# Blazers @ Sixers Game Thread (12-11-06) (Merged)



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Blazers @ 76ers*

Quick Notes:

- Cheeks doesn't know if the Iverson trade is any closer to happening. Quick likes Denver and Minnesota deals the most, as they're both looking to make the next step.

- Zach is pissed off, big time. He feels the suspension is an absolute lack of respect by the organization. Quick agrees. He just flipped the bird, and he got fined $133,000 and missed a game. Mike Vick, on the other hand, was fined 20k in a similar incident. Zach has already filed an appeal. 

- Chris Webber had an excused absence for the shootaround. Cheeks is unsure whether Webber will start tonight. 

- I'm assuming the PG/SG questions have the same answers, with Martell starting at SG and Sergio backing up at PG.

- No new word on whether Roy will be back for LAC or HOU.

Although this looks like a win for Portland, they're on the second half of a back-to-back and the 6ers have pretty much everything they need to motivate themselves. A 7-game losing streak, an inspired Webber, and more shots for everyone.

This one scares me.

Sure would be nice to have a shot at a 3-game winning streak against Memphis, though, especially with Roy _possibly_ coming back on Friday.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

BTW, there's no line on tonight's game. I'm pretty sure it's the first time Portland hasn't been given points this season.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Portland has 3 points in the last 7 minutes. 

Yikes.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

very sloppy first quarter, ugh.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Watching it on Gamecast - with the headshots of Kyle Korver and Dan Dickau, it's like watching _That 70s Show_.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

so far dickau is 2 points away from being total crap.

I know that Sergio and Dan aren't the most consistent pg's in the league, but can Nate please make up his mind which one is the backup?


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



meru said:


> Watching it on Gamecast - with the headshots of Kyle Korver and Dan Dickau, it's like watching _That 70s Show_.


thats the only way I can catch it too. it SUX.

Dickau is getting Sergios minutes.

Wheeee!:cheer:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Hap said:


> so far dickau is 2 points away from being total crap.
> 
> I know that Sergio and Dan aren't the most consistent pg's in the league, but can Nate please make up his mind which one is the backup?


Hopeful scenario: Dan's recent minutes are an attempt by management to convince a GM that Dickau has recovered from surgery and is a worthy inclusion in the upcoming Magloire trade.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Samuel said:


> Hopeful scenario: Dan's recent minutes are an attempt by management to convince a GM that Dickau has recovered from surgery and is a worthy inclusion in the upcoming Magloire trade.


You mean, ALONG WITH JUAN.

(Back to the game) Yikes - I'm experiencing an unfamiliar sensation - I feel sorry for our opponent.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



meru said:


> You mean, ALONG WITH JUAN.
> 
> (Back to the game) Yikes - I'm experiencing an unfamiliar sensation - I feel sorry for our opponent.


Resist the temptation. Oden and Durant await.

Shux. Looks like Sergio won't be back anytime soon.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Magloire is big ballin' out there tonight.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

For a game where Portland is leading at halftime, this is a remarkably awful game.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Samuel said:


> For a game where Portland is leading at halftime, this is a remarkably awful game.


Too many unforced tunrovers. What's new?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

This Is The Worst F'n Game I Have Ever Seen In My Life!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Yega1979 said:


> This Is The Worst F'n Game I Have Ever Seen In My Life!


you haven't seen many games in your life then.

it's getting ugly, thats for sure.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Yega1979 said:


> This Is The Worst F'n Game I Have Ever Seen In My Life!


25 tunovers and we are only halfway through the 3rd quarter. Ouch.

Can we make an Iverson trade before the 4th quarter starts?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



craigehlo said:


> 25 tunovers and we are only halfway through the 3rd quarter. Ouch.
> 
> Can we make an Iverson trade before the 4th quarter starts?


It's all part of a ruse to lull them into a false sense of security..just wait till the last :45 seconds of the game when we surprise them with an 8 point play!


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

We are running the Zbo offense for Maglore? This is sad. Nate is really unimpressive with his play calls and rotations tonight.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

I can't believe Nate has gone with this crappy lineup for so long in the 3rd quarter. They have melted the lead away and given the Sixers the lead. Jack, Dixon, Outlaw, Magloire and Lafrentz? 8 posessions in a row without a score and he leaves them in 5 more minutes? Go to hell Nate. Your squandering the game.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

I'm not sure I understand why Raef stayed in as long as he did. Im not opposed to him playing in the future, but he's obviously not in game shape. 

At one point, it was 27-10. No, thats not the score. Thats the foul totals. Portland with 27 and Philadelphia with 10.

I dont get why certain players are free to play crappy defense, but certain younger players get pulled seconds after they make a so-so play on defense.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Jack, Dixon, LaFrentz, Magilore and Udoka?!?!?! Are you kidding me?!?!?

We are strugging to score, I know, let's run our offense through Jamal Magaworthless!!! 

This is utterly pathetic that we can't even beat the Sixers without Iverson!!! 

They used to call this group of losers "the comeback" kids, but lately all they've been doing is blowing leads to crappy teams.

What a bunch of losers!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

nothing like over-reacting.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

I realize he has three to's but why isn't Aldridge in the game more? We need scoring, and he can do that


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Hap said:


> I dont get why certain players are free to play crappy defense, but certain younger players get pulled seconds after they make a so-so play on defense.


Seriously. Martell needs to have the long leash that Dixon seems to have. Juan jacks up some really bad shots and gets to stay in for long stretches. Let's give those shot to Martell, who's taller and more accurate with the 3-pointer lately.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



hasoos said:


> I can't believe Nate has gone with this crappy lineup for so long in the 3rd quarter. They have melted the lead away and given the Sixers the lead. Jack, Dixon, Outlaw, Magloire and Lafrentz? 8 posessions in a row without a score and he leaves them in 5 more minutes? Go to hell Nate. Your squandering the game.


Boy, Jack just has his best game ever and you want him out of the lineup? Dixon is 5-10..I mean, I know you hate the guy, which is fine (I'd rather he were traded), but he is making shots. Udoka has 5 fouls so he won't be in...LMA or Webster is the only substitution I may make, just not sure how they really played in the 1st half since I can't see the game.

I've got to believe that Magloire is only in there for trade purposes...


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



craigehlo said:


> Seriously. Martell needs to have the long leash that Dixon seems to have. Juan jacks up some really bad shots and gets to stay in for long stretches. Let's give those shot to Martell, who's taller and more accurate with the 3-pointer lately.


The biggest problem is figuring out why Martell isn't playing... maybe his back isn't feeling well on the 2nd night of a back to back. Maybe he's sucking it up. Maybe Nate's sucking it up. Frankly, I think they are doing a fine job of giving the game away, regardless of who Nate plays.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Randolph..2 TOs in a row..coaching ain't gonna change that... This is just fugly...


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

worst game ive ever seen a blazer team play, pathetic...


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Where's Joel in the lineup when we are getting killed in the paint by Allen Henderson?

What a mess.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Wow! A game after our starting backcourt of Jack and Webster combine for 44 points our coach encourages them so much that it's the 4th quarter and they have a combined 7 field goals attempted between them? Nate is ****ing unbelievable. Jack gets 4 field goals, Webster with 3? The shot distribution is down right disgusting with Juan Dixon attempting 11 field goals compared to Jack and Webster's combined 7. If I could, I really would slap the **** out of Nate McMillan.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Yeah, Nate's lost it...Joel on the bench.. Mags in the game...


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

regardless of a win or loss...a terrible game, and an equally terrible coaching job by nate.

poor subs, plays...****, everything. he needs to make his damn mind up and stick with a lineup consistently. players cant get into their game with these random subs.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

Nate was brought in for some discipline, but he was never a great coach in Seattle going off his record. He turned one nice run into the playoffs into a fat contract from the Blazers. He can thank Ray Allen's hot hand for his $$$.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

I think it's a safe bet to say this game is over. The team has no energy or spark. They're being out-hustled and out-smarted (albeit, thats not terribly hard with some of our players).

Did they take the bus from Toronto to Philadelphia or something?

Nate should've taken one for the team and got himself tossed. the fouls are just slightly lopsided.

you see that great defense on Iguodala Zach had just then?

yep. he's not a detriment to the team on the defensive end.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Really disproportionate foul calling. Dixon 1-6 from 3.

Dixon 25 minutes
Webster 15 minutes

Magliore 23 minutes
Aldridge 10 minutes

WTF


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

BTW that is one empty stadium in Philly. Blazer brass should take note. A few more game like this and the Rose Garden will look the same.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

OMFG


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

nice jack


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Tied Holy ****!!!


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

We Need A Stop Here!!


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

We Need A Bucket Here!!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



craigehlo said:


> BTW that is one empty stadium in Philly. Blazer brass should take note. A few more game like this and the Rose Garden will look the same.


Hate to break this to you, it already does.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

wow


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

Nate needs to get Webster more involved. Now Webster only gets a shot someone happens to pass it to him when he's wide open.

And LaMarcus, Nate needs to get on him to get more aggressive on defense and with his offense! He's out there playing like a complete *****.

We have young guys with talent, but guys like Dixon, Dickau, Magilore and Udoka seem to be dominating the action.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



drexlersdad said:


> Really disproportionate foul calling. Dixon 1-6 from 3.
> 
> Dixon 25 minutes
> Webster 15 minutes
> ...


Dixon is 6 for 12 overall with 3 steals..

probably not the best example...Mags v LMA sure...


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Hap said:


> Hate to break this to you, it already does.


The Sunday game vs. The Hawks was sad, but not this empty in the lower bowl at least. I think there were like 9K at that game.

It's a shame there has to be a winner of this game tonight. Both teams deserve a L.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

If we win, it gives McMillan a reason to coach the way he did tonight again, and that's just unacceptable. Maybe we should lose.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

So we beat a one-man-team without their one man by two points. Hmph. I don't think Brandon Roy will rescue this team...yet.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Webber just earned his $250,000 game check.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

who didn't see that chris webber 3 coming?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Sambonius said:


> If we win, it gives McMillan a reason to coach the way he did tonight again, and that's just unacceptable. Maybe we should lose.



Yeah, we should lose. Great idea chief.. glad you're not in charge of anything...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

how in the....

wait..nevermind. the less I remember about that game the better.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Hap said:


> who didn't see that chris webber 3 coming?



Uhhh..me? That's only his second 3 ALL YEAR.

I'd much rather have Korver doubled and let Webber take that shot all day. I don't care how good he was in his prime.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

HAHA what a joke. They are worse than us.

Dixon played alright and came up big at the end, but the ends don't always justify the means. We need Webster out there. Just my opinion.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

zach is a reliable option on a last second play like that, i gotta say.

horrible game but a win, so im happy. we need some coaching changes though.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



yakbladder said:


> Uhhh..me? That's only his second 3 ALL YEAR.
> 
> I'd much rather have Korver doubled and let Webber take that shot all day. I don't care how good he was in his prime.


I just meant it in a sense of "just our luck" sorta 3.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Zach came up HUGE down the stretch AGAIN. I love it.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



drexlersdad said:


> HAHA what a joke. They are worse than us.
> 
> Dixon played alright and came up big at the end, but the ends don't always justify the means. We need Webster out there. Just my opinion.


9 times out of 10 I'd agree with you. Everyone can shoot over the runt...but he got us through..somehow..tonight. Critical steal at the end...


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

HEY

we just won.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

Man, sometimes I feel like the officials need to loosen things up just to make things a little more entertaining. After all, the NBA is in the business of entertainment, right?


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



drexlersdad said:


> HEY
> 
> we just won.


yep, but if coached right we would have won this going away by at least 10.

a horrendous coaching job tonight. no excuse for some of those lineups and subs...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

we won the game


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

Nate just won us the game. If we're going to blame Nate for every loss, let's give him 100% credit for every win. 

Or we could have a level head about things...


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



yakbladder said:


> Yeah, we should lose. Great idea chief.. glad you're not in charge of anything...


Yeah, you're right. Because the guy in charge is doing such an excellent job now.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



Hap said:


> I just meant it in a sense of "just our luck" sorta 3.


I think we used all of our luck in 1992...

Somehow we managed to salvage this one tonight..not sure if it was luck or just the 76'ers collapsing..


----------



## Roland Garros (Dec 6, 2006)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

it's a win no matter how it comes.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

Poor Nate.

Right now, the guy has (at best) 3 good tools in his tool belt. He is struggling to build a house, and a bunch of sidewalk supervisors are ragging on him to build a skyscraper.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



Tince said:


> Nate just won us the game. If we're going to blame Nate for every loss, let's give him 100% credit for every win.
> 
> Or we could have a level head about things...


A level head? What...are you fricken crazy. What would half the people on this board discuss (or should I say *****) about if we can't blame somebody for something prematurely and demand their head. I never realized how many professional coaches there are on this site...so much knowledge...boggles the mind...:clown: 

Cheers


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

jeez- relax, people. 

after every win or loss, people here seem like they're going into convusions. it doesn't even have to be after a game, just any random bit of Blazer news can be dangerous to the health of bbb.net users.

stay calm, deep breaths. 

... but if anyone really does feel like they might be having a stroke while typing out a post, hit REPLY real quick before you fall over so we can read what you were thinking when it happened.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

Yeah, Nate is to blame for turnovers and crappy defense. Gosh, he's never preached that before.

Heck, let's bring back Cheeks, his team made a pretty spirited attempt at it!


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

I was pissed with that line-up as well, but then when I came to my senses, I realized that everyone else he tried in that third quarter was sucking as well. Nate was trying desperately to find something that would work.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



ryanjend22 said:


> yep, but if coached right we would have won this going away by at least 10.
> 
> a horrendous coaching job tonight. no excuse for some of those lineups and subs...


An excellent coaching job by Nate tonight.

It doesn't matter that we were ahead in the 1st, behind in the 3rd...

It matters that *we won *at the end.

Whether by 1 or by 100, it's the same exact result.


----------



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

2 Words...

WE WON.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

would you rather have MO CHEEKS?


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



MARIS61 said:


> It matters that *we won *at the end.


I think everyone is happy we won. I think that fact that we played down to the level of a Philly team w/o Iverson is cause for concern.

The fact is we need the ball movement we had against the Raptors, but with Zbo in the lineup. If Nate can't get the guy to make crisp, fast passes to find the open man, then he's not doing his job as a coach. We had too many guys trying to play one-on-one ball today and we stink at that.

We got lucky today. Luck isn't a gameplan.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



ptownblazer1 said:


> 2 Words...
> 
> WE WON.


Yep. The only two words that matter.


----------



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



craigehlo said:


> I think everyone is happy we won. I think that fact that we played down to the level of a Philly team w/o Iverson is cause for concern.
> 
> The fact is we need the ball movement we had against the Raptors, but with Zbo in the lineup. If Nate can't get the guy to make crisp, fast passes to find the open man, then he's not doing his job as a coach. We had too many guys trying to play one-on-one ball today and we stink at that.
> 
> We got lucky today. Luck isn't a gameplan.


It was the second of a back to back, yes it was the sixers. They are a terrible team. But while I was driving home from work, all i heard from wheels was another shot that is short. We could have easily just given up when down by 7 with 5 minutes to play. We didn't we came back with heart and won.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

Stop whining.


----------



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Stop whining.



If you could only close the thread with that comment...


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

First Jamaal and now Nate?

I notice a disturbing trend in worthless threads like these.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

Sheed, i didn't see that in the criticism of Magloire; he was so totally bad in every way at the beginning of the season. But with Nate, I do sense something; Nate is so dedicated, he is so supportive and demanding at the same time. I don't know if there is another coach in the league who could have built a relationship with Zach like he has. He is the perfect coach for this team and the criticism does seem irrational at times.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



Utherhimo said:


> would you rather have MO CHEEKS?


Oh gawd, no. I think Mo's heading down to his final days as an NBA head coach. It's unfortunate, but I can bet he gets outcoached nearly every night.

And people seem to never be happy toward a coach, whether it be the pros, college, high school or youth sports.

Let the coach do his job.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



ptownblazer1 said:


> If you could only close the thread with that comment...


Haha, it was worth a shot.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*

For what the team has gone through on this trip from losing Zach for a game and not having Brandon, I'd say Nate's done a fine job with a 3-2 record so far on this east coast swing.

This team has a chance to win four of six on this trip. I would think people would be happy with that.

Heck, 3-3 wouldn't be too shabby.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



alext42083 said:


> For what the team has gone through on this trip from losing Zach for a game and not having Brandon, I'd say Nate's done a fine job with a 3-2 record so far on this east coast swing.
> 
> This team has a chance to win four of six on this trip. I would think people would be happy with that.
> 
> Heck, 3-3 wouldn't be too shabby.


I predicated a 1-6 road trip, so I'm already :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

I only saw the last five minutes, and frankly, McMillan did a great job of putting guys in places where they could score. I think he must've said something to Juan Dixon and Jarrett Jack, who apparently weren't shooting well earlier in the game, to get them to execute down the stretch.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



wastro said:


> I predicated a 1-6 road trip, so I'm already :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:


Yeah! Someone the other day predicted we might go on a 13 game losing streek. Since then we have won three more games. :lol: 

The team is certainly up and down as to quality of preformance. A win's a win though. :yay: Go Blazers. 

gatorpops


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



Public Defender said:


> I only saw the last five minutes, and frankly, McMillan did a great job of putting guys in places where they could score. I think he must've said something to Juan Dixon and Jarrett Jack, who apparently weren't shooting well earlier in the game, to get them to execute down the stretch.


We can't give credit to Nate when things go right. You obviously haven't figured it out...

a) When a player does something stupid, it's Nate's fault.
b) When a player does something right, all the credit goes to the player.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*

I don't think we should be giving McMillan much credit for barely winning over the worst collection of NBA talent a team has to offer. Aside from Iggy, the Sixers are a bunch of bench and D League players.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

*Re: Nate McRetard strikes again!*



Sambonius said:


> I don't think we should be giving McMillan much credit for barely winning over the worst collection of NBA talent a team has to offer. Aside from Iggy, the Sixers are a bunch of bench and D League players.


Aside from a few players, most of our team are considered a bunch a bench and D leauge players. Any win in todays NBA is a good thing against the level of talent out there. Add a back to back game on the road...jeesh what more do people want. I know it's getting close to Christmas and all but really.

Peace


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

So true! How long ago was someone predicting 0-13? What has our record been since then? Here we might go over .500 on this road trip. I don't care who you are that is great!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



gatorpops said:


> Yeah! Someone the other day predicted we might go on a 13 game losing streek. Since then we have won three more games. :lol:
> 
> The team is certainly up and down as to quality of preformance. A win's a win though. :yay: Go Blazers.
> 
> gatorpops


Ooops, I just read the last post so I didn't see pops had already said that about the 13 game losing streak bit.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Sweet win . . . back to back on the road, with the team not playing well and they pull it out at the end. Not only is it a win, I think the team learns from games like these. It was ugly for sure . . . but you got to learn how to win the ugly games along with all the other ones.

I'm not as excited about this team as I was after the first few games. But my excitment is a lot higher than last year.

It is almost getting fun again . . . still a little painful for this Blazer fan . . . but optomistic (for now)


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

mgb said:


> So true! How long ago was someone predicting 0-13? What has our record been since then? Here we might go over .500 on this road trip. I don't care who you are that is great!


we did have some nice timing. we played the Raptors without Bosh, the Pacers without Jermaine, and the Sixers without Iverson (and before Cheeks gets inevitably fired). 

still, though, a W is a W. just imagine how we'd have done with Roy in the lineup.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> we did have some nice timing. we played the Raptors without Bosh, the Pacers without Jermaine, and the Sixers without Iverson (and before Cheeks gets inevitably fired).
> 
> still, though, a W is a W. just imagine how we'd have done with Roy in the lineup.


And the Bucks without CharlieV


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

mook said:


> we did have some nice timing. we played the Raptors without Bosh, the Pacers without Jermaine, and the Sixers without Iverson (and before Cheeks gets inevitably fired).


Interesting, I hadn't really thought about that. We also get to play Memphis without Gasol. Now we just need to find a way to get Brand to sit out on Friday.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> Interesting, I hadn't really thought about that. We also get to play Memphis without Gasol. Now we just need to find a way to get Brand to sit out on Friday.



Dear Tonya,

I need a favor. You know that friend of yours, Ekhart, well . . .

:wahmbulance:

Yours Forever
Jeff Gillooly 
I mean Jeff Stone


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*




yakbladder said:


> Boy, Jack just has his best game ever and you want him out of the lineup? Dixon is 5-10..I mean, I know you hate the guy, which is fine (I'd rather he were traded), but he is making shots. Udoka has 5 fouls so he won't be in...LMA or Webster is the only substitution I may make, just not sure how they really played in the 1st half since I can't see the game.
> 
> I've got to believe that Magloire is only in there for trade purposes...



Its the LINEUP I have a problem with, not Jack. They basically went over 5 minutes without even getting a shot up. Lemarcus Aldridge came in for one play. Philly threw a defense at the Blazers that Lemarcus wasn't ready for and he put up a bad shot. One play and Nate yanked him. That is complete bullcrap. Webster only played a few minutes in the second half before he was pulled, and I didn't see him do anything wrong. Dixon ended up shooting ok for the game, but how many did Iguodala have at the end? 27. Many of those were because Dixon was guarding him. Is there some reason Joel played only a few minutes in the second half? Down the stretch, Nate brought Magloire back in again. When you are looking for stops and rebounds, who do you want on the floor, Magloire or Joel? Who stays out of Zbo's way when he is operating? Joel. Who blocks shots and intimidates around the rim? Joel. 

Are we developing the young guys for the future, or are we building around Jamaal Magloire, Raef Lafrentz and Juan Dixon? The Blazers are consistently playing guys for big minutes in the second half who are not the future. Do we literally have to trade every guy off the team who is not part of the future to get Nate to give them minutes?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

The way some of you are posting about the coaching in this game, one might think Nate was secretly trying to keep us in the Oden/Durant sweepstakes.

I'm sure to get flamed for this, but I'm seriously conflicted here, and I (curiously) don't feel like celebrating. I get the feeling that these last few wins accomplished little more than taking us one step farther from a top draft pick next summer; and one step closer to permanent mediocrity.

Yay.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

BBert said:


> I'm sure to get flamed for this, but I'm seriously conflicted here, and I (curiously) don't feel like celebrating. I get the feeling that these last few wins accomplished little more than taking us one step farther from a top draft pick next summer; and one step closer to permanent mediocrity.


i don't think i can ever feel bad about a win. i can sort of understand how you feel. looking at it long term, having a record of 25W/57L rather than 35W/47L would likely net us a much better drafting position. getting that high pick would get us a potentially franchise type player. but i can also understand developing a winning mindset for our young guys.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: Blazers @ 76ers*



hasoos said:


> Its the LINEUP I have a problem with, not Jack. They basically went over 5 minutes without even getting a shot up. Lemarcus Aldridge came in for one play. Philly threw a defense at the Blazers that Lemarcus wasn't ready for and he put up a bad shot. One play and Nate yanked him. That is complete bullcrap. Webster only played a few minutes in the second half before he was pulled, and I didn't see him do anything wrong. Dixon ended up shooting ok for the game, but how many did Iguodala have at the end? 27. Many of those were because Dixon was guarding him. Is there some reason Joel played only a few minutes in the second half? Down the stretch, Nate brought Magloire back in again. When you are looking for stops and rebounds, who do you want on the floor, Magloire or Joel? Who stays out of Zbo's way when he is operating? Joel. Who blocks shots and intimidates around the rim? Joel.
> 
> Are we developing the young guys for the future, or are we building around Jamaal Magloire, Raef Lafrentz and Juan Dixon? The Blazers are consistently playing guys for big minutes in the second half who are not the future. Do we literally have to trade every guy off the team who is not part of the future to get Nate to give them minutes?



As I've said before, the problem is that people just start speculating as to what is causing a particular player to be on the floor (or not) without really knowing. Was Webster's back hurting on back to back games? What about Joel's abdomen? Did Patterson tell Nate to play Magloire more so they could showcase him? Did LMA really get yanked because of that one play or did Nate just not think he was the right matchup (for whatever reason good or bad). 

It's easy to speculate, I mean hell that's all we do here on the board. But I'm just getting tired of people, not you in particular, who think they know EXACTLY what is going on in the coach's mind with every particular substitution and have this crazy notion that the coach is out to tank the game and the season and just draws up plays on cocktail napkins during his drinking hours. I don't know, maybe he is... but I'd like to believe there's a more logical explanation.

Nate is in a situation where he can't win, literally. If the game gets close and he plays one set of guys and wins, then he gets blamed for not playing the young players through every and all situations (which still, IMHO, is not a good idea). If he plays the young kids the entire game, then he gets blamed for losing the game. Even if he plays the young kids and wins the game, some people (MM) still complain because Nate runs a boring offense and because he still allows Zach to breathe. Some people you just can't please...


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

BBert said:


> The way some of you are posting about the coaching in this game, one might think Nate was secretly trying to keep us in the Oden/Durant sweepstakes.
> 
> I'm sure to get flamed for this, but I'm seriously conflicted here, and I (curiously) don't feel like celebrating. I get the feeling that these last few wins accomplished little more than taking us one step farther from a top draft pick next summer; and one step closer to permanent mediocrity.
> 
> Yay.


It's just a no-win situation here it seems like.

If the Blazers win, it's:
"Man, Nate sucks at coaching. Did you see that lineup he had out there?? He almost lost us the game. I could do better than that."
"Winning sucks. We need to lose so we can get more ping pong balls for the draft" (though that doesn't at all mean we'll get the No. 1 pick)

If the Blazers lose, it's:
"Nate sucks at coaching. He lost us the game."
"Trade Zach. He's no franchise player."
"This team is going nowhere."

I just want to see this team play hard and try to win as many games as they can.
Building a winning attitude, especially in all of the young players we have, is important or else they're just going to feel like they're going to lose every game out.
I can't see how any fan wouldn't want to be happy with a win.
Hoping to get high lottery picks year after year is not what I want to go through... i.e. Clippers from the 80s through the 90s.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

alext42083 said:


> It's just a no-win situation here it seems like.
> 
> If the Blazers win, it's:
> "Man, Nate sucks at coaching. Did you see that lineup he had out there?? He almost lost us the game. I could do better than that."
> ...


so true. I am happy to win games though.

I doubt anyone can tell me they are watching these games and are not on the edge of their seat, having a heart attack with every rebound , and every last second shot.

I get pumped with a win, and down with a loss. sorry. its human nature. a fan that is indifferent is no fan at all.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

drexlersdad said:


> I get pumped with a win, and down with a loss. sorry. its human nature. a fan that is indifferent is no fan at all.


during the game, i root for us to score on every possessions. i root for us to make the stops on defense. if we get a win, i'm happy. if we lose, i get down for 10 seconds before remembering that oden and durant is waiting. then all is well again.

enough of a fan for you?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

alext42083 said:


> It's just a no-win situation here it seems like.
> ....
> I just want to see this team play hard and try to win as many games as they can.
> Building a winning attitude, especially in all of the young players we have, is important or else they're just going to feel like they're going to lose every game out.
> ...


I agree. I don't want to be a lottery team every year. I want to see them play hard. I want to see individual good play. I root for Travis and Martell and Aldridge and Sergio to make a good play everytime they touch the ball. 

At the same time, I didn't feel joy at beating Toronto or Philly. It felt like it didn't really signify anything. We're still not going to be a good team this year, or win enough games next year to make a difference without an infusion of talent. Maybe we can get back to elite status exclusively through trades. I doubt it.

I swear on my mothers head, I will root for a win in every game next year, regardless of what happens. This year I'm having a hard time feeling happy winning crappy games against crappy teams.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)




----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

mook said:


> we did have some nice timing. we played the Raptors without Bosh, the Pacers without Jermaine, and the Sixers without Iverson (and before Cheeks gets inevitably fired).
> 
> still, though, a W is a W. just imagine how we'd have done with Roy in the lineup.


Plus the Raptors played the Blazers without Zach in the line-up.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

BBert said:


> This year I'm having a hard time feeling happy winning crappy games against crappy teams.


I'm having trouble seeing LaMarcus play under 20 minutes the last three games. I hope this is all about showcasing Maglore for a trade, because this season NEEDS to be about developing the young guys. 

It makes me sick to see Juan Dixon play more than 25 minutes in each of the last 3 games as well. Give they young guys more run!


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

yeah!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> I hope this is all about showcasing Maglore for a trade, because this season NEEDS to be about developing the young guys.


This is the only logical explanation, given that he's the only guy on the roster with an expiring contract.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> I'm having trouble seeing LaMarcus play under 20 minutes the last three games. I hope this is all about showcasing Maglore for a trade, because this season NEEDS to be about developing the young guys.
> 
> It makes me sick to see Juan Dixon play more than 25 minutes in each of the last 3 games as well. Give they young guys more run!


I agree completely.

I hope Nate isn't falling into a classic coaching trap. IE, when the game looks winnable, he would rather go with the cruddy, but predictable vet, over the unpredictable (but superior) youngster. If he goes with the vet, and the team loses - it is the players' fault. If he goes with the youngster and loses - it is seen as the coach's fault.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> This is the only logical explanation, given that he's the only guy on the roster with an expiring contract.


Well, the only one with a big expiring contract, anyway.

barfo


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

barfo said:


> Well, the only one with a big expiring contract, anyway.
> 
> barfo


When you consider that Outlaw has a qualifying offer and Ime/Graham are essentially walk-ons who only have a real contract as of January 10th, he is the only expiring player on the team.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> When you consider that Outlaw has a qualifying offer and Ime/Graham are essentially walk-ons who only have a real contract as of January 10th, he is the only expiring player on the team.


Does Outlaw already have a qualifying offer? I missed that or forgot it. But even if he does, it can be withdrawn, making him an expiring contract.

barfo


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

barfo said:


> Does Outlaw already have a qualifying offer? I missed that or forgot it. But even if he does, it can be withdrawn, making him an expiring contract.
> 
> barfo


Agreed.

The extension would be for 2,671,999. He's a free agent like Trenton Hassell was a free agent when Portland signed him.


----------

