[mediocre man]

After the game I was thinking about what everyone learned after the game,and here's what I came up with.

1. The young guys. They learned that they aren't good enough to play if there are veterans to play instead. They also learned that those veterans aren't very good. ...........What must they be thinking.

2. The veterans. They learned that they can do pretty much whatever they want without the fear of getting taken out of the game.

3. The coach. He learned that we have a bunch of idiots on our roster. Why in the world was SAR shooing the ball down by 1 with 20 seconds still on the clock?

4. The fans. We all learned that the future can't be any worse than the present.

5. Telfair. He learned he has no one on the current roster that can either catch a pass from him, or make an easy shot for him. He should have had 5 more assists last night.

6. Managemment. They learned just how poorly this team was put together.

7. The rest of the NBA. They learned to beat the Blazers all you have to do is post up Damon EVERY TIME down the floor.

 

[white360]

That's gonna change nest season with alot of the veterans gone

 

[Talkhard]

What white360 said. This season is a wash, a big zero. It doesn't count for anything. Don't try to take away any big lessons from it, because it is only a temporary condition. Several of our vets will be gone next year, and hopefully we'll get some younger players or draft picks in return. Next year's team will look more like the real Blazer team of the future.

 

[Kmurph]

Next year many of us may be more interested in watching this team (b\c I am sure not interested in watching Damon\DA\Ruben & SAR), but I fully expect the losses to mount next year, b\c while this team may be better 3-4 years from now, but it will be worse next year IMO.

 

[Foulzilla]

3. The coach. He learned that we have a bunch of idiots on our roster. Why in the world was SAR shooing the ball down by 1 with 20 seconds still on the clock?

While I agree with most of the rest, SAR was wide open and it was a shot he normally makes. It was not a bad shot, as the Sonics were guaranteed another posession at that point anyways. As a matter of fact, if he hadn't taken the shot it would've been a bad decision (unless of course, someone else was open for a higher percentage shot, but I dont recall seeing anyone else open at the time).

 

[mediocre man]

While I agree with most of the rest, SAR was wide open and it was a shot he normally makes. It was not a bad shot, as the Sonics were guaranteed another posession at that point anyways. As a matter of fact, if he hadn't taken the shot it would've been a bad decision (unless of course, someone else was open for a higher percentage shot, but I dont recall seeing anyone else open at the time).

Actually that's not true. The Sonics would not have had another oportunity on offense had the Blazers let the clock wind down. It was a very stupid play. Although he was wide open. I would have rather seen him take a dribble into the key and let the defense collapse. That would have allowed the ball to be set in motion around the perimeter while Seattle chased us. They might have been out of possition and Portland could have gotten a layup with virtualy no time on the clock.

 

[Minstrel]

Actually that's not true. The Sonics would not have had another oportunity on offense had the Blazers let the clock wind down. It was a very stupid play. Although he was wide open. I would have rather seen him take a dribble into the key and let the defense collapse. That would have allowed the ball to be set in motion around the perimeter while Seattle chased us. They might have been out of possition and Portland could have gotten a layup with virtualy no time on the clock.

You don't run the clock down to zero before taking a shot when you're trailing. You don't have that luxury; it's far more important to give yourself another chance if you happen to miss.

Saying SAR made a bad decision because, "They might have been out of position and Portland could have gotten a layup with virtually no time on the clock," is silly. What if Portland didn't get a "layup with virtually no time" (since the Sonics probably would rather the Blazers didn't get a layup and layups don't come at will) and, instead, had to launch a desperation shot at the buzzer? I'd much rather have an open shot, within SAR's range, with 20 seconds.

SAR made a perfectly reasonable choice; he took a wide open shot that he's capable of hitting and left time for numerous possibilities for the Blazers to get another chance to win if he did miss.

You only hold for last shot if you're tied (or ahead, obviously, but then the other team will foul, not allow you to run all the time off).

 

[hasoos]

The shot clock situation all matters on the score. If down by one, yes you take a shot early, because if you miss, then you can foul and still only be down by 3 max. If you were down by 2 you would try for your best shot, but not early. If down by 3 you go for it balls out asafp. That being said, that was not a bad decision. I would have rather he drove to the hoop, he is a good foul shooter.

 

[zagsfan20]

I think the Blazers have more confidence on defense rather than offense....So Shareef shot it so we could take the lead and then rely on our defense to be strong and hold onto the lead for the victory....

 

[MAS RipCity]

While I agree with most of the rest, SAR was wide open and it was a shot he normally makes. It was not a bad shot, as the Sonics were guaranteed another posession at that point anyways. As a matter of fact, if he hadn't taken the shot it would've been a bad decision (unless of course, someone else was open for a higher percentage shot, but I dont recall seeing anyone else open at the time).

The problem with SAR taking that shot is that he simply is not clutch. He has had his fair share of game winning baskets this year and he has made one. He is a nice complomentary player, but not someone you want taking the final shot.

 

[Ed O]

The problem with SAR taking that shot is that he simply is not clutch. He has had his fair share of game winning baskets this year and he has made one. He is a nice complomentary player, but not someone you want taking the final shot.

I think he's hit three game-winners this season. Which is all the more impressive considering (a) he was out like 20 games, and (b) the Blazers have only won 23 games all year.

Can anyone confirm?

Ed O.

 

[MAS RipCity]

3 GW'ers? I have only seen the one vs. Boston. I know he left a hook short a couple weeks back at Dallas, missed a wide open 3 at home vs. the Lakers, last night 18 footer was off as well. He just isn't the consistent money player wou want taking the final shot is all.

 

[Minstrel]

3 GW'ers? I have only seen the one vs. Boston. I know he left a hook short a couple weeks back at Dallas, missed a wide open 3 at home vs. the Lakers, last night 18 footer was off as well. He just isn't the consistent money player wou want taking the final shot is all.

Nobody is a particularly "consistent money player" when looking at the small sample size of clutch shots. Generally, those who are lionized as "clutch" players have simply had a lot of chances and hit their fair share (roughly their expected number based on their normal skill level) and the misses fade from memory.

It's true that some people can't handle pressure moments and thus see their performance degrade in tense situations, but the likelihood of professional athletes manifesting that to any significant degree is pretty small. Professional athletes are a population selected for their ability to handle pressure; they wouldn't have made it through all the winnowing levels, each of which carries tremendous pressure, to the NBA if they were the type to wilt under pressure.

"Clutch" and "not clutch" are just labels to affix to the pleasure of a game-winning shot or handling the frustration of a miss in a close loss.