I really agree with Deez, LA couldn't hit the broadside of a barn that game not to mention he was getting abused by Bosh. Thats not to say Priz would come in and do any better but I mean at least give him a chance.

Yup. Same pattern as playing Jack the entire fourth in the game at Philly as he bricked 5 shots and had 5 turnovers. Didn't sit him and it cost us, and he didn't sit LMA against the Raps and it cost us.

[Charlie78]

Heres the question though Mojo if you only do something when its easy and not when its hard than you are not truly dedicated to that. If nate is saying he is dedicating himself to letting guys play through mistakes then I dont see how you can expect him to change what he is doing because it gets hard. especially considering how successful it had been for the last 17 games. If it were not for the winning ways recently would you feel the same. Or if he had put joel in and we still lost would you think that was better because at least he tried something different. The truth is that every time over the past 17 games excluding utah which nate didnt coach it has been successful to have that lineup on the floor in the fourth. So one tough quarter outweighs 75 quarters in your opinion.

[Tim Lehrbach]

BTW, my earlier statement stands, but I do agree with the obvious thought that Przybilla should have been playing in the fourth against Toronto.

[Fitz303]

I am an obvious Nate supporter but there was no excuse for not having Joel on the court during that 4th quarter and overtimes. He needs to learn to go with the hot hand, and sit the ones that are just off.. LMA was bringing nothing on the offensive end, and we was getting KILLED by Bosh down low. Hopefully Nate has learned his lesson and thats why Joel was in there in the 4th quarter. Aldridge gets his chances each game and Nate IS developing him along with the other young guys just fine. If someones having an off night, and its going to cost the Blazers a win in the 4th quarter, sit him down and get a guy in who's doing a better job that night

That said, I still think hes a very good coach.. Every coach has their flaws, but hopefully this is something that gets fixed

[Pinot love]

At this point all we can do is just pray that A) The unit left in during the OTs of the Toronto game learned A LOT by challenging adversity and B) In the future when winning is the most important issue, and not development, NATE WILL PLAY PRZYBILLA.

[mojomarc]

Heres the question though Mojo if you only do something when its easy and not when its hard than you are not truly dedicated to that. If nate is saying he is dedicating himself to letting guys play through mistakes then I dont see how you can expect him to change what he is doing because it gets hard. especially considering how successful it had been for the last 17 games.

First, this isn't about it getting "hard," whatever that means. This is about taking a guy who gets about 30 minutes per game in playing time and realizing that he's getting brutalized and trying something else to see if it might work. You're making the mistake of confusing two complaints about Nate, the one being that he lets his regular players get hung out to dry when they're obviously having terrible games (LMA and Jack), and the other being that he yanks short-time reserves who need the burn to develop at the first mistake they make (Sergio and Martell, at least last season).

Lamarcus proved 37 minutes against Toronto. By the time he had played 25 minutes, it was clear that he was just getting slaughtered on both ends of the court by Bosh. Taking him out at 30 minutes and giving seven to Joel is not "taking him out when it gets hard" but taking out a player after he tried to play through a very tough challenge but failed. Its not like playing an additional seven minutes against Bosh would have taught him anything other than that he was overmatched and hurt his confidence. It is also not like after 25-30 minutes you can't expect a coach to evaluate his on-court matchups and realize that in a close game like that one that player you thought would match up well wasn't handling the job and that if that coach wants to win he needs to figure out something to negate that advantage by the other team. This is precisely what a coach is supposed to do--exploit matchups that are advantageous and avoid matchups that are not.

The "letting players learn" I think applies to about 15 minutes a game in the first three and a half quarters of the game. Once you get beyond that, it's about wins. Nate has a young team, and yes he is expected to groom young talent, but he is still a coach of a professional basketball team and the team is paid collective to win basketball games. Refusing to even try to play a player who had demonstrated that he was effective for a player who had demonstrated that he was ineffective in that last half quarter and later is simply inexcuseably stubborness, particularly when the excuse is that it wasn't the normal rotation.

[listerine]

Jason Quick touches on this subject in his blog

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazer ... _to_b.html


The money quote is:

"So I'm asking myself, 'Should LaMarcus be in there?','' McMillan said, recounting his Toronto coaching. "Well, he has to give us something. He's gotta learn to play in the stretch of games. LaMarcus has to figure out how to get into a rhythm, and my thing was to challenge him on the defensive end to guard Bosh. Some of the things that Bosh does - drive to the basket, get to the free throw line, block shots _ those are things that LaMarcus needs to learn to do."


I think we need to reframe this discussion. It's not as if Nate was OBLIVIOUS to the fact that Aldridge sucked, Bosh was killing us, and Joel might have made a difference.

It's that Nate wanted to ride Aldridge. He wanted to keep Aldridge in a pressure situation when his game was off because those situations will come again. He wanted to force Aldridge to guard a player who's on fire.

And judging by Aldridge's performance against New Jersey, maybe the lesson stuck.

But it seems Nate has a slightly different objective than the fans. We want wins. We want streaks. We want playoffs in 2008.

It sounds like Nate wants to create stars out of Roy and Aldridge. He's looking towards the years when we have a legitimate shot at a championship.

[mojomarc]

It sounds like Nate wants to create stars out of Roy and Aldridge. He's looking towards the years when we have a legitimate shot at a championship.

I think he could have done that just as well, however, by playing LMA maybe 3-4 minutes less and playing Joel for those minutes, particularly with how effective he was on both ends of the floor. Either that, or bench Frye and play Przy. When you're 5-12 and looking like a sure lotto team, that's one thing, but when you're gunning for a division championship trying to "build stars" is no excuse for not doing the most you can to win every game.

[listerine]

[quote="mojomarc"]-= original quote snipped =-



When you're 5-12 and looking like a sure lotto team, that's one thing, but when you're gunning for a division championship trying to "build stars" is no excuse for not doing the most you can to win every game.[/quote]

But that's the thing. There IS something on the line. And he was giving Aldridge a message, "If you're going to be a star in this league, you need to step up. Even during an off day." Aldridge didn't answer the call, but he did come back strong the next game.

You can't build stars when you're a lotto team with a 5-12 record. There's nothing to lose so there's no pressure.

Nate seems to be thinking, "It may cost us games this season, but it'll win us games when they count." I can't fault him for that.

[Charlie78]

I think your missing my point though mojo. In my opinion we are still in the situation of playing our rotation as if this season means nothing. Now if we make the playoffs win the division have a playoff series victory, that would be amazing. But there are reasons why nate is doing what he is doing including playing jack alot when he doesnt necessarily deserve it and playing aldridge when he is struggling. I think he expressed it pretty clearly right there in that quote. This season is not about wins, wins are nice but its just not the reality. Plus I think even if you put joel in there for 3-4 minutes there is no guarentee that that changes anything or doesnt make things worse. The pick and roll has to be played differently probably leaving open shots for guys like parker and calderon who were on fire so I dont know that you can automatically say joel being in there would have changed the game.

[mojomarc]

I guess this is where I disagree with you Charlie--this season wasn't about wins, but as soon as we won enough to where we are within spitting distance of not only winning a division but competing for the conference's best record then all of a suddent his season did become about wins. And believe me--the extra few minutes that LMA played would teach him a lot less than being able to get home court advantage (distinctly possible at this point) and a probable first round victory at that point.

As for 3-4 minutes not making a difference, we're talking a game that went into double overtime where the player who was out there was sucking and the player sitting on the bench had played him to a stand-still. Sure, it might not have worked, but I like my odds a lot better with the player who had both the hot hand and the better defensive performance than the player who was a brick-laying pylon. I said it during the game, and I'm saying it now--Nate should have found a few minutes in there somewhere in a game that ended up being 58 minutes long for Joel to play after the middle of the third given what he contributed earlier in the game.

[listerine]

And believe me--the extra few minutes that LMA played would teach him a lot less than being able to get home court advantage (distinctly possible at this point) and a probable first round victory at that point.

I don't necessarily believe that. It's impossible to say if Aldridge learned a lesson or not (judging by the fire he had against New Jersey, he just might have). But this is the first time during the run that he's let the team down. He sucked on offense and he was owned on defense. If the Blazers gutted out a victory, it might be a "I sucked, but no harm was done" shrugging of the shoulders.

If Aldridge had been able to dig deep and help the Blazers win, he would have learned a lesson. If he wasn't (which was the case) and the Blazers lost, he would be responsible - and he would learn a lesson.

He doesn't learn anything on the bench except maybe "I'm not that important."

[Charlie78]

For me mojo I just think that we have to stick to the plan. My biggest complaint from basically after we traded drexler till a maybe even before the draft last year was that we never seemed to have a consistant direction or plan. I feel like we finally have one and I dont want to see us pull a chicago and try to reach before we are ready. Because if you start going down the we have to try to win now road were do you stop. Thats why in a earlier post I sarcastically suggested we should trade some of our young guys for vets. Because if we are truly trying to win now then we need to get that banger rebounder type, and a true vet backup pg. But I want to see KP and Nate play this out. Develop the guys we have bring in oden next year and see how we do. Plus as much of a homer that I am, and as much as I defend the blazers in some of these ridiculous predictions threads, still in the back of my mind is that doubt that they are really as good as their record. So I am not for jumping the gun yet. If we lock up a playoff spot then I would be for a little more sacrifice of development, but until then I just think we have to stay the course especially considering the success we have had with the rotation nate has played. I dont know if you read the behind the beat piece but it explains nates position on this pretty well and i agree with his decision wholeheartedly.