# Why does Nate refuse to play LaMarcus lately?



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Been listening to the game off and on and saw the boxscore..not much LMA...what gives? He's much better than any center we have, yet MAgs has been getting way too much run lately.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Been listening to the game off and on and saw the boxscore..not much LMA...what gives? He's much better than any center we have, yet MAgs has been getting way too much run lately.


Not sure. According to GameCast he had Joel and Jamaal in at the same time for a few minutes! WTF? And why are we allowing Damon (5'8) and Chucky (5'10) to just drive right to the hoop for easy layups?? Oh yea, Juan Brixon! Brixon is a solid 1-6!


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Let me get this straight......the lead gets down to 7 and Nate goes with: Dickau, Dixon, Udoka, Outlaw and MagToilet?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

it's just very frustrating seeing our future..and #2 pick not begin able to play. He is capable and the best offensive threat out of the quartet of centers. We better not be playing Mags jsut to shop him because look how well that worked with Reefer And I don't particulary want to win when we are relying on guys who wont be here like Dickau, Mags, and to some extent Dixon. Now I don't want to lose, but man show more love to LMA and LaMarcus. Good Lord, now Raef comes in instead of LMA.....NATE :curse:


----------



## stanthecaddy22 (Oct 31, 2005)

now to start the quarter he puts in LaFrentz instead..... what the heck....as our lead shrivels away.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

OMFG, why is Raef getting burn over LA?? NATE SUCKS! Where are all the Nate lovers tonight?? Yakbladder??


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

He has shown flashes, but I think he's been overhyped a little. He has yet to score over 12 pts (granted, he has not gotten a lot of plays called for himif any) but the media has hyped him up to be the next Sheed, ect. He has looked solid, but overall mediocre imo.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

QRICH said:


> He has shown flashes, but I think he's been overhyped a little. He has yet to score over 12 pts (granted, he has not gotten a lot of plays called for himif any) but the media has hyped him up to be the next Sheed, ect. He has looked solid, but overall mediocre imo.


He came in for a minute or two missed a shot and blocked two shots. How does that deserve pine time!


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

unforgivable. LMA is good. Lafrentz....not so much. I know, I am stupid and Nate is smart. I smell bad, and Nate is oderific! I am ugly, and Nate is incridibly handsome. HE GOOD. HE VERY GOOD.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

QRICH said:


> He has shown flashes, but I think he's been overhyped a little. He has yet to score over 12 pts (granted, he has not gotten a lot of plays called for himif any) but the media has hyped him up to be the next Sheed, ect. He has looked solid, but overall mediocre imo.


He gets ZERO plays ran for him. If we actually had a coach who could use his players correctly, I could see him averaging 13-15 a night. Theres no reason why he isn't playing tonight and I'm getting sick of it. Nate isn't all peaches n cream folks.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

I don't know. But the #2 overall pick has been outplayed so far this season by mid-to-late 1st round pick bigmen. 

He's been solid, he's not raw like I thought he'd be, But very mediocre. 

The sooner we trade Magloire the quicker we'll see LaMarcus show what he can really do.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Juan Brixon once again must have the green light from Nate whether it is in the flow of the offense or not! What does this guy have to do to get yanked!


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

QRICH said:


> The sooner we trade Magloire the quicker we'll see LaMarcus show what he can really do.


Don't bet on it!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Yes Jaun has been "okay" so far in this game, but good Lord give Martell some run!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

baler said:


> Let me get this straight......the lead gets down to 7 and Nate goes with: Dickau, Dixon, Udoka, Outlaw and MagToilet?


Let me get this straight...we're still winning?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Wow Gay seems to be doing fine out there, I'd sure like to see our rooks out there in crunch time..:sigh:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork said:


> Let me get this straight...we're still winning?


we're up by 1 effin point against a college team...happy?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Nate U Fraking Suck!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> we're up by 1 effin point against a college team...happy?


Read what I responded to. We were up by SEVEN POINTS at the time. IF we lose...you can start complaining. Until then, *****ing is completely IDIOTIC.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Nate's giving this one away...


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Fork said:


> Let me get this straight...we're still winning?


No you got it wrong...WE'RE LOSING! We were leading by over 20 to the worst team in the league!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork said:


> Read what I responded to. We were up by SEVEN POINTS at the time.


Yep and because the right guys aren't in there, they'd dicked it away like everyoen knew they would.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Fork said:


> Read what I responded to. We were up by SEVEN POINTS at the time. IF we lose...you can start complaining. Until then, *****ing is completely IDIOTIC.


What do you not understand? If we had better game/substitution management we would not be losing 20+ point leads to crappy teams. Why can you not comprehend this?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

baler said:


> No you got it wrong...WE'RE LOSING! We were leading by over 20 to the worst team in the league!


Are we?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Hmm Nate puts in a good palyer like Outlaw and he saves teh day with the block..for some reason I don't think Dixon woulda had that one.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

baler said:


> What do you not understand? If we had better game/substitution management we would not be losing 20+ point leads to crappy teams. Why can you not comprehend this?


Why can you not comprehend that NBA teams make runs? Teams come back from deficits all the time. 

If you think Nate is such a terrible coach, how do you explain the HUGE comebacks we had early in the season?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Nice brick Juan!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Brilliant lineup Nate! Turnover! Portland will win this game because of the nice lineup put in by Nate McMillan. 

Critics can shut the **** up now.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Fork said:


> Why can you not comprehend that NBA teams make runs? Teams come back from deficits all the time.
> 
> If you think Nate is such a terrible coach, how do you explain the HUGE comebacks we had early in the season?


Come on..when teams make runs, even us, usually your starters or main guys are in the game. Usually. When you begin to give up a 20+ point run to a very poor team you may want to put in some starters, defensive players, etc. Juan Dixon? Dan Dickau? Reaf Lafrenz? Do you see a pattern here? STOP MAKING EXCUSES!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

baler said:


> Come on..when teams make runs, even us, usually your starters or main guys are in the game. Usually. When you begin to give up a 20+ point run to a very poor team you may want to put in some starters, defensive players, etc. Juan Dixon? Dan Dickau? Reaf Lafrenz? Do you see a pattern here? STOP MAKING EXCUSES!


You missed the point (again)

When Portland blows a big lead, it's the coaches fault. When Portland comes back from a big deficit, it's not the coaches credit. Bull****!

Whatever. The *****ing gets old in a hurry dude. 

We're going to win this game and you're STILL going to cry like a little girl who had her dollie stolen from her. BORING.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork said:


> Why can you not comprehend that NBA teams make runs? Teams come back from deficits all the time.
> 
> If you think Nate is such a terrible coach, how do you explain the HUGE comebacks we had early in the season?


Teams with a Atkins/Damon backcourt and no bigs whatsoever make comebacks. Bottom line is we needed to play more of our youth. Winning with Dixon and Mags does nothing for our team. It takes away piong pong balls and takes away developmental time for our guys.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Fork said:


> Brilliant lineup Nate! Turnover! Portland will win this game because of the nice lineup put in by Nate McMillan.
> 
> Critics can shut the **** up now.



If we win, that's great! I want the BLazers to win. What you fail to understand is that when Nate continues to coach like this we usually loose more than we win. As our record indicates. Our young guys get no ingame experience and we just wallow in mediocrity! I just want the team to have the best shot at winning every game. Nate prevents that.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork said:


> You missed the point (again)
> 
> When Portland blows a big lead, it's the coaches fault. When Portland comes back from a big deficit, it's not the coaches credit. Bull****!
> 
> ...


No, I'll be the first to credit the coach if he finds a sqaud that can comeback, but Nate's sub patterns are horendous and have been for a long time.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Teams with a Atkins/Damon backcourt and no bigs whatsoever make comebacks. Bottom line is we needed to play more of our youth. Winning with Dixon and Mags does nothing for our team. It takes away piong pong balls and takes away developmental time for our guys.


Now you're crying because we WON the game? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life.

Ping pong balls? You're not much of a fan.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Fork said:


> You missed the point (again)
> 
> When Portland blows a big lead, it's the coaches fault. When Portland comes back from a big deficit, it's not the coaches credit. Bull****!
> 
> ...


You appear to be the one with your panties in a bunch.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

baler said:


> You appear to be the one with your panties in a bunch.


Are you quoting me or what? DId I say anyone had their panties in a bunch?


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Nate got his act together with the subs... but it came way late. Everyone recognized that the lineup wasn't working. The apponents coach saw it and exploited it... for a long time. Nate didn't act on it until it was almost too late. Even our retarded color analyst said as much which is telling you just how freaking obvious it was.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> No, I'll be the first to credit the coach if he finds a sqaud that can comeback, but Nate's sub patterns are horendous and have been for a long time.


Yeah, four wins on a six game road trip is 'horendous' (sic)

Three of those we won in the last seconds of the game. What a horrid sqaud (sic)


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork said:


> You're not much of a fan.


Don't even start....


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork is our new playmaker..except his man love goes to Nate


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

MAS RipCity said:


> Teams with a Atkins/Damon backcourt and no bigs whatsoever make comebacks. Bottom line is we needed to play more of our youth. Winning with Dixon and Mags does nothing for our team. It takes away piong pong balls and takes away developmental time for our guys.


 Now you're just complaining to complain. Frist it was Nate sucks because he isn't playing the right players and thus the team is giving up a 20 point lead (forget the fact Nate put in players to get the 20 point lead).

Now that the Blazers won, it is, Nate sucks because he is winning with Dixon and Mags, thus taking away ping pong balls.

So basically who cares what the score is, who cares how anyone is playing, just play Aldridge, Jack and Webster 48 minutes . . . either do taht Nate or you suck. Did I get it right?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

baler said:


> If we win, that's great! I want the BLazers to win. What you fail to understand is that when Nate continues to coach like this we usually loose more than we win. As our record indicates. Our young guys get no ingame experience and we just wallow in mediocrity! I just want the team to have the best shot at winning every game. Nate prevents that.


Dude, what are you saying? The Blazers just went 4-2 on a road trip. How does Nate prevent us from winning? Another coach would have gone 5-1 or 6-0?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So basically who cares what the score is, who cares how anyone is playing, just play Aldridge, Jack and Webster 48 minutes . . . either do taht Nate or you suck. Did I get it right?


Don't forget, you have to play those guys AND win by 25 points or you suck.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Man, some of you guys need to /quit and go take the air.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Who cares how much we win by, I jsut want to see our investments play..is that such a mother trucking crime>?


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> Fork is our new playmaker..except his man love goes to Nate


Lol. I miss playmaker, just because we could really use someone with a mancrush on a worthless player for us to rip into constantly... It'd be like someone here who went to college and made eye contact with Dixon once, and now wants to have his babies :lol: 

But back on topic, Nate's a good coach. He does make substitution mistakes sometimes, his real problem is not picking up on the obvious mistake quickly. The comebacks have more to do with the team spirit and him motivating them, rather than any spectacular play calling or substitution patterns on Nate's part.

The comeback by the Grizz tonight was started with their run and the Blazers inexperience and tendancy to lose leads. It was compounded in a critical period by nate's substitutions. He fixed his mistake JUST in time to not throw it away.

You guys arguing are both right in a way, but much like republicans and democrats, too far on either side to ever have a chance at being 100% correct


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Fork said:


> Don't forget, you have to play those guys AND win by 25 points or you suck.


WOW, you sure missed the boat. Not one person said any of those things. Just keep making **** up!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Who cares how much we win by, I jsut want to see our investments play..is that such a mother trucking crime>?


When people cry because we WON, yet we didn't win with the right players? Well...it's not a crime, but it should be.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> You guys arguing are both right in a way, but much like republicans and democrats, too far on either side to ever have a chance at being 100% correct


I agree. And by certain peoples signatures I think we can tell who is what.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Fork said:


> When people cry because we WON, yet we didn't win with the right players? Well...it's not a crime, but it should be.


Again, missing point completely! Stay on topic.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

We BARELY won the last 3 games to the top 3 of 5 worst teams in the league and you praise McMillan and say it's okay to play Dixon in front of Webster and Magloire in front of Aldridge? I can't believe how short sighted some of you are. WOW WE ****ING WON!!!11 Look at the records of the last 3 teams we won, and look at how many points we beat these teams by, and look at what we sacrificed to win those games(Developing Webster, Aldridge). Live for today, not for tomorrow I guess.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork you dont get it do you? As A fan I love that we won...but as a realist I know this does nothing really for our team in the long run..maybe besides Outlaw and Ime comming up clutch in the end. I have no problem with role players playing a lot or winning games for us, but when they are guys like Dixon and Magloire who simply aren't going to be here in the future..then it's kinda sad. I'd rather Martell and LMA get those crunch time minutes to add to their experience.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> We BARELY won the last 3 games to the top 3 of 5 worst teams in the league and you praise McMillan and say it's okay to play Dixon in front of Webster and Magloire in front of Aldridge? I can't believe how short sighted some of you are. WOW WE ****ING WON!!!11 Look at the records of the last 3 teams we won, and look at how many points we beat these teams by, and look at what we sacrificed to win those games(Developing Webster, Aldridge). Live for today, not for tomorrow I guess.



I'm guessing Webster and Aldridge, mentally, are in a lot better place on that plane ride home v. playing a lot of minutes and losing.

More importantly, I'm guessing the team mentally is in a much better place. Webster has had his opportunties and will continue to have more. Hopefully he will learn how to be aggressive and take advantage of his opportunities.

But who is more short sighted . . . the poster who focuses purely on the minutes played by Webster and Aldridge or the poster who is thinking about the team as a whole? Winning is a good thing for athletes.

All that PT given to Telfair last year and this year sure paid off, didn't it?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> Fork you dont get it do you? As A fan I love that we won...but as a realist I know this does nothing really for our team in the long run..maybe besides Outlaw and Ime comming up clutch in the end. I have no problem with role players playing a lot or winning games for us, but when they are guys like Dixon and Magloire who simply aren't going to be here in the future..then it's kinda sad. I'd rather Martell and LMA get those crunch time minutes to add to their experience.


You'd rather Martell and Aldridge got used to losing?

Hmmm...

I understand that you're a true fan of this team...you wouldn't be here otherwise...but there's more to a decision to play Magloire (who isn't that great, and isn't in our long term or even medium term plans, admittedly) than what you're willing to admit.

We're trying to up his trade value. We're trying to build a culture of winning. We're trying to show future free agents that we'll play a veteran in crunch time. And frankly, ping pong balls be damned...if Magloire and Dixon give us even a 5% greater chance of winning a game, then Nate HAS to play them. Maybe somebody decides they want Magloire and they'll give us value for him. Maybe the same with Dixon. Maybe Aldridge learns something from him Magloire and Webster from Dixon. Who knows? Repeatedly calling Nate an idiot because he won't play Aldridge, Webster and Rodriguez enough? That's absurd. They haven't EARNED playing time. Their time will come. I hope they're on this team for the next 15 years, I think they could all be that good...but the complaints because you want to see them NOW, NOW, NOW...that's short sighted. 

Have some patience.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm guessing Webster and Aldridge, mentally, are in a lot better place on that plane ride home v. playing a lot of minutes and losing.
> 
> More importantly, I'm guessing the team mentally is in a much better place. Webster has had his opportunties and will continue to have more. Hopefully he will learn how to be aggressive and take advantage of his opportunities.
> 
> ...


They are mentally in a better place on the plane ride home? I beg to differ, I'm sure the both of them want to contribute to the organization's success and none are at this time. I think that both WANT to live up to their high draft stature and not being given the opportunity to is killing them inside. Oh, and don't worry about their mental state, they are adults. The both of them have great coping mechanisms. I am definitly thinking of the team as a whole and winning to garbage teams without their stars like the Raptors, Sixers, and Grizzlies does nothing for the development and the betterment of the team. 

And it seems you're saying that the PT given to Telfair last season was worthless, but remember that without giving Telfair that time we wouldn't have Brandon Roy right now.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'll try and only add this. I see a lot of good arguments both ways, but why this game? I mean Aldridge played 4 minutes and played hard, didn't make mistakes and had 2 blocked shots. What was the reason behind him not playing in the second half? Magloire turned the ball over quite a bit late, and Raef was just God awful. 

I'm not sure what it says to a young player when they go out, play hard, contribute in a very possitive way and still get benched in the second half in favor of two players that havent, and weren't playing better than you.


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Fork said:


> You'd rather Martell and Aldridge got used to losing?
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> ...


Ditto! Very well said. You don't just give young guys all the minutes in the world, when they don't deserve it. Considering how Martell has played this year, he shouldn't be starting, but Nate has given him the opportunity, and will continue to give him opportunties. But you just don't throw them out there and play them all you want, when they haven't earned it.

Yea, Lamarcus didn't get much playing time tonight, but did you watch the game? He didn't play well when he was in, and Jamal was very solid tonight. I have no complaints about that when a player is playing better on another a night.

Nate has won us many close games this year, and we're exceeding expections. He made the switch and took Zach off of Gay on the last few plays, and Outlaw came up with 2 huge defensive plays on Gay. If Nate doesn't make that sub, we lose the game.

We won the game, and considering all things, this has been a great year so far. Quit complaining. It's so old.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hype #9 said:


> Ditto! Very well said. You don't just give young guys all the minutes in the world, when they don't deserve it. Considering how Martell has played this year, he shouldn't be starting, but Nate has given him the opportunity, and will continue to give him opportunties. But you just don't throw them out there and play them all you want, when they haven't earned it.
> 
> Yea, Lamarcus didn't get much playing time tonight, but did you watch the game? He didn't play well when he was in, and Jamal was very solid tonight. I have no complaints about that when a player is playing better on another a night.
> 
> ...



2 blocks in 4 minutes isn't playing very well????? Wow, you're tough


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

We should make this thread a sticky where everyone who wants to complain about Nate incessantly can just go on and on and on about it, leaving the other threads in the forum for other topics. That would be good.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> 2 blocks in 4 minutes isn't playing very well????? Wow, you're tough



No he just looks at the whole picture.


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> 2 blocks in 4 minutes isn't playing very well????? Wow, you're tough


That's all he did. Come on, I'll admit I love LA, and I'm not a fan Jamal, but it was the right move to play Jamal over LA tonight.

Jamal had 9 pts, 7 bds, on 3-5 shooting.

He's sucked most of the year, but he deserved to play tonight.

LA is getting 22 minutes a game and people are complaing? Nate isn't GOD.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Mags is being showcased in preperation for a deal involving Nene. Hopefully.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> No he just looks at the whole picture.




Good point. Aldridge needs to work on his turnovers down the stretch for Nate to take him seriously.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hype #9 said:


> That's all he did. Come on, I'll admit I love LA, and I'm not a fan Jamal, but it was the right move to play Jamal over LA tonight.
> 
> Jamal had 9 pts, 7 bds, on 3-5 shooting.
> 
> ...




Jamaal played alright. His points and rebounds were great, but he had some brutal TO's late in the game that would have cost us this game if Memphis was any good at all.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Good point. Aldridge needs to work on his turnovers down the stretch for Nate to take him seriously.



Don't worry with as bad of a coach as Nate is, there be plenty of garbage time for Aldridge to develop his turnovers.

Although I'm more concerned about his 3 defensive rebounds/game while averaging 21 minutes a game. I know defensive rebounds are a lot to ask from a big man, but if he wants to be taken seriously as a big man by both Nate and the league, he better start hitting the defensive boards.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Don't worry with as bad of a coach as Nate is, there be plenty of garbage time for Aldridge to develop his turnovers.
> 
> Although I'm more concerned about his 3 defensive rebounds/game while averaging 21 minutes a game. I know defensive rebounds are a lot to ask from a big man, but if he wants to be taken seriously as a big man by both Nate and the league, he better start hitting the defensive boards.



You're right.PLaying along side Randolph would have nothing to do with that. Magloire averages 3.6, and Joel averages 3.1 Aldridge is better than both of them at offensive rebounding. 


So is Zach not a big man because he doesn't block shots?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> You're right.PLaying along side Randolph would have nothing to do with that. Magloire averages 3.6, and Joel averages 3.1 Aldridge is better than both of them at offensive rebounding.
> 
> 
> So is Zach not a big man because he doesn't block shots?



Ironic you mentioned the JM and Joel, did you know that Aldridge averages more minutes than those two?

Zach is a big man because he plays like a big man on the court. He gets the respect from Nate and those around the league because he plays like a man. 

Someday Aldridge will be there . . . but he's not there yet. And imagine playing Aldridge and losing this game . . . you already feel the Blazers should have blown them out (contrary to the experts in Vegas who had Memphis favored and the fact you and I both thought memephis would win) . . . what a terrible coach Nate would really be to lose to a team we should have blown out . . .


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Mags is being showcased in preperation for a deal involving Nene. Hopefully.



That is the current rumor isn't it. I guess it would make some sense to showcase him tonight. I would feel a lot better about Nene if I knew for sure he was going to be 100% and his contract wasn't so big, but then again if he is 100% then I guess my worries would be moot.

I wouldn't be suprised to see Mags play a little more than Aldridge this Friday night too. That is if he is still a Blazer.

I mean we are looking at the whole picture here right? Okay, pop quiz, what can be done on December 15th that can't be done today kids? :biggrin:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Ironic you mentioned the JM and Joel, did you know that Aldridge averages more minutes than those two?
> 
> Zach is a big man because he plays like a big man on the court. He gets the respect from Nate and those around the league because he plays like a man.
> 
> Someday Aldridge will be there . . . but he's not there yet. And imagine playing Aldridge and losing this game . . . you already feel the Blazers should have blown them out (contrary to the experts in Vegas who had Memphis favored and the fact you and I both thought memephis would win) . . . what a terrible coach Nate would really be to lose to a team we should have blown out . . .



I picked us to lose tonight. I was referring to the score during the game. There is no reason that Memphis team tonight should have been close after halftime.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I picked us to lose tonight. I was referring to the score during the game. There is no reason that Memphis team tonight should have been close after halftime.



That's basketball . . . are you really shocked that a home team made a run on a team ending a six game roadtrip. Heck, forget the roadtrip, are you really shocked Memphis came back from 20 down? Even the Blazers have done that this year.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> I mean we are looking at the whole picture here right? Okay, pop quiz, what can be done on December 15th that can't be done today kids?


Pryz can be traded. I have not even thought of that. I like the guy and all, good character. But if we can get him for Nene it would be a great deal.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I'll try and only add this. I see a lot of good arguments both ways, but why this game? I mean Aldridge played 4 minutes and played hard, didn't make mistakes and had 2 blocked shots. What was the reason behind him not playing in the second half? Magloire turned the ball over quite a bit late, and Raef was just God awful.
> 
> I'm not sure what it says to a young player when they go out, play hard, contribute in a very possitive way and still get benched in the second half in favor of two players that havent, and weren't playing better than you.



I'll give you this..should've been LMA over Raef...

Normally, LMA over Magloire, but I agree that there's a high probability if everything synchs up of a trade going down.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> I'll give you this..should've been LMA over Raef...
> 
> Normally, LMA over Magloire, but I agree that there's a high probability if everything synchs up of a trade going down.


Agreed, I think that there is an outside chance of that happening. Magloire should be getting more playing time right now to showcase and add another piece to the puzzle hopefully.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

It'd be interesting to try and track whether there is more whining on this board after wins or losses.

Either way, it's a **** load, but I think wins takes it...


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm not the type to complain after wins....but I AM curious. Is LaMarcus not 100% healthy? Did he do something to piss Nate off?

It's a reasonable question. :whoknows:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I would only hope it's because of a trade, but if we trade Magloire for Nene then it's still a huge cluster **** at the 4-5 possitions. 

Hadn't really thought about trading Joel though. I have a hard time believing that the Blazers would trade him after all of the hoopla this offseason when they signed him. 

They'd get a lot of bad press too if they traded Joel and not Zach. Joel, good guy hard worker, Zach bad guy hard worker.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i would rather have an SF!

well the 15th is coming up soon!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Aldridge is averaging 21mpg for the season

That is twice what most predicted he would be capable of playing with his inexperience and this deep frontcourt.

For the 6 game road trip, he was down to 16mpg.

Up till last night though, he was averaging about 19mpg for the road trip.

Basically, what I'm saying is that last night could very well have been an anomaly. There's going to be some nights where he plays 10 and some nights he plays 30 and maybe your occasional 4 or 35, but so far it's balancing out to over 20mpg.

He's getting great minutes for a rookie big, especially considering we have an all-star caliber forward and three solid centers.

My suggestion is to stop reacting so wildly to everything on a game by game basis. Right now, it's really just one game - wait till at least the next few to see if there is any sort of trend.

If we start seeing 4mpg outings and DNPs for Aldridge on a somewhat regular basis for the rest of the season, I would certainly be disappointed.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I see a lot of Jermaine O'Neal in Lamarcus. You know he has skill, he just plays like way too soft, almost scared, like he's holding alot back.

He doesn't really deserve PT based on his play, but neither does Magaworthless. At least let the rookie get in there and learn.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> My suggestion is to stop reacting so wildly to everything on a game by game basis. Right now, it's really just one game - wait till at least the next few to see if there is any sort of trend.


Well said. People are way overreacting to this.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> I see a lot of Jermaine O'Neal in Lamarcus. You know he has skill, he just plays like way too soft, almost scared, like he's holding alot back.
> 
> He doesn't really deserve PT based on his play, but neither does Magaworthless. At least let the rookie get in there and learn.


Patience, my friend. After Mags is gone, they will actually
run plays for LMarc. Then we'll really see what he's like.
I'm sure we'll all be happy.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

wizmentor said:


> Patience, my friend. After Mags is gone, they will actually
> run plays for LMarc. Then we'll really see what he's like.
> I'm sure we'll all be happy.


Aldridge needs to work on his post moves a bit in practice before that happens I think. He and Bayno need to spend lots of time together.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

wizmentor said:


> Patience, my friend. After Mags is gone, they will actually run plays for LMarc.


That seems to be the case. Maglore is really helping his trade value on this road trip too.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

OK, that's two games in a row Nate has decided to play Aldridge 4 minutes. I realize we won, and that's great but we would have won if Aldridge was taking a few of Magloire's minutes. Aldridge has played hard and well in both games too.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Yep,Nate did a nice job tonight expcept for not giving LMA more minutes.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

to show off magloire


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

rose garden pimp said:


> to show off magloire


Exactly


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

rose garden pimp said:


> to show off magloire


Magloire hasn't been too horrible lately, probably knowing he's going to get traded soon.

I'm not as mad when he's in there and usually messing things up.. He got some nice offensive boards and played pretty good defense. As long as he's not the focal point of the offense, on the post, he's not that bad.

With that said, I'd still rather see LaMarcus getting the PT.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

alext42083 said:


> Magloire hasn't been too horrible lately, probably knowing he's going to get traded soon.
> 
> I'm not as mad when he's in there and usually messing things up.. He got some nice offensive boards and played pretty good defense. As long as he's not the focal point of the offense, on the post, he's not that bad.
> 
> With that said, I'd still rather see LaMarcus getting the PT.


I just shake my head at the posters here. Aldridge wasn't expected to get many minutes this season. He was supposed to be a 'project'. 

The team is 5-2 over the last 7 games with him getting limited minutes.

People are whining? It will all work out. Have patience for a game or ten. LaMarcus is a big part of the Blazer future, but let the future develop before we all give up on the team.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

papag said:


> alext42083 said:
> 
> 
> > Magloire hasn't been too horrible lately, probably knowing he's going to get traded soon.
> ...


How is what I said 'whining'? LaMarcus has shown enough this season that he's not a 'project' anymore. He can actually contribute when he plays.
I don't think I'm the only one who thinks LA should get some of Jamaal's PT.
But my original point was that Magloire has actually been playing well these past few games, and I'm happy with that.
Don't know how what I was said can be interpreted as "giving up on the team."


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Its obviously bothering LaMarcus a lot that he's not playing. He spent 2 hours after the game tonight shooting jump shots.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Its obviously bothering LaMarcus a lot that he's not playing. He spent 2 hours after the game tonight shooting jump shots.


He's shooting 51% from the field!

Still, I hope that trading Magloire sooner (rather than later) frees up some time for Aldridge. He's a lot of fun to watch, and while inconsistent right now, he'll blossom with some added playing time.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Man watching him run the fast break was a thing of beauty.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Magloire has all of a sudden been playing well. Is it possible that Nate doesn't have some irrational bias against young guys that selectively manifests only toward Sergio, Aldridge and Webster, but that in fact he actually knows what he is doing?


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

Ditto, with Zagsfan. Thats what I heard. If Webster or Dixon are playing bad I think Nate throws in LaMarcus. Some exposure here and there for LaMarcus is good even if its 10 minutes in a game and the next is 4 min. I think Nate is trying to mix up LaMarcus's attributes with the right players he sees fit for LaMarcus can cover.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I was at the game yesterday and it is rather obvious to me why LMA sits down so much - he gets stupid fouls really quick and Nate really has to sit him down. The fast break with Sergio was a beaut - but he followed it immediatly with a couple of avoidable stupid fouls and was taken out promptly.

He will learn - but at the moment - there are good reasons he is not staying in the game longer minutes.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

12/15/06 vs Clippers: Sergio assist feed to LaMarcus and his dunk. I love it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K9yVV0ol1_Y


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Nate Dogg said:


> 12/15/06 vs Clippers: Sergio assist feed to LaMarcus and his dunk. I love it!
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=K9yVV0ol1_Y


Glad to see that highlight made it onto YouTube. Trying to describe it to my roommate just wasn't working.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

John Hollinger is giving out holiday advice to sub-.500 teams, a group which includes the Blazers (at least for a little while longer). Here's John's gift of knowledge to the Blazers:
Love the job you're doing Nate, but you gotta play LaMarcus Aldridge more. Have to, as my man Stein would say. He's got a sweet shot, he boards and he's shown some shot-blocking skill, plus that length is a constant deterrent to opposing shooters.

I know he's not going to be taking Zach Randolph's job anytime soon, and that Joel Przybilla and Jamaal Magloire are important for the interior defense in the middle, but there's no excuse for Aldridge's playing only three minutes, as he did Wednesday night, or four, as he had in the previous two games. No excuse. 


No ****. Nate is the only one that doesn't seem to get this.....he and the lemmings in the forum that think Nate can do no wrong for some reason.


----------



## bodyman5001 (Jul 1, 2006)

I don't know what is really going on because I haven't been able to watch the games but it sounds like Magloire has been playing pretty well lately. THIS IS GOOD, if they are going to trade him. 

That is what I gather from reading this thread anyway. In what little time I have been able to see LaMarcus play, I can tell you that as a fan he is fun to watch. When he gets consitent minutes, I will get league pass.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> No ****. Nate is the only one that doesn't seem to get this.....he and the *lemmings* in the forum that think Nate can do no wrong for some reason.


I'm so tired of crap like this. If we're all so stupid (IYO), what does choosing to spend hours each day with us say about you?

STOMP


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

It's simple for the Rockets game. You don't play your inexperienced and weak pf/c against the largest guy in the league and one of the roughest interior defensive and offensive teams. LMA would have been eaten up by yao. As it is, the bulky and experienced centers (Joel, Magloire) played probably their best games of the year by far and were just enough to keep the Blazers from losing.

God. We played great last night against a very good team and barely won and people are whining because we didn't make it even easier on the opposition by trying to force minutes for a rookie.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

opps.. double


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah the MM nate hating is getting boring and down right silly, never will be happy even if we won a championship...

ALdridge will get his time and i agree about Yao eating aldridge like dim sum at lunch!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Although I'd love to see Aldridge play more, we've won 5 in a row. Nothing to complain about here!!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

up 20..still no LMA...nate you're DONE! I'm just so irritated by it..it makes no sense. Theres a reason we had the worst record last year..we SUCKED! We need to be playing our high draft picks because they are the ones who have hte potential to put us over the top..not smaef and mags.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yah, because he's not playing lamarcus, we should fire him.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

uhh..i never said that..you're DOne is just another way of me saying your coaching tarded.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> uhh..i never said that..you're DOne is just another way of me saying your coaching tarded.


well jeesh, why would I think you meant "tarded"..It's not like "done" doens't mean finished or nothing. It must be in the urban slang web page as "tarded".


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

"you're an r tard."

maybe we're just showcasing magloire. i mean, when he was in the game, he seemed to be the focal point of the offense on pick and rolls and posting up.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

deanwoof said:


> "you're an r tard."
> 
> maybe we're just showcasing magloire. i mean, when he was in the game, he seemed to be the focal point of the offense on pick and rolls and posting up.


Damit, I hate it when people make sense on why things are done......deanwoof to the back of the line please. Sheesh :biggrin:


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

magloire played pretty bad tonite...showcasing him seems to be the only excuse for not putting in LA.


i dont know how much i believe that is really going on though. regardless, im sure there is a reason. and dont call for nates head just yet.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

A Tribune writer brought up a good point; no team is going to want Magloire because they think he will put them over the top. They want him to give their roster some salary cap space. So why showcase him, if that's the case?

I would like to see Aldridge play more often, but with the team having won 6 of its last 8 ... I don't know, I just have a hard time getting worked up about it. The team is starting to win, so why get angry about LaMarcus' playing time?

That, and he was referenced directly by Nate as one of the players who can't be making mistakes and expect playing time.

That said, I don't know why Nate gets on LaMarcus' case but forgives Magloire's steady flow of turnovers.

The memories of Jermaine O'Neal are fresh in everyone's mind in Portland, so just know that if McMillan sees progress and thinks LaMarcus is a better option for the team than Jamaal or Joel or Zach at any given moment, he will play Aldridge.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I am not a Nate basher, but this is getting ludicrous.

We win by 15, and LaMarcus gets a DNP? 

I have nothing against Magloire personally.....hell, I don't even *know* the guy......but most nights he plays as if he has had both hands and both feet pumped full of novacaine.

Would it kill you to give the kid a fair chance!! :banghead:


----------



## bodyman5001 (Jul 1, 2006)

I could be wrong because I don't get to see the games but i looked up tonight's boxscore against the hornets. My math tells me that Joel and Jamaal had a combined 7 points and 9 rebounds. 

Aldridge could probably do that by halftime if motivated. Get him in the game and give him some leeway with the mistakes and those mistakes will be fewer each game. 

I like Joel. 
But Magloire....
When THE HECK is the trading deadline anyway? Isn't it quite a ways away?

hurry up


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I agree that Aldridge should be getting atleast _some_PT.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> yah, because he's not playing lamarcus, we should fire him.



No silly, that's why we should flog him. We should fire him for all the other reasons I bring up.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

bodyman5001 said:


> I could be wrong because I don't get to see the games but i looked up tonight's boxscore against the hornets. My math tells me that Joel and Jamaal had a combined 7 points and 9 rebounds.
> 
> Aldridge could probably do that by halftime if motivated. Get him in the game and give him some leeway with the mistakes and those mistakes will be fewer each game.
> 
> ...



Joel was an absolute monster last night. He played very well. Magloire on the other hand didn't. No reason Aldridge shouldn't be playing. If it's because he's lazy in practice then trade his ***, but I doubt it's that because I keep hearing how he is by far the hardest worker on the team. 

I think Nate is doing a great job of not rewarding the kid with playing time...I mean why would he? He is only the best all around big man in the roster


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Riding the pines helps no one. The kid should get some minutes.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

The next time the team comes out for warmups, Lemarcus should just go sit on the bench. He might as well warm up for it.:biggrin:


----------

