ClutchFans Game Thread: Rockets @ Blazers 12/12/2013

This. you replace tjones with asik in the beginning of 4Q and we win this game.

 

Looks to me the loss should be on Sampson for making those head scratching subs. And that last play at the end of the first half after a timeout, any other coach would have drawn up something to make sure it's the last play. Instead, don't remember who bricked a quick 3 and Portland got the ball back with 13 sec left. Did he even draw up a play?

And Lin was getting beat on PnR by mo/LA, Sampson didn't make any adjustment - hard show, switch, just do something.

 

Thats not a guarantee LOL,, we dont know that.

 

...Lin was more than a step slow on defending the PnR last night. I saw on TV Lin was yelling something at Sampson while approaching the bench near the beginning of the 4th, right after he got picked off, again, by LA on a PnR. Did he get pulled before the yelling or after. He was obviously frustrated on DH not hard showing on the PnRs, or noboy rotate to help.

 

It isn't so much that our starters lost the game as their starters won the game. Your post gives the impression that quality of lineups faced by all our lineups were the same, which obviously isn't the case. Portland has a terrific starting 5, and a comparatively weak bench.

 

Honestly I felt like the problem was mostly just the lack of size when Dwight hit the bench. Not specifically the bench or the starter's faults, more just, we really missed Asik and clearly need a backup center who can play.

I hesitate to blame any one player but I guess if I did, it would be T Jones. He got burned badly on defense and missed too many easy shots on offense. One of his worst games of the season so far.

 

I agree - Jones is awful on defense, it was very noticeable. THat's why Milsap is an upgrade at least in the near term.

I don't think he's able to play center though, so preferably, some sort of Millsap-Camby (or Camby-like substance) as back-up 5 approach can be used for this.

 

Hope you are right. I was impressed by how easily Dwight got to the basket - he looked like machine. Hardin was a bad ass and too bad the rox did not get the win. I was mad at how quickly the rox could get down by 10-12 pts but impressed at how quickly they could score 10 pts and tie it up.

Worst moment of the game: Parsons trying to steal a rebound from Dwight- leading to an easy 2 for the Tailblazers. Game seemed to go south from there. Would have been nice to have Asik on Aldrige

 

Now that I've re-watched the game again, I honestly think the biggest problem was that we let Lopez go off on us. Since Lillard was a no show, he deferred a lot to Aldridge, Matthews, and Lopez. Luckily Matthews was a no show, but Lopez was hitting all his mid-ranges. So instead of dealing with it we let him go 7-9 while boxing out and letting Aldridge hit ALL the boards. I noticed when most of the time Lopez was unmarked hitting his shots, our players get confused on whether to mark Aldridge or Lopez resulting in more open Lopez and Aldridge hitting the boards etc.

 

I think this is a rather subjective question.

Do you think Harden + Howard + Parsons + Beverley + Tjones is less total talent than LMA + Lillard + Matthew + Lopez + Batum?

If you believe our talent is comparable or greater, than their Starting 5 outplayed our Starting 5. Since we rely on our starting 5 to beat or at least maintain against their Starting 5, then either our starting 5 lost the game, or their starting 5 won the game. Same thing, different viewpoints.

We play chess. I win. Did I beat you or did you lose to me? 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Same result.

Are you arguing that our Starting 5 was put in against inferior line ups? Then why was the inferior line ups being played against a superior line ups? If not, then the Starting 5 didn't do their job.

Now, IF you believe our Starting 5 is NOT as talented as their Starting 5, then what you're arguing is that we need to make a trade or change our Starting 5 rotation to make our Starting 5 more competitive.

That discussion of course is an entirely different kettle of fish...

 

I think we have more total talent but the matchup of LMA vs. one of our weaker defenders in young inexperienced Jones was an issue.

We do need a trade to turn Asik into something substantially that contributes.

 

...the thing about that moment that ticked me off was the fact that DH chose to be all like "WTF?" with Parsons instead of going after the ball.

I thought for sure that we were going to see DMO get in the game since we desparately needed some height to contend with LMA and Lopez. I don't know how much that would have helped, but I like to think he would have done more to challenge LMA than putting a guard on him

 

Yes there starting 5 outplayed ours. Parson, Jones and Bev had terrible games and our bench didnt bring it either.

Our starting 5 is just as talented as the Blazers.

 

I'm considering becoming a Covington Only Fan. That seems safe (for now).

 

We should have one of Howard/Harden on the floor at all times. Lineups without them have been trash lately.

 

I like this game. I know that we lost, but we lost to a team that has continuity already. I think that it's not only acceptable, but also encouraged that the coaching staff start integrating Howard's sizable talents into the offense. For those that doubted it and for those that already knew, he has the talent in him. His moves are looking much better. I suspect that he's been working on his post game all along and that he just needs game time to put it together in actual in-game situations. If we can increase Howard's effective touches in the post with our league-best perimeter game, we'll largely eliminate our inconsistencies. Howard looked great out there, the team just hasn't figured out how to balance Howard with the rest of the offense. This game was a great sign for us, and in the future we'll be blowing teams like the Blazers right out of the building. I saw a game where we had the better talent, but also a game in which their team's continuity and balance overcame that. We're looking good guys.