# Nate hates Sergio



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

From Quick's blog:



> He's out (of the rotation),'' McMillan said of Rodriguez. "Right now, he is. He's going to have to play his way in, and that's going to be hard to do unless Blake or Jack just dog it, which I don't think will happen.''
> 
> It became apparent last season, and during summer league, that McMillan has no patience for Rodriguez's penchant for turnovers and defensive breakdowns on the perimeter. Still, McMillan said he is not down on Sergio.


"Penchant for turnovers?" A rookie PG with a 3-1 ast-to ratio is far from the reckless PG that Quick and Nate portrary. IMO, Nate needs to stop stroking his ego, by getting players just like him: boring ones who do just enough. Sergio has a chance to be a very good starting guard with his court vision (that can't be taught), and speed. Playing Green over him is just blasphemy. 


PS. We better not trade El Chacho.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I'm not sure why Nate doesn't understand that while the goal is to win, you're also supposed to entertain. If you can win with an entertaining style of player why wouldn't you? It's not like Sergio was hurting the team.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

HKF said:


> I'm not sure why Nate doesn't understand that while the goal is to win, you're also supposed to entertain. If you can win with an entertaining style of player why wouldn't you? *It's not like Sergio was hurting the team.*


Turnovers don't hurt the team?
Poor defense doesn't hurt the team?

I like Sergio's game and his potential just as much as anyone but in all honesty he has some serious holes in his game that he needs to plug before he can be playing significant minutes.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

yuyuza1 said:


> From Quick's blog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sergio has a high ceiling and can dominate at times, but has some serios holes in his game that he needs to overcome. The primary reason for the signing of Blake has to do with Sergio's inability to step up. He was an afterthought in the recent FIBA tournament. 

He will not be traded, but he's not ready for big minutes either. He simply needs to develop.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

This is disappointing/not surprising. I really enjoyed watching the kid play.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Samuel said:


> This is disappointing/not surprising. I really enjoyed watching the kid play.




That is how I feel. But I'm not surprised to hear that he will not be in the rotation.

For Sergio fans, there was barely enough time for him with Jack as the starting PG. Now that the Blazers have added Blake, realisitically there are no regular minutes left for Sergio.

Not only is there Sergio wanting minutes, I have a feeling either Jack or Blake are going to want more minutes. I know they can both play back up SG, but I see Brandon getting the bulk of the minutes there (35+) and there is a log jam at SG/SF (Roy, Outlaw, Webster, Jones, Blake, Jack and maybe Miles)


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

HKF said:


> I'm not sure why Nate doesn't understand that while the goal is to win, *you're also supposed to entertain.*


Sorry, I doubt that's in Nate's contract...


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> This is disappointing/not surprising. I really enjoyed watching the kid play.



Yeah, but before training camp even begins? As far as I know, Sergio isn't back from Spain yet, and Nate has already declared him out of the rotation.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

ha ha ha ha i can't believe that guy said they have to entertain too! ha ha oh lord this isn't the WWE man this is pro hoop and serge isn't good enough.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Maybe he just wants to challenge the kid and throw some adversity his way. Some players really respond to it.

And, others don't.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

While I readily admit to being high on Sergio's potential, I also recognize that he is not exactly well-rounded as others have pointed out - having holes in his game.

While not the same as Damon, he reminds me of him; very good at some aspects of the game, but notably lacking at others. Damon sat many fourth quarters due to his defensive weakness, Sergio would be the same. 

If Sergio takes the challenge and rounds out his game, he will be a better player because of it. If not, we've got solid, if not spectacular, players in Jack and Blake and also have the Finnish (or whatever, don't recall his name) guy who may also be coming over.

Gramps...


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

or maybe we way over rate him and he not that good? nate knows more then us and the spanish team hardly played him at all.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

and can you show us where it says nate hates him? i must have missed that part.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Resume said:


> and can you show us where it says nate hates him? i must have missed that part.


Hate: redefined as a feeling that the object is less than perfect. A criticism on even the most minor level.

I used to not "hate" anything. Now it appears that I hate just about everything. Funny, I don't feel any different.


On topic, I love Sergio's vision and think it is on par with the best PGs in the league. However, Sergio doesn't seem to be quick enough on a nightly basis to get his drives done. He also appears to constantly fend of defenders with his arm in order to create space he can't create with speed. We have already discussed his defensive issues. Given that he was almost non-existant for Spain recently, I'm thinking that Nate is right on this one. Sergio needs to earn it.

There . . . I got all that hate talk out of my system.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

The subject line of this thread is so rich, I almost thought I was reading one of John Canzano's columns.

Nice work, yuyuza. You really summed up Nate's quotes well. I wouldn't quite put Nate's hatred for Sergio on par with ... say ... Hitler's hatred for the Jews, but it's close. Oh it's close.

 

-Pop


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Nate does really like Green. He thinks he'll win us 3 or 4 games! Wow! Can't wait to watch him play.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

With the glacial, bogged-down-by-zach offense portland ran almost exclusively last year, Sergio's pace was exciting to see. But that excitement also may have caused some blazer fans to overrate his game.

This isn't a shocking statement by nate.

And the quote in the OP is a bit out of context. It was the second part of Nate actually saying he has great expectations for Green. Green's defensive tenacity and his ability to light-it-up from the perimeter have moved him ahead of Sergio and perhap justifiably so.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Wait a minute, people are talking about holes in Sergio's game and the alternative is Steve Blake? Some coaches on building teams should never be given a veteran option.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

SodaPopinski said:


> The subject line of this thread is so rich, I almost thought I was reading one of John Canzano's columns.
> 
> Nice work, yuyuza. You really summed up Nate's quotes well. I wouldn't quite put Nate's hatred for Sergio on par with ... say ... Hitler's hatred for the Jews, but it's close. Oh it's close.
> 
> ...



:lol: 

Hyperbole has never been my strong suit.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Man, I am one hateful SOB. And my wife and my boss both hate me. The world is a much more hateful place now.

My biggest complaint about Sergio (and I can't take credit for this. Big Suke from 1080 was the first person I remember saying this) is that he's basically useless when the ball isn't in his hands. And When you're playing with Brandon Roy, who does a lot of ball handling, you've got to be able to play off the ball.

Green, on the other hand, plays very well away from the ball. So I can see why Nate would put Green higher on the depth chart than Sergio.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Due to the timing of this statement, I think it's just Nate trying to push Sergio to really step up in training camp. They haven't even started training camp yet, it's a bit early to determine the rotation definitively.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

ebott said:


> When you're playing with Brandon Roy, who does a lot of ball handling, you've got to be able to play off the ball.
> 
> Green, on the other hand, plays very well away from the ball. So I can see why Nate would put Green higher on the depth chart than Sergio.


Exactly. In a Phoenix/Nash-style offense, Sergio could look great. But, in a ball movement offense Sergio's abilities are minimized. As much as I like Sergio's vision, I'd rather see the ball moving around through everyone.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Reep said:


> Exactly. In a Phoenix/Nash-style offense, Sergio could look great. But, in a ball movement offense Sergio's abilities are minimized. As much as I like Sergio's vision, I'd rather see the ball moving around through everyone.



Which raises an obvious question: where will Rudy fit in? How good is he without the ball in his hands?


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Rudy is a stud and took Spain deep into the tournament recently whereas Sergio didn't play at all. I think that speaks for itself about how Rudy will do. A better question is... will Rudy get mad at Nate for shafting Sergio?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

You have to remember the context of this talk as well. Remember, that Sergio has not been here playing with the group, he has been with his national team. Right now all the guys that got here early have a leg up because they have been here and the coaches have been watching them for weeks. Of course Sergio is going to have to play his way in. It's not a surprise. There are very few Blazers who have a position in the rotation nailed down at this time.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I wouldn't worry about Fernandez -- when he doesn't have the ball in his hands the defenders still need to pay attention to him.

Green might already be the best defensive PG on the team.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Green over Sergio? Jesus ****in' Christ on a stick...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Resume said:


> Rudy is a stud and took Spain deep into the tournament recently whereas Sergio didn't play at all. I think that speaks for itself about how Rudy will do. A better question is... will Rudy get mad at Nate for shafting Sergio?


Did Rudy get mad at Spain's coach for shafting Sergio?


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

I do not know that information if Rudy did indeed get mad at Spain.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> The subject line of this thread is so rich, I almost thought I was reading one of John Canzano's columns.
> 
> Nice work, yuyuza. You really summed up Nate's quotes well. I wouldn't quite put Nate's hatred for Sergio on par with ... say ... Hitler's hatred for the Jews, but it's close. Oh it's close.
> 
> ...


:rofl:

PBF


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Reep said:


> Exactly. In a Phoenix/Nash-style offense, Sergio could look great. But, in a ball movement offense Sergio's abilities are minimized. As much as I like Sergio's vision, I'd rather see the ball moving around through everyone.



So what exactly is the role of a coach: is it to get the most out of a player, or to mold him into something he's not? 

Our team is built to run, and Nate has expressed interest in an uptempo game, but says Sergio (who is perfect in such a setting) is out of the rotation.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

yuyuza1 said:


> So what exactly is the role of a coach: is it to get the most out of a player, or to mold him into something he's not?
> 
> Our team is built to run, and Nate has expressed interest in an uptempo game, but says Sergio (who is perfect in such a setting) is out of the rotation.


how long does nate have here? this is his 3rd year, most coaches would be held to something. I think if they arent around .500 by 2008-2009, he will be fired.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I wouldn't worry about Fernandez -- when he doesn't have the ball in his hands the defenders still need to pay attention to him.
> 
> Green might already be the best defensive PG on the team.


Competition is great for the end product, but egos and reputations could be adversely affected.

I'll take that trade anyday!


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

The fact that Nate is even considering playing Green at all is alarming IMO. I've seen nothing from him but some hustle that didn't accomplish much. He got burned all through Summer league by anyone he guarded and laid out a ton of bricks. He's like an athletic 3rd grader amongst men out there.

Looks to be yet another very disappointing year of "Let's try this, let's try that".

Nate resembles WeakCheeks a little more each season.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

yuyuza1 said:


> Our team is built to run, and Nate has expressed interest in an uptempo game, but says Sergio (who is perfect in such a setting) is out of the rotation.


A running team starts with a good defensive team - so expecting the worst defender on the PG squad to work on his craft does make some sense.

Add the fact that Sergio needs desperately to work on his scoring ability (floaters, long ball) so the defense can not cheat by leaving him to dribble like mad while they gang on the rest of the offense - and it is clear that he is not ready to be a consistently productive NBA point guard - something both Jack and Blake are and Green has been in the college environment.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

There are many facets of defensive play and the most important for a PG is playing the passing lanes. Even if you get burned a few times and the opposing PG scores a bunch of points, if you disrupt his ability to get his team involved in the offense you really should have no problem winning the game.

Brandon Roy is our only player who even comes close to Sergio in his knack for reading the offense and intercepting passes.


----------



## mac! (Sep 29, 2007)

sergio needs to seriously work on aspects of his game. where it sits, he's an energy guy off the bench who can chuck some passes behind his back. he seems slightly allergic to playing defense, for one; and there were more than a few times that he produced some fairly groan-inducing incidents last season, ast:to be damned.

this isn't to say that he doesn't have the potential to be great, because he does. his speed and court vision alone put him at an automatic advantage.

however, if i were coaching that team, and i had a choice between the slightly undersized guy who can deliver in the clutch and play a fair amount of d or the monstrously gifted guy who has serious flaws in his game, i'd be taking the latter. it's pretty simple math.

p.s. wasn't nate robinson summer league mvp a bit ago?

p.p.s. i didn't register to post in this thread. i swear.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mac! said:


> p.p.s. i didn't register to post in this thread. i swear.


Which thread did you register to post in? 

Welcome aboard!

barfo


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

here's how i see it, blake will be our starter by feb and jack will be gone with sergio backing him up assuming he doesnt pull a kirlenko by then.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I'm not sure why someone would argue that an NBA team is supposed to entertain as well. Did you not watch the Cleveland Cavaliers all season and how boring they were to watch? Sure they won games, but the games they played were oft-times unwatchable. I don't want to sit down night after night to watch an unwatchable team, regardless of how good it is.

There is such a thing as winning with ugly basketball. Not saying the team needs to play like Phoenix, but if it's another year of the least amount of possessions per game in the league, that's not good IMO.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

I still have no idea who the starting point guard is going to be. I think it could be possible that McMillan is trying to use psych-ops on Rodriguez -- NEVER rule that out.

Consider that most of the PGs on the team have some kind of major championship pedigree (yeah I know that sounds like dogs, but when you think about it, point guards are the big dogs on the floor because they control everything):

Green: Back to back NCAA Championships (Florida, 2006 and 2007)
Blake: Back to back Final Four appearances, 2002 NCAA Championship (Maryland).
Jack: Final Four (Georgia Tech, 2004 -- beat Oklahoma State in national semifinal, lost to Connecticut in National Final).
Rodriguez: 2006 FIBA Championship (Spanish national team -- that, if memory serves, was playing WITHOUT PAU GASOL who had a broken foot.)

Instead of asserting that Nate "hates" Sergio -- I'm positive he doesn't -- I prefer to think of all the positives this Blazers roster has. MANY positives.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

HKF said:


> I'm not sure why someone would argue that an NBA team is supposed to entertain as well. Did you not watch the Cleveland Cavaliers all season and how boring they were to watch? Sure they won games, but the games they played were oft-times unwatchable. I don't want to sit down night after night to watch an unwatchable team, regardless of how good it is.
> 
> There is such a thing as winning with ugly basketball. Not saying the team needs to play like Phoenix, but if it's another year of the least amount of possessions per game in the league, that's not good IMO.


I remember people having the very same complaint about both the Van Gundy Knicks (a member of which is your avatar) and the San Antonio Spurs, who went on to win a championship that year and about every other year since then. I'd love to have the kind of boring team that makes the NBA Finals and wins championships.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Which raises an obvious question: where will Rudy fit in? *How good is he without the ball in his hands?*


Bobby Gross like, probably better. :drool2: 


gatorpops


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

HKF said:


> I'm not sure why someone would argue that an NBA team is supposed to entertain as well. Did you not watch the Cleveland Cavaliers all season and how boring they were to watch? Sure they won games, but the games they played were oft-times unwatchable. I don't want to sit down night after night to watch an unwatchable team, regardless of how good it is.
> 
> There is such a thing as winning with ugly basketball. Not saying the team needs to play like Phoenix, but if it's another year of the least amount of possessions per game in the league, that's not good IMO.


I like watching a intelligent team play and to some sometimes that might be boring, but to me it's entertaining, be it fast pace or slow down half court game. I like how the Spurs play while many don't. They play smart and execute well. That's great basketball to me. That doesn't mean always walk the ball up the court and only play in a half court game, you can run when the opportunity is there, but even if the Blazers mainly played slow it down half court and won a championship I'd love it! That would be very entertaining to me. Give me great D and a great half court game any time.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

gatorpops said:


> Bobby Gross like, probably better. :drool2:
> 
> 
> gatorpops



:eek8: If that's true.......damn!


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

why am i not at all surprised that HKF agreed with the poster who said the team has to entertain too? that is ridiculous. again, this is not the WWE


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Resume said:


> why am i not at all surprised that HKF agreed with the poster who said the team has to entertain too? that is ridiculous. again, this is not the WWE


The comparison is illogical.

The WWE is a theatrical endeavor, not a competitive sports league.

The only relation between the 2 is that they both derive ALL of their income from providing entertainment of some sort.

If it did not provide entertainment to it's fans the NBA would die a quick death.

Entertainment is in fact ALL that the NBA has to sell.

I'd be interested to know what other reason anyone would shell out $100 to attend a game for.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> :eek8: If that's true.......damn!


He seems to effect games somewhat like Gross. Moves well without the ball. Unlike Gross, Rudy plays above the rim more of course, how else does he get open for those dunks so often even though the other team surely must scout him and plan to take that away from him. When they do he just sticks the the three and then goes base line again. 

He is a very complementary player for this team when they get Oden back. Wow, just can't wait. Rudy is a good defenseive player, but porbably not as good as Gross. Really looking forward to next year but am excited about this year as well.

gatorpops


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> The comparison is illogical.
> 
> The WWE is a theatrical endeavor, not a competitive sports league.
> 
> ...


You're too good for the 300 level???


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Rip City Reign said:


> You're too good for the 300 level???


I live in Central OR, so that's at least what it costs me for a 300 level seat.

If I wanted a beer, a dog, and a halfway decent seat I'd be out 2 bills per person.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Coach Nate said:


> He's out (of the rotation),'' McMillan said of Rodriguez. "Right now, he is. He's going to have to play his way in, and that's going to be hard to do unless Blake or Jack just dog it, which I don't think will happen.''


Seems fair enough to me that SR is behind vets that have been practicing with the team... guys should have to play their way in at least until they are established. SR is not a finished product at all IMO.



Jason Quick said:


> It became apparent last season, and during summer league, that McMillan has no patience for Rodriguez's penchant for turnovers and defensive breakdowns on the perimeter. Still, McMillan said he is not down on Sergio.


Sergio had an outstanding assist to TO ratio his rookie year. Contending otherwise is just Quick being the blithering idiot that he's firmly established he is. Sergio does struggle quite a bit with his D and his outside shot needs to improve if he's to be an effective part of a ball movement offense. No news there, but Quick has his deadline and wants to make his stories as spicy as that ridiculous photo of him that appears beside them.

Anyhoo, I'm thinking of the courtside interviews a week plus back. Pritchard related that Sergio is the sort of PG he always wished he could be in that he can see the play developing before anyone else which enables him to make the great pass. He also said he can't play a lick of D which is why he struggles to get minutes. Being that he's all of 20, I'm not too worried they'll cut him just yet... in fact I'm hopeful that having a former defensive stud PG as a head coach might help him develop the weakest part of his game. One can dream.

STOMP


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

HKF said:


> I'm not sure why Nate doesn't understand that while the goal is to win, you're also supposed to entertain.


Winning DOES entertain. Nate's job is to win, and however he does that I'll be more than entertained.


----------



## Chef (Nov 24, 2002)

I don't know if Sergio deserves to play or not (yes, he has had an horrible summer) but it's clear Nate doesn't like Sergio at all.

Last year the season hadn't even started and Nate said Sergio would be NBDL bound. Sergio proved him wrong

This year Nate hasn't even waited for the training camp to start dissing Sergio again saying "he is out of rotation"

Nate :thumbdown:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

RipCity9 said:


> Winning DOES entertain. Nate's job is to win, and however he does that I'll be more than entertained.




No it doesn't. The Knicks won a lot under Riley, and it was the most unentertaining brand of basketball anyone has ever seen. Winning games 60-55 would not be entertaining.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> No it doesn't. The Knicks won a lot under Riley, and it was the most unentertaining brand of basketball anyone has ever seen. Winning games 60-55 would not be entertaining.



Beauty of basketball is in the eye of the beholder. 

I appreciated how coaches utilized the four corner offense to either ice a game or keep a game close against a much stronger opponent. To me a well coached team that excutes the game plan is entertaining.

But I get the idea of fast pace game being more entertaining. I think the NBA gets it too as Stern and Co is trying to create that as well. And, to me, a well coached team that excutes the running game is the most entertaining.


----------



## mac! (Sep 29, 2007)

guys, i think we need to start looking at the bigger picture here.

sergio has a bobblehead this year.

he'll be in the rotation before you know it.

i mean, like.

BOBBLEHEAD.

GET INTO IT!


----------

