Blazersedge: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

The Blazer Backcourt

Whatever happened or didn't happen in last night's pre-season contest against Phoenix a couple of lines from the boxscore are going to cause people to start chattering.

  • Andre Miller:  9-15 shooting and 25 points
  • Brandon Roy:  4-13 shooting and 11 points

Both lines continue the general pre-season trend for each player (Miller upwards, Roy in a funk).  This is going to bring discussion.  Is there something wrong with Roy?  Can Roy and Miller co-exist?

I won't believe anything is wrong with Brandon himself until this trend continues deep into the regular season.  He's given too much, too often to begin doubting him over a couple exhibition outings.  Most likely he's not taking training camp and pre-season as seriously as he used to, which is certainly his right.  Perhaps he's not in practice, having taken most of the summer off.  I can live with that as long as he's ready in a couple weeks.   It's also possible that the Blazers aren't going with their "A" options yet.  Six guys on the team took double-digit shot attempts tonight.  That means the Blazers are stretching their legs and exploring their possibilities.  It's possible in a real game that Brandon's 4-13 performance would have morphed into a 10-20 night via some serious second-half intensity.  To the extent that the Blazers continue to feed Oden and get shots for Miller Brandon will have to adjust.  He may not be as dominant of a #1 option as he has been in the past.  But he'll still be the clear #1 and the team will work that out once the shakedown cruise is over.

The only long-term malaise I have even a ghost of a fear about is the dreaded "Just Signed a Big Contract Dropoff".  I don't believe for a second that Brandon would abdicate his responsibility and passion just because he's a rich man now.  We're not talking Bonzi Wells here.  Money does change things, however, and it's hard to adjust from young and hungry to older and more satisfied while still finding the same intensity.  Conscientious players also tend to push a little too hard after signing that first big deal.  If Brandon's game waggles a little in the short term we'll just have to live with that.  He has enough talent around him to pick up the slack.

The issue of Roy and Miller co-existing is an open one.  From the beginning we said that playing with Andre would be a serious change from playing with Blake.  Miller handles the ball more.  Miller drives more.  Miller treads on Brandon's territory more.  But Miller is also an experienced point guard.  He knows on which side the toast is buttered.  Any offensive tension won't last long because one of two things will happen.  Either Miller will see his responsibility as keeping all three big dogs on this team happy, which means putting the ball in Brandon's hands plenty, or the team will be forced to phase out Miller to bring Roy's game back to full.  There's not another option.  There's no way the team sacrifices Brandon for anyone.  They go nowhere serious without him.

The issue I'm more worried about is defense.  Brandon likes to conserve energy for offense.  Miller is a better offensive than defensive player.  I don't know if you caught it, but Ben had an amazing get from Nate McMillan on pick and roll defense in particular in his Monday Practice Report.  The Blazers are adjusting their coverage to keep the centers more grounded and in less foul trouble.  This puts some pressure on forwards but the primary responsibility lies on the guards.  They have to stay in front of their men on the drive and stay with them off of screens.  If they can't handle it the defense falls apart before it starts.  I know it's pre-season but I'm looking at Steve Nash with 23 points and 15 assists in last night's game and Leandro Barbosa with 25.  Those are "Eeeek!"-inducing numbers not just for Roy and Miller but the entire defense.  And this comes in a pre-season where the primary emphasis is supposedly on defending.

While the offensive adjustments for Roy and Miller individually and collectively will probably happen quickly, if not entirely smoothly, the defensive implications of the pairing (and maybe any Blazer pairing in the backcourt) trouble me.  I'm not sure lapses there are going to melt away so surely.  And if they don't the Blazers will have a stronger current to swim against each game which is not conducive to compiling the astonishing win totals many are hoping for.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com

0 recs  |  Comment 152 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

It doesn't always work that way

Teams that have too many “star” players often end up doing poorly. For instance, the majority of the players on the 2004 USA Olympic team were all-stars, yet they lost to Argentina, Lithuania, and Puerto Rico. Only one player can have the basketball at a time, so if their games don’t complement each other well those stars will just end up getting in each other’s way.

by trk on Oct 15, 2009 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The majority of USA players were too busy stroking their egos to play team basketball.

It’s not as if we have Lebron and Kobe on the court at the same time. Not even Shaq and Kobe for that matter. We’re talking about Miller and Roy. If Roy is the basketball player that we think he is he will be able to adjust and the team will be better for it.

And on another note. Miller is far superior to Blake. I said it a month ago and got bitched at, but I was totally right. He is far superior at the offensive end and at least equal on D. For all those who are saying we need Blake’s defense just look back to the Houston series against Brooks.

Life's short, Stunt it!!

by Irwin Fletcher on Oct 15, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't disagree.

I’ll say that Miller is the far superior player to Blake. Does that always matter? No. Not one bit. He’s a post up, midrange player. Brandon is a midrange slasher. Aldridge is a Midrange Post. Oden is a Post. 4 guys in the paint? I sincerely doubt that’ll ever bear any fruit. Ever. You can just collapse the D, and then its turnover central. Roy looked great last year because it was he and Aldridge in the post, Blake and Batum outside, with Pryzbilla rolling to the basket behind Roy. Until we develop space, I don’t care if Miller’s a better player. Because he isn’t meshing like we know Blake can.

"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller

by Jeremiah S on Oct 15, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Blake isn't the answer

The fact that Miller has shown to be a vastly better player proves that. Blake is a good backup pg. Nothing more than that. Heinrick might have been the answer but we didn’t get him (and thats another issue that’s being discussed below). Our team was good last year but not good enough. Other teams have improved their rosters (even the defending champs). We had to do the same and what KP got was Miller and Howard. Now the players have to adjust their games and make this work. Otherwise we will be last years team or worse. Roy will adjust…he has to.

Life's short, Stunt it!!

by Irwin Fletcher on Oct 15, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

While the 2004 USA Men's National Basketball team had problems

The 1992 USA Men’s National Basketball team had much bigger stars and none of those problems.

Stephon Marbury, Allen Iverson, & Lamar Odom were on the 2004 team. Each of those 3 men have had contractual and playing issues before & since then. They are just examples of the gapping divide in quality both on and off the court representative of proffessional basketball players who are consistent All-Stars.

Just saying it is not a good comparison concerning Andre and Roy.

He's doing little shimmies. Jump hooks with the left hand, jump hooks with the right hand. - Brandon Roy on Greg Oden

by ECFIVESTER on Oct 16, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why oh why didn't we get Hinrich

Don’t care if Andre is better than Kirk….Blake with defense is what we needed.

I like Andre as a player but defense was one of the main reasons he was often dismissed as an option over the summer.

by MadBlaze on Oct 15, 2009 1:35 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Did we ever come close

to landing Hinrich? I would have thought RLEC would have gotten it done if offered, but did the talks (if any) ever get to an offer point? I agree – Hinrich was the best attainable PG option on the FA/trade market. But Miller is solid, and hopefully he and Roy get on the same page sooner than later.

I hate Comcast.

by blazeraddict on Oct 15, 2009 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well, it would've been easier to get Cap'n Kirk

Last February then it was in June

at the deadline, KP still had RLEC and Blake’s shoulder was in a sling

by draft day, Hinrich had played well against Boston in the playoffs and then in July Gordon signed with Detroit

missed opportunity? you be the judge. KP didn’t want to mess up the roster chemistry, and now Nate gets to deal with the defensive “challenges” I suspect team defense is the answer, and Quick said Sarge was unhappy with the team’s overall level of conditioning, last night

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 15, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

definitely a missed opportunity

And it is all on KP. Now he is doing it again with Bayless.

Life's short, Stunt it!!

by Irwin Fletcher on Oct 15, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That whole not messing up team chemistry is working out well, isn't it?

In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!

by wjb1492 on Oct 15, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Chicago probably wouldn't deal him.

Or they wanted Rudy. The coach and owner want him on the team, so I assume they aren’t as eager to part with him as people think. He’s great at guarding shooting guards plus Ben Gordon was on his way out. They needed him.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 15, 2009 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There was only one person who ranted about buying Kirk Hinrich low, and it wasn't by Cablinasian.

It was me, dammit!

As11osu and I had several debates about Hinrich in ’08, too, and I was the undeniable winner there.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 15, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

heh, I picked up on things by December. You were the one driving the bandwagon.

"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.

by Cablinasian on Oct 15, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not true.

I’ve been talking about trading for Kirk the past couple years. I’ve had long annoying conversations about Hinrich with as11osu, haven’t we all?

I still don’t think the Bulls would trade him. They liked him more than Gordon and they probably should. He’s not a bad SG and actually fits pretty well with rose, plus Reinsdorf has a serious crush on Kirk, so I doubt he wants to move him.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 15, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I long pined for Hinrich...

You weren’t the only one :)

by Rudiculous on Oct 15, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Last year...

To my knowledge what Chicago was asking for was a 3 way deal to bring Carlos Boozer over, and net them Rudy. It was something involving Tyrus Thomas and Steve Blake to Utah, Hinrich to Portland, and Boozer and Rudy to Chicago. At least, something of that flavor. Blake may not have been involved. But, either way, Chicago gets everything in that deal, Utah gets boned, and I’d argue that we would too.

"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller

by Jeremiah S on Oct 15, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nearly had him and Deng for RLEC & others

That was the killer deal Quick hyped up that fell through at the 11th hour because Chicago backed out. I don’t think the Blazers were going to give up much. IIRC, it was Blake, Outlaw, and RLEC for Kirk and Deng. I’m not sure I’d want Deng, but I have to agree, Kirk would really suit us well.

by DC Blazer on Oct 15, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You know what this whole Brandon Roy not getting his shots problem bring to mind? If we are having

problems getting him touches now that Oden and Miller are getting the ball, how would this work with Durant? It wouldn’t. We’d have to dump Aldridge just so Durant could score. Off topic a bit but I’m just glad we don’t have any chuckers on our team other than Outlaw.

by BRoyInThe4th on Oct 15, 2009 1:49 AM PDT reply actions   2 recs

I'll only respond because you brought it up

but I would still trade Oden and Bayless for Durant and Brook Lopez in a heartbeat.

by jksnake99 on Oct 15, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Man, I love Brook Lopez. Nonetheless, jksnake99, I wouldn't sign off on your inane trade proposal.

If you can acquire Brook Lopez at the cost of LaMarcus Aldridge and Rudy Fernandez, then so be it.

I, however, believe winning a title in Portland rests on the shoulders of Brandon Roy and Greg Oden. If anyone feels that Kevin Durant — who’s a pile of excrement on defense — would do anything but be a disgusting ball hog on a true championship contender, then they’re out of their mind.

Anyone who’d argue that Durant is of more value than Greg Oden must take a refresher course in the NBA. Look, two-way pivotmen like Oden are WINNERS; conversely, one-way wings like Durant are LOSERS.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 15, 2009 2:27 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

in that ridiculous proposal of mine (which isn't even a trade proposal but rather a "maybe could have been" scenario)

… you are getting a player in Brook Lopez who was very nearly as good per minute last year as Oden, but was acutally able to stay on the court long minutes. In addition to being a good offensive player, Lopez was 4th in the league in blocks last year. I wouldn’t trade Oden for Lopez, but if I had Lopez I’d have a very hard time swapping him for Oden given the injury history.

In addition, you are getting a stupefying scoring talent in Durant. A hyper efficient Kevin Martin with rebounds with he potential to be a lot more. The plus minus statistics are ugly, without question, but those stats are noisy and the jury is still out on his defense post-Carlesimo (now that he isn’t guarding 2s anymore). KP2 did a great piece on Durant’s defense noting the reasons why the “Durant is an awful defender and a loser” case isn’t open and shut.

In the end, my opinion is that the best and brightest of NBA GMs would make that move with little hesitation if they could (which, of course, they couldn’t).

by jksnake99 on Oct 15, 2009 2:37 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Regarding Kevin Durant, time will tell who's right here.

To me, he’s a modern-day George Gervin. That means all offense, but no defense.

In the end, basketball is a two-way sport; sadly, Durant only knows one way to play.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 15, 2009 2:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he's an awful lot like T-Mac

Can score anywhere, anytime (until his wire-thin body breaks down), but allows his man to do the same.

by DC Blazer on Oct 15, 2009 6:35 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good call by AK.

T-Mac is WAY more of a physical specimen than Durant.

Durant’s ceiling on defense is whatever is one step above a sieve.

by MiledAnimal on Oct 15, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

I think of Durant as T-Mac with better jumper but no defense and no first step. T-Mac in his heyday could take anyone off the dribble and played pretty decent D as well. Also, let’s not forget the fact that he could run the offense. He used to carry the Magic on his back to the playoffs and they had NO ONE besides him on that roster. (Thanks, Grant Hill’s knees!) Perhaps the years of heavy usage in Orlando is the main factor in his early downfall?

by xedubx on Oct 15, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wait.

so i understand why the consensus in “anti-durantiers” is that he can’t play defense. but why is it a consensus that he can’t improve his defense?

i dont get that. it reeks of like major homerism. i mean surelly, any sensible person has to take the “well see how his defense turns out… and if in fact he does end up being a solid defender… then MAYBE… i would consider just like a small inkling in my imagination.. him as a blazer”

by mandoman10 on Oct 15, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not anti-Durant.

And I’m exaggerating about his ceiling on defense. But I don’t think he will ever be very good at it because he has a thin build, just average quickness, and is not strong nor is likely ever to be, and he is a gunner, which means he probably will never focus much attention, effort, or energy to anything but scoring.

Durant needs to play with someone like Shaq in his prime, who can draw double and triple teams into the paint, then kick-out to KD on the wing for the dagger three.

by MiledAnimal on Oct 15, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

he seems to be able to create shots for himself.

man, im really starting to like tune out some of the bledge opinions on durant. the only sensible one ive heard is MOrtimers.

i think the “wait and see” is the best thing to do at this point. he is 20!

by mandoman10 on Oct 16, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Going by history

He didn’t play D at Texas and doesn’t play D in the pros. I watched ton of Oden and Durant that year, and while I admit I clearly wanted Oden, that was because he didn’t do things as well as stats suggested, with the main culprits being rebounding and defense. Durant averaged more rebounds per game than Oden in college, but watching the games you recognize that it was due to Texas’ defensive scheme (2-3 zone with Durant in the middle) and he was 4 inches taller than the next tallest Texas player with a starting backcourt of Augustine and 5’10" and Abrams at 6’1". Expecting him to all the sudden start playing D and rebounding his size is more unreasonable. IMHO.

Unlike shooting, defense and rebounding do not usually get drastically better over player’s career. It gets better up to the guy’s 4th or 5th year, then it’s all downhill from there.

by xedubx on Oct 15, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

you guys. lol. hes like 20 yrs old.

clearly, some things about his game will improve, unless he is like totally unmotivated. which hearing quotes he doesn’t seem to be. but those are just quotes.

by mandoman10 on Oct 16, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

stanford.homer.

"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.

by Cablinasian on Oct 15, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We need JB to learn how to use his athletic skills as

a real defender or he just dont fit in this equation at all

by southern oregon on Oct 15, 2009 1:54 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm with that

Bayless is still a huge potential contributor this year, imo. He needs to find a way to make Nate put him on the floor, and with his physical tools he should be able to stay with the quick PGs and match up with the physicality that Billups, Westbrook, and Williams bring in the division. Keep working Jerryd, it will pay off (hopefully in Portland).

I hate Comcast.

by blazeraddict on Oct 15, 2009 2:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nope, Jerryd Bayless is now nothing but a nice trade chip.

And, well, that’s it. Let’s please move him and Travis Outlaw for a productive 4/5, ’kay.

As each day goes by, I’m really starting to think that the deified Kevin Pritchard is in over his head.

Stupid people have stupid ideas.

by AK1984 on Oct 15, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

signing this rec

nothing like believing your opinion is an absolute. Bottom line is that this team is a work in progress that could conceivably take a step backward. I personally predict big things from this group – but we should all recall how last season started out.

Ultimately, I envision Brandon having to reclaim his status as the Man – taking back some of what Miller appears to feel entitled to – control on the offensive side of the ball.

by blacknoiseNW on Oct 15, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ULC, will you ever get over your need to promote Bayless?

I suspect it will only be when he is traded. In your support of Bayless, you currently are left only with KP said this about him, Nate said this, Payton says this……..

You have a couple good points about AK though. While I like his fresh look and different perspective on things, he surely is capable of getting too carried away.

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Oct 15, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You are missing the point entirely. My concern is about the position more than the player.

My comments are not driven by my “need to promote” Bayless. My comments are driven by my concern for what I see as the team’s biggest weakness: perimeter defense, in general, and PG defense, in particular. I supported the acquisition of Miller from Day 1 of the announcement of his signing, because I admire Miller’s knowledge and skill. If I was primarily interested in “promoting Bayless,” I would have been far less eager to embrace a signing that will likely relegate him to the bench.

Miller is a good acquisition who helps address the teams need for another scorer and another play-maker. However, he is not a great defender, and he is only a temporary solution to the teams need for a long term starting PG.

Frankly, I have been somewhat disappointed in Bayless so far this year. I had hoped that he would show more improvement over the summer. It seems clear that he is making some progress with his shooting, although he still seems to do better in practice than in actual games. To me this suggests that he is still trying too hard and having difficulty relaxing in his limited stints on the floor. It is difficult to assess his progress from the Summer League and Fan-Fest games, but I was hoping he would show more progress as a defender and distributor.

Last spring, I stated in a lengthy Fanpost that I thought there was about an 80% chance that he would develop into a decent scorer who could play off the ball and defend PGs. I “guesstimated” the chance of him becoming a good enough distributor to become our starting PG at between 50-60%. Based on what I have seen this fall I am inclined to lower those estimates somewhat. Primarily because the acquisition of Miller means he is far less likely to get the consistent minutes I think he needs to develop.

Regardless of whether you, or anyone else on this site, is more or less optimistic about Bayless’ future prospects, the fact remains that he is the only real candidate for the teams biggest long term roster need. My reaction to suggestions that Bayless be traded away now, has less to do with my evaluation of him as a basketball player and more to do with my understanding of economics:

1) Young starting quality PGs are a rare and therefore expensive commodity in the NBA.

2) Young PGs often struggle in their first year or two in the league before figuring out how to play.

3) The Blazers are extremely unlikely in the next few years to have a draft pick nearly as high as the #11 pick used to select Bayless.

4) Even if the Blazers could move up in the draft, any PG they would select would need to go through the same developmental curve that faces all young PGs in the league.

If you accept these premises, it becomes clear rather quickly that trading Bayless makes no sense. Bayless potential future value as a possible starting PG far exceeds his current value as a bargaining chip. This isn’t rocket science, it is simple supply and demand economics.

Those who urge a trade of Bayless because they don’t like his game, are being very short-sighted. It costs very little to keep him, and he may prove to be of great utility in the future. There are only two scenarios where trading Bayless makes sense:

1) If you can get back a better PG for Bayless, who is a better candidate to fill the long term need at PG, then go ahead and trade him, because then Bayless becomes redundant.

2) If you are absolutely certain that Bayless “will never be a PG” as so many have stated, then trading him before he looses value may make some sense. However, PGs with Bayless physical abilities, work ethic, and pedigree do not grow on trees. Smart people like KP, Nate, Prunty, and a future HOFer like Payton, all seem to see significant potential in Bayless. I trust and respect their opinions a lot more than my own, and frankly a lot more than yours or AK’s.

I hope that Bayless figures out how to play PG in the league. If he does it will surely be the cheapest long range solution to the team’s biggest weakness.

by upper left corner on Oct 15, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Accepting with your stance on Bayless' skills

my main concern regarding him is a psychological one: can he handle sitting on the bench for long ? That is my concern. I don’t question his skills or potential. But he needs to play. And that is not happening as things stand now. Kind of reminds me of Jermaine, hated to see him go, but I understood he needed to play. It can be frustrating for the team as well as the player.

by Berkeley on Oct 15, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why trade Bayless?

If he has a high value and we can clearly upgrade, I might do this. If he doesn’t currently have a high value, then I say no. Why? Because we’ll need a third scrub anyway. Bayless is cheap. bayless CAN play. Bayless MAY develop. (it takes some points a while to develop.)

When I look at trading, it goes back to the B level talent in multiple duplicated positions and wanting to consolidate to an A-level player. Honestly, I’d want A-level or some nice draft picks for the future out of him and whomever else is tossed in. I may consider B-level if they can bring other intangibles as well (championship experience… played with one of the greats and is a student of the game… or so on)

My view is more for the long haul instead of winning now. If the blazers can’t play defense, I think this season will be disappointing. if they can, I think they have a chance at a championship but the Lakers or Spurs may stop them.

I don’t want a minor upgrade to win now. I want a major upgrade/consolidation or I want something that will prove extremely valuable in the future. The time to do what it takes to win is coming up soon, but I think we have one or two more years before we sacrifice potential for a player that would only be good for a year or two, which is ultimately what we’d likely need to trade bayless for to get what you want.

From your point of view, I can understand why you think KP has swallowed more than he can chew. I’d simply ask you to think out 6 years instead of 1 year and ask yourself if you’d make the same decisions. I don’t think KP has shown he’s over his head yet.

"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

by ratbastird on Oct 15, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He had a high value

before SL. That was when the move should have been made. His stock will continue to crash from here on out. Trade him, and the sooner the better.

Life's short, Stunt it!!

by Irwin Fletcher on Oct 15, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why?

if his value has crashed, what are you going to get out of him that’s better than his potential?

why not Outlaw and Blake instead?

"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

by ratbastird on Oct 15, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

because he'll just sit on our bench and become a forgotten man

I said his value had crashed, not bottomed out. It is still on its way down and I don’t think it will rise again. He can’t play pg and he’s too small to play sg. At best he will be a Freddy Jones type player.

Life's short, Stunt it!!

by Irwin Fletcher on Oct 15, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wait for it...

Wait for it…

We’ll trade Bayless. And he’ll develop into a star. Sound familiar? A guy on our bench with high expectations, who just can’t get any playing time on a good team…

Oh, he’s just a tiny, modern day Jermaine O’Neal.

I personally am all for either giving him the number 2 spot, or packaging him with Trout and either Howard or Blake/Miller and getting a number 1 PG, or a true banger 4. Honestly, Blake/Outlaw/Bayless would be an enticing deal for a team trying to cut salary. 2 Expiring contracts and a young PG in need of playing time. If I’m in fire-sale mode, I’m looking at that seriously.

"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller

by Jeremiah S on Oct 15, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm with you man

I tried to make this point a month or two ago and got the same response. Pritchard has done a great job up to this point but he seems to be showing that his weakness is in holding on to his draft picks and passing up on better opportunities. Bayless is not our future pg. We have time to find a better option as Miller and Blake are taking care of that for the next 3 years or so.

Life's short, Stunt it!!

by Irwin Fletcher on Oct 15, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it is too early to say Bayless is not our future pg....

But he does have his work cut out for him IMO. I have never been a Bayless fan, and thus far he has proven all of my compaints about him to be true. I can see why people are high on him, and I also see why people don’t believe he is the answer long term. My personal opinion is far closer the latter of that argument.

The only complaint I have about KP is that he does seem to overvalue his own players. I can’t say he made a mistake by not trading Bayless or Outlaw yet, simply because I don’t know what he could have got for either of those guys. This roster will need to be tweaked more though, and I hope he doesn’t wait for a young player like Bayless to not pan out before he does so. At a certain point you have to trade potential for a proven commodity, we might not be there yet, but each day that passes we come closer to that point….

by Rudiculous on Oct 15, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The problem isn't our new back court.

It is true that BRoy didn’t make his shots or they were different types then normal, but the scoring of Oden, Martell and Andre more then made up the different in BRoy’s shooting. It was the turn-overs, missed free throws, no outside shooting to open up the middle and poor Defense that beat us.

I agree with Dave that BRoy is the franchise player and will remain the # 1 option and we need to let his style of play continue. If Andre is taking up BRoy’s space then why not go back to Steve and BRoy, Put Andre and Greg with the second unit since Greg is also taking shots away from BRoy.

I am talking of just right now, changing 3/5th of your starting 5. is a enormous step and will take time. I know I sound like a broken record on this subject, but Andre can help develop Greg with the second unit as well as the first. Although, I believe that Greg should get playing time with both BRoy and LMA. I couldn’t see but it sounded like the high, low post of LMA and Greg was awesome. Anyway, this big of a change in offense needs to be introduced much slower.

hg

by BBK on Oct 15, 2009 2:11 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Greg doesn't take shot away from Roy the way Miller does

A lot of the shots Greg takes put-backs, shots that no one on the team would be able to take if Greg weren’t there to get the rebound. Even on the shot that aren’t put-backs, Oden is often just a finisher who doesn’t get the ball until just before he dunks it. Miller is different because he is a ball-dominant player and with him in the game the Blazers can easily go through whole possessions without Roy touching the ball.

That isn’t the only problem with the Roy-Miller back court though. The other important weaknesses with this pairing is that both of them are poor defensively, and that Miller lacks the 3-point range needed to spread out the defense and provide proper spacing for Roy.

by trk on Oct 15, 2009 2:47 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

true about the defense

but a touch is a touch.

If Oden continues to convert at this rate, he’s going to take touches away from someone. He’s too effective.

by Blazin' on Oct 15, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You are right

I wasn’t sure BRoy would pass the ball to Greg as much as Andre, but Andre wasn’t looking for Greg in the second half, so he is no better then BRoy for finding Greg.

If Andre does primarily the same job as BRoy, I still think we should separate them and let them perform on different units. I think Andre and Rudy would be terrific on the second unit.

hg

by BBK on Oct 15, 2009 2:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps he was told not to look for Greg in the 2nd half

But more likely is that the defense shifted to cover Greg and left Andre alone. In that event Andre has to score until they cover him. It is precisely the offense you want – to have the open man shooting. Phoenix must read the promise to get Roy and LMA more shots and work to frustrate that.

I agree with your premise that the problem was primarily turnovers. Without the turnovers it is a blowout and everyone gets happy. Free throws are a small problem but that will correct itself with better conditioning and practice. The turnovers are not likely to be a season-long thing either. Part of the correction is to stay with the lineup so that it becomes practiced. This is what the preseason is for along with trying different combinations and using the problems as a learning tool to prepare for the regular season.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you want to talk about defense, Blake is no better on defense than Miller. Is everyone forgetting that?

2012

by OVERTIME on Oct 15, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Miller is better at defense.

Both of them get killed by speedy guards, but Miller can guard bigger guys and doesn’t get posted up, Blake can’t.

by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 15, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They are both below average

Blake isn’t an ideal back court partner for Roy either. We would probably be better off with someone like Hinrich.

by trk on Oct 15, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"If Andre is taking up BRoy’s space then why not go back to Steve and BRoy"

Because Steve Blake is not a starting NBA PG. Remember how many times the offense looked totally clueless in the fourth quarter last season? That’s why.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Oct 15, 2009 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, I don't remember that.

What I most recall is a good number of 4th quarter comebacks.

Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave

Also: COMCAST SUCKS!

by TwoDeep on Oct 15, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

playoffs

remember the Blazers lost in the playoffs to Houston last April? The Blake-Roy backcourt is not your savior. Miller was brought in to make the offense less predictable, and it’s going to take some time for “everyone” to make the necessary adjustments

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 15, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

playoffs

Blake and Roy didn’t do too badly in the playoffs. Both of them posted playoff PERs that were higher than their regular season averages. Unfortunately Batum didn’t do much of anything, Oden couldn’t stay on the floor, and Outlaw shot 31.8%. Additionally, we had problems on defense and couldn’t stop Yao Ming without doubling him off the ball. I don’t see how you can blame the Blake-Roy back court for losing the series against Houston.

by trk on Oct 15, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

4 turnovers for Blake in game 6, a few were "unforced"

and that rushed airball in game 3 are my lasting memories of Blake, under pressure

The take-away from the Rocket’s series was that Portland needed a third scoring option and that Roy needed veteran help that wasn’t already on the roster. Hedo was the first FA target, and eventually KP settled on Miller. Most everyone agrees that Andre should be on the floor at the end of close games. My point remains…why do folks want the Miller-Roy on the floor at the end, but not at the beginning of games? Aren’t the other team’s starters in the game at the beginning of each half, trying to establish the tempo and take control of the scoreboard? And how are Brandon and Andre going to “mesh” in close games if they’re only playing together for a limited time, earlier in the evening?

I was saying most of last year that Blake was a good backup PG, but he didn’t have enough playmaking skills to take the Blazers to the finals. KP and Nate confirmed this conclusion by signing Miller. Andre has been getting rave reviews by most (if not all) reporters who have seen him play on a daily basis during camp and preseason. Let’s let the team’s most-talented PG and SG learn how to “gel” out on the floor, instead of having them constantly passing each other on their way to and from the timeout huddles.

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

YES.

and because you need to start your best point guard and let their chemistry develop. They both understand the game and their positions too well to not figure it out.

by rpresto2 on Oct 15, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Blake is a starting NBA PG

He hasn’t looked like one so far in preseason though. It is like Blake has lost his Blakeness.

by trk on Oct 15, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or has he lost his All-Star backcourt mate?

Both seem to be factors. Blake seldom played last year without Roy did he?

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quick made a good point the other day

Steve has been a slow starter, every year. He was the #3 PFG his first season in Portland, but he won the starting job in December. The following year Jack beat him out in camp, but Blake replaced Jarrett in November. Last year Steve had no serious competition for the starting job

So whatever is “ailing” Blake right now might just have nothing to do with Miller, or the fact that he isn’t playing alongside Roy. Steve could be in a “slump” like some baseball hitters get into, at the beginning of their season. He should work his way out of it eventually, but while he does, I’d rather see Miller getting 30+ mpg at PG

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also, our 4th quarter lineup is going to have heavy dosage of Dre

If they don’t figure out how to play together in the 1st quarter, they’re probably not going to do great things in 4th quarter, either.

by xedubx on Oct 15, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Remember who had the ball in their hands in the 4th?

Last time I checked, it wasn’t Blake. Plus, our 4th quarters were usually damn good. The offense generally looked clueless in the 2nd when all the subs were in, and Sergio was running the show.

"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller

by Jeremiah S on Oct 15, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Andre and Greg are clearly superior to Blake and Pryz, you are going to want them playing 30 minutes per game

Ask yourself a practical question: how do you work the rotation if two of your starters are only playing 18 min per game, and two of your reserves are playing 30 minutes each? Doing that would require constantly rotating guys in and out of the line-up. Is it worth disrupting both units in order to try to keep Blake with Roy for those 18 minutes? I don’t think so.

Be patient. Of course there is going to be an adjustment period. Roy and Blake have had nearly 180 games together. Roy and Miller have had 2 games together. If it isn’t working by December, then a change may be in order.

Greg wants to start. I would go so far as to say, “Greg, needs to start.” Andre is better at getting him the ball in position to succeed. Andre is also going to help Nic and Martell score in the open court. Andre is also better at running the pick and roll for LMA, and better at the long pass to LMA in transition.

If Miller makes everybody else better, does it make sense to start Blake, or does it make sense to see if Roy and Miller can work it out, given a little time?

by upper left corner on Oct 15, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

spacing

3-point shooters like Blake make everyone on the team better just by existing. Even if it looks like he is standing around and not doing much, he is still using his 3-point threat to pull a defender away from the action.

Additionally the other players will get more shots with Blake on the floor because Blake doesn’t shoot a lot or turn the ball over often. I bet that most of the other players, including Oden and Aldridge, will score more with Blake on the court than with Miller.

by trk on Oct 15, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wouldn't be against having Rudy in the back court instead of Blake

Being a PG would require some adjustments for Rudy and it might take him a while to really learn how to play the position. I think that it could end up working eventually though.

by trk on Oct 15, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think Rudy can defend the point.

My comment was to suggest that spacing doesn’t have to come from the PG position. The SF can also help extend the defense if it is someone who is deadly from distance like Martell or Rudy.

by upper left corner on Oct 16, 2009 6:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he would do a better job (defensively) than Blake

Having a player who is a little bigger than average for their position is usually an advantage defensively. I think it is even more of an advantage at the PG position, since even tall PGs are undersized compared to every other position. Rudy has a lot of length for a PG, he has good lateral quickness (at least comparable to Blake, probably better), he has high BBIQ and he usually brings energy puts in a good effort on defense. I think he has all the tools needed to become an above average PG defensively.

by trk on Oct 16, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yup. be patient.

If it takes 20 games for Brandon and Andre to learn to play well together, I’m ok with us starting the season 10-10.

by mangas on Oct 15, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I say you stick with what works(Blake and Roy)....

Until Andre and Roy figure it out. It isn’t hard to get reserves 30 minutes per game, look at the Batum and Outlaw situation last year. It doesn’t make sense to me to possibly lose a couple extra games just so Miller and Roy can find a rhythm by december. They can work on their chemistry in limited minutes with Dre off the bench until they prove to be a cohesive backcourt….

by Rudiculous on Oct 15, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My point was that in order to have two bench guys playing starter minutes you are going to be constantly substituting

It may be difficult for anyone to get a rhythm when different guys would constantly be rotating in and out.

by upper left corner on Oct 16, 2009 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have to agree with Dave on this one

I won’t be worried about merging Andre into the starting 5 until we’re ten games deep and Roy is still playing piss-poor.

Like a quarterback and his receivers, it takes a while sometimes for players to get on the same page. Roy and Miller will mesh, they just need to spend more time together on the court.

After all, that’s what preseason is for, right?

Blazers win!

by The X-man on Oct 15, 2009 2:20 AM PDT via mobile reply actions   0 recs

lol at people still talking about Heinrich and other trades that didn't happen

the season starts in two weeks. why not talk about what we’ve got?

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Oct 15, 2009 6:57 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Because we what we've got is no defense.

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Oct 15, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I want to rec this, and agree

but also want to clarify (and I think you’d agree; it just went unstated) that by “no defense” what we primarily mean is “no (perimeter or solid team) defense”
I’ve been really impressed with Greg and Joel, and LMA has been better on average than before (though still with room for improvement).

by Montavilla Steve on Oct 15, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So

oden is playing rather nicely…. blazers aren’t playing defense… blazers are losing.

Can I now claim that I’m right and defense was more important than the big GeOh?

i do so like being right.

"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

by ratbastird on Oct 15, 2009 7:36 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Disconnect - Greg does not play perimeter defense. How is he responsible when he is dominating his matchups inside?

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Shoulda got Heinrich...

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Oct 15, 2009 8:51 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Defensive weaknesses are troubling

Roy + Miller can definitely work offensively, but the bigger question is how to manage rotations if they are playing a lot together. Miller and Roy have the skills and savvy to, at the very least, not be terrible together. I fear Blake and Fernandez are significantly more limited. A line-up of Blake, Fernandez, Webster/Outlaw, Aldridge/Outlaw, Pryzbilla are very unlikely to work.

Miller + Roy on defense doesn’t seem perfect, but my gut tells me that the Blazers’ defense problems are still more about coaching, communication, and team defense “synergy” than individual talents or effort…. Well, maybe I’m not sure about effort. Aldridge and Roy coast an awful lot on defense for guys that are under 25 and 24 years old and claim to want to win a championship. If Roy and Aldridge brought Kobe/Garnett level intensity to their defensive efforts, I’d feel very good about the Blazers chances. As it is, I’m starting to get nervous about this season.

by PoliSam on Oct 15, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

As it is, I’m starting to get nervous about this season.

You and me both. I agree with you about what the defensive issues might portend for this season, and I’ll add to your statement that I think it’s indicative of a deeper issue: namely, that there are a ton of moving parts right now.

Honestly, the only players I see keeping approximately the same roles as last year are LMA and Bayless…and the latter’s situation is not a good one. Blake, Miller, Roy, Greg, Joel, Travis, Martell, and to a lesser extent Batum and Rudy are all going to see their roles change from last season to this one.

  Is Nate going to be able to find the right combinations to make the Blazers hum? And even if he does, will the players buy into it if (as I fear will be the case) we get off to a slow start while the coaching staff tries to nail down a rotation?

I can see the Blazers turning into an absolute juggernaut in March, trampling the opposition under giant robot feet and scorching them with laser beams from their eyes while cackling fiendishly and making opposing fans flee in terror. I can also see the Blazers backsliding to 50 or so wins and getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs, having been unable to find consistent cohesion all season long.

Some nights the Blazers are going to look like absolute world-beaters, and others they’ll look terribly discombobulated, and we’re just going to have to roll with that as fans and trust in our coaching staff to get things figured out. I don’t want to say that this season will be more difficult than anybody had anticipated — but it’s certain going to be more difficult than this guy had thought.

"I just sort of know that around the water cooler they talk of reality tv stars, and I strictly drink coffee." -- EvilKaramazov

by BlazersOrBust on Oct 15, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is what I really don't wanna' see
“Some nights the Blazers are going to look like absolute world-beaters, and others they’ll look terribly discombobulated”

‘cause last year, we had no loss-streaks greater than two games (I think) and were pretty steady overall. It seems like there were relatively few games were we just looked “discombobulated” (though there were many slow starts to games before we got rolling). That sort of up and down doesn’t bode well for the run into the latter rounds of the playoffs we’re all hoping for.

by Montavilla Steve on Oct 15, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think an issue with complaining about Andre and Brandon

as a defensive pairing has to be tempered with the fact that Blake isn’t exactly Rajon Rondo out there. We just don’t have any good options as a defender of PGs out there (except Batum, possibly, who I’d expect will see his fair share of time on PGs).

I couldn’t agree more about Roy and LA’s coasting on defense to be troubling. They’re getting into their 4th years, the clock is ticking awfully loudly on how long they can keep playing the “young” player card. Nearly every elite player has to carry a similar share of the offense, and they still manage to bring it defensively more than Roy or Aldridge.

It’d be nice if Miller were both good enough and a strong enough defender to start to demand some accountability on that end, but at some point, these guys are the best players and leaders, they’re going to have to set the tone. Not time to sound alarm bells or anything, but it’d definitely be nicer if this weren’t an issue at all.

by Royster on Oct 15, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good stuff, both comments

I feel like you both elaborated on what I was getting at very well.

I don’t have a doom and gloom view of these guys. Instead, I feel like someone needs to challenge Roy and Aldridge to play at another level defensively. I think that will go a long ways towards the Blazers being a true dynasty rather than a very good team with a lot of talent. Roy has expressed a desire to be an all-league defender, but I haven’t seen anything close to that yet. Roy’s defense in the Clippers game was average, at best. Aldridge just often seems to lack a sense of purpose on defense. He can make some great plays, but he does not appear to be keyed into help the team make stops every possession.

by PoliSam on Oct 15, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I still give Roy more of a pass than LA

Roy has clearly been exerting a ton of effort on offense, having to create a lot of the offense out of nothing over the course of entire possessions, while LA’s still getting lots of touches, pick and pops, occasional post ups, etc. aren’t really anything herculean in terms of the effort required, at least compared to the standard offensive workload of someone like Gasol.

I mean, he came in as the big 12 defensive player of the year, and since he’s been in the league, he just hasn’t seemed that dedicated to playing defense. If anyone (other than Greg, of course) should be expected to bring it defensively, it’s him.

by Royster on Oct 15, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

LMA's contract completion will help

Even Roy would not play with the USA team without an extension. If LMA gets hurt his leverage on extension goes out the window.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I won't worry too much about PG defense

As long as Batum is in the lineup. I’d assume it’ll go much the same as last year where Batum takes on their best offensive perimeter player. Miller is probably a better defender on 2’s rather than 1’s anyway.

Now, if Webster start., uh oh…

by xedubx on Oct 15, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I also like this thought...

…I couldn’t believe how impressed I was watching Batum guard Tony Parker last year.

by irish3 on Oct 15, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

(except Batum, possibly, who I’d expect will see his fair share of time on PGs).

How cool would it be in a couple of years if Nic became a “Prince/Pippen kind” of point forward and defended the other team’s PG, and the Blazers started Batum-Roy-Webster at the 1-2-3?

that could be a lot of fun

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Oct 16, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Roy's points less important than team

Why some much concern for Roy’s points? The team scored over 100 pts last night. Roy took 13 shots and didn’t play his full minutes. I would prefer Oden dominating the middle and Miller getting him the ball. Remember Nate’s offensive scheme against Houston? With Miller on the floor you can’t triple team Roy. Miller will drive and dish. What’s so bad about a pt. guard who can do other things besides walk the ball up the floor and hand the ball off? If Roy wants to win, regardless of his touches, he could start by leading his team on defense. Given the RAMBO scenario, Roy no longer needs to save energy for his offense and should start playing like an NBA champion: Dominate the game in the facet the team needs you the most. He’s the Blazers all-star, time to become a Championship all-star.

Who is John Gault?

by jongus on Oct 15, 2009 10:07 AM PDT reply actions   4 recs

/agree 100%

Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.

by Net Ranger on Oct 15, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There are many great wing players in the league.

Not so many great centers.

If Oden can become a dependable weapon offensively, then shouldn’t we be running an inside-out offense and making him our #1 scoring option?

by MiledAnimal on Oct 15, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good argument but not many SG like Roy and hard to acquire as well

Most have agreed that this is Roy’s team. He must buy into whatever system we use. While he is still fighting for national recognition and establish himself any system that reduces him will not be positive for him. Change Wade for Roy and the same issue develops. LeBron, K@by, Wade, Roy are right there but fewer know about Roy. I personally wish this were not the case but with 10’s of millions of dollars in endorsements and national star treatment at stake for Roy I have no ability to walk in his shoes and say those are not important.

The real issue is to win big with Roy showcased. That is bigger than all the camp battles. I like the inside out offense best. It simply must be tailored to work for Roy.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rec'd

for sanity.

by xedubx on Oct 15, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

While the team scored 104, it took 100 possessions (very fast paced game).

That’s poor offensive efficiency compared with the 99 points in 87 possessions the Blazers averaged last season.

While theoretically it would be great if the team could improve offensively while relying less on one player (Roy), a large part of what makes the team so efficient is the fact that Roy is so efficient and takes so many possessions. Roy’s ORtg last season was 123 while the team as a whole was 113. This is why it’s important to keep Roy involved; he’s the most efficient option and the team efficiency is unlikely to drop if he gets significantly less involved.

by poster on Oct 15, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

brandon was limping last nitge

and i know mabey some guys wear those braces fo sho or extra support but i only put them on when somethings huirten

by riccc_l on Oct 15, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Brandon takes awhile to get warmed up

Once his head is in the game he turns on like a switch. It was just a pre season game. There is nothing to get worried over. Once things get going, so will he.

by MercuryPDX on Oct 15, 2009 10:19 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Brandon and LaMarcus on the Blazer's backcourt...

Brandon:

This is the best flow we’ve had offensively through four games. But we still weren’t very good on (defense) and a lot of that was tempo.

LaMarcus:

I always said that playing with (Miller) and Brandon in the same lineup was going to take time to figure out, and I think every game it’s getting better. Tonight we kind of built some chemistry together and I think we’ll keep getting better.

also from LaMarcus:

Preseason (exists) to get better and I think we didn’t win and we didn’t play the defense we wanted to, but chemistry-wise, we’re getting better. We can watch film on our defense and get better at that.

full article here

Dude!, what's wrong with you? Why you gotta be holding a corn dog when I go for a high-five??

by 1badbadger on Oct 15, 2009 10:58 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Let's also be mindful that BRoy's offensive averages will never be as high as they

were last year with the addition of ALM, the return of Webster, increased touches for G.O, and the improvement of Batum. As much fun as it is to watch Brandon score 50+ on teams, his necessity to do that doesn’t make a title team.

It’s good that Brandon is an established All-Star now because as this team’s offensive load begins to balance out, he’ll be putting up smaller #’s which could effect future All Star considerations because of playing in a smaller market.

Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.

by Net Ranger on Oct 15, 2009 11:52 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Players care about making the all-star team, but why should we?

Yes, arguably All-Stars get more calls. But Roy will be a perennial all-star contender, and that’s probably good enough to get him some respect from the refs. Besides, if the Blazers start contending for championships—thanks to a more diversified offense—that’ll improve Roy’s all-star prospects even as his scoring numbers go down.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Oct 15, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nate's "sticking with last years starters" plan

may have hindered our pre season development if the real starters are going to be RAMWO (or RAMBO). Everyone buying into the “play for your position” may reward the second unit guys for working hard, but the original first unit guys are faced with “demotion”, plus readjusting to an entirely new, less talented lineup. Kind of delayed dissappointment (if not sense of betrayal). Obviously the second unit was walked over last night. It is a major adjustment for everyone to accept a new role, especially when coupled with dissapointment over “demotion”. A new unit chemistry has to be established and developed for the second unit to be effective again.
These lineup issues are challenging, but not dull.

by Berkeley on Oct 15, 2009 12:31 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

rotation brainstorming

by half:

1) First 6 minutes: Miller, Roy, Batum, LMA, Oden
2) Next 4 minutes: Blake, Roy, Batum, LMA, Przy (last year’s starters)
3) Next 4 minutes: Blake, Rudy, Webster, LMA, Przy
4) Next 4 minutes: Miller, Rudy, Webster, Outlaw, Oden
5) Next 2 minutes: Miller, Roy, Webster, Outlaw Oden
6) Final 4 minutes: Miller, Roy, Rudy, LMA, Oden

1) you work on establishing LMA and Oden through 2 man games with Roy/LMA and Miller/Oden.
2) Allow Roy and LMA to do their thing with Blake to space the court and Przy to set picks
3) Bench players with LMA for stability, using Rudy to initiate offense
4) Miller/Oden time, with Rudy and Martel as 3 point outlets and Outlaw for transition and isolation plays
5) Continue Miller/Oden time, with Roy back in the game to warmup and isolation
6) Roy isolation time and/or 2 man games with Mller/Oden and Roy/LMA. Rudy for clutch shooting

Minutes breakdown:
Miller 32, Blake 16
Roy 32, Rudy 24
Batum 20, Webster 20
LMA 36, Outlaw 12
Oden 32, Joel 16

Obviously fouls, matchups and injuries will dictate some game to game changes, and this is all approximate – we know Roy and Outlaw will likely get more minutes than listed here, but the idea is to put in a basic framework that could work. Keeping Oden and Miller together as much as possible for obvious reasons, and they both sub out early to allow Roy and Aldridge that 2nd half of the 1st and 3rd quarters to run in their “comfort zone” from last year.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 15, 2009 1:40 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

you don't factor Juwan Howard in at all?

or just such a small portion of PT its not worth mentioning? (<5 minutes per game)

by pdxlifer on Oct 15, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i went with the 10 man rotation

guys like Howard, Bayless, etc will get spot minutes in blowouts and/or due to injury or severe foul trouble.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 15, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I love the chart.

I just ask one question. Do you legitimately think McMillan will limit his 6th man from last year to 12 minutes a game? Because I sincerely doubt he will.

"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller

by Jeremiah S on Oct 15, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

no

im projecting my wishes a bit. as I said in the disclaimer, Outlaw will undoubtedly get more minutes than I’ve listed. Still, I expect them to go down. You have to figure that there will be less minutes available to him at the 3 spot, and with Oden’s resurgence, we should also be be playing less LMA at 5. Both these things will squeeze Outlaw’s available minutes.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 15, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's all about the cake

Miller is smart and I think he’ll get control of the offense and have everyone, Roy included, comfortable out there when the games count. Roy is a great, versatile player and he’ll adjust to the changes in the offense. He’s not an All Star because Steve Blake was making him look good.

First we let the cake bake, now we have to let it cool before we put the frosting on. But just because it’s sitting on the kitchen counter tempting us with chocolately goodness that’s too hot to touch doesn’t mean we won’t get to enjoy our delicious treat later on.

by JonathanPDX on Oct 15, 2009 2:03 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

In my eyes, the big story of training camp has been the dynamic between Brandon and Andre.

As Andre’s understanding of the NBA game and consequent leadership are felt on the court, this story turns now to how Brandon responds. And, as Dave aptly points out, the contract has to be considered. And with it, Brandon’s maturity and mental state.

It may very well be that Brandon has to be a big shot for a while before he knows enough about himself to realize that he does in fact want an NBA championship.

Look at the leadership of recent champions in the league. Well after fame and maximum wealth and in some cases rings were achieved did many of the recent greats discover a deeper desire to win. A love of the Warrior in themselves, if you will. And an appreciation for the team nature of the game. Call that a love of war.

The player who understands and desires this will show no hesitation, and suffer no injury to his ego in doing what it takes to be victorious.

I have yet to see much of any sign of this with the Blazers I have followed these two years now. In many ways, they seem a team of boys.

But they have deep talent, and here’s the thing that gives me hope: The discipline that I have seen in Brandon’s offensive game leads me to believe that he has the mental capacity to master whatever he needs to in order to win. In this case, playing off the ball, and committing to defense.

Perhaps now he must realize why he wants to.

by Blazin' on Oct 15, 2009 2:17 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

For those not reading the JD or the fanshots today

Jason Quick is reporting on 95.5 that Nate has settled on last season’s starting lineup (Blake, Roy, Batum, LMA, Joel) to start this Sunday, and it will likely be the starting lineup on opening night.

by Timmay! on Oct 15, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

wow

very surprising.

I still suspect (hope) that Miller and Oden will be starting sooner rather than later.

by jksnake99 on Oct 15, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is no excuse to not start Oden

the guy is hardly the reason why are starting defense sucks – he wasn’t the one getting beat up the floor on leakouts by guards and wings last night.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 15, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I think its clear Nate wants to bring Miller and Oden in together and wants Roy to get off to a good start with Blake

I can live with that, as long as Oden is playing ~30 minutes and Miller gets more minutes than Blake. We’ll see.

by jksnake99 on Oct 15, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

that'd be nice, but...

Oden has to start at some point. Starting would be alot better for his development that coming off the bench IMO.

Roy is and all-star and still young. That means he’s an amazing player who is STILL LEARNING to play the game. He’s got to learn to play with Oden. His game has to be adaptable enough to get his looks AND Oden looks. If Greg develops into the guy we all hope for, he’s offensive will be equally important to Roy’s.

Roy doesn’t need to get off to a good start in ANY game until playoffs. Remember last year? We started nearly everygame going through LaMarcus. We fed it to LA to open up the floor for Roy.

And Miller has experience. He’s been on how many teams? I think he knows how to play alongside a bonafide superstar like Roy. It’s the preseason. It takes time to figure this stuff out. Miller is capable of learning how to play alongside Brandon as well as Blake does. This is what the preseason is for; to play ugly and learn.
One of the biggest problems we had last season against the Rockets in the playoffs were the number of scorers we had. If Artest and the Rockets shut down Roy and LA’s jumpers weren’t falling, who did we look to to score? Miller’s great offensive game will keep defenses honest and keep Brandon from getting hounded during the season and playoffs. It’ll work. Trust me.

2012

by OVERTIME on Oct 15, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Coaches get too much credit for wins in b-ball...at least all of them other than Larry Brown...

…but seriously, Nate has until the official starters step out onto the floor, as a grace period for me…I will allow him to do his “head games” until then…but if I don’t hear Oden’s name I’m gonna be LIVID!!!!!!!

…the thing that also ticks me off…is any casted off former NBA coach could run this team, and get 50 wins, so no matter what Nate does, people will be talking about: “Look at the results he got out of these guys! Boy O Boy, what a good job!”

As of now, Coach Nate hasn’t proved he’s anymore than the Dick Jauron of the NBA…nice man, organized, generally respected, yadda, yadda, yadda…

…but tactically, and “big decisions,” he hasn’t proven anything to me…now, when I speak of Dick Jauron, he “is what he is”, now I’m NOT saying that’s who Nate is, just saying he hasn’t proved all that yet to me yet, we don’t know who Nate is as a coach yet, so we can lay off the Obama Cool Aid in blindly trusting all of his decisions

by irish3 on Oct 15, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Almost rec'd over the Larry Brown reference

But the rest of your point is mistaken. Nate has established himself as a top coach in the league and is continuing to get better along with the team. His win% trajectory is his primary credential with both Seattle and Portland and his inclusion on Team USA for the 2nd 3-year term is high praise as well.

Nate is paid to develop and coach this team to wins. It is not about any player. But to get those wins he has to blend and match and shift his players, considering the most effective combinations for 48 minutes a game. And he has to keep his eye on the future as well, bringing along the players to provide lasting success. He has far better tools and experience than any of us to accomplish this.

So I caution temperance and patience and let us see how this develops.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thank you for reminding me he was chosen to be on the USA team...

…that does mean something to me…

…it is just like I am a little boy on the night before Christmas wanting to open my presents, realllly bad!

I don’t feel Nate has done anything to merit any sticking criticicm at this point, annnnd I have a sneaky feeling he’s playing a lot of “head games” right now, a la Bill Parcells, and making sure he gets the absolute best out of his players…

…it just frustrates me to see him suggest he’s going to make some really dumb moves, just to use them as a motivational play, when I think there is a 1% chance he actually thinks its a good move regardless of psycholagy…in any event…

…temperance & patience are virtues, and I will try to do this, lol

by irish3 on Oct 15, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, the opening day starting lineup hasn't even made it to the home opener

in either of the last two years, so at least there’s a precedent.

by Royster on Oct 15, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well, except this year opening night IS the home opener

so no chance for it to change in between… ;-)

but your bigger point is valid. I would expect changes to the starters in the first few weeks or so.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 15, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

NATE IS CRAZY

I really can’t believe that Oden and Miller will not be starting. Both have outplayed their competition at their respective positions. Not starting two of your best players is lunacy. Idea: try to get a lead by starting out with your best guys, then finish the game in the lead by ending with your best players. There is no platoon subbing, i.e. 5 players at a time, so this whole “second unit” idea should be tempered by match ups and game situations. I know I am not the only person frustrated by Nate’s scripted substitutions. It’s like coloring by numbers.

Who is John Gault?

by jongus on Oct 15, 2009 4:04 PM PDT reply actions   2 recs

Agreed.

Nicely put.

2012

by OVERTIME on Oct 15, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What Brandon wants, Brandon gets?

I don’t like Nate’s decision to start Blake & Przy over Miller & Oden—not on any level. I predict that Roy will continue to struggle in the Denver game and vs Houston. Now you’ll have TWO units that are struggling, and a pair of very important, very unhappy players in GO & Dre—who were told that the guys who played the best in training camp and the preseason would start.

If this move was done, even in part, to appease the team’s star, that’s a mistake. Nate needs to build this team with an eye to winning playoff games, not making Brandon Roy happy. Even winning regular season games is not the ultimate goal. Look at that Mavericks team that won 62 games (or was it more?) and got bounced in the first round.

A Brandon Roy-dominated Blazers team won’t contend for a championship. Not even Kobe was good enough to win dominating the ball all game long. The Blazers need more weapons—most importantly, a credibly low-post threat. How is that going to happen with Greg Oden coming off the bench?

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Oct 15, 2009 4:13 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Tell ya what...

I sincerely doubt this has anything to do with Brandon’s happiness. No, rather it has everything to do with spacing, and the value of trying something that, while it could be potentially better, against reverting to what we know works.

Is the chance of an amazing starting unit so worthwhile, that we abandon what took us to the playoffs last year? Or do you fail to recognize that against ANY other team in the Western conference besides the Rockets, we probably would’ve beaten handily. The Rockets presented such a horrendous matchup with us, that it was nearly impossible to overcome. Scola’s a solid player, Yao Ming is freakishly tall, and Aaron Brooks is extremely fast. However, I would argue that even then we stayed with them. No, the 2nd unit was scorched all series by Von Wafer, whomever was their backup PG, and guys like Carl Landry. If that doesn’t happen, we win. Starting units are not everything. We looked for a scapegoat as to why we lost. We picked Blake. And now everyone wants to demolish a 54 win starting unit because they think that it’ll win playoff games. I disagree. I think that changing the starting unit right now would actually hinder our chances at repeating such a great season.

"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller

by Jeremiah S on Oct 15, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not quite accurate...
…everyone wants to demolish a 54 win starting unit…

With Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge and Przybilla starting we won 26 games, not 54

Dude, what are you doing, man? Why you gotta be holding a corn dog when I go for a high-five??

by 1badbadger on Oct 15, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry, but I don't consider that a "great season"

Was the Mavs season in which they lost to the Warriors in the first round a great season? No, because they had greater goals than making the playoffs. Was last season a flop? Of course not; the Blazers continued their upward climb and made the playoffs in a very tough conference. But in their heart of hearts, Nate & KP must have been bitterly disappointed, because they had their sights set higher than a first round exit.

You apparently feel there was something flukish in the Blazers losing in the first round last year. In fact, you say that the guys would have beaten ANY other Western team handily. Again, I’m sorry but I have to disagree. As Charles Barkley and other experts were fond of pointing out all season long, last season’s Blazers were “a jumpshooting team,” and perimeter-oriented teams don’t do well in the playoffs. Never have. If the Blazers hadn’t faced the Rockets, they would have had to deal with another veteran, more-physical team—the Thuggets, the Spurs, or the Lakers. Any of those teams would have been likely to win.

As I wrote above, if the Blazers are to make it to the next level—winning multiple playoff series—they will have to diversify their offense. Most importantly, they’ll need to exploit the offensive abilities of Greg Oden. Inevitably, that will mean fewer touches for Brandon Roy. Sooner or later, it’s going to happen. I believe it should happen right now, even at the cost of a slow start to this season. The top teams often start slow anyway. Ain’t no biggie.

In my mind, whether because of Roy’s sensitivities or not, Nate is pulling the plug too early on what must, sooner or later, become the Blazers’ new look. That new look will be much less Roy-centric.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Oct 15, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

and that's that.

You got it right.

Sometimes I think Nate can be goofy. He started Oden last year when there was no way he was ready, and now he’s not willing to when Greg appears much more solid?

by Blazin' on Oct 15, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have to disagree...

Our starting unit from last season was good for 54 wins. Now we can add Andre Miller to the 2nd unit instead of Sergio(HUGE improvement) and a much improved Oden. This makes a ton of sense. Our starters will be just as good, if not better than last year, and the 2nd unit could be a starting unit on several teams in the nba. Our bench will be a humongous asset this year and an advantage against any team in the nba…

by Rudiculous on Oct 15, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My thoughts. (In almost essay form).

Simply put, I’ve been clamoring for at least a few months for Andre Miller to come off the bench. Why? Because it makes more sense.

The 2nd unit needs a true floor general. The 1st unit has Roy/Blake, basically a 2 headed monster.

The 2nd unit needs a guard/wing who can attack the basket. The 1st Unit has Roy.

The 2nd unit needs a guard who can push the tempo. The 1st unit is all about efficiency.

The 2nd unit needs a guard who is going to try to play defense. The 1st unit does too.

The 2nd team needs people to draw fouls. The 1st unit has Roy and Aldridge doing that.

Miller is a better player than Blake. However, his strengths would only serve to overlap strengths we find on the first team. His ability to involve Greg is what will keep Oden coming off the bench. But, I then ask you, is this necessarily a bad thing? If Oden is coming off the bench, then I want you to name a handful of backup Centers who can muscle up on him. He’s going to eat people alive. Miller will finally give us a guy to attack the basket with the 2nd unit. Last year we just had a bunch of guys playing Midrange to Perimeter offense at times, with 1 guy low. Sometimes it would work. Against the good teams it never would. Because there needs to be someone to break down the defenses, for easy layups or at the least, collapse the D for an easy kick out.

Miller is a much better fit with the 2nd unit. I know that a Miller, Rudy, Webster, Outlaw fast break would be one of the fastest breaks in the NBA. The biggest downside to this team is the lack of perimeter defense, which could lead to easy drives, but Oden will be there. Now, it could also result in Oden picking up fouls easier. But, moving Miller to the starting unit wouldn’t solve that problem. Neither would moving Greg to the starting unit. It’d just put Joel into foul trouble. And like I stated above, it would hurt our offense by overlapping strengths.

So, to conclude, I would like to say that while:

Miller>Blake
and
Oden> Pryzbilla
What really needs to be said is
Team>Talent.

"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller

by Jeremiah S on Oct 15, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Reasonable and well stated

But of course the proof is in the results.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good argument, trashing the second unit for a maxed out first unit

could well be a net loss for the team. The team hast to put winning ahead of starting. If the Phoenix game is a valid indicator, the second unit without Miller/Oden was not working.
And once the team has it close in the 4th quarter, they can max out for the best combinations/matchups to seal the win as required.

by Berkeley on Oct 15, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is that truly what's happening, or is it Roy > Team?

I hope that you’re correct.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Oct 15, 2009 4:17 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Oops--that comment was intended as a reply to Jeremiah S

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on Oct 15, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hate to say it, but I don't like the rambo lineup...

If Miller has to start, you better have Webster in there with him. The rambo unit has a serious lack of outside shooting, and that will hinder Roy, Aldridge and Oden. I think you have to start Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge and Oden. The 2nd unit is full of shooters which will open up the floor for Dre to do what he does best, attack the hoop and get others involved. Miller is a much better scorer than Blake, his existence in the starting lineup becomes a bit redundent. You put your two best players at attacking the hoop in the starting lineup, and leave a serious lack of playmakers coming off the bench. I am now firmly in the start Blake camp, it is the optimal way to balance the 1st and 2nd units…

by Rudiculous on Oct 15, 2009 5:39 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

BARBO?

That’s just not the same.

—Dave

by Dave on Oct 15, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

One thing we seem to miss - starters on this team do not get 30+ minutes -

evidence Batum last year (and Joel when Greg was able to not foul).

The non-starters are not relegated to 18- minutes either – evidence Rudy and Greg and Travis.

The starters are the guys who confront the other teams’ opening lineups but the use of reserves depends on their effectiveness. Martell gets this and wants to be on the floor at the end. If the starters can soak up a chunk of effort and energy and hold their own against the opponent’s starters the reserves need to force those same starters to play long minutes. I can envision Miller and Oden getting 28 minutes while Joel and Steve get 20. That means Roy and LMA will play some minutes with both.

I think we are still a tempest in a teapot about lineups. What matters is to win and Nate will use the best combinations to do so on any given night.

"Either way we have two phenomenal units. I'm excited to play with either one." - Martell Webster

by lee3022 on Oct 15, 2009 6:08 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Since

when did Andre Miller become the saivor? I doubt he’s on this team in 2 years when the Blazers actually have a legit shot at a title.

by BBG on Oct 15, 2009 8:36 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A site by Blazer fans, for Blazer fans
Start posting about the Trail Blazers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Un_bohemien_small
Is Roy a Good Teammate?
Kpavatar2_small
Just Another Junk In The Wall:  11-18-09
Terryporter_small
Blazers Edge Community Podcast Episode 008
Small
Why is the Blazers’ offense bad this year? Why is the defense so good?
P1010399_small
Photos from the Hawks game, 11/16/2009

Recent FanPosts

Small
Impressive Early Season Blazers Stats
Imported_photos_00004_small
The Blazer Guards
Small
Portland and the summer of Lebron
Copy_of_dcp_2180_small
Tough act to follow junk Nov.19
Small
Nate? Avery? Adelman?
Small
How would Ellis fit?
Nike_orangemen_3_small
Oden's minutes compared with other centers in the last 25 years
Img_0529_small
Prayers are with you P. A.
Small
A Game for Jerryd

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

A modest proposal: Fire Mike Rice and Antonio Harvey!
For Ann, and Travis.
FREE GREG ODEN
"It's been good for us," Oden said. "We're going to stick with it. We have...

Recent FanShots

Greg Oden with a Kimbo Slice/Baron Davis beard. What do you think?
Andre Miller is tough
Michael Jordan says "don't retire my number"
Charles Oakley to the Blazers? He says there are talks
Lamarcus: The King Cobra?
Surprising Stats from Basketball-Reference
Oden #5 and Rudy #9 ranked soph espn.com
NYT: The Pick-And-Roll is the NBA's Old Reliable
At this point, what the Blazers want most is rebounding. That was an...

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Ben_small Ben.

Moderators

Pict1126_small -ken

Polar_bear_small jorga

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Jesus_icon_i_small T Darkstar

Wallpaper_small geoffm