Which is it, Nate? 'May the Best Man Win' or 'I'm going with the starters from last season'
by LaoTzu on Oct 11, 2009 2:50 AM PDT
Email
PrintSometimes people aren't very logical. Say you have a logjam at SF, your championship window is just starting to open and you decide to risk the future of the franchise going all-in for $50M on a pizza-addicted, aging guy from Turkey who would need to take the ball out of Roy's hands to have any effectiveness. Just say.
There is little doubt many decisions humans make lack logical consistency. It's been shown that the big decisions we make and the tiny decisions we make are usually equally horrible.
Studies show that people make very sound decisions when the decisions are 1) important enough for them to think about and 2) the decisions concern values they commonly deal with and are comfortable with. For instance, a corporate board commonly charged with making decisions with money ranging from $20K to $5M is usually skilled in making decisions within that range. Ask them how to spend $100 and they won't see the point in responding. More interesting, faced with a $50M decision, they won't know how to analyze the situation. They will start to dream, go on gut, or take existing data at face value. The decision isn't in their wheelhouse. If they get a hit, it will be more luck or perhaps talent than skill, though boardrooms tends to squelch talent.
But I'm not here to talk about He-dos and He-donuts. Instead, I want to talk about he saids and he saids.
It is no surprise to me that Andre Miller is confused with his role on this team. One interview quotes Nate as saying there is open competition at the 1, 3 and 5. The next time he's quoted as saying the starting unit he used last year is what he's going with this season. That kind of logical inconsistency is hard to resolve unless you understand how power works.
I am a Nate fan. I think he is great for this young team. But left with the freedom most coaches are a cult of personality naturally develops where your thoughts are right because they're your thoughts, not because they're sound, well-thought out, or based on the data. And might isn't necessarily right.
I doubt that Nate is playing Phil Jackson in this scenario. But maybe he is sending Miller a message. 'This is my team. Players on this team follow my rules. If you want to play, you have to pay your dues and earn your spot.'
This makes some sense. More sense maybe if it was a battlefield and not a basketball team. Where this sort of messaging really starts to break down is when Miller is not given credit for the dues he's already paid in a long and productive career with the league. This guy is not a rookie. He knows how to play. Early evidence suggests that he knows the Blazers offensive sets and defensive schemes better than many players who were here last year. Miller wasn't hired for his athletic dominance. He was hired for his basketball IQ.
Maybe it's time for Nate to show more flexibility and respect -- and maybe to demonstrate a better understanding regarding the power of his words. I am not saying he should necessarily start Miller. There might be sound basketball reasons to bring him off the bench. Though, like many here, I think the idea that Nate will ever platoon players like Dunleavy did is not proven out by Nate's history as a bench coach -- another logical inconsistency.
What I would like is for the team to step forward and openly support Miller as a player, a man, and for what he could mean to the franchise. I would like Nate to consider again whether his thinking is sound.
In three years, with so many great players in mid-career under longterm contracts, I don't think Nate's current approach will be the right one to lead these men. And I don't think it's fair to Miller right now.
69 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Refer to Dave's front page post ...
Too soon for judgments. Let’s see what happens when the season is actually underway!
I'm not sure I understand
Is Nate supposed to make an exception for just one player?
Also, I do not recall any quotes from Nate saying keeps keeping the starters from last year going into the season, I only remember him saying he was keeping the starters going into training camp. I could be wrong, but if I’m right, it’s a big difference.
"The lineup that has cleverly been referred to as R-A-M-B-O (Roy, Aldridge, Miller, Batum, Oden) was more like Bambi." - Jason Quick regarding the lamest acronym in the history of the world
Nate's job is to make the "Team" the best team out there!
NOT to coddle players! If for example Nate would like to split playing time in 2 units then quite frankly the best thing would be keep the 54 win team together because they played great together and should continue too. The team with Miller, Rudy, Webster, Oden, Outlaw have played very good together also. Loading up one team, does not make the whole better, as the balance is off. If it is better to not play all the power pieces together, and to have two extremely strong units. Yes if the members are egocentric then all clamber for the starting job, but if some start, and go all out for 8-10 min. then a new unit comes in and goes all out for 8-10 min. and then a rested unit comes back in to finish the half at full speed. What do you have but a whole half played all out, and should have a lead at half time. Let Nate coach a team instead of ego’s the goal is a Ring nothing less! Not the All Star game could care less! really win every game. Have Oden’s 20 & 10 in 24 min’s Have Roy’s 22, 5, 5, 3 in 28 min’s LMA’s 20 & 8 in 28 min’s, Rudy’s 6 asists 4 3’s and 16 points in 24 min’s really if everyone is playing there best in the min’s they have their numbers will be fine and they will be rested as never before. This team is very deep use our best asset and strength the depth of the team stop whining and learn to play hard every min. that is available it is a team sport after all, Superstars Phewy Team YEA!
the idea of a "54 win" unit is erroneous
Did Joel start for all 54 wins? Definitely not. Brandon? No, he was out with injury for some games and the same with Steve. Besides, I believe it was our whole team that played hard and contributed to our 54-win record, not just the players that started the majority of the time. That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that Nate is a more than capable coach who will make the decision that will best serve our great, young team.
Andrew Badger
Here's my problem with Nates current approach.
It is only three games into the pre-season so obviously hard to really know how everything will all pan out. But look at last years roster and the way Nate and the organization handled everyone’s playing time. It was all about the “black” team and the “white” team. We won 54 games with this mantra.
Not bad….
We got into the playoffs….
Heck ya….
Then we shortened our rotation to like 7 guys because it was the playoffs, when you dont run two freaking TEAMS! You play your best PLAYERS!
Nate plays the same kind of lineups he did last year this year, we probably win more than 54 games, the guys are better, we have made some nice moves this summer. But just like last year we wont go far in the playoffs because half the players on the team will have hardly played with Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden. Anyway just my two cents.
"It is only three games into the pre-season so obviously hard to really know how everything will all pan out."
Try “impossible to know” or maybe “a complete waste of time trying to guess”…
we wont go far in the playoffs because half the players on the team will have hardly played with Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge, Greg Oden.
Nate has to eventually boil the rotation down to 8 players for the postseason. That’s when the “too much roster depth” rubber will hit the road. KP has assembled a “regular season” roster that can win games over the long haul by coming at teams in waves and overcoming occasional injuries. The problem is, in the playoffs there’s more time off between games and longer TV timeouts during games. Star players get 40+ minutes, and bench players aren’t as important.
When I say “KP needs to thin the herd” I’m thinking ahead to the playoffs—which players are going to be mentally tough post season studs, and who are going to be “deer in the headlight” underachievers? As much as Blake (and Outlaw) helped the team win 54 games, they didn’t contribute the same level of performance in the series against Houston. So, Miller was brought in the upgrade the PG position, and he’s got to play as much as possible with Roy and LMA, even if that takes Brandon out of his “Stevie comfort zone” for awhile. The goal is to win playoff series and a championship, and even Roy admitted he needed veteran help last April. Well, the help has arrived…and now Brandon needs to learn how to accept change, so the team doesn’t get bounced in the first round again, next April
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 11, 2009 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's too soon to worry
I believe our roster will thin itself out by the trade deadline.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
It does not make sense
to pay $7 million for a backup PG. We could have saved some cash if we just got Brevin Knight instead. Miller is a starter not a backup. If Nate wants to play Andre with the second unit then he can start Miller and take him out after 6 minutes and rest him till the starters come off the bench. That way everyone’s happy. Nate and all the Blake lovers need to understand that Blake is not better than Miller and he does not have the starting job because of what he did last year. This is a new season so everyone should start over too, not gust the new guy. Nate listen up……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..START MILLER !
It makes sense to pay $7 million for a backup PG
if you have the money to spend and it is the best way to improve the team.
The money paid is irrelevant. The “best player” is irrelevant. I think it is highly likely that we will have one player not starting who is a better player than at least one starter — Rudy. He doesn’t start because he isn’t the best fit for the role, given the rest of the team. No one said last year that Rudy should start because he was a better player than Blake.
Why? Because the skills Blake provided made a better fit with the other starters than the skills Rudy provided. They are both guards. There was a time when there was no such thing as PGs and SGs, when players were guards, forwards, or centers. I’m old enough to remember some of that. But you didn’t necessarily start your two best guards, because they didn’t make as good a fit.
We could have started Johnny Davis and Lionel Hollins in 1977-78. A strong case could have been made that Davis was better than Twardzik. But you had a better team with Twardzik on the floor, and Davis was incredibly effective off the bench.
It is Nate’s job to put together an effective lineup for 48 mpg, NOT just put the best five players out there at the start of the game.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Miller and Bradon need to play together, it's as simple as that.
Two guards that can break down a defense is a huge advantage, and I don’t think they have to play seperately.
I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
by haildablazer on Oct 11, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm, this was meant to be it's own comment, oops.
I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
by haildablazer on Oct 11, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Heck, they're paying $9M to a guy not even on the team anymore, $7M for a backup PG is a veritable bargain...
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
There was a time when there was no such thing as PGs and SGs
Maybe there was, but the PG position was defined by Cousy, and he was setting up the other Celtics back in the early ’60s
Not every team has a PG like CP3, Stockton, or Magic Johnson. Teams like Bird’s Celtics and Jordan’s Bulls didn’t need one. There’s different ways to win, and we’ve seen plenty of evidence that the “best” PGs don’t always play in June.
But the best argument for Rudy not playing ahead of Blake is a defensive one. Neither Fernandez or Roy have the lateral quickness to defend the penetration of quality PGs, especially with the current hand-checking rules. Perhaps the team will play more zone in the future, to overcome this lack of perimeter defense, or maybe Batum will become a Pippen-esque defender who will help make it possible for a weak defensive backcourt to not get completely abused. Or maybe Rudy will be content with a 6th man role, and to be “subbed out” on defensive possessions at the end of games
Miller needs to play PG, and Blake is a terrific reserve. As good as Rudy is, I don’t see him taking minutes away from those guys this year. Rudy is a wing player, regardless, not a PG-in-the-making
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
None of this is really relevant to my point
which is that it isn’t about best player, it’s about best fit. Always has been.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
I think it was that guy in Iraq
If the shoe fits, throw it.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 11, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But the best fit for who, Brandon and LMA?
Blake was the better “fit” with Roy for the last few years, but how much did their great synergy help the team, against the Rockets? Miller’s BBIQ is going to be needed, at the beginning, middle and end of games. Roy had better get used to playing alongside Andre—because there’s no getting around it—the two of them are going to dictate how well the team is run on the court for the next couple of years. Oden is going to become a bigger force at the offensive end, during the same period. LMA is going to have to make adjustments, and learn how to make interior passes to Greg, like Howard has shown during the last few weeks.
KP and Nate are buidling the team “around” Roy and Aldridge, but that doesn’t mean that they’re only volume scorers who can’t read the defense and make their teammates better. If Nate/KP thought Miller was the right “fit” to help facilitate their offensive development last July, then he should be in the game when they’re on the floor
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 12, 2009 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sigh
The Rockets. Last year’s problem.
The Rockets who last year battled the champions to the wire even after Yao went down.
Because of the Rockets we need more big men, and we lost because we didn’t have enough big men.
Because of the Rockets the synergy between Blake and Roy wasn’t good enough.
Because of the Rockets we need more experience.
You know, we were very close to regaining home court against the Rockets. You can’t list a whole bunch of problems and say, “That’s the reason we didn’t beat the Rockets.” “Well, that’s the reason we didn’t beat the Rockets.” “Well, that’s the reason we didn’t beat the Rockets.”
So I’ll answer this:
1. The synergy between Roy and Blake was good enough to beat the Rockets if we’d had another good big man. The synergy between them was good enough, even without another good big man, if there had been enough experience to not be the deer caught in the headlights in game one. The synergy was good enough to beat the Rockets if we’d had a better backup PG. The synergy was good enough if Nate had the team a little better prepared.
2. Our big men were good enough to beat the Rockets if the synergy between Roy and Blake had been better. They were good enough if our team had had more experience, or we’d had a better backup PG, or Nate had the team a little better prepared.
3. Our lack of experience wouldn’t have been a problem if the synergy had been a little better, or we’d had one more big man, or we’d had a better backup PG, etc, etc.
You can’t trot out the loss to Houston and blame it on every single thing as if that is the reason for the loss to Houston. We’ve already fixed at least two of the weaknesses that led to the loss to Houston, and we are unlikely to face any team that creates the matchup problems for us that Houston did. Man, do we need the season to start, so we can talk about something besides the Houston loss. This team would wipe the court with Houston, once they get rolling.
Now, as to the best fit for who, the obvious answer is Roy. You have a guy who might be an MVP, who is a perennial all-star. Now, you are asking him to adjust to start feeding the center more. Has to be. You have to be feeding the ball to Greg, and the whole championship chase depends on good understanding between Brandon, LMA, and Greg. End of story.
Brandon has to mold his game to Greg’s, not Andre. Andre is here for 2 years, maybe 3. You want the team that best fits with Brandon first, with secondary and tertiary fits with LMA and Greg (pick which is secondary, I don’t care). Those three are our future. Andre is not. He fits to them, not the other way around.
It’s Nate’s job to put together the lineup that provides the most effective lineup for 48 minutes per game. That’s all. It isn’t about the best player at somewhat arbitrary positions. We have enough talent to mess around with positions and make others adjust to compensate.
If it makes the most effective 48 mpg lineup for Andre to start with Brandon, LMA, and Greg, he’ll start. If he doesn’t, sorry. It doesn’t matter if he’s the best player at his “position”. It isn’t a position that makes for fit, it is capabilities and qualities. Andre brings qualities that Steve doesn’t, and vice versa. Good, that gives us more flexibility and weapons. It also means in some circumstances and some lineups, what Steve brings will be more valuable. In others, what Andre brings will be. It’s Nate’s job to figure out which is best for the whole game.
Finally, this.
If Nate/KP thought Miller was the right "fit" to help facilitate their offensive development last July, then he should be in the game when they’re on the floor
Since Nate has said from the beginning that Miller might not start, it is obvious they thought he was the right “fit” for something. Maybe they thought he was the right fit for the second unit, but might possibly work out will with the starters, and would be given the chance to make that work. That would be entirely consistent with Nate’s public statements.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
It's simple
The starters from last season are the starters until someone takes the job from them. That means if Miller wants the job, he has to show he’s better with the starters than Blake. Simple enough. No mixed message.
Oh, and who started last game? And has Andre been on the floor with Brandon and LMA in practice scrimmages (yes, unless Ben lied :)) and other preseason games (yes).
So Andre is getting a chance to A) work on fitting with Brandon et al and B) show that he deserves the spot.
So what’s the problem? If he never got a chance to work with Brandon, we’d have a problem. Since he’s getting those chances, he has a chance for his play to do the talking.
Look at what Nate does at least as much as what he says. Why in the world would he start the RAMBO lineup if he never intends to play it and two of those guys don’t have a chance of starting in the regular season.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 11, 2009 12:46 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I want to believe you... but
i’m going to have to see this Excel spreedsheet first…
I don't hate the Lakers, I hate their stupid fans.
by In Walks Rudy on Oct 11, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
You asked
I’ve been waiting for someone to ask. It’s very simple.
Column A, Row 1 (Header) = “jscot’s Prediction for wins this year”
Column A Row 2 = 62
Column B, Row 1 (Header) = “Percentage Possibility that jscot is wrong”
Column B, Row 2 = ((((300 * 42) – 10000) / 13) – 200) * 5721
Column C, Row 1 (Header) = “Percentage Possibility that jscot is right”
Column C, Row 2 =100-B2
Column D, Row 1 (Header) = “Number of wins”
Column D, Row 2 = A2 * (C2/100)
Give it a try, works every time.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Whew! I feel better now. :-D
"The match in Los Angeles is a good opportunity to begin to demonstrate that we want to make war." Rudy Fernández (translated)
I don't see anything factored in for micro-fracture related complications...
I don't hate the Lakers, I hate their stupid fans.
by In Walks Rudy on Oct 11, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's all in B2
It covers all possibilities, that’s why it includes so many factors.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Yeah, I'm not worried.
The Blazers won a lot of regular season games last season, but sucked in the first quarter. Nate is smart enough to recognize this and I’m sure Miller will start at some point next season.
Plus, he’s starting Miller again next game, along with Webster, so it’s obviously not like he isn’t at least considering Miller as a starter.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 11, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Precisely
If Miller is able to be as effective with our starters as he thinks and a lot of other people think, it will be obvious to them and to Nate, and even to Blake. He’s getting chances to show it.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
the Miller-Webster-Oden lineup was the one I chose in the poll, last week
mainly because of spacing, Batum isn’t the threat from behind the arc that Martell is, teams would dare Nic to shoot last year, but you never saw defenders sag off MW, ever.
How will Nic take coming off the bench? He said in his blog that Nate told him he would return as the starting SF. He also said he’s working on his offensive game, and we saw some of that in Eurobasket. Brandon likes playing with Batum, just like with Blake. If Nate changes 3 players in the starting lineup, all the synergy that the black team developed will have to be reworked again, almost from scratch. I’m OK with that, because I think it will be “worth it” in the long run (post season) But I can see why Nate might want to stick with what was successful, last year.
It will be interesting to see how this RAWMO lineup does, Wednesday night. I’m sure there are a few of us who have paid $19.70 to be in attendance
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I knew this was jscot's post...
…before I scrolled to the name… because it made sense and was logical… There is very little substance to the worries about Andre and Blake… Blake and Andre… Roy and Andre… ad nauseum… Let it happen folks. It’s gonna all work out.
I would like to go on record with this even though it may be unpopular… I have high hopes for Miller and think he brings some very necessary and useful skills to the Blazers but… I do not give 3 figs what he’s done in his previous roles with teams I don’t care about. He needs to earn his role with the team I do care about. I have no sympathy for the perceived unfairness that some people are so sure Nate has dealt him. Why on earth are so many Blazer fans worried about this? He is owed nothing (other than $7,000,000) but an opportunity to earn a role.
by Ilikeemall on Oct 11, 2009 10:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I thought about taking out a trademark on "logic"
but other people use it every once in a while as well, so it wasn’t a logical idea.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 11, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The next move for both Nate McMillan and Kevin Pritchard is to have a sit-down meeting with Andre Miller to both address his public comments and his role.
Nate needs to make clear his plans for Andre and any changes that could occur in those plans and fully explain that talking to media about his issues, without adressing them directly with the coach and management first is unacceptablle in the culture developed in the club. Then apologise for being ambiguous with his players and do the whole “I hope we can have a professional and beneficial working relationship in the future.” thing.
I could have sacrificed goin' out
To think my homies who did it, I used to joke about
From now on I'ma use self control instead of birth control
Cause $315 ain't worth your soul
$315 ain't worth your soul
$315 ain't worth it
by The Pirate on Oct 11, 2009 1:35 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly...
…that’s what grown ups do.
by Ilikeemall on Oct 11, 2009 10:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
The Blazers had rutine bad starts at the end of last year and in the -play-offs
you got to start miller so the blazers stop digging themselves into holes
now granted, they always make comebacks, but still
RAMBO!
bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo, blake
real.baller
R.A.M.B.O (do it nate, if you are smart)
"I could have killed 'em all, I could kill you. In town you're the law, out here it's me. Don't push it. Don't push it or I'll give you a war you won't believe. Let it (last years starting line-up) go. Let it go."
This is a legitimate problem
and it needs to be addressed.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that the only solution is to start Miller, however. That is one possible solution, but only one.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
If Roy is not going to start games in attack mode, then maybe Miller will help jump start that lineup
Nate said Roy and LMA are options 1 and 2. If these main options were so deadly, then why was the team trailing so often, in the first quarter? I think part of the reason was the opponent’s starters were “more ready” to play well and score as a unit, and often they found the “black teams” defense was a relatively easy nut to crack (especially if they used a lot of PnR)
The other reason was the Blazer offense was focused on getting LMA “off” in the low block, at the beginning of games. If this clicked, the Blazers led or stayed close. If LMA wasn’t hitting his turnaround, they struggled, and Brandon didn’t typically go into “attack mode” until later in the game (hence, the comebacks)
As I said below, probably the main reason Andre was brought in was to add some diversity to the Blazers offense, to make them less predictable and harder to defend. Another reason was to get Oden more involved, and most of us agree that Greg is "the"key if Portland is going to reach the finals and win. If Greg is “freezed out” of the offense by Roy and LMA (not intentionally, but because they along with Blake don’t know how to get him the ball when he has an advantage near the basket) then we’re back to a “two-headed” starting offense that was good at times, but got outscored at the beginning of games far too often for a contending team
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
This thought
has occurred to me too. For whatever reason the first quarter has been stagnant and it’s possible Miller could shake it up.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
But starting Miller is one option
What are others?
Starting Greg.
And who is the best guard in the league at feeding players at the basket?
Andre.
Jus’ sayin’.
The best?
The absolute best? I think there are some other guys who might beg to differ.
But granted that this is a strength of Andre’s game. Don’t we actually want Roy feeding Greg, too? Isn’t that the future?
Who is the best PG on the team at spreading the floor for Greg and Brandon? Jus’ sayin’.
Starting Greg is another option, and there is nothing written in the laws of basketball that says starting Greg requires starting Andre. It would be foolish to not have Greg and Andre get significant time together on the court. That is probably a key to any championship hopes this year and next. But that doesn’t mean Andre has to start if Greg does.
Starting Martell is another option.
Continuing to start Nic, but involving him more in the offense is another option. He’s done enough to show he can be a threat, and we could develop that more.
Basically, last year we started an offensive non-threat (Joel), and almost non-threat (Nic), and a spot-up only threat (Steve). Because of the firepower out of our other two players, we survived with that, but it wasn’t enough. But because of the firepower out of our other two players, we really probably only need to upgrade one of those to address this problem. We could start Greg, we could start Andre, or we could get more offensive production out of starting SF. Any of the three will be sufficient.
And I know what you will say — do two of the three. Well, if it works well, and we can still have a productive rotation for 48 mpg, that’s fine. I’m not opposed.
But it is not logical to say we must start Andre to solve the slow starts. It just isn’t.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Andre was the best PG last season at feeding the rim.
Well documented over the summer. As seen on BlazersEdge Fanposts.
Best on alleyoops
Not the same thing. A nice skill to have. Of more relevance is getting the ball to big men when they get position. He’s good at that, too, but few would say the best in the league.
This guy is a very good player, a significant upgrade for us, but he doesn’t walk on water or anything. He’s never been out of the first round of the playoffs. He’s never been on a team this good.
He’s not Chris Paul, he’s not Deron Williams, he’s not Steve Nash, he’s not Jason Kidd in his prime, I’m not even sure he’s better than the old man running around in Jason Kidd’s body today.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Valid points.
But you just cited a two-time league MVP and 3 candidates (did never won it, right).
I am comfortable saying we got a dreamy assist man in Andre.
:)
Yeah, I am too :)
He’s a very good PG. I think he is more likely to start than not, if not sooner, later. I just think a lot of the reasons people cite why he “must” start don’t hold water.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Roy has never been out of the first round.
Neither has Andre Igoldola, Danny Granger, Gerald Wallace, Chris Bosh. Big freaking deal.
I certainly think he’s better than Nash. Not nearly as likable, not as enjoyable to watch (for some people), but In terms of actually winning basketball games I would take Miller. I can’t really compare him to Jason Kidd, because I didn’t watch any Dallas games besides the ones we played last season, but I did watch a ton of 76’er games and I’m stunned at how underrated Miller is for Portland fans.
He was the MVP on the 76’ers last season in a lot of peoples minds. Best season in five years. Second best player on that team. Probably the third best player on the Blazers. The fact that we aren’t dancing in the streets is amazing. The past decade of mediocre Blazer point guards is over.
I’m a little biased, because I’m a fan admittedly and I like the 76’ers. But seriously, he’s not a “good” player, he’s a great player. I would rank him as one of the 15 best point guards in the past ten years. Possibly the best lob passer in history. He arguably has the best post up games for his position in the league.
Oh, and he’s one of the most durable players EVER.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 12, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, you're a little biased :)
Admitting you have a problem is the first step….
Great? You use that term more loosely than I do, for sure. Either that or your bias is greater than even I think it is.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Kelly Dwyer just ranked him as the 7th best in the past decade.
Considering he just had two of his best seasons ever, I don’t think it’s far fetched to think he’s still a top talent in the league. Hollinger predicts him to be the 13th best point guard in the league next season which I think is pretty fair.
Honestly, he’s still soooo underrated, and it’s annoying that people who probably watched him play three times last year are so quick to make judgments. I’m not talking about you of course. Your opinions are obviously based off countless hours of careful study. Sitting in front of your laptop making notes and graphs and whatnot.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 13, 2009 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL
Yeah, I’ve probably seen 8-10 of his games in the last two years. Not enough to be an expert, though perhaps as many as Dwyer.
I don’t think I’d say he’s in the top 30 players in the league overall, though, so to say he’s “great” is an overstatement to me.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
I wouldn't call him a top 30 player either.
Top 50 definitely, and probably still top 40 if he hasn’t slowed down over the summer. Last year he was ranked 44th overall in PER, but there are a lot of intangibles that probably don’t show up in the box score. Top 30 might be a stretch, but not by much.
He’s got a pretty subtle game. Did you know that there’s a large population of 76’er fans that think Andre Igoldola is better that Brandon Roy? It’s not really so crazy either, if you only watched Roy three or four games every year you might get that impression. Same thing with Miller.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 13, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
So we come back to what I said above
Great? You use that term more loosely than I do, for sure.
I don’t think there are more than 25-30 “great” players in the game, really. I think if you want to be great, you have to be a perennial all-star, or obviously going to be one, or be in the running for first or second team all-NBA at least a couple times in your career.
Brandon is obviously going to be a perennial all-star. So is Chris Paul.
LMA is not a great player, but could become one, he’s not too far away from that status — add a couple rebounds per game and draw and make a couple more free throws. Greg probably will become one, but isn’t close yet.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
Fair enough.
Currently I would rank him about where LMA is for his position, which I can see why you wouldn’t consider “great”.
He is special though, certainly unique in the way he plays the game. He does some things better than anyone ever has before. Has there been a better lob passer, ever? His post up game is arguably one of the best ever for a player of his size. His durability, which is an often unappreciated trait, is second to none.
But yes, I suppose we have a slightly different definition of great. There are a ton of guys who can do practically the same things as Blake. There’s maybe one or two guys in the league who can do what Miller does. It’s a unique skill set, which I think should count for something.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 14, 2009 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Which I should also add...
is why I’m not surprised the on court chemistry hasn’t clicked yet. He has a weird game and it probably takes some getting used to. I’m sure he and Roy will figure it out soon enough.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 14, 2009 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Might take a while
but it won’t be long until it starts to click. No matter who starts, that’s going to be the finishing combo by December at the latest, and probably from day one.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
im pretty sure
nate is just saying the 1 spot is up for grabs out of respect for blake, its quite clear miller is the better player, and blake has done his dues and deserves the respect of the franchise and the fans.
some games they started slow, but other they were like a race horse, same starters! maybe they wanted it more
on some nights than others. sometimes you come out flat others red hot. putting that on Blake is short sighted and that is not going to change just by inserting Miller. Look at the LAC preseason game, hustle, what counts. Combining the best group on the floor at one time is what is important, the unit with good spacing, shooting, defense, passing and scoring. Personally I think having Oden & Miller in is a loaded team but; does B Roy & LMA need the extra in the first few min.‘s out there or would you rather have all the offense in there at once. Personally I think it’s great to have Prisbilla playing D and grabing Rebounds Nick playing D on the other teams best player LMA knocking down shots and B Roy driving and dishing to start. If LMA and Oden are in at the start they duplicate each other, B Roy and Miller duplicate each other Miller would have to drive to be effective, really so does B Roy is Nick going to be the only outside shooter. Later it doesn’t matter near the end of the game if it’s still even close put the most scoring talent on the floor. But start 2 strong balanced teams early run the team hard. Score and play defense hard and quite frankly let the rest of the bench get some time because by starting 2 very strong hard working teams that beats just starting 1 not balanced team and making them play more min.’s because the other teams not quite as strong and looses ground to our opponent. Please be more open minded and let Nate do his job!
The Blazers had a record-setting number of come from double-digits behind wins
It takes a very talented team with consistently bad starts to pull that off. And Brandon Roy, who I would prefer fit for heavy duty come playoff time.
evidence suggests that he knows the Blazers offensive sets and defensive schemes better than many players who were here last year.
Right. Miller was brought in to improve the diversity of the Blazer’s offense, to give them more options than they had last year, to make them less predictable.
Now, after a few preseason games, we hear Roy saying he feels like a rookie again
Good! Roy needs to expand his vision of team ball, and so does LMA. If Miller had the ego that people think he has, he’d be up in Roy and Aldridge’s face and say “look, you guys got beat by the Rockets because you couldn’t find options 3,4,5 in your halfcourt sets. Houston took you out of what you did well during the season, and you didn’t have a counter move.” But instead of coming in and taking over the team, Andre is trying to fit in and get his point across by showing the young kids how it’s done. If Brandon and LMA have some patience (and stop worrying about their" touches") they might just learn something
and if they don’t, they might not ever win a championship
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 11, 2009 9:24 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
mmmmm
he-donuts…
Me thinks they are both kinda wanting to run the point. But Nate is a coach and Miller is the player. So if Nate reigns in his “oh no you didn’t” a little bit and allows Miller to be his admiral then your going to have one heck of team…however…
You have the Roy situation. They both want the ball in their hands, but with Andre on the floor Roy is going to have to believe that he is going to put the ball in his hands at the best possible moments and into the hands of our other capable players (Oden, Aldridge, whomever) when that is appropriate. Brandon isn’t going to score 52 pts every night, but if he trusts in his PG then he will on the nights when he can’t miss…
Honestly, I think it’s just a matter of Miller and Roy playing together enough to get comfortable with each other. Blake is Roy’s lackey and he knows that, but he needs to be able to work with Andre if we are going to be a TEAM that goes beyond the first round. I’m not putting it all on Roy, but he is the younger player and Miller is the Vet. Roy is used to having to carry this team on his back. Unburden some of that load unto the capable shoulders of Miller and watch the whole team flourish.
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Oct 12, 2009 2:05 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Why is it necessary to insult Blake?..
A lackey is a male servant or footman…
Does it support your stance on this to put down a guy who has done his very best to be a true professional while on this team? Where are the,“I’m upset, I wanna be the Starter, I get no Respect” comments from Blake? How many Yahoo reporters or members of the local press has he spoken to? How much of a distraction has he caused? Blake is too smart, too savvy and too much of a professional to let himself get caught up in this. He’s doing what Andre should be doing… Working hard and keeping his mouth shut.
I have heard many people say something to the affect of… The only reason we lost to Houston was because of Blake… and the only way we’ll advance in the playoffs this year is if Andre is our starter. In my opinion that is a very simplistic and inaccurate evaluation. The reasons we lost to Houston and the reasons we have a much better chance of advancing this year are much more complicated than that.
with the whole andre miller thing...
its like brett favre. you have a guy who has been through training camp many times before and is much older and less in common than any of his teammates. They just want to get through and get to the regular seaon and when it comes to real games they will be prime and ready.
The rotation-shortening argument doesn't hold water. It's a long season.
And then a key player like LMA goes down. Michael Ruffin or Shavlick get rotation minutes. Can’t play Mike Conley at the 4 or insert cap space in the starting lineup. (Yes, I know the roster this year.) There is no such thing as too much depth until guys become unhappy with their roles. It’s sort of like all the gun guys buying up ammo because they think Obama will take their guns, even though no legislation is being proposed and there would be no support for it. The rotation thing is all based on anxiety, not any evidence we’ve seen so far.
Shortening the rotation too early wears on players and lowers their chances of winning a series. Brandon Roy admitted to being exhausted at the end of the season. Toward the end of the season, shortening the rotation makes sense, but depth is key to getting in the playoffs in the first place in the Western Conference. The Blazers will have stretches where they need to start a second unit guy. Without depth, that could cost them enough games to be eliminated. The race was tight last year until Phoenix faltered.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blazer's Edge
Related FanShots on Blazer's Edge
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
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
