Travis as our backup PF...

by FromAfar on Jan 27, 2009 2:02 PM PST

Travis seems to have returned to his scoring ways ever since he has been returned to the backup PF slot. The general notion is that Martell, Batum and Travis are one too many SF for the Blazers and that one of them is likely to get traded. What are the opinions of this very thoughtful collective, on Travis' long term potential with the Blazers in a backup PF slot, rather than a SF slot?

It would appear that this model would allow the Blazers to retain all 3 in meaningful roles, would allow Nate the creativity for big line-ups when needed for example when the L*kers have Bynum, Pau and Odom on the floor; or even smaller line-ups with LMA in the 5 spot.

Also, consistent minutes at PF, where he seems to be doing well, ought to really boost his confidence and reassure his of his role on the team. Wonder, if that will translate into Travis devoting more practice time and energy to rebounding and defense.

We might still be missing a true big backup PF, to defend the likes of post-up PFs like Duncan, and KG, for those times that LMA is in foul trouble or is having a bad day. And maybe Channing and Diogu are the more likely players to be traded away.

First time I'm initiating a post, so apologies in advance, if I didn't follow conventions.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You followed conventions just fine

It’s just that I think you’d find a lot of people who already agreed with your insight here.

It’s been pretty well documented that Travis has been much more successful at the PF position than playing at the SF. The only time when this is really a liability is on the defensive end when he’s matched up against a much bigger 4 (ie, Amare, KG, and the like).

That said, he can be equally as much (if not more) of a liability defensively when he’s guarding a quicker, smaller 3 as well, so it may not matter.

Frankly, it’s all about matchups. If Nate wants to go small and run it or take advantage of mismatches, putting Trav at the 4 can be very useful.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy,
Roy, Roy, Roy!

by joelor on Jan 27, 2009 2:14 PM PST reply actions

The importance of Frye,

I think, is to step in if Aldridge gets injured. Everyone says he is a poor-man’s Aldridge and given consistency, he can play well—we all saw that last year. Murphy’s Law clearly states that as soon as we trade Frye without getting an outside big man in return, Aldridge will get injured. Sure Outlaw has his outside game to spread the floor like Aldridge does, but that will leave a giant gap in our second unit.

by Tofu Anonymous on Jan 27, 2009 2:19 PM PST reply actions

I think that’s the reason to keep Frye on board. He is a competant backup/ stop-gap in the event of an injury, and he’s a great guy about it and he’s not complaining now. Trade Shav!

by 50backflips on Jan 27, 2009 3:31 PM PST up reply actions

but aren't we looking past this year?

Frye is gone after this year anyway, so unless we want to keep him for injury backup for the stretch run, then there’s no harm in trading him before the deadline.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 27, 2009 4:44 PM PST up reply actions

Travis has noticably improved at the back-up 4

potential 6th man of the year award in that role

"When it comes to compliments, women are ravenous, bloodsucking monsters, always wanting more, more, more! And if you give it to 'em, you'll get plenty back in return." -- Homer

by bow4meow on Jan 27, 2009 4:29 PM PST reply actions

Trout works well at the 4

allthough i agree we need a true PF to fill in should LMA go down.

Blake/rodriquez/bayless

Roy/Fernandez

Web/Batum

LMA/ Trout/ Frye

Oden/ Pryz

i will take that 10 man rotaion any day of the week. No matter who goes down all 10 are versital enough to play out the thier “positions” There is talk of us getting John Salmons. I dont think i like it alot but i think it is an ok trade off. Next year we may end up letting Martell walk instead of paying him 8-11 million. Plus Web may not even play this year, Salmons is a good shooter, OK defender and a decent lockerroom guy from what i read.Caron Butler or Gerald Wallace would be my pick but i am in no way trying to tell K.P. his job. In K.P. i trust.

by blazerbeliever97504 on Jan 27, 2009 5:45 PM PST reply actions

we all ready signed Martell to a extension

And Butler or Wallace would be AAAWWWWWEEESOM!!

Being a Blazer fan is fun!

by Blazermaniac77 on Jan 27, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions

I think Travis isn't going to be our long term back up 4

As is said often, we need a back up 4 who will be physical and rebound, etc.

As has also been said, I think we can get that through the draft—I think we are past the days of doing significant building through the draft, but a tough rebounding 4 can be had where we will be, late in the first round.

by TimG on Jan 27, 2009 7:03 PM PST reply actions

Good first effort.

As others indicated, this has been discussed. There tend to be two schools of thought around here:

1) Trout makes a good back-up 4, but we need a bruiser on the bench for certain match-ups.

2) We need a big, bad guy to take the back-up minutes and to make-up for some perceived lack of toughness on LMA’s part.

I tend toward the first group. TO continues to improve and has unusual skills. Although he makes me want to scream on a regular basis. His defensive lapses and failure to block out send me into fits of frustration. If he ever commits to taking the ball to the basket, goes for offensive rebounds, boxes out on the defensive end, and commits to not loosing his man on the defensive end he will be amazing. I doubt that he will ever fully get there, but I think he is worth keeping unless something special comes along.

by upper left corner on Jan 27, 2009 7:15 PM PST reply actions