Joe Freeman Is At It Again
by Dave on Oct 4, 2009 12:19 AM PDT
Email
Print
In our continuing homage to Joe Freeman this week we present the latest of his player-oriented articles, this piece on Andre Miller. As has been intimated in reports all week, Miller is not all sweetness and light, especially with the media. Freeman's write-up makes that quite clear. As a member falling under the general category of "Blazers media" I have this to say:
Good!
Seriously, more power to you Andre. In general I have complete respect for guys who want to keep their lives out of print as much as possible, especially the personal side. If a basketball-oriented question needs to be asked I believe players should answer to the level their consciences and wisdom permit. But anything beyond that is properly their choice. I love learning more about Blazer players if they care to share. I don't feel I have a right to information they don't want to give. I don't feel cheated by not knowing what someone's favorite sandwich is or how their relationships are going. If a guy wants to be just a basketball player, well, that's what we pay him for. Even to the extent that the media spotlight has been focused on me, which is microscopic compared to the treatment professional athletes get, I can tell you it's a mixed bag. I've mostly had great experiences. I've had a couple with people who already had their story written and were simply looking for the most advantageous possible quote from me to confirm it no matter how I felt. I do not begrudge a player his skepticism, especially during Week One in a new town.
Another major thrust of the article is that Miller isn't really into what I'll loosely term "Blazer Things": excelling in the training camp physical, dining together, shooting the bull. We have to insert a caveat here, as given his level of disclosure with the media (sparse, at best) he may actually show sides to his teammates that we'll not see anytime soon. But assuming it's true that Andre is rather cavalier about these matters, as a passionate and loyal Blazer fan I have this to say:
Good!
We aren't here to sing Kum Ba Yah and make macaroni art. We're here to win games and a championship. I have fully supported this group of young, talented men growing together, buying into the program, and learning the discipline necessary to succeed. But another lesson remains. Those things are not there for their own sake but to foster winning. There's always a danger when developing culture that the culture itself becomes the focus rather than the paths along which the culture is supposed to lead you and the goals it's supposed to lead you towards.
I see this in my day job all the time. I'm not intending to offend anyone by talking religion and I'd appreciate it if the comment thread didn't feature this as the main point, but I think it's an illustration that most people can relate to. When people first starting doing God stuff they needed to band together in order to do it properly. In order to facilitate the communal stuff they formed churches with various forms and practices and what have you. Theoretically this allowed them to focus together on something greater and to move together in its direction. Practically what happened is after a while (less than a generation in most cases) people became accustomed to the forms and practices, held onto them tightly, and basically abandoned any sense that they led to something beyond themselves. This happens repeatedly even today. The end result is a plethora of people who are excellent at doing church but really sucktastic at doing the God thing. You end up with a team, sure, but it's a team that's focused inwards, never progressing. It becomes exclusive, stale, and eventually dies out. This is not an anti-church polemic, and I'd be an enormous hypocrite if I were being anti-religious here. You can't do faith without some kind of communal/cultural interaction any more than the Blazers could have gotten to where they are right now without the famous culture shift of the last few years. Rather this is a reminder that every culture can fall prey to its greatest enemy, which is invariably itself. People who can participate in the culture and yet go against the grain enough to highlight that fact are invaluable.
Andre Miller may be just such a prophet for the Blazers. He's perfectly positioned as a point guard, a long-tenured veteran, and a prime member of the rotation. He also has the talent, skills, and court demeanor to make a difference. All of these allow him the leeway to poke and prod in other areas.
Some will no doubt be worried whether the countercultural guy could actually break the culture. After all, if one guy leads will not others follow? This could be a threat to Nate McMillan's authority, to team bonding, to the great relationship the Blazers have with their media and fans right now. But I doubt it will be. Few things in this league are absolute. We all dream of an ideal system with rules and encouragements into which every player, from the youngest rookie to the most aged veteran, fits smoothly and willingly. It doesn't exist outside of Hollywood. You make allowances for any number of factors. Talent is one. Seniority is another. Success is the ultimate one. Notching any of the three on your résumé gets you leeway. Miller has at least two. If a young buck tried to copy Andre's lead, blew the physical, said he didn't care about much until the real games started the coaches could rightfully (and with a straight face) pull him aside and say, "Talk to me about that when you're 14 years into the league and are respected as one of the better pure players at your position. Until then, get your [butt] running." When Zach Randolph or Darius Miles pull this, it's trade time. When Andre says it, it's wisdom. He's earned it.
Whatever mourning we do for the end of utopia will hopefully be more than made up for by the beginning of dynastic dreams. The Blazers needed a little kick in the butt and a reminder that, marvelous and mushy stories aside, winning is still the only coin of the realm in this league. This is oversimplified, but it reminds me a little up a bunch of kids gathered around a bed. An older, tougher kid walks up and asks what is going on.
"Charlie lost a tooth. We're waiting to see if the tooth fairy is going to bring anything."
"Come here," says the older kid. "Let me show you something."
So he leads them outside, finds another kid--one who is known for picking on the younger guys--balls up his fist, and punches him square in the mouth. As the other kid runs off holding his newly detached dental work and crying the older kid smoothly lifts his lunch money. "Let him wait for the tooth fairy. We're getting some ice cream."
Yeah. That is better.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
109 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Heh
I just commented on this with the post someone had on the side there. I agree 100% and as long as he isnt making appearances at the strip clubs carrying loaded weapons I agree with you 100%.
Andre brings the same thing no matter where he goes. So we know what to expect. I am ok with that. More then ok with that.
"OK, it's going to rain tomorrow. And there is going to be a Greenpeace meeting and hippies are going to be protesting" ~ The Buffet of Goodness on Portland
This is totally OT, but what is people's hang-up with strip clubs?
It is entirely legal, there are 60 clubs around town and 100,000 of men, especially young men, spend some time looking at beautiful, young women dancing naked on small stages. Guys chat with each other, occasionally chat with the girls, watch sports, and drink a little alcohol. What is the problem? Occasionally somebody gets drunk and stupid, but that happens in any club where alcohol is served. Occasionally one of the dancers breaks the rules, but most of the women are just doing a job, and most of the clubs keep a pretty close eye on everything.
Basically, it is like a tree house for big boys, only instead of having a stack of Playboys for entertainment, you have real, live women. It isn’t a whole lot different from most sports bars. Repressing sexuality generally tends to make the repressed feel more guilty and results in more twisted and less healthy forms of expression.
by upper left corner on Oct 4, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
PS. I am a man with a minor in Women's Studies, and I can discuss feminist theory with the best of them
The reality is that humans are wired up by millions of years of evolution to have strong feelings of desire. In particular, men are very visually oriented and like looking at women’s bodies. You can talk all you want about objectification and misogyny; but, I think a very strong argument can be made that interacting with actual women, who have kids and husbands and boyfriends, actually demystifies women’s sexuality and helps educate young men about the need to deal with women as human beings and not objects.
Sorry for the OT riff.
by upper left corner on Oct 4, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I have to agree here...
I think the issues with strip clubs have more to do with the behaviors of the players that frequented them rather than the players themselves. I don’t see anything wrong with going to strip clubs, which are completely legal. I believe most feminists (however few that are left in existence) would agree that strip clubs are not sexist and can actually be considered empowering to use their sexuality freely. Historically in a strongly patriarchal society, women’s sexuality had been suppressed and kept under wraps. Heck, we can still observe this in many spots in the world, especially places with strong Islamic political influences. Hence why one of the important focus back during our period of women’s lib movements, casting off these bonds on women’s sexuality was important. (burning bras, etc.)
If a stripper earns a good living by separating money from the suckers, good for her. Although I don’t normally frequent strip clubs, I have no issues with people going or women stripping (or uh, other things) as long as women are being properly compensated in a safe environment and are not being exploited by a third party.
Its not the strip club themselves
its the players who frequent them.
Yes strip clubs can be empowering to a woman who needs to feel the “rush” stripping can bring them. I have been told its very similar to bungee jumping to some women. Thats fine. I dont necessarily see a strip club as something that degrades women, it is the choice of the woman who walks in the door and does it. Her choice. The reasons behind why anyone would do it is one for the ages.
However, you look at the flip side of it and what does it say about the guy (or girl) who frequents a strip club? Some of the people who go to a strip club would feel just as much fulfillment sitting and talking in a chat room, because they are there for conversation. Like the guy who gets Playboy for the articles. But why get Playboy when you can get the New Yorker or Sports Illustrated or any one of an amazing amount of magazines out there?
But we all know that the articles are not why the majority of men buy Playboy. It has hot nekked chicks in there. Its a very primal and very immature attitude towards women (yes I know I used the term chicks and not women, I hope you see ). Thats where I have issues with it. We all know Zac Randolph (and the majority of the Jailblazers) didnt go to a strip club for the intellectually stimulating conversations. Thats where I have my issues with it all. To me it shows someone who cant necessarily control primal urges. Low IQ possibly? Its arguable thats for sure.
If you had to decide between two people to fill a position in your company. They both have equal traits, equal skills, in fact they are equal in every way but one. One likes to frequent strip clubs while the other frequents his church (I know this isnt viable hiring criteria, but this is a good game of “what if”). Who would you feel more comfortable hiring? Again, there can be arguments either way, especially since I didnt specify any particular religion. Personally I would hire Mr Church. But thats my own personal opinion. I feel it has to do with holding myself and the people I surround myself to a higher standard.
I would like to think the players I root for (and make more money then I would ever see in 10 lifetimes) would also hold themselves to a higher standard.
"OK, it's going to rain tomorrow. And there is going to be a Greenpeace meeting and hippies are going to be protesting" ~ The Buffet of Goodness on Portland
IMHO, the point of view you express is based on a totally simplistic view of human nature, human sexuality, and human ethics.
Would you rather have a guy who goes to Church every week and beats his wife or sexually molests his daughter, or a decent guy who thinks women’s bodies are beautiful and prefers to look at real women to looking at Internet porn?
Don’t confuse religiosity with ethics. Don’t confuse how people choose to express their sexuality with maturity or lack their of. Most of us are lucky if we develop some understanding of our own sexuality. I am extremely reluctant to sit in judgement of other people, provided that they are not hurting anyone else.
by upper left corner on Oct 4, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Blazer wrote about two candidates who
“…are equal in every way but one. One likes to frequent strip clubs while the other frequents his church.”
You for some reason added about the churchgoer that he beats his wife or molests his daughter while the strip-club goer thinks women’s bodies are beautiful.
Sounds pretty judgmental to me.
The point is that you cannot tell what people do in private.......
……making assumptions based on public behavior often leads one astray.
Take a look at Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and Senator David “DC Madame” Vitter. The sins of the pious are many. The good deeds of doubters and the unbelievers are also many.
by upper left corner on Oct 4, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Why not just answer Blazer's question
instead of changing the parameters of the question and then ignore it while making your own point?
They both have equal traits, equal skills, in fact they are equal in every way but one. One likes to frequent strip clubs while the other frequents his church.
You’re tasked with hiring one of those guys. Who do you choose?
I'd gladly choose the first potential hire, but I'm as biased as you in this case.
Truthfully, I’ve frequented gentlemen’s clubs much more than any church. Heck, my churchgoing experience has included nothing except for a couple weddings and one funeral. I’m glad it’s worked out that way, too, because I’m not too fond of the creepy groupthink that happens at places of worship or whatever you may wish to call those joints.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 4, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Classic AK
In one short paragraph, you acknowledge that you have virtually no knowledge of church, and yet you feel free to openly proclaim your unerring judgment on what happens there.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
No creepy groupthink going on at strip clubs, nosiree.
by MiledAnimal on Oct 5, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's hilarious
if also kind of sad.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
I would not draw any conclusion about the work performance of an individual......
……based on whether or not they occasionally attended a strip club or a Church. It would be largely irrelevant to my evaluation.
If anything, I might conclude that a person who disapproved of strip clubs and judged others who occasionally frequented them was a bit rigid and might have problems getting along with the rest of his co-workers. Certainly a guy like that would have some issues on the blue-collar construction crews that have worked for me in my renovation business. I care a lot more about whether or not somebody has a substance abuse problem or whether they can be relied upon to show-up to work.
by upper left corner on Oct 6, 2009 6:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Your views don't bother me, ULC. It's that you aren't being honest with yourself or us.
You keep projecting your biases upon the churchgoer in this discussion and contradicting yourself. Your headline states:
I would not draw any conclusion about the work performance of an individual based on whether or not they occasionally attended a strip club or a Church. It would be largely irrelevant to my evaluation.
You immediately follow that with:
I might conclude that a person who disapproved of strip clubs and judged others who occasionally frequented them was a bit rigid and might have problems getting along with the rest of his co-workers.
You did the same thing earlier, attributing negative traits to the churchgoer and positive traits to the strip club goer.
Then you state below that you are not anti-religious. Your words argue otherwise.
You don’t like people who go to church? Fine, but be honest about it. Why pretend you are not anti-religious when you are?
I think you are projecting meaning on to my words that certainly is not intended.
I think is wonderful if people have faith and/or a sense of connection to something larger than themselves. I have great respect for those who contemplate the transcendent mysteries of our existence.
I do have some ideological problems with many religious institutions and individuals who believe that they have a monopoly on theological correctness and the one and only path to salvation. I also find hypocrisy in any form to be distasteful. In my experience we are all hypocrites from time to time, but I find religious hypocrisy particularly common and difficult to bear.
Regarding my previous answer, I believe you have mistaken pragmatism for anti-religiosity. I merely stated that someone who would judge others and held to a farely rigid view of morality might have problems fitting in with the guys who have worked for me. That is a purely pragmatic observation. My construction crews are very irreverent and spend a lot of time teasing and joking to break up the hard work that we perform. A guy who would be offended by some of that give and take might not fit in.
My earlier point was not a suggestion that someone who was religious was more inclined to engage in anti-social behaviors in private than would someone who occasionally patronized a strip club. It was merely to point out that public behavior and private behavior are very separate. I did not mean to stigmatize the religious. I find it offensive when people assume that those who are not religious are less ethical, and I would not wish to do the same in reverse. Religion and human ethics are seperate, if overlapping, subjects.
by upper left corner on Oct 6, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Ok then...
Lets take church out of the question and replace it with McMennimans. Or Fred Meyers. Or the Waterfront. Or a local mission.
The question was not meant to take into consideration the behaviors of people behind closed doors. We cant see that and if we could it would invalidate my original question. Its is a question about appearance, not one to analyze all of humanity. If I could do that I wouldnt be writing about it here, I can tell you that. You dont even have to answer the question here, but I am sure you did have an answer within a split second of reading it, as most would. Its the answer to a simple question like this that can say a lot about you.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
"OK, it's going to rain tomorrow. And there is going to be a Greenpeace meeting and hippies are going to be protesting" ~ The Buffet of Goodness on Portland
Sorry my Latin is pretty limited
Please see my answer above. Let me add, that I would see regular attendance at Church as one possible sign of an effort to lead an orderly life. However, given that the two “Churchiest” guys I have hired for my company both turned out to have alcohol problems, aspirations are not always matched by behaviors.
Let me also clarify that I am not anti-religious. At one point in my life, I had a self-designed major that included religious studies and was seriously contemplating attending Seminary. I have great respect for religious belief and religious observance. It is simply my observation that there is a limited correlation between religiosity and ethics. Many Christians (and other faiths as well) seem to believe that one must be religious to behave ethically, that has not been my experience.
by upper left corner on Oct 6, 2009 6:47 AM PDT up reply actions
We do have our differences, "ULC," but kudos to you for owning this argument.
I couldn’t’ve held down this touchy, polemic exchange any better myself — as I’d’ve probably gone off on an unintelligible, easily discarded tirade littered with vitriol and impudence — so thank you for having presented the vantage point of open-minded, free-thinking individuals with poise and tact.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
This is a question about morality
that goes far beyond strip clubs.
The question of whether it is legal isn’t really relevant, because few people want to make government the arbiter of morality. So we can disregard that aspect of the question.
Ultimately, then, it comes down to what you choose to accept as your standard of morality. Because you know what the objection to strip clubs is. Many people consider them to be immoral.
Everyone has a moral philosophy, some standard by which they judge morality. For some people, it may change with the direction of the wind, or be based on whether it was their friend or family member who committed the action. We could debate the validity of different moral philosophies, but ultimately we’re as far off-topic here as discussing the relative merits of different health care systems. :)
Suffice to say that some moral philosophies find strip clubs abhorrent, for varying reasons, and this is the natural result of the underlying philosophy. You won’t enter into a profitable discussion by tackling it on the strip club level, you have to get down to the underlying philosophies and examine it there. That discussion may or may not be profitable, depending on the people involved. But it is inevitable that some Blazer fans will be very opposed to the strip club culture, while others will not care about it in the least.
You are convinced that your world outlook is correct, I am convinced that mine is, Blazer is convinced that his is, while AK is 1000% convinced that his is (because he’s AK :)). I’m not going to cede you this point, because I don’t agree with the underlying philosophy which your comments reveal as to morality. But I’m also not going to debate you in this context.
We’ll just leave it that I don’t agree, because I am persuaded that strip clubs are immoral, and I am not going to be enthusiastic about players on the team I support frequenting them. I know it happens, and I’m not going to throw a fit about it, but if the team again gets the reputation as a group of people who spend all their time hanging out at such places and getting into trouble, they will again lose me as a supporter. I understand the opposite view, but do not agree with it.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
I understand that there are many points of view
In my experience, human sexuality is profoundly complex both on a personal level and a societal level. Every society tries to provide some boundaries as to which types of sexual behavior are acceptable and which are not. A woman simply showing her face is unacceptable in certain Muslim societies. In other societies nudity is the norm. Most societies are based on an ideal of monogamy, but many are not. Christianity seems particularly uncomfortable with human sexuality. Most expression of sexuality outside of marriage is viewed as a form of “sin.”
My observation about strip clubs is where do you draw the line? If stripping, or watching stripping, is “immoral.” Is looking at nude bodies on the Internet immoral? Is looking at women in bikinis immoral? Is going to “Hooters” immoral? Is buying a copy of the SI swimsuit issue immoral? Aren’t these all just questions of degree?
For me, personally, I have a “look, but don’t touch” standard. My personal morality highly values monogamy as a sign of commitment and respect to my wonderful life partner, but statistics suggest that most marital partners stray. My point is that everyone must establish their own boundaries, and again, I am uncomfortable judging the behavior of others. A lot goes wrong in society when we each try to impose our moral standards on others. It isn’t too great of distance from Jerry Falwell to the Taliban. We need clear boundaries about not hurting and stealing, but there is a lot of gray area.
by upper left corner on Oct 6, 2009 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions
i dont care if he wants to keep his family life private from the press
but if hes not even going 2 attempt 2 bond with teammates…
Bonding with your teammates doesn't always occur off the court...
If you had read the article, you would know that they are calling him “The Director” because he’s reclusive off the court, but once he’s on it he’s yelling directions, giving encouragement, and talking it up with the refs. He’s the consummate basketball nerd, on the court.
I think that an attitude like this is going to make the team better. If the team can see that winning means so much to a guy that he’ll change his personality on the court to better his teammates, then maybe it’ll be a motivation to hustle more, to attack the basket more, or to defend harder. Oh god, I hope it makes Travis want to defend harder…
"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller
brandon roy did
cash rules everything around me CREAM get tha money dolla dolla bill yaaaaallll
by staceyaugmon4HOF on Oct 4, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm with you Dave...
but I think bringing religion into this post is going to be a distraction more than a useful illustration. Anyway, the point about players’ responsibility to comment on non-basketball issues is worth the price of admission. ;-)
Not as much of a distraction ...
… as that last awful illustration in the article. Punch a kid in the face so that he loses his tooth and then rob him? I’m just trying to get it out of my head.
I’d rather never win a championship than be a team that remotely resembles that picture.
quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Yeah, I'm confused
Is this post pro-Jeebus or pro-face-punching? Or pro-face-punchings-by-Jeebus?
Here's to Andre Miller dispelling the myth that off-court chemistry is worth a damn. Miller, who appears ...
to realize that on-court chemistry is important and off-court chemsitry is clichéd bullcrap, will show everybody that people who skate by based on their buddy-buddy relationships with teammates (e.g., Travis Outlaw) are pulling a scam. The NBA is a business, end of story. As is with any workplace, it’s just about doing one’s job successfully and not being all chummy with fellow co-workers. There, I said it—again!
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Uh, that's not the message of Dave's post
Off-court chemistry has worth. Most championship teams have it to a large degree. You speak in absolutes (e.g., “The NBA is a business, end of story”). The real world is seldom so black & white. In the case at hand: the problem comes when folks try to deny the business aspect of the NBA. But camraderie is the glue that holds together teams when the going gets tough. Just look at how the Jailblazers folded like a house of cards in that fateful 4th quarter vs the Lakers. On paper, the Jailblazers were the better team. But they had no cohesiveness or character. They lacked reslilency/ mental toughness.
The current team is different, even if you can’t see it. With a little seasoning and maturation—and yes, the edge that a vet like Miller can provide—I like their chances to not only win but to keep it up season after season.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 4, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's not about "the message of Dave's post," but rather the message of Andre Miller's comments.
Dave took Miller’s comments and added his own spin, but that’s the dude’s prerogative as a blogger.
Regardless, Miller was straightforward as humanly possible within Joe Freeman’s article.
“"Chemistry comes from being on the court. A lot of people can talk about what guys do off the court, hanging out and stuff. But I don’t think that has anything to do with it."
Seriously, Miller is right on the money. Fans yap about idiocy such as off-court chemistry, but it means nothing! Y’all should learn to live with it, for those are the facts—and that’s that!
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
Bring back the thug Blazers!
Off-court chemistry means nothing!
You should quit ranting about this without at least distinguishing between negative and positive off-court chemistry. It is well-established by many examples that off-court conflict can lead to diminished team performance. To say it means nothing is rather mindless.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 4, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you think Kobe partied with many teammates at night? Doubtful, he is all about business even in the offseason, much more during playoffs.
Duncan? There are not many stories out there of him hanging with Parker and Ginobili. Dirk? Not really since Nash left town. KG? Maybe, but he seems to even have problems sleeping when under stress.
Some people like to bond off the court/work, some don’t. As long as they help each other and don’t work against each other on the court, it doesn’t matter all that much.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
Hehehehe....
Duncan would say, “Hey Fellas! Do you guys want to come over to my crib after practice and play AD&D? Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is SOOOOO much cooler than regular Dungeons and Dragons!”
Roll your 20s…
Ball Don't Lie
by bothteamsplayedhard on Oct 4, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions
*pushes tapes glasses back up on the bridge of his nose*
Um, clearly Mr. Duncan would have the savvy necessary to have converted to the new 4th edition of D&D which has thankfully dropped the “advanced” moniker, sniff altogether.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
"Off the court chemistry" doesn't necessarily mean partying, dining, etc
You have to share a locker room, buses, airplanes, etc. If things aren’t cordial and respectful, that’ll be manifested on the court sooner or later. Clearly, Miller likes his privacy and likes to keep to himself. If all 15 guys were like that, it might be a little weird. But “chemistry” implies a mixing of disparate elements. There’s room in a locker room for both outgoing guys like Martell and introverts like Miller.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 4, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think he was extremely moody his 2nd season
What I call his “lost season”, where he played crappy, was depressed, and super moody.
I think his sessions with the sports psychologist really helped, and he’s been that fun entertainer-Martell he was his rookie year and 3rd year that he is now known for.
That 2nd season though, he was reportedly not a treat to be around, and surly to the coaches. After Quick reported that stuff, I thought he was going to be traded. I’m glad we didn’t, because I like Martell, and that woulda’ been selling low.
M—
Yes, agreed on both points
Martell’s gone from—reportedly—a pain to a pleasure. His resiliency in the face of that foot injury has really been admirable. I don’t know that I’d have been able to hang around and be a cheerleader like he did as the frustrating months mounted.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
It's hard to understand how you could play with guys for 3 years and not make a single friend.
Not that I am condemning or condoning it, but its pretty hard to fathom. I know any work environment I’ve ever worked at for longer than a few months, I’ve made friends with. It’s highly likely that Miller is just asocial (not to be confused with anti-social) and has an aversion to most people.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
He could also be just saying that
Because he doesn’t like to reveal anything about himself to the media… so he’ll just say he made no friends.
Hey, as long as Miller is happy, we got enough buddy buddy things going on off the court. He’s like 80 years old anyways, he’ll want to talk about Welcome Back Kotter and stuff… the rest of the team has never even heard of it. It’s probably better for everyone if they just keep way from each other. And don’t even think about getting on Ol’ Man Miller’s lawn—!
Mo—
Yeah, Iggy was really, really upset when he left.
I guess he could have been upset just because he’s not getting lob passes anymore, but it seems like there was something more personal about it.
by Nick Van Excellent on Oct 4, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I head that he & Miller were lovers; that's why Miller is so closed-mouthed about his personal life while a 76er.
Now THAT’S off-court chemistry!
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
BTW, that was a joke
I don’t want to start a rumor & reinforce every negative feeling Miller has about fans.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Iguodala immediately said he misses him
Friends or not, his teammates knew he was valuable.
As far as I know from Timbo’s summary and other stories (Simmons, etc.), the only team he actively loathed were the Clippers.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
Well...
I may joke about it, but I really have no problem with Andre Miller being reserved. To me, he’s not a problem as long as he’s not a problem and so far while not being the poster boy for team/media relations, he also hasn’t been a problem.
It’s really out of everybodys hands. Andre Miller isn’t going to change, The Media isn’t going to change and the fans aren’t really going to change. So really for me, all I can say is I don’t perceive his attitude as being a problem.
Andre Miller has been around a long time. I’ve never heard anything that would suggest he is a “problem”. So he wishes to remain “professional”, keep it a job, and not discuss a lot of private issues…alright with me.
The only warning or comment I would make would be if one stands by the protocal of wanting to remain professional and private I think that’s fine, but I also think it should cut both ways. So in other words, if you don’t want the media knowing a lot about your personal life and you just want to do the job and that’s it, then if you get upset about the reality IE: Unhappy about playing time, or team role, then I say keep that to yourself and be professional about that.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
My only concern is that Miller simply won't enjoy playing in the fishbowl that is Portland, OR
I’m not sure he’s played in a city that’s as obsessed with it’s basketball team.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
My sentiments as well
I can see the media’s constant speculation, sniping and probing turning him into another Sheed. Without the technicals.
For the foreseeable future
The local media has PLENTY of stories to mine out of the team, and Miller doesn’t have to be one… aside from how he is playing.
In the past, when the team and the media were at odds with one another, perhaps the media would take a player’s plea to just be left alone as a sign that the media really needs to bother that guy, but I don’t think it’d happen now while the team/media relationship has been repaired.
Plus, no one will care about any of this “I don’t talk about offcourt blah blah” if Miller plays well. If he DOESN’T, then people will say it’s because he doesn’t have sleepovers at Dante’s house, which is silly, but people will look to blame something and for now it’s the only real perceived negative about Miller we know of (I do not think it is negative, I think it is no big deal, but it is a perceived negative with some).
As long as he isn’t a jerk in the locker room to his teammates, his privacy to the media and even to his teammates doesn’t matter.
Off the court chemistry is a NICE thing, and a good thing, but meaningless if the players aren’t good on the court as well. Bad off the court chemistry can make people not pass to the guys they don’t like on the court, or work selfishly against the team to ensure someone else doesn’t succeed. It can get bad, if the guys REALLY don’t get along. Disagreements and personality clashes happen and are fine. Hatred of one another is not, unless everyone hates and fears the Jordan-esque leader. I don’t see that happening with Roy, for better or worse.
We’ve seen nothing to indicate that Miller’s closed off-ness with the media and initially with his teammates will affect his selfless play on the court, so it’s just a silly worry for now. One that will go away once we are playing actual games.
Mortimer
I guess...
…I mostly agree with Dave in so much as what I’ve heard and seen from Andre thus far I don’t perceive as a problem. I also agree that not everybody on the roster HAS to be a great, friendly media person.
The question really becomes is the Andre Miller we’ve seen the Andre Miller we will get? Because I think this is okay. But I can’t go so far as to say I’m not a little worried that this attitude might be the storm clouds building on the horizon and not the storm itself.
At the beginning of the season fans want everything to work. We especially want the main free agent aquirement to “work”. As I said above I don’t think Miller is a problem, and to me he’s not a problem as long as he’s not a problem. But I won’t go so far as to say he couldn’t become a problem.
Quiet, reserved, private not much of a media personality. Want’s to let his play do the talking? ….I can accept that from an individual…but is it going to become more? If it becomes more, it could become a problem.
The danger becomes making excuses to accept a problem. I have always felt that if you build a strong team of great talent and good character then you can absorb a personality or two that might be “less than friendly”. Less than a great media personality, less than a good post game interview is okay.
Hey, I loved Buck Williams, but he wasn’t much of a talker in regards to the media either. He also was a private individual. That was fine. We had Drexler, Porter and Robinson and others that could handle the post game and the bulk of the media.
I’m leaving it like this. Today it’s not a problem.
Part of this is probably a break in period for everyone. Miller needs to realize Blazer Fans are Fanatical, in general our expectations from our players and team are higher than other franchises. As far as top level national professional sports, The Trail Blazers are “It” in Portland….from the media standpoint it’s a fishbowl made out of magnifying glasses. So I think Miller is going to have to loosen up a little. Conversely, I think the media and the fans also are going to have to adjust and realize not everyone is going to spend 10,15,20 minutes after every game recapping every nuance. Not everyone is going want to talk about immediate impressions and feelings. This doesn’t necessarily mean this person is a problem…just that talking to the media isn’t this persons favorite thing to do. There are people that are more open, and people that are more private. That happens not only on a basketball team roster but everywhere in the world.
PS.
I don’t quite go with Daves bully analogy. Punching someone in the face-bully or otherwise, and taking there milk money is NOT a good thing. I think you can be a realist about Andre Miller and people and still accept Miller. It’s not a matter of abandoning Utopia because Utopia never did exist. It’s not a matter of waiting for the tooth fairy.
The Jail Blazer era should of taught us that Character and Chemistry are very, very important. While I hold no illusions that every single player, every single person that ever dons a Blazer uniform will be “perfect”, neither do I want to put in place excuses to accept behavior that is damaging to a franchise.
I don’t buy that you need a “Thug” or you need a malcontent to add psychological toughness to a team. I do look at Buck Williams as a good example. He brought all the toughness we needed to a Blazer team, he wasn’t the most open, or best post game interview, he stayed pretty private. But he was professional and he did the job.
No need to punch anyone in the face, no need to steal anyones milk money for ice cream. No need to make excuses. Miller can let his play do the talking if that is what he wants to do.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
by Krang on Oct 4, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Will Miller play at Fan Fest?
Joe Freeman October 03, 2009,:
The scrimmage will provide a good opportunity for the coaches to evaluate where the team stands two days before their exhibition opener against the Sacramento Kings, but more importantly, the event is about having fun and interacting with fans.
"In that game, we want to have some fun," McMillan said.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 4, 2009 1:46 AM PDT reply actions
I actually kind of like it that Dre piss's off
Quick and Canzano who will no doubt write many words about how he is a cancer in the reporter room
Dave, you had me until the kid-punching-the-other-kid-in-the-mouth fable
Did Ron Artest & Shane Battier do this to you?
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I think Dave was the puncher not the punchee.
"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-
Andre has a right to privacy and I find his approach refreshing
We wanted veteran leadership and we appear to have signed such a player. He is giving the press the professionalism that needed to be modeled for the younger players. If he talks on the court and does his job we are blessed to have him aboard. Last year was extraordinary for the bonding and the achievement. Now that has been done and it is time to tale it on home.
The question I have concerns Andre’s reputation as a coach on the floor
Based on this knowledge and eye for the game it is natural to think that Andre will someday want to go into coaching. In that profession refusing to bond with players has advantages and disadvantages. So my question is can Andre be a successful NBA coach? Will he have to change?
Travis: "His length is unbelievable. He's long, it feels like he gets his go-go-gadget arm out there and gets the ball." Dante Cunningham
There's a difference with being a coach on the floor and a coach on the sidelines, with Andre Miller ...
being the former and probably never becoming the latter. That’s fine by me, though, because I don’t care what Miller does after he retires from the game.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
The Blazers are a new thing for AM
Andre’s never been on a serious contender before, or a team where he wasn’t one of the top two players. I think he’ll be fine, but his numbers may drop a bit, as there are a lot more guys that need the ball.
As far as the content of the post; I agree it’s one possibility that AM is the needed variety, to keep the Blazers culture from stagnating, but it’s also possible that his effect will be either a non-factor, or negative. I am one of those people that believed we were on to something special with this group of guys, and could have won a championship with last years team, and some experience, a healthy Oden etc. I also don’t think the "culture is as goody two shoes as it is sometimes made out to be. Most of the team are around the same age, and hang out a little off the court, but I’m sure strip club visits and a little partying are still on the docket. These are young guys with a lot of money. We don’t have to give the “culture” too much credit, just because no member of the current squad has shot anyone, or been arrested with a carload of crack, and or crackwhores. The team has been smart in collecting mostly guys who want to play for something more than padding their stat sheet. The Spurs did the same thing, and it worked big time. It’s one way of building a team. I don’t think bringing in a guy who is a jerk to such a project is the way to “keep it fresh”. That said, I don’t thus far think Andre is a jerk, he just isn’t into the media thing, so lets hope he fits into the team well, because you also have to realize this is a team that Andre needs a whole hell of a lot more than they need him. The Blazers were headed to the promise land before he was even thought about. Where he may have been able to come to a non-playoff Nuggets or Sixers team with some notions of doing things “his” way, he won’t have the same freedom on an established team like this. This is new for him and the Blazers, adding a vet to this talented group. My point is, I’m not worried, but I also don’t think the Andre as cathartic, agent of change, is very likely either. The guy just dosn’t like to answer a bunch of questions about his personal business.
by wingzeta on Oct 4, 2009 3:24 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
really, when it comes down to it, chauncey billups would have been a much better fit here than in Denver, and Andre would fit in better with Denver than here.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".
...no seriously--stop.
NIce essay, Dave.
I’m sort of in the middle on the Good Andre/Bad Andre spectrum.
Whereas, his shall we say distancing himself from the media is legendary and to be expected and within his rights, this particular team is also built on chemistry. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts, and if Andre Miller takes the approach that he doesn’t want to be of the whole, it could become a problem down the line…
Realistically, Miller is a 2 season man with Portland — maybe 3 — so it’s best not to get too worked up over it one way or another.
There haven’t been a series of teams left in Andre’s wake cheering his departure. He doesn’t have the rap of being a cancer or a bad teammate. But he can be a prickly character with the media, as they are learning.
"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
by timbo on Oct 4, 2009 4:15 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly my sentiments
…again, I wonder how it happened that I agree with timbo 99% of the time now. But anyway, rec.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
Great Dave-
Turning your back to god so you can rob little kids of there lunch money, now I’ve heard of a lot of good reasons to stop believing in God or the Tooth fairy for that matter, but I don’t think being able to punch little boys in the mouth and rob them was one of them.
As for Andre – You know I don’t talk to my co-workers outside work nor do I feel the need to share personal information about myself to random strangers, and I always seem to do well on my performance evals.
Trade players for picks and draft Cole Aldrich 2010
Interesting post Dave
Part of what the Balzers knew they needed is toughness. It comes in different forms. It is hard to be a nice guy and have the toughness to play at the highest level in this league. I believe that Brandon is unique in that respect and maybe Joel too. Andre may not be our Blazer “nice guy” but he has a toughness, an edge to him that we need to compete with the Lakers, the Celtics, the Cavs. Some people believe that if you show your private side, then you show weakness. Don’t give your opponent any glimpse of what makes you tick. But, at least sign an autograph.
and sign it in blood
to em guessing…
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Oct 4, 2009 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Big surprise...
…that Travis gets redirected by the new guy on day one of training camp. Really, Trav? Andre knows where you need to be after a few hours, but you don’t after five years? I never thought I’d say this, but I miss Channing.
by Petro4Three on Oct 4, 2009 7:14 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I kinda disagree
Andre is welcome to be who he is…but, first of all this is Oregon, not Philly or Denver and since this is our only pro team – we are passionate, interested and loyal. We support the team and the players. We appreciate them when we know they are good players and team mates as well as good community members.
Part of the reason I spent 5K on season tickets is I like the guys, the way they play and the way they enjoy each other as team mates.
Plus, no matter what profession you are in, there is a big difference from being private and being rude.
I don’t really know much about Andre. I wish him great success. I don’t want to find out that he considers himself privileged because he has ball skills. Time will tell.
Good lord...
Season Tickets are running at 5k?
"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller
Dave, you can add 'magician' to your list of skills.
I commend you on such an unpolitically correct article. Any time one is able to quote religous examples, and use them in the context of the blazers, what you have created is a virtual land mine. One wrong step could lead to a bona-fide disaster. Your points were carefully thought out, and if they offended anyone I say:
" GOOD"
Setting the tone early
Just like Nate is setting the tone early for style of play and rotations, Andre is doing likewise that he likes to have his private life be private.
Smart Player.
Two sides to this one
This is an entertainment industry. And part of that is that your fans want to know you, not just see you run up and down court.
Most fans like to win. Most fans also like to actually like the guys on their team. One of the problems with some of the past players was they disrespected the fans (who ultimately pay their salaries). If you disrespect the media, which is the fans’ window into who you are, it is virtually the same as disrespecting the fans.
As long as Andre doesn’t cross into disrespect, it’s all good. But there IS a line here somewhere.
As far as the off-court chemistry is concerned, good chemistry usually means little on-court, but bad chemistry can be negative. As long as there isn’t rudeness and active dislike, it’s all good. If Andre is being offensive to his teammates, it can impact on-court performance. I see no evidence of that being a problem, though. Again, there’s a line here somewhere. I don’t think Andre has crossed it.
Dave, you crossed a line with your last illustration, though. Sometimes a bully needs a beating. It isn’t when he’s doing nothing wrong, though. And stealing lunch money? You’re going to treat that as ever ok?
Not up to your usual quality, Dave.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
+ 1 million
Best article I’ve read on the maturation of this team.
It becoming clear that Miller is a vocal leader in practice, a guy who helps his teammates learn and improve. That’s consistent with what the Philly guys said when he left. That’s the important piece.
As for the rest of it, good. As long as he doesn’t get pulled over on the Terwilliger curves smoking weed with fighting dogs in the back seat, it’s all fine with me.
Have to respond to the “it’s entertainment” piece, too. Respectfully disagree with the premise. Basketball is entertainment. These guys’ personal lives are not entertainment. So long as a guy’s personal life doesn’t become so repugnant that I fell dirty for cheering for anything he does on a basketball court (see Patterson, Ruben), it’s all good.
If a guy chooses to make himself available for a Jason Quick-style personal expose, that’s his business. But it’s not a requirement, IMO.
Dave that was very well written
My favorite part was this quote:
There’s always a danger when developing culture that the culture itself becomes the focus rather than the paths along which the culture is supposed to lead you and the goals it’s supposed to lead you towards.
There is so much wisdom in those words, since they cross so many genres they become powerful. It is hard for me to explain how your quote gave me an ah-ha moment, but I want you to know that they truly will assist me with a part of my career. They have altered my approach, it might sound silly but it is true. I am always telling the people that words are powerful, and this is a great example.
I also think that this quote could help people breakout of the political mindset which has essentially destroyed American democracy. We now resist political ideas because it has become part of the political culture in this country. As a result nobody is willing to compromise. Thanks for the words Dave.
-Sug
OMG I just jizzed in my France
Dave, if you made up the bully story, it's ok.
If it was a valuable life lesson handed down from gram’pa or something….ummmm…well I’ll just assume you made it up.
:-)
And the rest was very insightful and I appreciate what you are saying.
The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers
Can we at least make macaroni art? :(
Kum Ba Ya works for me too.
by Blazin' on Oct 4, 2009 9:32 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Everyone has the right to privacy....
Do we really need to know all his business? I only care what he does on the court.
The only person who finds this more hilarious than I do, is Sheed.
The west is stacked again this year? "Sure, it's stacked ..... below us". Ben
"That's just how I get down"........ Andre Miller
Maybe we were a little set-up for a letdown.
The story about how Andre, Nate, and KP had dinner prior to Andre’s signing, and what a great conversation it was, made me think Andre was a different cat than he’s since shown himself to be. But I have no problem with that. In fact, I think Dave is so right about what Andre’s attitude brings to the team that it makes me wonder why he wasn’t KP’s #1 free-agent choice.
Maybe also the local media and fans are a little too worried about the team reverting to its former Jail Blazer ways.
I think he showed them a very high BBIQ
Which is what most have talked about from these practices… already directing players, making the smart pass, etc.
I’m sure if one talks pure basketball with Andre, he’ll have many things to discuss. He seems to put up that wall when it goes beyond basketball. I respect that, especially in this day and age of 24 hour sports media prying into everyone’s lives.
I agree with you, Miled. Any sign of “not being like the rest” makes people worry. I think it is natural, since we all hated the Jail Blazer days, but definitely not warranted with a guy like Andre Miller.
M—
My respect for Miller shot up after this article
He was clear and honest with Freeman about his personal boundaries. I hope the press (and Portland) doesn’t label him with all sorts of negatives just because he’s a private person — we all know introverts who get a bad rap of being frosty, detached, having a bad attitude, etc.
But being a NBA player includes going out in the community and playing a PR role sometimes. For good or bad, it’s not all about playing basketball. We’ve had guys in the past who bristled at this aspect of the job and it didn’t turn out too well. Does anyone know how Miller handled the community service gigs with his previous teams?
We'll see.
I am not sure if Miller’s attitude will be a good thing a bad thing or a non-thing. I am not sure, however, that Miller should simply get the benefit of the doubt for his attitude. It’s not like he came to Portland with a bunch of rings or even division championships. He’s been a successful point guard on mildly successive teams. How many of his teams have over achieved? How many have won 54 games?
If we were bringing him on and touting him as one of the forever-core
Like a new part of the Big Three, I could see this being a problem… he doesn’t have tons of playoff wins, awards, etc.
But as a respected role player brought in to add veteran toughness, smarts, and on-court leadership, I think he has earned the benefit of the doubt. Whatever he has done, either through luck or from relaxing in the off-season, has helped him stay incredibly healthy, and I don’t care what caused it as long as he keeps doing it.
I see his attitude more as a “hey media, don’t bug me, don’t question me about some test that I had no idea was so difficult, as if passing this test makes one a good basketball player. I’ve never been out of shape for a season, and what do you know anyways”. Not a bad attitude towards the team or his teammates.
Do I like he didn’t pass the conditioning test and whatnot? Well, of course I’d rather he pass it. But his level of play has been so consistent for so long, that we know what we’re getting. He doesn’t have much to prove right now, besides that he can fit in.
He is setting the parameters that he expects the media to respect right away so there is no confusion later. That is a very smart thing to do. Watching the videos, he is joking, talking, doing all the things you want a veteran teammate to do.
As he grows more comfortable in a new city, a new team, a new relationship with the media, I bet things will soften. But he is smart to build this wall now, because once you let them in, it’s a lot harder to keep that wall up than it is to take it down afterwards.
Mortimer
Perhaps
Yeah, the conditioning doesn’t worry me and the not openning up with the media doesn’t concern me at all.
But there are a couple of mild warning signs regarding Miller:
1) There were reports of conflict between him and the coaching staff at Philly. It does not surprise me given a certain degree of stubborness that is apparent in his personality.
2) The statement that he didn’t develop a close relationship with anyone in Philly. Could mean absolutely nothing. Could also explain some of the difficulties that Philly has had. They were definitely inconsistent, occasionally playing quite apathetically.
At the same time, a certain amount of fierceness and professionalism is something that this team can use. I don’t know what the net effect of his attitude will be. It’ll be interesting to see.
I woulda' had problems with Mo Cheeks as well if I was a smart PG
Horrible coach, that Cheeks. Really nice guy, horrible coach.
I can’t say I know how relationships with his Philly teammates, but I do not Iggy was super bummed Andre left… seemingly more than a “who will throw the most oops in the NBA to me now” way. I am of the unsubstantiated opinion that Andre is just saying that he hasn’t made friends in previous stops as part of his privacy policy (of course, none of our opinions about these guys can usually be substantiated, since we don’t know ‘em, but it’s what my gut tells me).
We’ll look to him for veteran advice, leadership, and savvy play, but the true team leadership will come from Roy, and eventually LMA and Oden. Miller is and always was a stop gap to help us contend for the next few seasons, so we can’t expect him to be a true leader. Just someone to really help.
Morty
And as far as Philly's inconsistent play
I think they did as well as they could with that relatively mediocre roster. Dalembert has never been consistent, Iggy is good but can’t shoot, Brand has been hurt, guys like Louis Williams just pretty much score, Speights is my pick to be the next Z-Bo/Al Jefferson type for better or worse, Young is talented by young (hee hee that’s a pun)…
They don’t really have consistent talent, aside from Andre and usually Iggy. Brand would have been consistent if he had played, I believe, but he didn’t play.
I think Miller helped them be as good as they could be, but he isn’t a superstar who instantly makes a team good, like Roy does or to a greater extent Lebron.
Morty
Yeah, Andre Miller did as well as could be expected of him with the Philadelphia 76ers ...
these past few seasons. Without a true superstar post player to pair with Andre Iguodala, that squad was destined for mediocrity and first-round playoff exits—regardless of who played at point guard. Plus, any team starting an inefficient chucker like Willie Green at shooting guard is in trouble from the get-go. The thought was that Elton Brand would take Philadelphia to the next level last season, but his nagging injuries and declining play halted that idea in its tracks.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
To you both...
True, Philly had a less than ideal roster, but when watching Philly the past couple of years my “mailing-it-in-o-meter” told me that Philly didn’t try or care very much. That’s not exactly scientific evidence, but it still means something to me!
Good points
but I think those concerns, especially #2, will be abated here. As others have said (i.e. Mort), if Miller were being brought in to lead the team/be the franchise player and tone-setter, this could be an issue. However, Dre is a complementary piece to the puzzle who (I hope) will add a ton of on court toughness/guidance, but not necessarily be the “leader” of the franchise. That mantle already belongs to Brandon, whose a pretty gregarious/vocal guy within the framework of the team and a media favorite. If anything, my thought is this will be a great situation for Miller – he can do what he does best (play ball) and the post game questions/journalists begging for an “inside” scoop (particularly after Andre’s “new factor” has worn off in a month or so) will focus on Brandon, who has shown an ability to tolerate it well.
"My shoulder is OK. And away we go." -- Nic Batum
by blazeraddict on Oct 4, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Dave's story means you can't wait for goodness to happen for you
At some point, you gotta go out and TAKE it and let the other suckers wait for it to just come to them.
I don’t wanna reveal Dave’s secret, but I’ll give everyone a hint… a child bully didn’t really get punched in the production of this article. It’s just a story. Replace “child bully” with “KG” and you won’t feel so bad.
And this is the cutthroat attitude we have to have. We got almost all very nice guys on the team, so it is right to worry about whether we will step on the bully’s throat to take what we want. Having a guy who doesn’t give a crap, a respected vet, can be very helpful.
Mortimer
Why did this guy have only one offer?
If he is going to be the guy who takes us to the next level, I would think that many teams would have had interest in him. I sure think that the only reason he chose us is because of 7 million per year. Not one other team in the league was willing to do this. No one was interested in a sign and trade either.
12 years, 7 times didn’t make playoffs, 5 first round and outs. Yeah, he’s a real great player.
This is about entitlement
We the fans, and the media, believe we are entitled to a level of access to players that is unreasonable. Because we have some players who go out of their way, i.e. Brandon, to let us have a glimpse of their lives does not mean we are entitled to that access. Andre Miller does not feel comfortable getting touchy feely with Quick or the rest of the media guys? Okay by me. His job is to go out and play.
The idea that a player’s refusal to “open up” to the media is an indicator that that player has a bad attitude or is a bad character guy is absurd. Portland has had this problem for a long time, ask Rasheed Wallace who refused to give interviews for the last year or so he was here for the same reason. Pushy, entitled media and fans who act like the players owe us something more than basketball. Fact is, they don’t. And just because Andre Miller doesn’t say “Yah I want to be good with the guys on this team and enjoy being a part of this franchise” doesn’t mean he doesn’t. It just means he doesn’t owe us that revelation. What he owes us is “I want to win and help this team win and get better,” which is exactly what he is saying. Brian T. Smith had the best take on this Dre media stuff
http://www.columbian.com/article/20091001/BLOGS05/910029998/-1/BLAZERBANTER
’Nuf said.
P.S. I love how Dave called Andre Miller a prophet.
I really like Brian Smith's stuff.
"I'm not sure SB Nation is big enough for your ego." Garces to annthefan.
" Hahahahhahahahahahhhhhahhha!!!!!!!
I think I’ll make that my new signature. I’m such an uppity woman!" annthefan to Garces
I think he'll come out of his shell a little...
I think about Joel a lot here. He’s a pretty introverted guy. I think part of the reason we love him so much is because we can never learn everything there is to learn about him. Andre Miller is a lot like him, I think he’ll get acclimated to his teammates, and he’ll bond with them, but the media will only learn tidbits. And us fans will gobble them up, and keep looking for more, and we’ll get one every once, but in the end we’ll just have a bunch of pieces to a puzzle. And we’ll be ok with that.
"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller
What Joe Freeman omitted
I’m going to put into all caps the omission that Freeman made in his article. I’ll just post for the first 3 paragraphs.
Andre Miller signed with the Trail Blazers to win games, not friends WITH THE MEDIA
By Joe Freeman, The Oregonian
October 03, 2009, 7:30PM
Miller has impressed teammates with his play through one week of practice.TUALATIN — After three weeks in the Northwest, a week of practices and countless media encounters, it has become blatantly clear that Andre Miller, the Trail Blazers’ biggest free agent acquisition, did not arrive in Portland to make new friends WITH THE MEDIA.
Teammates and coaches have praised Miller for his superb passing ability, on-court leadership and veteran savvy. Early indications suggest that he is going to be an asset for this team, if not a force that helps propel the Blazers to a playoff run.
But as positive as the on-court reports have been, Miller’s off-the-court demeanor WITH THE MEDIA has raised an equal number of eyebrows. After a frosty media day introduction, Miller has gone out of his way to make it clear that he is in Portland to work, not to build relationships WITH THE MEDIA.
-——-
I think I made my point. Which is the same point as Dave’s, that the media is feeling dissed because Miller doesn’t want to talk to the media about anything other than Basketball. Period. In this case freeman is making a big hallyboo because he and his colleauges feel slighted by Miller. Not one quote from anyone within the Blazer’s oragnization has anything negative to say about Miller. The only gripe is from the media who are rightfully gettting the cold shoulder from a player about things that are none of their or our (fans) business. It si the players who should decide if it is the fans or media’s business not the media.
I like Andre Miller.
Some of the hardest working people I’ve met have decidedly not been social butterflies. They come early, stay late, do an excellent job in between and interact with people in order to get the job done successfully. And that’s it. No potlucking, no team building exercises, no Xmas parties, no beer busts, no gossiping, no slacking off, no long breaks. Just the best co-worker you could ever ask for if you want to get the job done right. Someone like that will make the whole team look better. Let someone else be the media darling. Andre is all about getting the job done successfully and he doesn’t need the flourishes.
"I'm not sure SB Nation is big enough for your ego." Garces to annthefan.
" Hahahahhahahahahahhhhhahhha!!!!!!!
I think I’ll make that my new signature. I’m such an uppity woman!" annthefan to Garces
by annthefan on Oct 4, 2009 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Andre and Sheed
Why is Andre’s sense of privacy completely digestible to me, but not Sheed’s? A few ideas why:
1. Overall professionalism.
2. Andre’s sense of purpose isn’t based on tribal loyalty to the locker room.
3. Andre seems to have clarity about what he wants, but somehow doesn’t seem angry about it or victimized.
A slight dissent to Dave’s thesis. I think there are two kinds of winning: short run and long run. A good culture supports the latter. This isn’t a matter of picking good guys, but you do want people who won’t embarrass the organization, because the culture (and long term winning) depend on it.
But that’s the thing about Andre. You don’t get any sense that he would embarrass himself or the organization. Sheed? Um………………..not so much.
We'll See
Andre says that his dismissal of the media and the fans is in good keeping with his status as a professional. Le’ts hope he is a professional . . . when he is coming off the bench three months from now. Blake at his lunch tonight.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
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
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
- David West hilariously denies each and every one of his young fans a high-five (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Miami Heat are moving on to the conference finals
