Does Channing Frye have game?

by Engineering Problem on Oct 24, 2007 11:37 PM PDT

I'm struggling to figure out what exactly Channing Frye brings to this team. In our short preseason, I've observed the following:

He seems to find a way to get open from 18', ala LMA. Although we haven't seen it, let's assume he'll eventually hit these with regularity.

On offense, seems completely lost in the post. Despite being 7', his turnaround jumper does not have enough extension to be shot "straight up". He needs to fade away, which requires athleticism he doesn't have. He doesn't appear to have a lot of "stuff", such as a drop-step or up-and-under. His hook shot has little elevation and seems forced.

He is a passive rebounder. Has a Marcus Camby type build, but doesn't go and get rebounds or fight hard for position. Perhaps this worked in the East, but the West is full of mobile, active forwards who know how to rebound. Defensive boards don't automatically go to the seven footer.

Not very active on defense. Not embarrassing, but allows his man to get comfortable and relies on his height and reach to bother shots.

His floor game is decent. Not a black hole. Keeps the ball moving. Don't ask him to dribble.

Seems to have a good, upbeat court demeanor. Appears to listen and stay engaged; jumps eagerly off the bench when called.

I'm not sure Frye has the quickness to guard threes or the post skills to take advantage of his height at that position. He's way too soft for the five spot. With LMA sliding occasionally to center, he could get 30 minutes at PF if we wanted to keep him on the court.

Is a jumpshooting PF what the Blazers need? Do we want LMA to backup at center when Oden comes back? An alternative approach to Frye would be to get a bruiser at backup PF. A real scowling lunchpail type. It might be painful to play this person with Joel, so we'd have to be careful how we managed rotations.

I'd like to get others' thoughts. Is Frye what we want in a frontcourt player? What do you see as his strengths and weaknesses?

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

He is new

and adjusting to teammates, coach, and a wholly new style of play and set of expectations. I have also pointed out his negatives along with his positives as a baseline so we can see what we've got. But as far as making a final judgment (or even a significant judgment) I think we need to see at least 50-60 games or so.

After reading many assessments of him from the Knicks it was clear that they weren't sad to see him go, so I never really expected a fantastic player right out of the box. There were lots of comments involving the words "slow" and "soft" and "lack of passion". I guess I'm not that disappointed so far though.

Keep in mind also that this is a no-lose deal. Even if he never pans out his contract doesn't mandate that we keep him. It expires at exactly the right time for us.

--Dave

by Dave on Oct 25, 2007 12:27 AM PDT reply actions

Agreed with waiting to see

It's easy to judge off a few games.

I truly believe Frye will do better and the blazers can help him get there.

I think it'll be most telling after the halftime.

We applied the cortical electrodes but we're unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

by ratbastird on Oct 25, 2007 5:15 AM PDT up reply actions

True

Last year Magloire looked absolutely the worst player on the team in preseason and when the year was done he was merely bad. ;)

Joel Przybilla: All-star '08

by shenanigans on Oct 25, 2007 6:08 AM PDT up reply actions

exactly!

We applied the cortical electrodes but we're unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

by ratbastird on Oct 29, 2007 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions

And I look at him this way

getting Frye (losing Randolph) allowed Aldridge to bloom. We didn't trade for Frye (OK, maybe KP said we did) we traded away Randolph for whatever we could get. So we got Frye AND Aldridge. If Frye doesn't measure up, I'll be disappointed (for him as well, he seems like a nice kid), but not disillusioned - he was essentially a throw-in and we can use him the same way if necessary.

by jorga on Oct 25, 2007 12:55 AM PDT reply actions

Exactally Jorga!

I'm not disappinted because I never expected much from him.

by TwoDeep on Oct 25, 2007 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions

But

He was traded for a 20 and 10 guy. I hope his legacy is not that he was a throw in for an expired contract. I want more from him.

Fatty, Big Daddy on the BE, Man o' international renown, Postin' from his own thrown, Tellin' us what we couldn't see

by tominhawaii on Oct 25, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions

No

by jonestr on Oct 25, 2007 2:00 AM PDT reply actions

So far the answer is no

I don't think he knows what he's supposed to do out there.

Then again I never bought that he fit here in the first place. He can't play alongside LMA and what kind of idiot is going to take LMA off the floor?

by leeroyjenkins on Oct 25, 2007 7:05 AM PDT reply actions

I still see Frye as a trading chip.

I would have greatly preferred us getting David Lee over Channing Frye. Lee would have been a huge upgrade on the boards.

That said, I hope Channing does well. I'd like to see him develop as part of a second unit. Blake, Sergio, Travis and Frye don't sound too bad. Maybe not strong defensively, but they should be able to score.

by timg56 on Oct 25, 2007 7:22 AM PDT reply actions

heck

i'm surprised that so many people already think that channing's just a trade waiting to happen. he's played, what, 6 games so far? in NY he was told to put on weight and become a banger, then he was benched in preference to curry, now KP/Nate want him to slim down a little and adjust to the running game. he's been with us for a few months and there is no way on earth that someone can adapt that quickly to a new system... jeez.

everybody says he's a lma clone right??? think about it. is that so bad really. someone who can pop the open jay, has a high release, will hit the boards. he's got a good attitude, loves being here, is willing to learn. seriously, i'm disappointed that he hasn't grown wings and foretold the end of the world yet....

everybody said lma was soft too. said he wasn't strong enough to face up. said that trading him for tyrus was not smart. said that and lots of other things as well. well lets give KP some credit, let Nate do his job and wait until december for CF to adjust. then let the smack talk start. at least it would be justified by then.

Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.

by pdxborn on Oct 25, 2007 9:23 AM PDT reply actions

He seems

to be able to score at times. It is hard to tell if this is because of the match up on a certain night or if he is a streaky shooter but he has some talent and he is young so lets see what Nate can do with him.

by Kampeska on Oct 25, 2007 10:09 AM PDT reply actions

It's a little early to tell....

however, I was hoping to see more from him at this point. His strenghts are outside shooting and a great attitude. His weaknesses are rebounding and interior defense. His weaknesses wouldn't be a problem is he was GUARD. But he's a power forward. He has to get WAY more aggressive down low and bang. Maybe he's just in poor shape and gets winded easy which would take away some of his aggressiveness. Whatever, the reason is, I'd like to see him get a lot more NASTY in his game.

by JasonT on Oct 25, 2007 11:34 AM PDT reply actions