The Truth about Truisms
by Dave on Jan 23, 2009 1:38 AM PST
Email
PrintDuring this mid-season mini-break I want to look at some of the truisms that have been repeated about the team during the first half of the year. These are the short, pithy sayings that have sprung up out of hope, despair, awe, or disappointment. I'm not saying everybody believes these, or even a majority of people. But they've been repeated enough to take on a life of their own. Some are from the very beginning of the season while others are of more recent vintage, but if you've been paying attention to the conversation surrounding the team this year you've heard them.
We're going to rate each truism on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the absolute, carved-in-stone truth and 1 being completely off-base.
Here we go.
1. Oden is a Bust
We got more of this early in the year than we do now but its shadows are still with us. Your opinion on this is largely a matter of expectations and perspective. For a highly-heralded #1 overall pick, taken in isolation without mitigating factors, you have to look askance at his game and contributions so far. His play can be described raw, tentative, foul-prone, occasionally slow, and frequently lost. However for a guy who spent one year in college, who sat out his first year in the pros with knee surgery, who is still recovering from that surgery, and who is playing against this caliber of competition for the first time in his career he's not looked that bad. He's averaging 8.4 points and 7.0 rebounds, and 1.1 blocks in 22.8 minutes. I'm not a huge proponent of using per-minute stats to extrapolate what a player would look like if you increased his time, but we're not talking some 5-minute-per-game borderline stiff here. Oden is playing real minutes against opposing starters and his playing time is limited more by fouls than any lack of contribution on his part or any shortcomings in his play which are suddenly going to show up more when he's playing longer. Even if he didn't increase his production at all he'd still be a pretty decent player at 40 minutes per game at the rate he's playing now. He's shooting 54% from the field. His offense is not going to get any more raw or awkward than this. He's not going to get any less aggressive on the boards. This is the low point of his production by far and he's still doing OK.
What people miss is that opponents have to react differently when Oden is on the floor than they do with any other center. They're not quailing when we're on defense as much as they eventually will but they know Oden is out there rebounding and they know he's a presence in the paint. They have to commit extra men to deny him the ball or to force it out of his hands when he catches it. Even the threat of that keeps their big defenders home. There's a reason Portland is third in the league at not getting their shots blocked. Only part of it is their offensive skills. The other part is having the opposing starting center occupied. Some of Oden's secondary effects are already in place and they're significant.
I have no quarrel with people who say they expected more from Oden at this point. I think Oden expected more from Oden at this point. It's completely understandable that the "more" isn't happening quite yet but that doesn't obscure the fact that it isn't there most nights. But the word "bust" has an intrinsic, ontological quality to it, implying no change is possible. As we've already seen progress from Oden in a short half-season, that's obviously an inaccurate descriptor. Odds are that within a calendar year the "Oden's a Bust" line will have disappeared entirely and we'll be hearing more and more frequently, "Oden's busting you up."
Truth Scale: 2
2. Travis Outlaw is having a bad season.
Now that Jarrett Jack is gone Outlaw has become the latest target for overstated dissatisfaction among Blazer fans. (They're liking Jack well enough in Indiana, by the way.)
On one side of the ledger you can point to Travis' shooting percentage, free throw percentage, free throws attempted, shots attempted, scoring, and rebounding all being down from last season even though he's playing virtually the same number of minutes. This hasn't been the break-out season that Outlaw fans were hoping for.
On the other hand Travis has been seeing many small-forward minutes. The basic duty of a Blazer small forward, at least the way the players are interpreting the position on the court, is to shoot weak-side threes. Travis worked on that shot this summer and has raised his three-point percentage almost 20 points while attempting 2.5 as many threes as last season (which was already double what he did the season before). He's a more dangerous offensive weapon now than he was last year even though he rarely puts his full repertoire into practice in a single game and thus doesn't threaten the opponent as much as he could.
Defensively Travis is having trouble most games but he's hardly alone among Portland's bench players in that aspect. Again the position change has something to do with it.
The verdict on Travis is that he's still Travis, for good or ill. As we pointed out in the podcast yesterday the issue with Travis is less what he's going to give you and more what you're potentially giving up by not playing someone else in his spot who is more consistent. Right now Portland doesn't really have that other player demanding minutes so Travis is the obvious choice. He still lights up plenty of games and has even won a couple for us. Whether that continues remains to be seen. In any case, even if you bundle all of the good and bad together you still don't come up with a guy who is losing us games or causing major problems. You may have a guy who doesn't win us enough games but that's a different truism...one which can be brought to bear against multiple players.
Truth Scale: 5
(If you want to talk about the other truism surrounding Travis, namely that he's not going to get that much better than he is right now, I'd put the truth scale around 7 for that one.)
3. Our real point guard is sitting on our bench or currently playing off-guard.
Steve Blake has put a big hole in the side of this truism simply by his competent, adaptable play so far this year. He may not be the long-term, iron-clad choice at starting point guard but at the very least he's pointed out a blueprint as to what that player needs: shooting range, defense, the ability to penetrate and pass or score without having to handle the ball every possession. Blake himself does not possess all of these qualities but he clearly embodies them more than any of the current Blazers who would be considered for the position.
After Blake everybody else has serious holes in their game. Sergio Rodriguez has the penetration and passing down but his shooting is nowhere near up to snuff nor are his defense and his ability to finish. Jerryd Bayless has the penetrate and score aspect and is starting to play well defensively but he doesn't have the steady shot either and he hasn't evidenced enough ability to run the offense. Rudy Fernandez is not a natural point guard and doesn't see the court well or finish when he's on the move. His ability to defend quick point guards would also be limited at this point. Brandon Roy simply can't pile that responsibility on top of all he already has and maintain his high production. He excels as a shooting guard who can pick and choose when to take over the ball and the game. He'd not be an ideal point guard, forced to manage the game at all times.
At some later point the question of our reserve guards can be revisited. Perhaps this will come as soon as the end of this season. More likely it'll be another year at least. But for now you have to say that Blake is the best point guard for this team and nobody is even close to supplanting him.
Truth Scale: 3
4. Rudy is God
The pre-season hype surrounding Rudy Fernandez was astonishing. It reached a crescendo in November when Rudy was tearing up the league with his shooting and alley-oop catches from Sergio Rodriguez. At that point there were whispers of Rudy the All-Star and open questions as to whether Rudy could supplant Brandon Roy, at least in certain facets of the game.
Then the league figured out how to guard him.
Fernandez is still a dangerous weapon and a player with a ton of promise. But his greatest strengths--outside shooting and moving without the ball--are being compensated for and he's not pulled enough out of his arsenal to compensate. He's not a legitimate threat off of the dribble, his defense is up and down, and he takes too many chances. None of this is unusual for a rookie. In fact he's a cut above most rookies in the maturity of his game. He's also a valuable member of this roster and deserving of every minute he gets. But he's not the Second Coming....yet. Inspirational and exciting, yes. But the true greatness hasn't arrived yet.
Truth Scale: 4
5. The offense is the key to the Blazers' resurgence
Portland has gained a lot of offensive talent this year, particularly in the backcourt. Brandon Roy is having his best offensive year ever while Lamarcus Aldridge continues his relatively strong production. As a team Portland has tacked 2.6 points onto their scoring average from last season which is a decent-sized jump. Most fan comments revolve around the offense and what we can do better. Nevertheless, offense isn't the sole reason we're winning more games. Major credit goes to our rebounding.
After years in the basement Portland is now among the top three rebounding teams in the league. Playing at a slower pace and valuing possessions as we do, rebounding is a huge key. Offensive rebounding gets us extra shots and scores. Defensive rebounding cuts down opponents' opportunities and allows us to control both ball and pace. Good rebounding keeps us in sub-standard games and allows us to dominate good ones. Without it we're probably 10 games farther back.
Truth Scale: 4
6. Nate is making all kinds of coaching blunders.
The complaints have been legion, particularly after losses. The substitution patterns aren't right. The defensive scheme is ineffective. Somebody else should have been guarding Opposing Player X. Why did Player Y take the critical shot? How many times are the Blazers going to lose because of Issue Z?
Obviously questioning the coach is part of the fun of fandom, but when you step back and look at it Nate has done one heck of a job this year. He's starting two rookies and playing two more in the rotation right now. Those are honest-to-goodness rookies...guys who never played a minute in the NBA until this year. He's played a ton of other guys with less that five years of experience. A fair number of things go wrong technically in a Blazers' game but compared to the number of total things that are happening the percentage is surprisingly small for that young of a team. It isn't like Total Recall where you can plant a chip in someone's head and have them pick up the lesson instantly. Repetition and hard knocks are the key. Usually that comes at a cost for the team. Ours has been surprisingly small. Most of our young guys play far better in far greater minutes than their counterparts on other teams. We don't have a single player who hasn't stepped up at one time or another, all without greatly disrupting the flow of our main guys. Frankly I'm amazed that it works this well. At least some of that is due to coaching.
Right now the Blazers have a 25-17 record for a .595 winning percentage. No matter how I wrap my mind around things, I have a hard time envisioning them winning more than that under any imaginable circumstances. For every game you can point to and say, "We should have won that one" there are two more we easily could have lost. This just isn't a 30-12 team yet. It may not even be a 25-17 team yet, but the coaches have them playing like one.
If Nate really is a horrible coach, it will eventually start showing up in wins and losses. Nobody gets lucky forever. If we're not winning more than 41 a couple years from now there's grist for the mill. But right now the mill door ain't even open.
Truth Scale: 1
7. This team just needs to stand pat at the trading deadline and maybe even this summer.
Making the wrong move can have devastating consequences but so can not making the right move when you have the chance. The Blazers have a couple chances that are not going to be repeated soon: the expiring contract of Raef LaFrentz and, depending on what happens there, some free cap space this summer. This team also has excess players at power forward, point guard, and perhaps small forward depending on how you classify Travis. They have an overabundance of youth and a lack of straight-up defense, intensity, toughness, and experience. They have too many players who excel in certain areas but are limited in others, perhaps also a function of youth. They are on schedule to make the playoffs this year and the timetable calls for them to start competing in those playoffs next year. All of those things point to some kind of move. We're unlikely to see a sweeping roster overhaul. We may not even import a single name that the casual fan would recognize. But at least one important move is going to happen in the next ten months. That move is going to set the tone for our first few years of contention. Only Kevin Pritchard knows what it's going to be but it's going to happen and it needs to happen.
This does not invalidate the fact that Portland has a great roster with which it can prosper right now. But the Blazers have to have an eye on more than right now.
Truth Scale: 3
Go ahead and name and evaluate other truisms if you wish. I guess I didn't really identify any of the ones that ended up high on the truth scale, but maybe that's because those are more self-evident and thus get mentioned less.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
86 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think you're underestimating a lot of these conclusions people are coming to.
After all, these things don’t get started on there own. And for the most part, as the season has worn on, multiple things on your list have become more and more apparent as the season has progressed. Not acknowledging any of Nate’s “blunders” as coach is just as foolish as looking too much into them.
The same thing is true for not acknowledging how much more important our future is than our present, and how that plays into our current point guard predicament.
I also think you’re not giving our offense enough credit. We’re a completely revamped team on that end, not where we should end up, but we’re well on our way on that end, and mainly we’re just looking for individual players, particularly young ones to improve.
I agree with you on the trading front. Its become more apparent as the year has gone on, along with the Miles situation, that we may be able to get the most out of a couple of our assets now. I disagree with any notion that we should sell out a lot of our talent for a single additional win this year. I’ll sell you 5 wins this year for 3 more next year and 2 the year after that…. sold?
disagree
Dave is asking you to step back and look at the overall picture. Sure, you can point out something that was wrong about a specific play. But you could do the same with game film of Vince Lombardi, Red Aurbach, Phil Jackson, whoever. Coaches can’t be 100% perfect. You have to look at the big picture.
If you are suggesting that Nate is doing something wrong on a repeated basis and not correcting it (in the way of defensive scheming or whatever), then we are forced to presume that your alternative would be better. We have to rely on your credentials as somebody who I’m sure has watched a lot of basketball for many years and reject the judgment of Nate, who has played or coached basketball his entire life and spends a lot of time watching field and strategizing with other basketball coach with higher credentials than you. Let’s just say it’s a tough sell.
by Bust a Bucket on Jan 23, 2009 2:03 AM PST up reply actions 8 recs
Be more specific
You seem to disagree with Dave’s point about Nate, but you barely give your reasons why.
Also Dave wasn’t dissing the offense he was just saying that too many people just seem to focus on that part and not the rebounding.
You seemed to have missed the point entirely.
by neutroticblazerfan on Jan 23, 2009 2:16 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
So 60% of what Dave said is wrong?
Nate is doing an amazing job. Rookies simply don’t belong in starting lineup on elite teams.
Top 11 records in the league:
Lakers- Zero rookies in the starting lineup.
Celtics- Zero rookies in the starting lineup.
Cavaliers- Zero rookies in the staring lineup
Magic- Zero rookies in the starting lineup.
Hornets- Zero rookies in the starting lineup.
Nuggets- Zero rookies in the staring lineup.
Hawks- Zero rookies in the starting lineup.
Pistons- Zero rookies in the starting lineup.
Rockets- Zero rookies in the starting lineup.
Spurs- Zero Rookies in the starting lineup.
Blazers- Two rookies in the starting lineup. (plus two rookies in the second unit)
It’s nothing short of a miracle that we have any sort of decent record right now.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2009 2:38 AM PST up reply actions 11 recs
thanks for the factoid
Not sure what this translates to at the end of the day but it is interesting nonetheless.
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."
Add to that
the fact Rudy (not nyour typical rookie, but stiull new to the NBA game) and Bayless are major options off the bench right now and this is a decidedly green roster. Rec’d
Jerryd Bayless = Marlo Stanfield
- Early stage Marlo at this point, but Bayless is the emotionless killer new to the game. He will take over, and there will be causalties – it’s just a matter of time.
by blazeraddict on Jan 23, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions
Why?!?!?!?!?!?????
I was so close. I guess my truth scale is 9.09 out of 11.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
How in the heck does this get rec'd?
For one, its factually wrong. Second, it contradicts itself. Nate is doing an amazing job, and rookies don’t belong in starting lineups occur in back to back sentences. Guess who is doing the starting of those rookies? Nate. We have perfectly viable options for both C and SF positions that are veterans. So you’re both praising Nate for doing so well with rookies and saying that rookies don’t belong in starting lineups. You need to go back and take a class in reasoning and logic 101.
oy, yoy, yoy
He’s saying the proof of Nate’s excellant coaching is that he can have a team with two rookies starting and two more getting significant minutes and still have them in playoff position. Coaching is much more than deciding who plays when. Recognizing that the team is better off having the two viable veteran options come in with the 2nd unit is part of the good job he’s doing. Maybe a course in advanced logic is called for.
Spanish Main: The point of departure for enormous wealth in the form of gold, silver, gems, spices, hardwoods, hides, alley-oops, assists and three pointers.
That's what you're saying now...
not what he said at all. He pointed out how rookies don’t start elsewhere because
Rookies simply don’t belong in starting lineup on elite teams.
. If that is true than Nate is making a mistake starting rookies over veterans. The problem with our record proving anything at all, as far as playing rookies is concerned is that along with the fact that they’re rookies, they’re also among the most talented players overall in the league. If you’re going to take the value of one, you have to give up the value on the other. Nate has made plenty of mistakes this year, including starting Sergio the last week. I’m one of Sergio’s biggest fans, but starting him now is a big time mistake. He doesn’t fit on that first unit, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that. Nate also blew a bunch of decisions early on messing with our lineup. He also plays too slow a pace, and forces even our second unit into that pace, when the players on that unit aren’t designed to maximize that kind of system. Point being, there are plenty of reasons Nate deserves criticism, which is why Dave’s rating of Nate being a 1 is ridiculous. We have a better roster than we do a coach.
If the "truism" was rephrased, it would have been different.
If the truism was “Nate has never proven himself to be an effective defensive coach”, which is what people actually have discussed about Nate, that could NOT be a 1. The stats alone back up that assertion.
But Dave specifically said that Nate makes “tons of blunders”. It’s funny, because I almost never actually see anyone say that about Nate, so I’m not sure how it’s a Truism. So almost by definition, it’s a 1 because nobody believes it to begin with. (It’s not like it was a 1-10 scale of “number of blunders”, which would have to be above 1. It’s a scale of whether he makes “tons of blunders”, which nobody really thinks, so that IS a 1.)
It’s all about the phrasing.
So...
those people who write “Fire Nate” posts or who think we’d be better off with another guy or who opine that Nate can’t lead us to the Promised Land are reaching those conclusions based on occasional, non-systemic blunders?
—Dave
Well to be fair, the "keep nate" posts way outnumber the "fire nate" posts.
Of the last 125 fanposts here (10 days, I was working quickly), there have been 6 posts kind of about Nate. 3 positive ones, for a combined 25 recs, 2 about the pick/roll, for a combined 8 recs (4 apiece), and 1 sarcastic “fire nate” post, which made fun of anyone who dared complain about him.
But when you read through the negative comments in the Nate, the complaints are almost always similar:
- Nate’s defensive coaching legend isn’t borne out in numbers.
- Nate gets a hot player then sits him for a quarter. (I personally think this is more rare these days)
- Nate has “favorite” (usually listed as Jarrett Jack or Travis Outlaw) or “least favorite players” (usually Sergio, or Joel last year)
- Nate says he wants the team to up their pace, but historic statistics say he’s always coached a slow pace, and this team’s pace is slow again even though they’re young and fast.
- There’s frustration about the pick/roll on both offense and defense.
- Nate seems to be a great players’ coach but his gametime decisions are questioned.
- People give Nate credit for KP’s work.
Note that any people who are unhappy with Nate seem to complain about one or two of these, but not all. Personally, I think some of these are overblown.
But it’s just a few examples of the legitimate topics that come up in Nate threads. None of these were mentioned as truisms. Instead, Nate’s performance was listed as “people say Nate makes a lot of blunders”, then give it a number 1, then next topic. Nate’s performance is more complicated than just saying he’s doesn’t make tons of blunders, so ignore the critics.
Heck, I’ve gone on record as saying Nate is average at best, but even I’d rate the stated truism about Nate as a 1. Because it’s not true, he doesn’t make tons of blunders. But he’s far from perfect, and it needs to be ok to talk about his downsides, and not dismiss them with terms like “critics say he makes tons of blunders”.
Systemic mistakes in Nate’s system does not equal “lots of blunders”. I personally felt that was a mistaken phrase, and made it an easy “1” instead of inviting real conversation about his performance.
All IMO of course. I love the post, I just felt the Nate portion was dismissive of criticism about him.
Oh btw I'm cool if you wanted to discuss offline. :)
I just started typing stream-of-thought above. :)
I sense rec envy.
I did mess up on Orlando. They have one rookie in the starting lineup. Half as many as Portland.
Rookies don’t belong in the starting lineup on ELITE TEAMS. Teams that are rebuilding must play rookies in order to be competitive in the future. Our roster is not built to be an elite team. We have too many rookies and not enough defenders. Yet Nate has somehow taken that roster and turned it into a top ten team. That is nothing short of amazing.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2009 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
When my posts get rec'd they've earned it
I have a hard time calling it amazing given our overall talent level. We have more talent than any team in the league. So for whatever credit you give him for winning with youth, you have to also acknowledge he’s been given at least that much more talent to work with. Do you really think we have a better coach than roster? I don’t even think its arguable. We are top 5 in overall talent, and I could name 5 coaches I’d rather have without even thinking about it.
Relax, I was just kidding.
We have more talent than any team in the league.
Not really. All things considered the Lakers, Celtics,and Cavaliers all have more talented rosters. The Blazers talent is all wrapped up in potential and half of it isn’t even realized yet. Brandon is the only player who has played at a consistent all star level.
And yes, I do think we have a better coach than roster.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions
Truth Scale of this Truth Scale: 9.5
I would go down the list and put my own numbers on it, but I can’t really disagree with any of Dave’s analysis. He really took off the homer-colored glasses, stashed the haterade in the wine celler, and laid down a completely objective analysis of these hot button issues.
The only one I might quivel on is the last:
7. This team just needs to stand pat at the trading deadline and maybe even this summer.
Truth Scale: 1
I think there is has to be some movement and consolidation at the PG and probably the SF positions. If we stand pat through the start of next season, there will be some guys pissed off (out of Blake/Sergio/Bayless and Batum/Webster/Outlaw) and cheap talent wasted.
by Bust a Bucket on Jan 23, 2009 1:52 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
This was the only one I might have quibbled on.
But then Dave put it as something that might happen in the next 10 months. The longer timeline made it easier to accept. Had the truism been “Portland has to make a deal before this year’s trade deadline”, I would have it at a 2 or 3.
As it is, I might up Dave’s number to a 4 or 5, but that is, as I said, quibbling.
hakkaa päälle !
i agree
i would love to see this team consolidated. Im tired of hearing the arguments about who should get playing time, who should start ect.
by blazerchamp on Jan 23, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
Blazers' similarity to Dick Cheney
They want to do what they want to do, and all the commentary about what they are doing is not going to affect their thinking on the matter.
Arguments about playing time are not going to stop ever. People used to argue that Pete Verhoeven should have played more than he did – but if you ever saw him play . . . !!!
Blazer fans (especially we homers) are passionate about the team, right down to who makes the squad as the 12th man – and nowadays, even beyond that. – Elgin
I get what I deserve. I deserve what I get. I have it so I deserve it. I deserve
it for I have it. I get what I deserve. What I deserve - what I deserve what
I get. I have it so I deserve. - Gentle Giant
I saw him dominate in person !
Of course it was in pre-game warmups.
Go Pete !!
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Jan 23, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Dave,
you deserve a thousand recs for this.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 23, 2009 2:40 AM PST reply actions
fo sho
6. Nate is making all kinds of coaching blunders. Truth Scale: 1
I love that line so much. The Truth Scale on Dave’s ripping of that myth is 10/10 awesomeness.
"What's that, some kind of hamburger?"
--Bo Outlaw on being asked how he felt about recording his first triple double.
by prezofdeath on Jan 23, 2009 3:18 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Solid
Your analysis of the Nate truism is right on. I’ve been taking my friends to task on this all year, and Nate continues to prove me right with wins and an always improving team.
You judge the talent of the team based on the choices of the GM, and you judge a coach based on the improvement of the team. Portland continues to improve and develop. Why would you sack a coach who is bringing you the kind of results we have seen with Portland?
Nate was given the talent and youth of a 20-25 win team a few years ago. He’s taken a lot of the same players and developed them into a 40+ win team. It’s up to the GM to continue to add the appropriate talent to the team to push it even further… and Nate has done his job of coaching and developing. I really don’t think you can ask for anything more from a coach.
So you're saying
he’s Brandon Roy’s son?
by Bust a Bucket on Jan 23, 2009 4:32 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I see a pointy tail
coming out of Kxbe’s drawers. – Elgin
I get what I deserve. I deserve what I get. I have it so I deserve it. I deserve
it for I have it. I get what I deserve. What I deserve - what I deserve what
I get. I have it so I deserve. - Gentle Giant
My only disagreement is with Travis
I don’t see that much regression in his game – in fact, I don’t see his game has changed that much at all. Which is a little depressing.
I am also amazed at the run we are getting out of our rookies. I totaled the league-wide numbers at work the other day. The numbers are not in front of me, but I think we are giving rookies some 75 minutes per game at of the total of 240 player minutes. One team had more (was it Memphis? they just fired the coach).
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
The thing about Memphis' rookies
is that they are Darrell Arthur, OJ Mayo and Marc Gasol.
I guess the same could be said of our B-rex, Rudy, GO triumvirate, though.
by Montavilla Steve on Jan 23, 2009 8:20 AM PST up reply actions
Another supposed truism: Bayless will never be a true point guard
I see this all the time. The guy has one year of college experience and 260 minutes of NBA experience, but people already want to pigeonhole him. My understanding is that he was sort of forced to play SG at Arizona because that’s how the team fit best, not because it was his natural position. Right now, he’s best at getting the ball to the hoop, but with more time to learn the offense and develop his passing skills, I think he could be a “true” PG.
Truth Scale: 3
by driver8x on Jan 23, 2009 5:33 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
That's a good one. here are plenty more
The Blazers are sub-part at guarding the P&R
LMA is soft
Outlaw has a low BBIQ
Rudy can dunk :)
Greg can shoot free throws
OK now i’m really reaching. Love to see you tackle those ones Dave!
Here goes!
The Blazers are sub-part at guarding the P&R: 7/10- They’re not God awful like we like to say on the forums, but they do get burned by it a lot. (Hence the 20ish ranking for defense.)
LMA is soft: 2/10- He prefers the jumper yes, but he also offensive fouls to crap out of people. Guys who are soft don’t do that!
Outlaw has a low BBIQ: 8/10- He really does. Knocked off 2 points because some people put him at a Forrest Gump level of int.
Rudy can dunk :): 10/10- He can, he has showed us he can.
Greg can shoot free throws: 7/10- We’ve seen him go on nice stretches, but we’ve seen him miss a lot. He’s never going to be an 85% shooter, but next year he’ll be in the 70s NP.
-1
for mentioning BBIQ
-1 for applying it to Outlaw
Total: -2 Love, – Elgin
I get what I deserve. I deserve what I get. I have it so I deserve it. I deserve
it for I have it. I get what I deserve. What I deserve - what I deserve what
I get. I have it so I deserve. - Gentle Giant
about the same as last year
on a team that is a little bit stronger, so he’s not as visible this year (in a favorable light) as he was last year.
So – less good visibility = more bad visibility even though he’s about the same as last year. – Elgin
I get what I deserve. I deserve what I get. I have it so I deserve it. I deserve
it for I have it. I get what I deserve. What I deserve - what I deserve what
I get. I have it so I deserve. - Gentle Giant
Martell Webster is the small forward of our future once he comes back from injury
Truth Scale: 4-5
This ties in with “this team needs to stand pat”. I think he is in our mid to long-term plans and his skills fit well on this team and the role of the SF in Nate’s playbook as currently constructed, namely standing around on the perimeter and taking open shots. But he is more one-dimensional than even the current version of Nic, much less other great forwards around the league. People criticize Travis for his dribbling and driving to the rim, but Martell is not better at that. And once he encounters heavy traffic, he can’t just turn on a dime and rise up to create his own shot like Travis. He also is not the rebounding and defensive presence that Nic already is respectively will become rather shortly. He will become better and it’s way too early to give up on him, but you are fooling yourself if you think Martell will be exponentially better than last season once he returns from injury – even if he gets back to full form quick which is no guarantee (see Josh Howard, who had a milder foot injury this season). He looked good in pre-season, and he seemed to have an understanding how to play with Rudy and benefit from his passes. I don’t think the Blazers are looking to trade him, also because Travis has the higher value around the league, but that he got an extension doesn’t mean he is the guy they are pinning all hopes on.
Truth scale - Batum (Reb + D< 3M)
Truth scale : 4
Martell was an effective and improving rebounder,
and had improved on D from 06-07 to 07-08. The
standing around on the perimeter and taking open
shot is a gross oversimplification of Martell’s contributions.
He was attacking the basket with much more frequency,
rebounding aggressively (from the standing around position ?)
and playing defense with strength and aggressiveness.
My problem with most fan comments is they tend to forget
a player’s contributions and abilities if the player hasn’t played
in a while. Batuuuuum has some inate talents (Length, fluid
movement, good D), but he has had a lot of games where he
scored two points and no rebounds, basically disappearing.
He has a ton of potential, like Martell, but to compare him to
Tayshawn Prince is a 1.5 on the truth scale. He’s good on offense
in the open court, has hit some key 3’s, played well in one
on one D and very well in open court D. In my opinion, Martell is
the more well rounded player with unlimited potential (especially
on offense) and a strong NBA body suited for the grind of the season.
Can both players be valuable to the Blazers ? Of course. Match-ups
always change and injuries occur on a weekly basis. Get well Martell,
and show them what we have been missing !
It's GO time !
FYI, the comment box does word-wrap comments.
You don’t have to hit the Enter key each time a sentence reaches the scroll bar.
Cool post Dave
Oden’s only a bust in the sense that so far he’s been a shell of the player that we expected. But you have to keep in mind that he’s a rookie coming off major knee surgery. My biggest worry about Oden is his apparent lack of burning desire to compete. When things aren’t going his way, he mopes around a lot. You don’t see players like Kobe, KG, Brandon moping very often, you see them channel their frustration into getting even. I’ve only seen that from Oden a couple games so far.
In year six of his career, Travis is who he is. You either want that or you don’t. Not a lot of championship contending teams have guys playing major roles who make frequent bonehead mistakes though, I’ll tell you that. Look at the Lakers, where’s their dumb guy? The Spurs? The Celtics? I can’t think of a guy equivalent to Travis mentally on any of those teams. And it’s nothing personal against Travis, but the hoops IQ just isn’t there.
And you might be right that Blake is the best PG today, but the guy getting the most minutes behind him should be Bayless. We could have a decent argument about Sergio’s offensive talents, but he’ll always be a liability on defense because he’s too small.
Blazer Fan
Mostly agree
Although the Lakers do have their own “dumb guy”: Odom. Read the last game preview the Lakers blog gave us, the author complained about his perceived “low basketball IQ”. And it’s fairly easy to see: Dribbling the ball inbounds and passing to a ref are just the highlights of a long list of not very smart moves.
And Kobe is moping often: Wanting to get traded, complaining about teammates on the floor (finals) and during the off-season (Bynum), and so on. Greg is hard on himself, but you don’t hear him say “Channing is not good” or “Nobody passes me the ball where I need it.”
http://38pitches.com/2008/06/09/manny-jd-papi-lester-and-the-nba-finals/
I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other on or about him [Kobe] other than to know that people feel he might be one of the 4-5 greatest players to ever lace it up. What I do know is what I got to see up close and hear, was unexpected. From the first tip until about 4 minutes left in the game I saw and heard this guy bitch at his teammates. Every TO he came to the bench pissed, and a few of them he went to other guys and yelled about something they weren’t doing, or something they did wrong. No dialog about “hey let’s go, let’s get after it” or whatever. He spent the better part of 3.5 quarters pissed off and ranting at the non-execution or lack of, of his team. Then when they made what almost was a historic run in the 4th, during a TO, he got down on the floor and basically said ‘Let’s f’ing go, right now, right here" or something to that affect. I am not making this observation in a good or bad way, I have no idea how the guys in the NBA play or do things like this, but I thought it was a fascinating bit of insight for me to watch someone in another sport who is in the position of a team leader and how he interacted with his team and teammates.
Common knowledge
That Kobe is an awful teammate. How many GOOD teammates would run the best player in the post Jordan era out of town just because he wants to be the star. Also, how many GOOD teammates would forfeit an NBA finals because he wants the MVP?
Aldridge
hey dave, you left out aldridge and the statements of soft, weak, bad for our team ( or some such summary promoting trading this two year player. (half a year, full year, and half a year)
I was hoping for your take on this as well.
I appreciate the comments on Nate. I now ignore all the Nate bashing because it’s been going on for two years now, and frankly it’s silly. I blame players who don’t follow nate’s plan, or don’t have the abilities yet to do so more than I do Nate most of the time. Frankly I’m amazed at how harsh Blazer fans are towards this team, and honestly that includes myself too.
I had high expectations to begin the season. We will probably make my 48-52 win prediction (52 NO injuries and 48 with minor dings). So, that’s one aspect of my expectations. the other aspect is that the team would continue from where they left off last year and have grown in their offensive and defensive capabilities out of the gate. That didn’t happen. Guys have been out of position, guys haven’t consistently directed the offense of other teams into our teammates or out of bounds. they haven’t controlled the floor. They hesitate on some shots, passing up wide open ones.
These things have irked me. Yes I know we have four rookies and three of them are playing semi-decent minutes. It’s still frustrating to me based on my expectations. I haven’t been able to reset that yet so I’ve take a break from watching the Blazers because I KNOW I’m being unreasonable.
My other expectation issue was Oden. Oden is actually doing what I expected… BEFORE Blazer management started talking him up like crazy. Frankly, Frye gave us the most honest report on Greg.
Frye was being interviewed in preseason and mentioned that Oden was the strongest guy that he’s played against. When asked if Oden was ready to dominate, Frye paused a second and said something along the lines that Oden had a lot of rust to work off but he was going to be good.
Blazer management on the other hand issued comments like “He does things I’ve never seen before.” Of course, we all assumed those were good things. Maybe they weren’t because I certainly haven’t seen anything unusual yet other than a rookie big man struggling. My point being that Management raised number 1 draft returning expectations so high that people expected the second coming of Shaq THIS YEAR. When Shaq didn’t arrive this season, people grumbled. Greg WAS underwhelming because Blazer management helped raise already high expectations. When I back away from that and back to my old expectations, I’m very happy with Oden.
My point being, that Blazer fans have high expectations. Those high expectations probably sour the taste in some of our mouths (mine included) because they’re unreasonable given the current make up of the team. IF webster had been healthy, maybe that defense would be better set. maybe that offense would run smoother. Maybe we’d have won a couple more games we could have/should have.
There are people who are knocking a YOUNG team. I think those people (again, myself included) should step back and look at the bigger picture. Are we on track to meet those expected win totals? Have we beaten some of the best teams in the league? (Boston yes, LA and Cleveland no, Spurs yes, Pistons yes, Suns yes)
This team is impressive when you look at other young teams. It’s impressive because of the character of people upper management brought in. It’s impressive because of the quality of players it’s brought in. It’s impressive because of the unselfishness that Nate has been able to instill in the players. It’s impressive because of the team gelling that’s been taking place. It’s impressive because we were the third youngest team in league history and we beat the other two by 23 or so wins (41 wins compared to 18ish). We’re the second youngest team this year, but I’m fairly certain we’re the youngest when you look at minutes played. Seriously, could a team GET much younger? We’re winning, a lot. We’re winning enough to be in the play-offs and if you’re stepping back and looking at that big picture, it’s a amazing. We’re winning not just at home, but on the road.
This is why I’ve stepped back. My expectations haven’t reset yet on the little stuff, but the big stuff the blazers are simply doing amazing.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
Couldn't agree more on this point:
Brandon Roy simply can’t pile that responsibility on top of all he already has and maintain his high production. He excels as a shooting guard who can pick and choose when to take over the ball and the game. He’d not be an ideal point guard, forced to manage the game at all times.
I don’t think our starting pg is on this team right now. I am not a fan of the whole get a combo guard that scores and let Roy run the offense thing. It just puts way too much responsibility on Roy and does nothing remedy the problem of depending on Roy a little too much.
I also think the move KP makes in the next year will be to get a good starting pg. Blake would be a nice backup and would be fully capable of filling in the starting spot should it become necessary. I think a likely candidate is still HInirich if KP goes with a trade, and Mike Bibby is very intriguing if he opts to wait until free agency. Either way, I bet the starting pg come next season is not currently wearing a Blazers uniform….
RUDY > MJ
PG hate?
Blake- We do have one of the most efficient offenses in the NBA. Yeah, Blake can’t get to the hoop as well as some, but he’s doing something right. His defense is suspect, but gets overblown at times because he’s probably 15-20 in terms of starting PGs in that area. Not good, but not terrible.
Sergio- Has looked fine running the offense. His man to man defense on Mo Williams was damn good, he just lost him too often on switches. Turns out he doesn’t need Rudy to run the Portland offense. Just needs to work on his shooting and defense.
Bayless- Can still hopefully become a PG. I haven’t seen it yet, but I’d also given up on Blake 2 years ago, so we’ll see how it works out.
Gerald Wallace
The Blazers will be better now and 3-5 years in the future if we trade RLEC, Outlaw and Sergio for Gerald Wallace. Truthism score 9/10.
I was wondering when JC and or Quick would be mentioned.
For me, “Canzano is a tool” would be 3. He’s a columnist for heaven’s sake. His job description says be provocative and state opinions, with the intention of getting people to love or hate you, but never be indifferent. To that I say Mission Accomplished.
“Quick is a tool” would be a 1. No one gets the inside scoop like he does. He’s plugged into this team like few other writers are around the league. So did anyone else read with borderline amazement his article on how the Blazers defend the pick and roll? Nate explained his entire defesive philosophy and scheme. Coaches rarely open up like that to writers. Quick has the respect of team members and coaches, or he wouldn’t get the inside scoops he does….yet he appears unafraid of making strong statements. And whe he does, it does not appear to affect his standing with those same players and coaches…..and THAT is incredibly rare.
by antediluvian on Jan 23, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
if I'm reading you correctly:
The job of a columnist is to be a tool.
Canzano is a good columnist (“Mission Accomplished”).
Ergo, Canzano is a tool.
Truth Scale: 11
Maybe we have different definitions of tool....
My interpretation was that is was a negative thing. I think Canzano does a good job. His writing is good (and yes, that is a difficult skill), and frankly he helped lead the charge against Whitsitt and then Paterson. He says exactly what he thinks…..whether everyone agrees or not. I don;t think that’s being a tool…..I think it’s being a good columnist.
by antediluvian on Jan 23, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
no, we have the same definitions
We’re getting into differences in taste here, so I’ll be brief. Writing is indeed a difficult skill, thanks for that (I do some freelance writing here and there). I feel like I have enough training, education, and experience to say confidently that Canzano is not a good writer. Whether or not he’s a good columnist isn’t my concern—as I mentioned above, I think the majority of columnists across the board are tools and mostly exist to get a rise out of their readers. I prefer to read articles that actually have something factual or insightful to say, though again, that’s personal preference. Canzano himself has said that fact-checking is important to journalists, not columnists. This is why I consider most columnists to be a waste of my time. Are you a good columnist? Then congratulations; you have proven yourself to be really good at being a tool. And as I recall, Canzano is an award-winning columnist.
He really said that about fact-checking?
Why didn’t he just say, “I’m a hack?” That’s really embarrassing. Good columnists are also journalists. Failing to maintain the minimum standards of journalism just marks you as lazy, incompetent, & unprofessional. I.e., a hack.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Rudy lacks court vision?
I do have to question that one. You also fail to mention his passing ability, except perhaps in the negative—when you say he takes too many chances. Of course Rudy isn’t a natural point guard—no question there. He isn’t God either. But he often anticipates things happening on the court a play before anyone else does. That suggests he has excellent court vision.
As for taking too many chances, there’s a risk/reward calculation there. Great passers always make some turnovers—just look at Steve Nash. This is compounded when teammates aren’t yet adapted to playing with said great passer. Remember that great inbounds pass to Roy, when Rudy had to actually pantomime for Brandon what he was about to do? When Rudy’s Blazer teammates learn when and how to expect passes from Rudy, he’ll suddenly be much more efficient. Then everyone will proclaim how he’s improved.
BTW, this also applies to Greg Oden. When his teammates learn how to get him the ball when he’s open and ready, his numbers will shoot up and everyone will comment on his improvement. Sure, Rudy and GO need to get used to the league and their new teammates. But basketball is a TEAM GAME, and a lot of the stuggles on the part of both these rookies are due to their teammates needing to get used to THEM.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Didn't say Rudy lacked court vision
He actually sees the floor very well. It’s one of his great strengths. I said Rudy doesn’t see the floor as well when he’s on the move. A point guard has to create both passes and shots off of the dribble a lot. Rudy is struggling with the shot aspect and I can’t remember many times he created a decisive pass off the dribble. That would seriously hamper any efforts to make him the point guard right now.
—Dave
I thought that might be what you meant
Even at that, I can’t say I completely agree. Yes, Rudy’s struggled when put in the “creator” role, and I see that’s your primary point. But It appears to me that Rudy’s court vision is excellent, period. And I strongly suspect that Rudy would be more effective creating off the dribble if his teammates understood how to play off of him. It’s analogous to judging a jazz musician by how he performs when stuck with a group of classical musicians.
Put Rudy with that Spanish team—who know his game and share his intuitive, improvisatory ability—and you see a different Rudy. Even adding ONE like-minded player—Sergio—brings out so much in Rudy. In time, Rudy’s new teammates will get the hang of playing with him and vice versa. For now, I’d keep an open mind regarding Rudy’s abilities. He’s not God; he’s not even a point guard. But I think he’s a much better and more multi-dimensional player than we’ve seen so far. And what we’ve seen so far ain’t bad!
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I think what Rudy actually lacks is the knowledge of the game´s tempo which point-guards do have.
He´s more used to play close to the end of possessions.
Sergio + Rudy = 16
Sergio + Bayless = 16
Batum 8+8=16
Re: Oden
Oden has been talked about so much, I am surprised that I am going to add to that discussion. But, how much of Oden’s productivity has been affected by the context of this team? How different would his numbers be on a different team? I think context is often overlooked. I think the team is doing relatively little to help Oden “perform like a number one pick.” The team is nice to him and tries to take the pressure off of him, but not much else about this team is designed to help him flourish.
Here’s a kinda a fun counterfactual —> what would Oden’s production look like if he played for the Thunder (and Durant were on the Blazers?)
1) He’d get more offensive touches. (++)
2) He’d have more plays designed to take advantage of his offensive strengths. (this can be more easily ignored on the Blazers with all of the other offensive weapons). (+)
3) He’d face more/quicker double teams (-)
4) He’d probably see more misses by his own team and get more offensive rebounds (+)
5) He’d probably see fewer misses by opponents (but not a lot) and get fewer defensive rebounds.
6) He’d play at a faster pace so all of his stats would be better, if he didn’t foul out (+).
7) He’d probably be told/coached to play LESS aggressive defense and foul less because the team absolute must have him in the game to compete (+).
8) He might play a different defensive schemes on the pick and roll and see less dribble penetration, but teams might attack him even more (?)
In some, if he played for the Sonics he’d be averaging 13.7 points 9.6 rebounds per game!
by PoliSam on Jan 23, 2009 10:42 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Why is Oden even on this poll?
Early in the season you never would have considered doing something like this and you where all Pryz haters. Now that has completely flip-flopped. Your hitting Oden below the belt!
You're right that most people fail to look at GO's "context"
As I keep pointing out at this site, basketball is a team game. GO is often open—especially when cutting to the hoop after setting picks—but his new teammates haven’t learned to get him the ball when he can do something with it.
Your points regarding what GO’s stats might look like with the Thunder seem valid to me. But I think it’s more interesting to ask what GO’s production would look like if he played for the New Orleans Hornets. You know all those alley-oop passes from Chris Paul that Tyson Chandler converts? Do you really think GO couldn’t do the same? That’s another 10 ppg or so that you could add to GO’s stat column. All of a sudden—even with the foul woes—GO is averaging 18 & 7 on a contender, and therefore is a strong rookie-of-the-year candidate.
What a difference “context” makes.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Jan 23, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
David Thorpe said if the Blazers had picked Durant
…they would be one of the four best teams in the league, right now.
I don’t buy it. But my heart sinks a little when I see Durant scoring 46 points in a game, for instance. Of course, my heart lifts when I see that it’s against Golden State, and they only won with a miracle finish.
Here’s the remedy: for several reasons, the Blazers need to demolish the Durant team (I won’t even say their name). Demolish as in..“.crush their will to play another game and return to their desolate home.”
This is the best post on this site since...
I don’t know when – but I really enjoy reading this post and comments.
Truism #8: Aldridge is an All Star
All year long people have been saying it, and we all hope for it. We want for LMA to be there right now. He scores 20+ in a few games, plays tough defense, rebounds and blocks shots. The local announcers talk about it. The national press gives it lip service. The All Star voting maddeningly discounts it. We see the potential and we can’t want for the day…
But it’s still potential, he’s not there yet. When he drops a bigtime performance in a big nationally-televised playoff game, then he will be on the glide path toward the All Star game, but not this year.
Truth Scale: 3
Travesty Outlaw
Travis is a good player, don’t get me wrong. But his mistakes are outweighing his worth. He is the new Jack. I remember the moment I decided it was time to trade Jack. We were playing Denver in the double over time game when he tried a no-look behind the back pass and it went straight into the hands of Denver, essentially losing the game.
I had this same realization with Travis during the Orlando game. We finally get close and what does he do? Jacks up a terrible jumper with no time left on the shot clock. It’s happened time and time again that in the most clutch moments he’s given up the ball, blown a defensive assignment, etc.
I like the guy, but not on this team. If you honestly believe he’s the best player we could possibly have and we couldn’t get anyone better in a trade, your opinion is wrong. You clearly know nothing about anything ever and need to review your basic motor skills and soul-search as a human being. Or just become a soccer fan.
Life is hilarious.
Travis
is considered by many as being the 6th man of the year. Gary Payton mentioned that the other night. Go ahead and trade him. He’ll be like Jermaine O’Neal. Everyone will be thinking that we invested six years in bringing him along and he’s somewhere else lighting everyone up.
by toolman on Jan 23, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Jermaine
1. We didn’t give Jermaine 6 years
2. We didn’t give Jermaine playing time
3. Jermaine was obviously improving, the coaches just ignored it
4. Outlaw won’t ever become an All-Star caliber player
5. I am still glad we traded Jermaine because he’s a punk.
by Zaig on Jan 23, 2009 1:34 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, the Blazers gave up on Jermaine too early
He had talent: Dunleavy just didn’t—or wouldn’t—see it. But I agree with you: Jermaine was never a great player, and I’m not wowed by his personality. (A personal encounter a couple years ago reinforced that.).
Playing-wise, Jermaine still travels everytime he touches the ball; the refs just got tired of calling it. And he’s pretty much a black hole—or at least that’s my impression (I haven’t checked his assist stats). I’m just not that upset that he got away. As raw and out of shape as GO is, he already seem to own Jermaine O’Neal.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Yeah
Jermaine is another All-Star caliber player who doesn’t make his team better. Z-Bo, Baron Davis, AI to an extent, and Amare are examples of others that I don’t ever want.
Wrong
You all have a short memory. Remember how good that Pacer team was before Artest and Jackson went into the crowd? They were contenders. Jermaine was still young and just came back from the Olympics. Yes, he’s on the back end of his career now so go ahead and kick him while he’s down. Say what you will but trading Jermaine was a huge blunder.
The Oden truism emerged....
…not because Oden isn’t a finished product.
It’s because the alternative in that draft, who happens to play the 3, is doing things like going off for 46 points last week. And, in general, is destroying people on a team that otherwise could be the worst in NBA history.
I still like Oden to emerge as the decisive right choice. But for the moment, we have to live (and live past) the Oden-v.-Durant backstory.
For this reason, and many more, I hope Portland can hang a couple of 50 point wins on this team, hijacked by the city that shall not be named. Now that would put an end to the Oden truism.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
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
Recent FanShots
