Brandon Roy--What's the Point?
by Dave on Aug 5, 2008 12:58 AM PDT
75 comments
It’s finally time for Blazersedge to officially take up the whispers and rumors we’ve been hearing for the past year or so about Brandon Roy and the potential for him to eventually play point guard. We’re going to make this short and sweet: I don’t see it happening.
This doesn’t have a lot to do with
But the fact remains, that’s not his natural position. When you take your team leader--the heart and soul of your squad, the guy other teams design their game plans around--and stick him in a position not his own you end up weakening not only him, but the team as a whole.
Michael Jordan was capable of playing point guard. He did it for a season. Darned if he didn’t average 8 assists too. Kobe Bryant could play point guard if he wanted. LeBron James could probably do a credible job as well.
Does
Besides that, there would still be a fair bit of learning curve to
The only solid arguments I can see for
1. We don’t really have a long-term point guard we’re comfortable with. And…
2. It would get Rudy Fernandez more playing time.
As far as the first argument, if you don’t have a point guard you’re comfortable with then go out and get one! That’s what all of that cap space is for. Part of the problem is that the point guards we have are inexperienced, incomplete, or not naturally suited for the position. Throwing
As for the second argument, nobody knows what Rudy can or will do in this league yet. I respect his potential but we don’t even know if Rudy and Roy together would make a viable combination. We don’t know if Rudy will earn minutes beyond backing up
In the end there are too many players, positions, and roles unsettled on this young team to be taking your surest thing and throwing it into doubt. Roy is great initiating the offense once the ball has been brought up, but he really needs to play with a true point guard to take the pressure off. I don’t see a Brandon Point Guard experiment in our near future and I suspect by the time we get to the far future we’ll be winning too much anyway to even consider it.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
75 comments
Email
Print
Comments
i fully agree
im not bbal minded enough to try and disagree with you anyways. but when ever i hear or read someone thinking hes going to be the point, I just keep thinking about the allstar game. he was a second year, and even though the league likes to create a story, see powe, broy is a second year allstar. period. he also put up mvp numbers in that game playing the two. some people will argue that no ones playing any defence, but i saw the defence getting much stiffer on him toword the end of the game, and those guys playing crappy defence are allstars 2. idk, im excited. I actually think they will be able to teach bayless to look for the open man. im also about to drink this nice tall glass of koolaid. hmmm refreshing.
"If I was in anyway unclear, I am implying that Dave is a serial murderer."
---jonestr on Aug 3, 2008 12:25 AM PDT
by ptwnblzr on Aug 5, 2008 1:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I just have to disagree with you Dave,
First off I feel that we are putting too much into this whole “position” thing. Roy is essentially a large combo G and Blake and particularly Bayless, will be a combo G as well. We need to stop labeling them as “P” Gs and “S” Gs as I feel that we get far too hung up in trying to do that and not taking them for what they are=combo Gs.
Bayless and Blake will play the role of bringing the ball up the court and then depending on the D, either setting up a play to be run foir Grag, LMA, TO, or Webster, or he will pass it to Roy and change to the off G who can spot up for 3 or punish defenders who close out too hard on them with a drive.
As for Rudy, having watched him play online in the Oly tune-up games, many times he has played the point and initiated the offense with pretty good passes as well. Now this may be a product of knowing where his teammates will be rather than his court vision, but even on some youtube clips, I have seen passes that are of a high degree of dificulty, so saying that he would not be able to handle some of the playmaking abilities sounds a bit far fetched.
I have gone on record time and time again that we do not need a “true” PG and that was why I pushed hard for one of the CGs in this years draft. Rondo and Fisher were the starting PGs in the finals and “true” PGs in Kidd, Nash, Williams and Paul all left pretty early leaving, the two aforementioned PGs and Parker and Billups, both scoring PGs/CGs which our guy Bayless has more in common with than Paul, Nash or Kidd.
Historically, “pure” PGs have not been that successful as well. Take for example the to 10 APG leaders in NBA history:
1. Magic Johnson
2. John Stockton
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Jason Kidd
5. Isiah Thomas
6. Kevin Johnson
7. Norm Nixon
8. Tim Hardaway
9. Kevin Porter
10. Mark Jackson
and they have a combined 10 rings, half of which are from Magic, 2 are from Norm Nixon, and 1 is from Robinson. If you look deeper these players all have something in common as well that accounted for much of their success: They all won their championships with Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The only “true” PG to win without KAJ was Isiah who won 2.
I guess what I am saying is that we do not need a “true” PG and Roy will do just fine at the “P” G position if you want to call it that. Our combo (no pun intented) of Blake, Bayless and Sergio will more than suffice to bring the ball up against pressure and then initiate or pass to Roy.
by SpyderRyder on Aug 5, 2008 1:34 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
It's a tricky argument you are trying to make.
It depends on your definition of what a point guard and a “combo” guard are. Based on the names you list, I have a hard time determining what criteria you use to differentiate the two. Isiah Thomas was a scoring PG, much like Tony Parker. Tim Hardaway was also as much of a scorer as a distributor, maybe more so. Kevin Johnson never looked hesitant to shoot or take it to the hoop.
You seem to consider Fisher and Rondo combo guards (I think. It’s not clear.) And you make it sound that the failure of Nash, Kidd, Williams and Paul to make the Finals this year is proof that “pure” point guards are less likely to have the success of combo guards.
I think it is a mistake to look at past title teams and draw conclusions about what type of players are needed to win titles. Titles are not (usually) won by individual players. They are won by teams, and the interactions and synergism that occurs within teams is often greater than the sum of their individual parts. It is also a mistake to pigeon hole a player into a specific catergory. Based on what I’ve seen, I’d consider both Rondo and Fisher to be traditional point guards. Just as I view Nash, Kidd, Williams and Paul. That doesn’t mean they all have the same skill set or are the same type of player. Or take the example of Terry Porter. TP could be considered a combo guard, as he ended up playing off Rod Strickland or in a 3 guard lineup with Drexler and Strickland. But he could just as easily be viewed as a pure point guard, since that’s pretty much how he was utilized until Portland acquired Strick.
In the end, I agree with your last statement, in so much as I don’t think Portland has a hole to fill at the PG position. Steve Blake is a traditional PG who appears to complement Roy sufficiently well enough. In many ways I think he may be the perfect PG for this team, particularly if he decides to take charge as a PG should. I think last season he started to realize that just because Brandon is the natural leader of the team, that doesn’t mean that Blake can’t run the team from the floor. That Roy indicated he’s working on his game of moving without the ball tells me that Brandon may be thinking along the same lines.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
........Thomas Jefferson
The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the
government and I'm here to help.' "
- Ronald Reagan
by timg56 on Aug 5, 2008 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The list SypderRyder presented is a list of the all-time assist leaders
One of his points is that, with a big as talented as Kareem, a combo guard might seem to be more of a distributor. A second point he seems to be making is that great teams redefine positional roles to suit their players.
Brandon Roy has gone on record in O-Live’s recent series on him by Quick as saying he needs to initiate the offense but not bring the ball up and not guard the smaller point guards. He also stated that Jack and Blake were frustrated that they essentially played as shooters than as passers. Brandon is going to be key in defining roles and running this offense and his words mean a lot to me.
Brandon has also said that he is working more on being effective without the ball. This only makes sense. It is the next logical progression in shedding the traditional roles and making every player effective in multiple roles adapting to the defensive scheme presented.
SypderRyder is essentially noting that there is no definition appropriate and there is no predefined skill combination needed with the deep talent on this team. I give him a rec’ for an excellent analysis.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gracias,
someone who gets it.
The definition of a “true” PG is one that looks to distribute before scoring and while many of those players in the top 10 APG could score the ball the simple fact that they are on that list points to them looking to distribute first, rather than score.
The definition of a CG is one who has the size of a PG but lacks “true” PG vision and skill and looks to score rather than set people up. In that case Fisher, Rondo, Billups, and Parker all fit that bill . They averaged as follows A/36min:
Fisher: 3.8
Rondo: 6.1
Billups: 7.6
Parker: 6.4
Decent but not of the caliber of a
Paul: 11.1
Nash: 11.6
Williams: 10.1
by SpyderRyder on Aug 5, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While that may be true,
but if you look at my post below my definintion of a “true” or “pure” PG is this:
A person who looks to set up other players first, rather than call his own # first. True Isiah could score, but so can Paul, Williams, Nash and so on.
All the players on that list could easily go off for 30-40 points in a game, but the mere fact that they are in the top 10 all time NBA APG leaders says to me that they are more of a “true” or “pure” PG than the rest.
Why then are they not called “S” Gs and not “P” Gs? Because they pass the ball and acquire a lot of A’s because they ook to set people up first. Fisher and Rondo are more CGs than they are PGs as eveidnt by their 6.1 and 3.8 A/36 as listed below, as the definition of a “true” or “pure” PG is to set his teammates up with an A.
In no way did I say that a title was won by an individual player, in fact I mentioned that the majority on the list were in a tandem with KAJ and that the combo of them both is what won them their championships.
What I was trying to illuminate is there is no pressing NEED for a “true” or “pure” PG on this team as is constructed. The names, Fisher, Rondo, BJ Armstrong, Parker, Kenny, Smith, Steve Kerr and Ron Harper are all names that have dominated the NBA championship landscape and save for Parker (a little), none of them have even been the best player on the team, but rather role players. Honestly the last time the assist leader even got close was when Stockton got killed by Jordan in 98 and the last title was from Isiah.
With a Nash, Paul, or Willims they need to dominate the ball to be effective and I would much rather have the ball in Roy’s hands with the game on the line.
by SpyderRyder on Aug 5, 2008 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
It all depends on your definition of a PG. By size, Roy is not a stereotypical PG, but skills wise, he is.
My take is that KP and gang are into acquiring players who are flexible position wise. Roy is a playmaker, it’s that simple. Can can initiate an offense, or he can play strictly as a 2, scorer.
I used to think we’d need a ‘true point guard’ to pair with Roy, but I don’t think so now, especially after reading Roy’s comments about being paired with Paul in the All Star Game. He doesn’t prefer it that way anyway.
Roy allows you to be the ‘baskin robbins’ of the court; 36 different flavors of line-ups.
1. Insert Blake for a little defense, with Roy as a SG.
2. Insert Bayless for an additional attacker (in the SG position) let Roy set up the play.
3. Roy and/or Rudy switching off as ball handler/scorer.
Granted, you get no waffle cone with all these flavors, but still it’s got to be fun for Nate to imagine all the different combination and weapons he has at his disposal.
by SloppyJoe on Aug 5, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You define the position by
Who is Roy going to be guarding at the other end of the floor? Dave’s right, Brandon won’t be moved to point guard just to accomodate Rudy. Could they both play together against a team with a larger point guard (like Dallas/Kidd)? Sure, but that’s the exception, not the rule
Were “promises” for X amount of minutes/game made to Rudy to get him over here? That’s where the rubber hits the road re: the ‘08 backcourt rotation. We shall see…
by two4larue on Aug 5, 2008 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nowhere did I say that he would be moved to point
for Rudy, nor did I even mention anything about Roy defending the opposite PGs.
Even if I did I would say that it would be a wash as CP3 could not D Roy at all. Just have Rudy bring the ball up and pass to Roy on the low post and all 225 lbs of Roy would crush CP3.
Also about 16% of the time the l*kers go with a 3 G lineup with a combo of Farmar or Fisher with K~be and Vujacic on the floor.
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708LAL2.HTM
So a 3 G line up of Blake or Bayless with Rudy and Roy sounds mighty tasty to me.
by SpyderRyder on Aug 5, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really interesting perspective, though (on purpose?) you didn't focus on some of the points Roy himself brought up
As reported by Jason Quick in “Part III – Roy and Bayless: A match made in heaven?”
Roy will never be a “pure point guard” and I suppose he knows that is not his true strength perfectly well. But he imagines himself playing really good in tandem with another player who is rather a combo guard.
Offense: Does he want to bring the ball up court and get exhausted? No. When playing with Bayless he wants the nominal point guard to do that, but then quite often get him the ball and switch over to play a two on offense. “If he wants to be aggressive, and he makes plays, then I don’t mind being the point. And if I’m in an aggressive play-making mode, then I’m sure he doesn’t mind being the point.’‘
Defense: Does he want to defend lightning-quick PGs? No. “The reason why I see me playing with Jerryd is because he can guard points,’’ Roy said. “He may not be a one, but he can guard a one.”
Other combos: Then there is still Blake, who Roy says gets frustrated at times playing the two but with whom he has already developed a great chemistry to understand when Blake is going to distribute and when he wants Roy to take over that role.
Also I wouldn’t discard the possibility of Rudy playing effectively for extended stretches alongside Roy (or Bayless for that matter) in a similar way as two combo guards switching responsibilities as needed. I really see Rudy’s skills and physique more fitting for a 2-1 than a 2-3.
Odenied: Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...
by Norsktroll on Aug 5, 2008 1:36 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
+1
I was going to bring this up myself but checked for other posts.
The point isn’t that Roy will be a PG, it’s that he’ll do ball handling and distributing while the slower SG’s guard him. Blakeless should always guard the PG, right?
--
by CaptainSexyJacob on Aug 5, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said, Dave
Roy will never be a real PG.
Roy will do a lot of things similar to a PG.
He might defend PG at times depending on who we are playing, but he sure won’t defend Paul, Parker, etc.
He won’t be spending a lot of time bringing the ball up court.
He might bring the ball up court the last few minutes of the game if Rudy earns a “closer” role. So he might play “the point” a little bit. Or Rudy might bring the ball up court in that scenario.
He’ll act like a PG in some ways at times. He’ll never really be a PG.
We may never really have a PG, if we have someone else who proves effective alongside him. I think Bayless is going to shine in that role, and look a lot more like a point than people think based on the summer league circus.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on Aug 5, 2008 5:00 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Is Roy PG?
No. Roy is a man. He will never be PG (pregnant).
Can he lead the offense once the ball is in his hands in the front court? Let’s see … Duh!
So, Roy can distribute the ball, but he needs the help of a woman to make babies.
The man has his limits. Good we keep that in front of us.
I agree with the half of us who are talking combo guard. Roy is a really special player, one who defines the games he plays in, not one who let’s the theory of game historians define him. And I disagree with the half still insisting on the Blazers getting some mythical PG.
There is a promised land for this team. I say we let the Blazers’ self-evident “Roy: Plan G” shake out over the next year, and give what the team has built a chance to operate.
'77
by LaoTzu on Aug 6, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy's a skilled Combo.
Roy and KP have both clarified this over the last few months, particularly when talking about Bayless – but it also applies to Blake and Fernandez. They want Bayless to be a complementary player. That means bring the ball up and pass it to Roy who will execute a play. Bayless will then go into motion for pick and rolls etc., and will guard the other players PG – while Roy guards the SG. They’ve said repeatedly that they want the ball in Roy’s hands in the 4th quarter and during other stretches of the game. That’s the plan. Roy commented that Blake had to adjust, as will Bayless and Fernandez. This is the guard that the Blazers want that will eventually start with Roy. Roy is not a pure shooting guard, he’s a combo himself. This is what we sometimes fail to recognize. You can’t put a pure PG on the floor with a skilled combo like Roy – you have to put another combo. And that’s what the Blazers drafted, and its what they wanted. If Bayless becomes what the Blazers want alongside Roy, he will also have the ability to execute plays downstream much as a PG would do. In that scenerio, it would be Roy in motion acting like an SG. The bottom line is that this backcourt – in the Blazers world – will share and complement each other. And if Bayless/Fernandez are able to fit that role, then that player will be the eventual starter with Roy. Blake and the other guard will be the second team. It’s for these reasons I believe that (given the condition of Bayless improving), that the first team in a year will most probably be Roy/Bayless, and the second team will be Blake/Fernandez. And the reason for this is that Bayless appears to fit the complementary role to Roy better than Fernandez. Fernandez is most likely better at playing with a true PG like Blake, given it is unlikely, for example, that he will be as effective at guarding the point as Bayless – which is a condition of playing with Roy.
So, yes, you can put this one to bed. There is no argument on the Blazer side over PG. They know how they want to run the team with Roy – and the only issue is whether or not they have the right player to accomplish this.
by Eben Calder on Aug 5, 2008 6:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: first team in a year will most probably be Roy/Bayless, and the second team will be Blake/Fernandez
This is where I am getting confused. I’ve said in the past that Roy with start at the point guard with Rudy as the shooting guard, and I agree with your probable first and second teams. What I don’t understand is how the question of Roy starting as a point guard became permanent or full time.
It seems like everyone is skipping a year again. I do not doubt that Bayless will start one day and I would not be surprised if it did not happen until next season. I do not know how fast Rudy will develop or how far ahead or behind he is to Bayless.
The point is, people are trying to put to bed the idea that Roy will be a full time point guard, which had a lot more momentum before Bayless was drafted, when most people just said Roy will start with Rudy sometimes.
I will wax my chest if Blake and Roy don’t start the opening game of the season. Banning myself would be stupid. I don’t know when Roy will start with Rudy but he will some day. I won’t do anything then except say, “I told you so.”
- Tom
by tominhawaii on Aug 5, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When Rudy can defend point guards
That’s when he’ll start alongside Roy. Having said this, it’s clear there could be several teams where the opposing backcourt is made up of larger “combo” guards that Roy and Rudy could handle. But clearly Nate is not going to start Roy/Rudy against teams with quick PGs. McMillian looks to match-up with the opponent on the defensive end first, not insert a larger backcourt and force the other coach to defend one of his big guards with their smaller PG.
The long and the short of it is…will Rudy/Roy occasionally start (or play long minutes together) at the “1” and the “2”? Possibly, when the matchups are in favor of it. Will Rudy/Roy ever become the Blazer’s “regular” starting backcourt? The odds are against it, unless the NBA goes back to the ‘80s and the rules work against playing small/quick point guards (hand-checking legalized again, etc)
by two4larue on Aug 5, 2008 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When did anyone ever say that Roy/Rudy would be the regular starting backcourt?
When did anyone say that Roy would be the regular starting point guard?
- Tom
by tominhawaii on Aug 5, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You did
“I don’t know when Roy will start with Rudy but he will some day”
The facts on the ground have changed over the past month or two, and you’re backpedaling. But you really want to hand Rudy that starting guard spot next to Roy, and (like Dave said) that would mean moving Roy to PG (since no one wants to see Rudy defending the quicker NBA PGs…) If you want to keep redefining the argument until November that’s OK, but you’re on record that Rudy/Roy would be the ‘08 starting backcourt, while I’ve explained why this won’t be happening.
by two4larue on Aug 5, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to see Rudy defending the quicker NBA point guards
A lot of people are assuming he won’t be able to do it, but I really don’t think we will know how good he will be defending Chris Paul/Tony Parker type quick point guards until we actually give him a chance to guard them.
Actually, Rudy’s biggest weakness defensively is probably his lack of strength, so it is possible that he would do better against smaller guards than larger ones because they won’t be able to push him around.
by trk on Aug 5, 2008 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
all he has to do...
is force them to dribble the ball in the direction of oden the destroyer, killer of spirits, blocker of shots and dunk attempts
by BroyTheTruth on Aug 5, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I the only person here who understands the difference between starting a game out of position and permanently moving to another position?
I said Rudy and Roy will start together before Bayless was drafted. It would be ignorant of me to not take Bayless into account now that he is on the roster. I still think there will be situations where Roy and Rudy start. If that happens, it does not mean that Roy will forever have to play point guard from that day forward. It does not even mean Roy will play point guard again in that game.
As for me being on record for saying they’re the starters, I would like to see the link. People are trying to back me into a corner and say “I told you so” in regards to statements about the roster before the draft. I bet before the draft last year Dave said Randolph would start at power forward. Why aren’t people calling him on that?
I reserve the right to change my opinion about the team as the team changes. Roy and Rudy will start some games together. Blake will start at the start of the season and as they improve, I think Bayless and Rudy will start depending on the situation. Saying Rudy will start is not saying he will be a “starter” and it is not saying Roy will have to play point guard for the rest of his life.
- Tom
by tominhawaii on Aug 6, 2008 4:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Why aren’t people calling him on that?"
Because his initials are DD, and lots of people here like(d) Dungeons and Dragons.
You, on the other hand, are TiH. This has absolutely no good memories for anyone. So we are going to call you on things, harass you, and say (and think) mean and nasty things about you like, “Oh, yeah?” and “Wanna bet?”
It’s tough, but that’s the way it is. Blame your parents for not giving you cool initials.
And you can’t “reserve the right” unless you had the right in the first place. Either you have to believe that you have a Creator who gave you inalienable rights (and “changing your mind about a team” isn’t in some old document written by a bunch of rebels), or you have to get rights from me, the ruler of the world.
I’ve been searching through my documents, and can’t find anywhere that you petitioned for, let alone that I would have granted you, any such right to change your mind.
And if you DID petition for the right, there’s a £50K non-refundable application fee to compensate me for the time of thinking about whether or not I want to give you the right, and the burden of responding with a lengthy missive consisting of two letters. This is difficult because I have to get out my alphabet and see what two letters come after “M”.
Warning: another mean and nasty comment coming:
SO THERE!
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on Aug 6, 2008 5:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
geez yo...
Why can’t Roy be moved to small forward??? I remember Nate once said(sorry no link) that he believes your small forward should be your most versatile player. His ideal small forward can handle the ball, pass it, shoot it, rebound, play solid defense, and do everything else in between. Sounds like Roy would make a good Nate McMillan small forward to me. The one consistent knock I predict people will come back with is that Roy wouldn’t be strong enough to guard the LBJ’s/Artests of the league. Well, how would LBJ take advantage of his strength on Roy? Probably by posting him up, and we got a guy named Oden trolling the lane licking his chops and waiting for a little jump hook from some 6’8 sf that Roy is guarding. Can you say 15th row rejection? Playing Rudy and Roy together does not mean that they will play exclusively at the guard spots, I think Roy might make a great point forward if Rudy and Bayless are good enough to demand a lot of minutes. A year or two down the road, I think a Bayless, Rudy, Roy, LMA, Oden lineup could be absolutely deadly and nearly impossible to matchup against if everyone shapes up the way we think and hope they will…
RUDY > MJ
by myemic23 on Aug 6, 2008 4:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
KP said Rudy will start
you can extrapolate whatever from there.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
KP and Quick said that before Bayless was drafted
I agree with them because I think in the future we will have a three guard rotation of Bayless, Roy, and Rudy with Blake picking up the scraps. I don’t know if Rudy will be the “starter” but he will start games. Like I said up above, I think everyone is skipping ahead a year. Blake and Roy are the starters now. If the future Rudy will start some games and Bayless will start some games. After a year together, I imagine things will change.
- Tom
by tominhawaii on Aug 6, 2008 4:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guards
I know a lot of you probably don’t remember Gus Williams, he was the starting Guard along with Dennis Johnson during the Sonics championship team. Those two scored over half of the points when the Sonics beat the then Bullets. They remind me a lot of what Roy and Bayless will bring as guards. Gus was the smaller of the two and was the guard who defended the smaller point guards. DJ handled the ball on the sets and was the facilitator. I see a lot of similarities in there roles not necessarily there styles. This IMO will be similar to what the Blazers do with Roy and Bayless.
Inallthetime
by inallthetime on Aug 5, 2008 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good comparison
Roy needs a backcourt mate next to him who will:
1) Be able to guard the opposing team’s PG
2) Be able to push the ball during fast break situations (which is not Roy’s strength)
3) Be willing to defer to Roy in the halfcourt as far as primary facilitator of the offense
4) Be able to hit outside shots created by Roy facilitating
Blake was successful last year in that he was able to do 1,3 and 4. Can Bayless do all 4? I’m hopeful. I hope that Bayless is able to defer – he seems the type that likes to control the flow of the game himself.
by Storyteller on Aug 5, 2008 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Which is what many of us have been saying since this spring. (And that’s why hearing that Devin Harris was coveted by Pritchard at the trading deadline should have been no surprise.)
The Blazers drafted Bayless, a steal at #11. Jerryd perfectly fits the role of “Roy’s running mate” All JB needs is time and experience and he will push Blake to backup PG. When will this happen? That depends on JB, but based on his killer instinct, I’d predict “sooner than later”
by two4larue on Aug 5, 2008 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree on #2
Blake brought the ball up very quickly last year, in my opinion, but I don’t think there was consistent execution of a fast break strategy by the team, in general. Great fast break teams do two things: 1)send a quick wing sprinting back immediately after a make or a miss; and 2) the rebounder gets the ball to a the point guard who is cutting to the sideline or towards the ball to push the ball up and look to zip a quick outlet pass. I think #2 was happening with pretty good consistency last year, but #1 was not. With the exception of Blake, Jack, and Sergio, the team was jogging down and getting into a high pick and roll or isolation set. The point guards seemed to be pushing the ball over the half court line in vain, with no one streaking to the pockets for a quick outlet. We did occasionally see Martell run this pattern and nail the quick three on the break (his 24 point quarter comes to mind), but it wasn’t applied consistently, on a team wide basis. A player like Bayless or even D. Harris would only be more effective in going full court quickly and getting to the rim themselves. Jack did that pretty well, but at a slower pace. And he was quite poor as a fast break distributor.
In summary, I think becoming an effective, championship caliber fast break team can absolutely be achieved with our current guard roster, but will require a team-wide commitment to better defense, better defensive rebounding, and consistently sending a wing or two streaking to the corners.
by sotis on Aug 5, 2008 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blake
The problem with Blake is that he is not a finisher. He is very good at distributing on the pick and roll and hitting open set jump shots. But he does not get to the rim on a fast break or have the ability to drive except on floaters. Bayless will be able to attack better then Blake but I still don’t think he will be able to pass as well as Blake. With Blakes histroy playing with Joel and running the pick and roll. Having the option to hit Frye on a pick and pop. Setting up Rudy and Outlaw to attack and hit jomp shots.
Inallthetime
by inallthetime on Aug 6, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy's backcourt mate
Blake was descent at all 4 points last year, while Jack was rather weak at all of them. That probably explains why the team did much better with Blake on the floor even though Jack was about as productive as Blake statistically.
Bayless has the potential to eventually be able to do a good job at all 4,. though his shooting needs some work, and w don’t know how willing he will be to defer to Roy. A Roy/Rudy backcourt also looks interesting: Rudy’s ability to defend points remains a question mark, #2, #3, and #4 are all things he should be able to do very well.
by trk on Aug 5, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gus was an assassin
I loved that guy…too bad he wasn’t a Blazer.
by DonkeyShins on Aug 5, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate's offence
Does it require a TRUE point gaurd? We just need guys that can get to the hoop and finsh, with enough of those type of players the point gaurd duties are fine for now in the steady hands of Steve Blake. What I would like Bayless to turn into is the back court defensive pest. When is the last player in the back court that we had that just got after guys? Porter is the last one that I can think of….
2-4 the who
by 24thewho on Aug 5, 2008 8:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I made this comment as a joke near the bottom of another thread but I've thought about it a little and am serious this time...
Forget about “point guard” and “shooting guard,” forget about “1” and “2.” Just think of things as two GUARDS, with Rex a “Zip Guard” and Roy a “Crunch Guard.”
One Zip Guard and one Crunch Guard are all you need to get it done. They can carry the ball and score it five different ways and defend the other team.
John Stockton retired and there aren’t very many players of that sort anyhow… Most NBA teams don’t have one.
t
"He shoots....................... he scores!!!"
by timbo on Aug 5, 2008 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the roles and definitions of the guard positions are in flux
Historical case in point: The power forward spot. The prototypical player for the position used to be a bulky guy, similar to a center but often too small to play one, positioned close to the basket with his back to the rim calling for the ball (think Karl Malone or even more Charles Barkley at the tail end of this generation of PFs). Totally different tall lanky players like Larry Bird (who could play SF and PF) and Dirk Nowitzki (who can play PF, C and somewhat SF, same with KG) redefined the position, who relied much more on facing the basket, handling the ball themselves and creating outside shots to stretch the game. Rule changes that didn’t allow you to park your behind in the zone forever helped this transition (watch old games such as the 1993 finals with Barkley on ESPN classic some time and be amazed how long it takes him to back down his defender. Would be an offensive 3 seconds now every time). Now most power forwards are very tall guys required to have solid outside shooting skills (LaMarcus, Channing), while hustling undersized back to the basket players that look like they come straight out of the 80s are still in the game but becoming more the exception (Diogu, Bass, Landry). Yet both styles can be effective, and used in different situations.
Odenied: Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...
by Norsktroll on Aug 5, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Three second violation isn't a new rule...
Not being able to camp in the key has always been part of the rules. Maybe they’re calling it more diligently, but that’s another thing.
Not being able to play zone D is probably the bigger rule change; that with handchecking on the perimter being legal, put a bigger premium on post play. Back in Chuck’s day, if someone came to double-team him, he could just pass it back out, and the double-teamer than had to go back to his man. Repeat enough times and Chuck will eventually get a good look. Nowadays, the double-teamer can hang close to the key; if the weakside player he was guarding is a bad shooter, or if the offensive team can’t swing the ball well, then it’s that much easier to guard the interior.
by EngineerScotty on Aug 5, 2008 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not always
Only since Wilt got here.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Opps
Wikipedia does not agree (1936)
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever rule it was, something changed about the game
Maybe it was the double teams. Maybe refs swallowed their whistles. I remember watching and admiring how guys like Hakeem or Barkley parked in the lane seemingly forever, pushing their defenders back with their butts and pivoting around left and right before going up for a hook. You don’t see that anymore.
Odenied: Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...
by Norsktroll on Aug 5, 2008 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ummm I think the argument is moot.
Roy is the ball handler
Bayless will bring up the ball and score as well as play defense on other point guards.
It works well. The strengths and weaknesses are like looking in a mirror and the two become one.
I know you doubt the goodness that is bayless, but we’ll see by the end of this season.
Bayless starts in 42 games or less. Pretty sure that was the bet and the dinner.
Ford: Bill, you're claiming victory already? Have you had a "Mission Accomplished" banner printed yet?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?page=DraftDebate-080624
by ratbastird on Aug 5, 2008 9:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Brandon said it himself
It’s sooo simple, and Brandon said it himself. we don’t need a top tier pure point guard. He even said that he’s not at his best when playing with one (he used CP at the All Star game as an example). Can we please stop the discussion now? Brandon is PLAYMAKER. Bayless/Blake bring the ball up, they defend the opposing PG, the offense runs through Brandon most of the time. It’s pretty simple really.
myspace.com/marktwainindians
by mark twain on Aug 5, 2008 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
playmaker
yeah, that’s the word I meant to use.
I agree with you. That was my thought when we drafted bayless and why I was so happy. KP has said it since… Roy has said it… Bayless is our PG as long as Roy is our shooting guard.
Ford: Bill, you're claiming victory already? Have you had a "Mission Accomplished" banner printed yet?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?page=DraftDebate-080624
by ratbastird on Aug 5, 2008 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
What he said. Both Mr. Clemens, and Mr. Roy.
Brandon Roy is a playmaker. Most of the champions of the past thirty-odd years have been led by great playmakers. Only occasionally has that playmaker been a point guard.
2008: Celtics. Rondo, KG, and Pierce are all excellent playmakers, with most plays being made by either Pierce or Garnett (both forwards). Rondo’s a good setup man, but the two Boston forwards are both intelligent players, excellent passers, and scoring threats. (Ray Allen, of course, is a scoring threat but not a playmaker—an ideal teammate for the tandem of KG and Pierce).
2007, 2005, 2003 Spurs: More playmaking by committee; as any of Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker (a non-traditional scoring point) can beat you in many different ways. The 1999 edition had a fine traditional point guard in Avery Johnson.
2006 Heat: Dwyane Wade, in the Brandon Roy role.
2004 Pistons: Another intelligent team; the ‘08 Celts are very similar to the ‘04 Pistons. They’ve got three guys who are excellent passers (Billups, Rasheed Wallace, and Prince), a deadeye off-ball shooter (Rip), and a defensive stud who can’t score in the middle (Big Ben).
2000-2002 Lakers: Even though he has a reputation as a ballhog, Shaq is the best playmaking center to come along since Walton. A brilliant passer for a big man; he was unstoppable in his prime—commanding a double-team, but more than happy to find an open teammate. Derek Fisher was a good point in his own right, but a complementary player. Kobe is not a playmaker, but thinks he is.
1991-1993 and 1996-1998 Bulls. Michael Jordan. This is one reason Kobe will never equal MJ; Jordan is a playmaker, and one of the best ever. Scottie Pippen wasn’t so bad, either.
1994-95 Rockets. Olajuwon, long considered selfish in his career, learned to pass the ball—and the result was two rings in a row for a team running the “wagon wheel” offense. Drexler was a skilled playmkaer in his own right, as was Sam Cassell.
1989-1990 Pistons: This, ladies and gentlemen, was the last NBA Finals team whose best player was the point guard. An argument can be made for Billups, but the ‘04 Pistons were a team’s team. This team belonged to Isiah.
1980, 83, 85, 87, 88 Lakers: And here we have the best PG in the history of the game (sorry Oscar).
1981, 1984, 1986 Celtics: And here we have the best playmaking forward in the history of the game (Larry Bird). DJ and Ainge both blurred the guard roles (which one was the poing guard?), with either bringing the ball up. But the offense began and ended with Bird.
1982 Sixers: Maurice Cheeks running the offense, with the Dr. and Moses finishing.
1979 Sonics: Dennis Johnson, again; this time running the show.
1978 Bullets: Probably the best passing PF of all time in Wes Unseld.
1977 Blazers: The best passing center of all time, except for possibly Sabonis, in Bill Walton.
Note that most Finals teams had a clear-cut playmaker who was the team’s best player. A few divied up the playmaking roles.
But only two guys-Isiah and Magic-led their teams to Finals glory from the 1, while being the team’s undisputed best player. Many of the great playmakers have played other positions—Wade and Jordan at the 2, Bird and Pierce at the 3; Duncan and Unseld at the 4; Shaq and Walton at the 5.
So don’t sweat it if B-Roy isn’t a point guard. He doesn’t need to be one.
by EngineerScotty on Aug 5, 2008 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
nice!
Can’t argue with analysis like that! I really don’t get all the talk about having to have some crazy good point guard, it’s obviously not necessary when you have a great playmaker. I’m glad someone else around here has some sense, because I’m gonna lose it with all this talk of needing Chris Paul or Deron Williams to win a championship.
myspace.com/marktwainindians
by mark twain on Aug 5, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Paul and Deron Williams...
haven’t won anything, yet.
Granted, they’re only three years in the league. But they didn’t win anything in college, either.
(But then again, NCAA ball is a coach’s game).
by EngineerScotty on Aug 5, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
um...
Williams was a big time winner in college- his last year (Junior) at Illinois, his team lost one game the entire regular season before falling in a close game to that stacked UNC squad which had 4 guys drafted in the first round.
He had Luther Head and Dee Brown with him, but he was the driving force behind that squad.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Aug 5, 2008 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy and Fernandez
I agree with your take on Roy not playing the point. I am still holding out for us getting a veteran point guard next summer that will complete this equation.
As far as Rudy getting more playing time if Roy played the point. It surprised me to hear what Rick Kamala from NBA TV (he’s covered a lot of international hoops) said on the Morning Sports Page about Rudy Fernandez today. He said some stuff that would really deflate the sails of a lot of people placing a lot of hope in Rudy. He did not agree at all with the theories that Rudy would have been a top draft pick this year. A lot of people talk up the idea of Rudy Fernandez so much it sort of shocked me to hear him saying he didn’t think Rudy would be a major player in the NBA, maybe not even a starter. He described his game as exciting, but inconsistent. Anyone else hear that?
by Roycity on Aug 5, 2008 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
hmmm...
interesting. I respect Kamla’s opinion. It sure seems to me that if Gallinari was a top 6 pick, Rudy would have gone somewhere in the top 10. I wouldn’t be shocked if Rudy isn’t a starter but I’d be very surprised if he can’t help the Blazers out somehow.
That’s interesting though.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Aug 5, 2008 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know if you
can say that since Gallanari was a lotto pick that Rudy would have been one too as Gallanari is 19 and Rudy is 23 and the draft is as much about upside as it is about talent.
With that said I am not ready to jump in with anything kamala has to say that is not about fantasy hoops. I was pretty underwhelmed by his commentary during the summer league.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Aug 5, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair point on Gallinari
I do respect Kamla’s opinion (I do not respect his play by play announcing skills though) but I respect KP’s a lot more, and I still think Rudy would have been a lottery pick.
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Aug 5, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
could you direct me too
some kamala stuff you like? I have only read his fantasy stuff and seen his recent summer league announcing, which I thought was poor content wise.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on Aug 5, 2008 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm more referring...
... to things he says on NBATV, not stuff I’ve seen in writing so much. He’s no expert or anything, just a guy who watches a lot of basketball and seems reasonably intelligent (which puts him ahead of a lot of people out there IMO).
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Aug 5, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure that Kalama's eye is better than KP's
And KP is the guy he is disagreeing with. What did Kalama say about Randy Foye and Tyrus Thomas?
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
right
Like I said, I trust KP a lot more than Kamla. I’m just saying I’ve previously liked some of Kamla’s opinions… like this one- where he anoints Roy as his R.O.Y. pick after summer league despite Foye’s great showing in Vegas (and Kamla is a Wolves fan).
http://www.nba.com/features/livinglasvegas_060711.html
Boomshakalaka
by jksnake99 on Aug 5, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So a futurist perhaps?
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Kalama were better than KP
he would be in KP’s job or one of the other 29 GMs. I don’t pit my eye against anyone but KP clearly disagrees with Katama and my money in squarely on KP.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't that the guy who was on NBA TV with the Snapper at Vegas?
I don’t know if I can get behind Kamla as a talent evaluator, but…
I expect Rudy will have some “adjusting” to do, in regards to the NBA. It will be interesting to see how he competes with Roy and Bayless in training camp, then in the preseason games. I expect Rudy’s offensive skills will translate well to the NBA, once he gets to know his team-mates (and vice versa) It’s on the defensive end of the court that I expect him to struggle. I know he has lateral quickness (draft camp stats) but, as Han Solo said in Start Wars, Episode 4…”good against the living, that’s another story”
by two4larue on Aug 5, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats the same guy that was in love with Koponen
and said the blazers would have to sign him with his performance in the summer league. 38% shooting and poor ball handling says otherwise Ricky, stick to the fantasy analysis please….
RUDY > MJ
by myemic23 on Aug 6, 2008 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought
I wasn’t going to have anything to say after I rec’d jscot’s post. But then there were more I agreed with. So now I’m going out on a limb…
1. Bayless says he’s a natural point guard. We did NOT see that in Summer League. We did not see it in college. He said he played out of position there to please the coach and help the team. That’s his perception. Maybe … just maybe … he was at his best position. Even talking about him bringing the ball up court for us is premature. (What did Dave say then about him keeping his head down? Ouch.) Mind you, I am NOT saying Bayless will be a bust at pg. I am just saying to him : PROVE you are a pg.
2. Rudy has not played in the NBA. Projections for him are also wobbly. He may get homesick. He may get frustrated. He may play one year and head back to Spain.
3. I do not see Roy, Fernandez, and Bayless all on one team (if they become as good as projected.) Ain’t gonna work. Based on nothing but gut feelings. Be prepared for an unpopular trade and intra-blog fights.
I don't want to discuss this in August :-) Bring on October!!"We, as Blazer fans, are perhaps the luckiest fans in the league."-Idog1976, July 19.
by jorga on Aug 5, 2008 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I love Intra Blog Fights
Who do we think has the best chance of being the unpopular trade? I am going for Nic Batum. Kp would lose my heart FOREVER if he went bye bye.
Serious Response: Bayless has no choice but to prove he is a PG. He was big dog in summer league but he knows he wont be that come training camp. Point is there are already the playmakers and he isn’t going to need to do that. He will need to set Roy/Rudy/LMA/Channin up not create his own shots. He, in my opinion, will have ample time to prove he is a PG. Else he’s gone and we will argue about needing a PG every summer for the next 18 years.
RE: Rudy: Homesick-no. Trouble adjusting-maybe. Most likely to affect his overall game-pace of nba game and his small size relative to other NBA players. He’s a good shooter. He has mediocre defense. He is freakishly athletic and has been playing organized ball for so may years that he will know how to take coaching. I think he will be a solid contributor off the bench-someday. I am conceding to the fact that transitioning to another country will not be smooth 100% of the time and he may struggle a bit.
Sophia
Leaders build cultures that create self-esteem, generate and sustain trust, elevate the dignity of work , create community and foster open communication, and finally encourage growth and learning.
-Warren Bennis USC Professor
That was a very hard winter,
and it was just like one long night,
with me lying awake, waiting and waiting and waiting
for daybreak.
- Black Elk
1881
by BlazerFan1 on Aug 5, 2008 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see no reason why Portland cannot accomodate three highly skilled guards in rotation
There are 96 minutes available and that seems plenty to accommodate three good players.
Will Rudy and Bayless rise to that level? Only time and experience will tell.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
I thought I wasn’t going to have anything to say after I rec’d jscot’s post.
It is always good to let the future ruler of the world know when you rec his posts. He likes to know his friends. Also, your example can help others to find the right path before it is too late for them.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on Aug 6, 2008 5:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitions
The line between PG and SG has become very blurred over the last 15 years. Now you have players like Parker and Marbury who are primarily scorers in the halfcourt, but do bring the ball up. Then you have teams like the Bulls during their second championship run who had a starting backcourt of MJ and Ron Mercer. Now are you going to tell me that Mercer was a pure PG?
Basically its my opinion that PGs are valued the most on teams where ball handling is a premium, such as high school and college teams, as there may only be ONE GUY who can take the ball up with limited TOs. This does not hold true in the NBA as pretty much every backcourt player can handle the ball, which is why presses usually don’t work unless they come completely unexpected.
Now I do agree that there can be a fatigue factor that comes into play when you expect your best player to bring the ball up every time, but Roy already does this for several possessions a game. And as I stated before, at the NBA level EVERY guard should be skilled enough to take the ball up, so Roy shouldn’t have to do it every time.
And defensively there may also be games where it is advantageous for us to stick Roy on the other teams PG. Take Detroit for example, would you rather have Roy chasing Hamilton all over the court during every Piston possession, or would it be more advantageous to have Roy’s length challenging Billups shot and keeping him out of the post?
Now we are left susceptible to guys like Paul, but who isn’t? He is the next Iverson in terms of getting to the rim quickly and finishing. Only it gets worse because he has ridiculous court vision, as where AI would “pass” off the rim to teammates. Same with Parker except that the offensive sets create spacing for him to finish instead of the threat of his own playmaking ability.
There’s also the point I’d like to make about how simple of an offense we run. We have only a handful of plays, which are:
1. Pick and Roll (G and big man)
2. Martell-athon (running off screens)
3. Trout isolation play
4. Post-dump
5. Roy
And usually #5 is the play run when Roy brings the ball up (think late in games), so for the others he essentially has to know (1) either to set-up the screener or swing it to Bayless/Blake/Rudy, (2) look for Webby off picks or swing cross court for Bayless/Blake/Rudy to do the same, (3) get the ball to #25 (and spot up + get back on D), (4) throw a post entry pass or swing it to someone who can, or (5) keep the ball and TAKE OVER like has so many times in his young career already.
Anyway, I don’t see any reason why we can’t just pull a Suns and stick our best 5 out on the court because, if needed, I think Roy can give us 20 or so quality MPG at “PG”.
by Devenex on Aug 5, 2008 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fernandez
Opinions on Fernandez rate him as high as the 4th best rookie this year (ESPN) to the comment above. My take’s a little different. Initially, if he’s a solid off the bench contributor, then given we got him for the 25th pick – that’s a good deal. Secondly, I’m not yet willing to conclude that Roy, Bayless and Fernandez won’t stay together – given that Mac likes a three guard rotation. Frankly, we’ll just have to wait and see. We can hold and keep three solid guards, if we choose, after all. Further, if Fernandez can handle the NBA, then he’ll give us some matchup options that could be useful. In the end, the only opinion that really counts is not the commentators, its Mac and KP. And KP likes him – and so for, his judgement has been good.
In fact, if Bayless or Fernandez can be the complement to Roy, and the other becomes a solid bench contributor – then given we drafted one at 11 plus Diogu for 13 plus Jack, and the second at 25 – that’s good drafting. I don’t know where Diogu will go – but he may be as good off the bench at his poition as Jack is at his – or close, after all.
by Eben Calder on Aug 5, 2008 1:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
that is correct we wil have to wait and see
no telling but Im pretty sure KP isn’t the type of GM who just PICKS to make Picks.
Sophia
Leaders build cultures that create self-esteem, generate and sustain trust, elevate the dignity of work , create community and foster open communication, and finally encourage growth and learning.
-Warren Bennis USC Professor
That was a very hard winter,
and it was just like one long night,
with me lying awake, waiting and waiting and waiting
for daybreak.
- Black Elk
1881
by BlazerFan1 on Aug 5, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ideal backcourt
I always believed the bulls 96 backcourt with jordan, harper, and pippen should be the model. Three average to above average ball handlers with size. Sure it probably helped that two of the top 20 players of all time were in that backcourt, but I always thought teams focus too much having one really good ball handler rather than several proficient ball handlers.
With that in mind, maybe in a year or two fernandez, roy, and bayless could be our ideal combo and we wouldnt need a “true” PG.
by calebEOC on Aug 5, 2008 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A five-tool player in baseball
is a player who can hit for average, hit for power, run bases, throw, and field. In basketball, the five tools are scoring, rebounding, assists, steals and blocked shots, but those are just the skills that are recorded statistically. A complete list must include non-recorded skills such as passing, dribbling, setting screens and playing off them, taking charges, reading and reacting to defenses, speed (the ability to cover a lot of ground quickly, like on the fast-break), quickness (the ability to rapidly change direction), strength, leaping ability, leadership, and so on.
Brandon Roy may not yet be a five-tool player, but he definitely is a multi-faceted player who does a lot of things well. His best fit is at shooting guard, as Dave notes, but it’s his point-guard skills that make us speculate endlessly about who should play with him in the backcourt. Some of us want a pure point guard, some want a combo guard, and we have four guards so far to choose from: Blake, Rudy, Bayless, and Sergio. It’s hard to know what we’ve got because Rudy and Bayless have never played in the NBA and Sergio hasn’t played much. We’ll know more a year from now, but not as much as we’d like, because it takes time to learn to play point in the NBA, and their games will continue to develop for years.
So how does Nate and his staff decide? I think it will be the player who, like Roy, comes closest to being a five-tool player. I don’t think Nate reasons that just because Roy can do so many things well that they should be happy with a point guard who can’t play off the ball, and I don’t think he assumes that a player regarded as a combo guard shouldn’t be skilled at point guard duties. Players with multiple skills are a tremendous advantage to a coach and team. They can attack a lot of ways and they have fewer weaknesses for opponents to attack. That seems to be a core team development philosophy.
Looking at Blake, Rudy, Bayless, and Sergio (if he really lifts his game this year), the answer at point guard isn’t obvious right now. I just hope it will be soon, because as much fun as it has been to watch KP build this team, I’m reaching the point where I want to know who we’re going to go to war with, followed by the Buffet of Goodness stage where they start pummeling the rest of the league like this:
Asked his specialty in the kitchen, Oden paused and said, "Hamburger Helper and tuna fish."
by MiledAnimal on Aug 5, 2008 1:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
they both happy and docile
Leaders build cultures that create self-esteem, generate and sustain trust, elevate the dignity of work , create community and foster open communication, and finally encourage growth and learning.
-Warren Bennis USC Professor
That was a very hard winter,
and it was just like one long night,
with me lying awake, waiting and waiting and waiting
for daybreak.
- Black Elk
1881
by BlazerFan1 on Aug 5, 2008 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually in baseball running the bases and throwing are not well defined by statistics either.
In basketball it is ball-handling, shooting, rebounding, defense and passing and only shooting and rebounding are somewhat defined by statistics. Shooting mid-range and shooting distance are sub-definitions. Shot blocking, steals, lateral quickness, length, hand quickness and seeing the play develop are sub-definitions of defense. Offensive rebounding, defensive rebounding, blocking out, anticipating the trajectory and physicality are sub-definitions of rebounding. Assists, floor vision, reading the defense, outlet passing and reading one’s teammates are all sub-definitions of passing. Dribbling, creating one’s own shot, anticipating steal attempts, and precision are all sub-divisions of ball handling.
Sorry – I was having fine with these. My point is not to disagree that multi-dimensional players are more valuable. Only that we define what we can quantify and somewhat blurr the rest.
Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."
by lee3022 on Aug 5, 2008 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In defense of positions
A popular line (here and elsewhere) is “I don’t want to pigeonhole someone into a position.” With all due respect, positions are important. They allow people to have clearly defined roles and boundaries within the offense. They also allow multiple lineup combinations to run the same plays (no confusion if everyone knows what position they are playing). If you have two “playmakers” on the court, it allows them to co-exist if one of them knows that they are an “off-guard” or “shooting guard” rather than a “point.” If you don’t classify someone into a position, you run the risk of them being less effective and not knowing their role.
That isn’t to say that a point guard is always a 6’-2” quick guy who shoots 3s and passes. Scottie Pippen played a lot of point for the Blazers. However, within the offense they had it was still a clearly defined role. It wasn’t just that he happened to get the ball so he started the offense. They practiced that way.
So don’t say positions (and by extension, clearly defined roles) are overrated. They are very important.
by jamon51 on Aug 5, 2008 7:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ballad for the Combo Guard
Really interesting article on the subject: http://ballhype.com/story/ballad_for_the_combo_guard/
Roy isn’t mentioned (Blake briefly in a chart). But he makes the point that the major PG draft picks this year (Bayless, Mayo, Westbrook and even Rose) should be considered combo guards and that’s good the way it is.
Odenied: Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...
by Norsktroll on Aug 5, 2008 8:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
