12 Responses to “Game 32, Live: Warriors (9-22) at Trail Blazers (20-13)”

1. 

   Twitter Trackbacks for » Blog Archive » Game 32, Live: Warriors (9-22) at Trail Blazers (20-13) [48minutes.net] on Topsy.com January 2nd, 2010 at 8:33 pm

   [...] » Blog Archive » Game 32, Live: Warriors (9-22) at Trail Blazers (20-13) 48minutes.net/2010/01/02/game-32-live-warriors-9-22-at-trail-blazers-20-13 – view page – cached (’/outbound/www.coveritlive.com’);”>Game 32, Live: Warriors (9-22) at Trail Blazers (20-13) [...]

2. 

   Owen January 3rd, 2010 at 3:45 am

   An embarrassment of a coaching performance. And Geoffrey, dag nabbit, you’re falling for this Nellie matchup madness again.

   Look: smallball is a fine strategy in certain situations. When you’re outgunned and your opponent has more beef than speed, it’s worth a try. Neither of those things were true tonight… we had a deeper base of talent, and our bigs have the jets to keep up with smaller lineups. It was a night to get 80 minutes out of Biedrins, Randolph and Turiaf, outrebound and rim-dominate our way to an ugly win and go on our merry way. Instead, we gave the Blazers a chance to win, if their smalls could beat our smalls. And, not surprisingly, they did.

   It’s fun for analysts to wonk out on individual matchups, but individual matchups do not tell the whole story. A basketball game is an ecosystem, in which individual matchups indeed matter, but overall abilities and productive capacities matter more. We had the guns to dominate both the paint and the glass tonight… when you do that, you almost always win. Failing to do that is completely stupid, and a game-opening 11-1 run does nothing to change that. You are one of the smartest people who covers this sad-sack team. It does them no favors when you lose the forest for the trees.

3. 

   CURSE OF MULLIN January 3rd, 2010 at 10:52 am

   Yeah, Owen, you’re right on it. Instead, we get Nellie in the post-game presser telling us he’s pissed bc their smalls beat our smalls. What did he expect going to that matchup? They’ve got Roy, an All-Star, and Miller. We needed to go big and pound them on the boards, P/R, put-backs, etc. Instead, we LOSE the battle of the boards? Against a team of D-Leaguers and Grandpa Howard–are you kidding me?

4. 

   Geoff Lepper January 3rd, 2010 at 11:29 am

   Owen: Outside of the one comment — “Seriously, if the Warriors are going to still get blasted on the boards, why bother having anyone taller than Maggette on the floor?” — I’m not sure what you mean.

   I think that opening 11-1 run was important to note because the Warriors did run the Blazers right out of what they were planning to do, making Jeff Pendergraph an afterthought. It’s also important to note because it perfectly illustrates Nelson’s unwillingness to change things up.

   Three guards worked for the W’s when Portland tried to play a completely overmatched second-round pick up front. When McMillan adjusted and went small, he gained the tactical advantage and Nelson never did anything to wrest control back. He just kept running three guards out there in the (unanswered) hope that something would change.

   As I said last night, I’d love to see 10 straight games of Curry or Watson/Ellis/Maggette/Randolph/Biedrins. But it’s never going to happen.

5. 

   Owen January 3rd, 2010 at 12:14 pm

   I know you’re aware of the limitations of smallball, Geoff. I just find your constant carping on individual player failures to be frustrating. You are absolutely right to be negative about this team, but the big reasons for its current crappiness are top-down, not bottom-up. If the players look silly and overmatched, it’s primarily because they’re not being put in positions to succeed. To focus on their failures, above all else, is to miss the main story of what’s happening to us.

6. 

   Geoff Lepper January 3rd, 2010 at 1:39 pm

   Owen: I see your point, but I don’t think the individual criticisms are without merit or as pointless as you make them out to be.

   Let’s say Nelson had had an epiphany and started Randolph over Curry or Morrow. Whichever of those guys were in the game still would have to had guard Miller or Webster — and they were totally unable to do that with any effectiveness.

   It’s not like smallball was putting them in a position of having to guard Josh Howard or Shawn Marion or some hopeless mismatch. These were legitimate defensive assignments that a guard with pretensions of starting at this level should have been able to handle. Given that the SAPAs, as Tim likes to refer to them, have been putting forth a two-week effort to convince us that Curry is a good defender — hell, even Steinmetz toed that party line last night in the pregame — I think it’s worth noting that, for both he and Morrow, last night was total exposure on D.

   I guess my overarcing feeling is that there’s room for both things to be true: Nelson coached the team poorly last night by not making any adjustments after McMillan went small AND the non-Ellis guards were worthless. And that pointing out one factor is not diminishing the importance of the other.

7. 

   Owen January 3rd, 2010 at 3:45 pm

   That’s all fair enough. My crunch-time lineup wouldn’t feature either Curry or Morrow — like you, I believe that CJ/Monta/Maggette/Randolph/Biedrins is our most effective possible quintet — but CJ didn’t have a great defensive night either.

8. 

   Dan January 4th, 2010 at 10:50 am

   ……….BOYCOTT……….

9. 

   FeatherRiverDan January 4th, 2010 at 10:51 am

   the only cure is…. BOYCOTT

10. 

    Camgirls September 22nd, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Top Visit x Camgirls auf Deutschland !!!

11. 

    droid bionic September 22nd, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    I like Your Article about » Blog Archive » Game 32, Live: Warriors (9-22) at Trail Blazers (20-13) Perfect just what I was looking for! .

12. 

    extraction thimbles whatman November 4th, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    This is a super post. I will return later! Sick!