Who SAYS the 3-guard line-up is inferior defensively?
by hurryup09 on Nov 10, 2009 4:13 PM PST
Email
PrintI'm hearing a lot of pros & cons about the great 3-guard experiment offensively, but the near-universal sentiment--both in the media and here at BE--is that Miller, Blake, & Roy will get killed at the defensive end as soon as the team encounters an opponent with a big, talented shooting guard and/or small forward.
That makes perfect sense, and is very likely true. Even Nate has said he only decided to stick with this starting line-up for awhile after scanning the upcoming schedule and seeing no unfavorable matchups. But let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, most of us would have assumed that Miller-Blake-Roy (MBR for short) would tank at the offensive end as well, and so far that hasn't been the case, has it?
I believe it was on this Sunday's "Talking Ball" that I heard Dwight Jaynes lay out the obvious argument against MBR at the defensive end. He said something like the following: "Compare the old & new starting line-ups: Blake at the one is a slightly better defender than Miller. Roy at the two is a much better defender than Blake. Martell at the three is a much better defender than Roy. And that old starting line-up was no great shakes defensively itself! Now they're worse at three positions. How in the world is that going to work?"
Strong argument. Only one problem: Jaynes is comparing guys as individual defenders. Memo to Dwight: basketball is a TEAM GAME! There have been numerous successful NBA squads that included multiple guys who were poor to mediocre individual defenders. But as a group they were so smart, unselfish, and organized, and they communicated so well on the court, that they played above average defense as a team.
Despite having had practically zero practice time as a defensive unit, MBR has already shown signs of that kind of synergy. With Miller quarterbacking (loudly!), double teams have come quickly and unpredictably. Rotations have been crisp & aggressive. Penetrators have gotten funneled to shotblockers (LMA & GO or Przy), triggering fast breaks the other way. Really, it's been MBR's DEFENSE that's been the most impressive. The offense, featuring--wonder of wonders--lots of easy baskets, has largely been fueled by stops at the defensive end.
The MBR line-up has yet to face a potent offensive team. (The Spurs don't count because Parker got hurt.) They may well indeed get killed the first time they face that test. But I thought I'd throw out the possibility that they WON'T. Are there any other open minds out there?
44 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I love the thought process on this
It’s true that sometimes a team plays great defense together but on an individual basis they are not that good. I see as you have three very cerebral players with high BBIQ and therefore they can use that to there advantage. This makes them better at rotation and help defense than if they were out there going one on one with their defensive assignment.
I have one argument with a statement you had, however it isn’t your statement it is Dwight’s. Does he not remember they games Roy had against Carmelo and against Joe Johnson where he took the defensive assignment against them on the final plays and shut them both down. I believe he is a much better defender than most of us believe, he just saves himself for the offensive end.
"Do or Do not there is no Try"
Yoda
Agreed re/ those memorable stops Roy had vs Carmelo last season
But he struggled along with everyone else to deal with ‘melo the other day. And Joe Johnson is a two, not a three, so Roy’s past success with him doesn’t really apply to the discussion at hand.
Jaynes—like a lot of other people—is saying that Roy will be overmatched vs big, high-scoring small forwards (e.g., Carmelo & LeBron), while Blake will struggle to defend top big guards (e.g., Joe Johnson & Kobe Bryant).
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I'm thinking it will only last a few games ...
… till the point that Nate switches to a four guard lineup of Miller – Blake – Rudy – Roy.
By December we should see the starting rotation set with
Bayless having cemented his place.
Bayless – Blake – Miller – Rudy – Roy
hakkaa päälle !
If this is what consitutes an open mind...
I have to confess mine is closed. I don’t think BMR has anything to do with defense. I think BMR is about getting out in transition more, and Nate feels safer sticking his toe in those waters with Blake holding his hand.
I think good defense requires some good individual defenders. The whole “we’ll all get beat, but everybody will help each other” idea is a poor one IMO.
Well, OK
But as both Nate and Miller have said, the reason MBR have been getting out in transition is because they’ ve been getting stops. So to say MBR has nothing to do with defense is illogical. The reasonable question is: will MBR be able to get stops vs stronger offensive squads? If not, then their ability to score in transition & early offense will be negated.
One other quibble: EVERYONE gets beat one on one in the NBA. The majority of NBA players got to the league by being exceptional scorers, not defenders. Especially with the new handchecking rules, it’s team defense that’s at a premium. Granted, some individual defenders are worse than others, and all the more so when they’re over-matched size-wise. Again, that’s why the conventional argument against MBR has merit.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
sorry if I came off chippy
and if it is true that they’ve found some way to get more steals that’s not a one-game anomaly then I’m all for it. I just don’t look at that line-up and think Nate was thinking D. I think he was thinking about getting out in the open court a little more and was nervous about it, so he included Blake in the line-up to keep the number of balls thrown into the stands at a minimum.
As far as team defense goes, I agree that help is necessary. I also think that you give help because your are forced to (unless your agressively trapping). The more help your forced to give and the more rotations you are forced into, the worse your defensive result is going to be.
It also might make for a fun exercise to list the teams who had a preponderance of poor individual defenders, but were good on D overall, nonetheless. Because whatever it is that those teams were doing, we may need to duplicate it.
I voted for choice three
because there is a wildcard in this – Greg Oden. If he can stay out of foul trouble (big if) he will help cover up the defensive deficiencies of this, or any other, Blazer lineup. I still think this group is dead to rights against teams like Denver, ATL, and LA that have big 2s/3s who are comfortable on the block. But against slashers, Greg could be the difference maker.
I hate Comcast
Card carrying member of Team Bayless
I need to stop being so hard on Steve Blake. Even though I'd rather see him as a top 5 backup PG than an undersized starting SG, he's a Bazer, he works hard, he has earned respect.
Yes--what makes this line-up interesting is the presence of LMA & GO down low
Those guys are the constant between the old & new (MBR) starting units, and arguably MBR exploits their abilities better at BOTH ends. How many other NBA teams have 14’ of center / power forward who can block shots, run the floor, and post up like LMA & GO can? Gotta take advantage of that, and the old starting line-up clearly was not doing so.
But MBR’s advantages are instantly cancelled out when GO gets two quick fouls like he did tonight in the opening minutes. Suddenly, those three guards just look small and defensively challenged.
Having said that, the first half tonight also exposed (again) the limitations of Trout and Martell. Both lack ball-handling, passing ability, and court awareness. When their jumpers aren’t falling (as is common on the road), they can be worse than useless. It begs the question: why NOT play three guards as much as possible until Batum returns?
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Good points, but my one tweak would be Rudy for Blake
Just a general question hurryup – do you prefer Blake or Fernandez as the off guard if Nate is committed to going small? That’s my main line of criticism for this lineup – I think Rudy is nearly Blake’s equal as a spot up shooter, but as a passer/cutter/finisher on the break, Rudy is superior. I’d like to see Nate flip their roles, Rudy as the starter, Blake as a key reserve.
I also agree that once Nic returns, our 5 is set, and Batum will be the recipient of Miler’s passing on the break while doing the job on the best wing player the opposition has to offer. Either way, kudos to Nate for showing some flexibility. If only he would do the same when Oden picks up early fouls, let the man play through!
I hate Comcast
Card carrying member of Team Bayless
I need to stop being so hard on Steve Blake. Even though I'd rather see him as a top 5 backup PG than an undersized starting SG, he's a Bazer, he works hard, he has earned respect.
by blazeraddict on Nov 10, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
First, agreed 100% about the need for Nate to leave GO in there when he gets two quick ones
Put the onus on the officials to call 3 fouls on a guy in quick succession. They’re much less likely to do that than to call the third when he returns at the beginning of the 2nd quarter. Pulling GO early in the 1st quarter, he never even works up a sweat or gets in rhythm.
As for Rudy vs Blake in the starting line-up, I can go either way on that. Rudy’s a better rebounder for sure (he gets in there and deflects a lot of boards), so that’s a plus. He does have a better feel for fastbreak decision-making than Blake, and I think he might be a better entry passer. But Blake’s handle is better than Rudy’s, and he’s more used to initiating offense with this team. That’s part of the job description for the 2nd guard in this two-point guard offense. Plus, Rudy’s game has been a bit off lately.
My guess is that he’s experiencing both physical and mental fatigue after playing non-stop pro hoops for a couple years straight. He might want to be playing more, but it’s a long season and I think Nate is making the right call in limiting Rudy’s minutes for now.
The bottom line for me is that I want to see the three-guard lineup—with one of those guys being Andre Miller—as much as possible until Batum returns. At least, I want to see three guards in there when LMA & GO are on the floor. With what Martell and Trout are giving you, why not?
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
But, do you think Rudy is a better team defender than Blake?
I think that’s what it comes down to, with Nate. Who makes the fewest mistakes, which player is the most reliable? Rudy is flashy, he brings energy. Steve is steady, and fits well with Roy and LMA. The bench needs Fernandez more, in the starting lineup he would be a spot-up shooter and more of a risk-taker on defense; he will get himself out of position more than a “glue” guy, like Blake
I expect Webster to return to the starting lineup, not because the MBR crew has done poorly (they’re undefeated) but because Roy isn’t built to play SFs for the long haul. Neither is Rudy. I’m not surprised that Fernandez is confused about his role, because his minutes have been shrinking instead of increasing since Batum’s surgery. Why? I think your fanpost helps answer that question—MBR is the “tightest” team defensive 1-2-3 unit that Nate can put out there on the floor, at least until Nic returns
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Good points
But we do know that Nate REALLY likes Rudy, despite him being a risk taker. Nate saw what Rudy can do during the Olympics, and he hasn’t forgotten that. He’s still kind of scratching his head trying to figure out how to use this weapon.
At the moment, with Batum out and Rudy playing under par, Nate doesn’t seem to know exactly what to do with him. But I think we’ll see plenty of Rudy this season in one role or another. At least I hope so. When Rudy gets it going, there aren’t many players that are more fun to watch.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Sure, Rudy's fun to watch
but Blake gets the job done with fewer mistakes. This reminds me of offensive linemen in football. The “big uglies” are vital to their team’s success, but average fans have no idea how they’re graded. Every week the linemen have a meeting and go over the game film for hours and receive a grade. Every step they make is critiqued. They learn how to run block and pass protect as a unit. If they all do their jobs the “skill” players get the glory and the team wins. If the linemen don’t improve, the team loses.
So it is with team defense in basketball. You only notice it when it breaks down and the penetrator gets to the hoop or someone gets a wide-open dunk. Some guys are flashy and they bring energy, there’s nothing wrong with that. But if you rolled back the tape and critique them like O linemen, you might find that they weren’t always “in step” with their teammates. Maybe they “zigged” when they should’ve “zagged” and the defensive “wall” broke down.
I think Rudy is a dynamic player, but if there’s a single explanation why Blake’s been playing more minutes it’s this: Steve knows how to be a more-effective team player better than Rudy does, at this point of fheir careers. The Blazer’s coaching staff appreciates this. OTOH, most fans only notice the offensive linemen when they’re called for “holding”
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I don't have an argument with this
At this point, at least, Rudy seems ideally suited for a sixth man, energizer role. Much more so than Trout, who I think will ultimately be traded.
Although, in Trout’s defense, I’m sure playing in front of friends & family had a lot to do with tonight’s travesty. When his first couple of shots didn’t fall, you could feel him panicking and pressing harder & harder. It was painful to watch. Normally, Nate would have planted Trout on the bench, but he must have kept hoping he would get it together and avoid that embarrassment.
I was glad to see Trout save a little face with that one tremendous putback dunk.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Easing the transition
Brandon comments on “learning” how to play while not being the primary ball handler provides insight that change does not take place overnight. He is young and after excelling in his NBA career in one role, he is now learning a new model. He needs time, and in the meantime his comfort factor with Blake helps the transition.
If we do stick with 3-guard line going forward, moving Rudy to starting line-up still poses challenges. In the “white unit” Bayless is more of the two-guard, and even if Rudy does not bring the ball up Rudy is the better playmaker in the Rudy/Bayless tandem (some parallels to the Brandon/Blake tandem, except that Bayless will also drive to the hoop if the lane is opened up for him).
Blake has to play alongside a very strong play maker, since even though he is a decent ball handler, his offensive role is more like a spot up 2 guard, than a floor general PG. [Blake + Roy = GOOD; Blake + Miller = OK; Blake + Rudy = Not so good; Blake + Bayless = Bad]. So Blake’s usefulness coming of the bench starts to become questionable, and he stays on as insurance policy or gets spotty minutes. The offense of the “white unit” stalls if Blake is moved to the second unit alongside Bayless. Rudy on the bench actually gives Bayless more playing time, and the opportunity to grow a bit.
Sure that if Blake actually goes to the bench, the team will work something out. But if they can make the 3 guard line up work, it might allow Nate better black-unit/white-unit line-ups with Rudy coming off of the bench, rather than Blake coming off of the bench.
I think you're on to something, here
Team defense is the best way to limit penetration and get stops and steals. I don’t think there’s any question that the 3 Blazers with the highest BBIQ are M-B-R. Even if they aren’t the most-athletic individual perimeter defenders (and there’s only one of those on Portland’s roster—Batum) if MBR can make the fewest defensive mistakes as a unit with LMA/Greg then they deserve to be in the game for the most minutes. Take tonight, for example.
Miller = 31 mpg
Blake = 30
Roy = 38
LMA = 37
Those are the guys who (along with Oden, in the 2nd half) held a team that was averaging 115 ppg to 79, on their home floor. Coincidence? I’d rather have BBIQ than more athletic players who are missing their defensive rotations and turning their head so the guy they’re “supposed” to be guarding gets easy baskets. If MBR are communicating and closing off penetration and forcing the other team to shoot contested jumpers against the shot clock, then that’s what leads to a sub-40% shooting night for the opposing team and a double-digit road win.
I still don’t think the MBR will last for much longer as a starting threesome, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Blake is the first guy off the bench when Nate switches to the “RAWMO” starting lineup because of Roy’s unhappiness re: defending larger SFs. Should Rudy be playing more than Steve? That depends on how well Fernandez works with Roy and/or Miller as a team defender. Right now, Blake is clearly “the” man who’s making the most effective defensive “reads” alongside Brandon and Andre, as well as throwing in those deadly 3 pointers at the other end of the floor
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
parting stat
Each member of the Blazer’s starting 5 had at least a +16 against the Griz
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore;_ylt=AhIfK6M5xer0gsdobcTrMXzazYd4?gid=2009111029
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Nice comment
Having three undersized, slow-footed defenders with high basketball IQ’s wouldn’t get you anywhere without LMA & GO down low. But because of their smarts and communication, MBR seem to be able to get the job done defensively better than Miller (or Blake)-Roy-Martell. And their ball-handling & passing ability enables them to better utilize the two bigs at the other end. Big time.
When Batum returns, of course, that’ll be another ballgame. Batum not only has the physical tools to make him potentially a great defender. He also has a good basketball IQ for a youngster—probably due in part to having played in Europe where they, you know,learn to pass the ball & stuff.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Can't wait till Batum comes back, his defense against Kobe last season was great
I really wish we had signed Ime right now. I also think something needs to be said about Miller and Blake playing well together in the back court.
"We didn't start the fire. It was always burning. Since the world's been turning." - E. E. Cummings
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Nov 10, 2009 9:50 PM PST up reply actions
I think Martell will get better
right now he’s been thrown back into the fire after missing 12 months, and that’s gotta be rough. He’s still young and learning the game, and even though Roy isn’t much older Brandon’s still got more experience and BBIQ (besides, Roys going to play, regardless) The trouble is, if Webster misses a defensive rotation he lets the other 4 starter down and makes the team look bad. OTOH, Brandon can’t keep guarding SFs, it’s wearing him down. So Nate’s going to have to make a change sooner or later.
I expect Blake will come in for Miller, Roy or Webster, depending on how the game is going. Roy will still play some 3, but it will probably not be against the other team’s starting SF, Nate will look for an “easier” defensive assignment for Roy against an opposing wing who’s smaller, if possible. That’s when Rudy can get some run at the 2, as well.
Batum is like real gold, while Outlaw is like pyrite. Nic has BBIQ in his genes, and he has a decent chance to be the best Blazer SF, ever. It’s a shame he’s not playing now, but he was bound to get dinged up playing against NBA pros at his age. At least he’s getting “forced time off” right now, i think he’ll bring incredible energy for Portland in March, even if his shot is rusty and his timing is off. Martell is just keeping the middle of the starting lineup “warm” for Batum, in the meantime.
You want to talk about Roy’s comfort level with Blake? Just wait until he gets Frenchy back on the court—and defending the toughest wing on the other team—that will turn Brandon’s frown upside-down, for sure
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I'm with you
I recently triggered the outrage of numerous local Bulls fans with a Fanpost comparing Batum’s chemistry with Roy to that of Scotty Pippen with Michael Jordan. (Mind you I didn’t say Nic is as good as Pippen, although I did commit heresy by suggesting that he might come close some day.)
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I'm equally bullish on Nic
Pippen is one of the best all around 3 men to ever play the game, but in terms of raw tools, Nic is very comprable. Obviously, the European model of player development (focus on defense, off-ball movement, all around skill development rather than position pigeon-holing) has placed him way ahead of where Pippen was as a 19/20 year old (of course, Pip was an all-time late bloomer, I think he grew almost 6 inches in college) but Nic’s ceiling could be in that rarified air.
I hate Comcast
Card carrying member of Team Bayless
I need to stop being so hard on Steve Blake. Even though I'd rather see him as a top 5 backup PG than an undersized starting SG, he's a Bazer, he works hard, he has earned respect.
by blazeraddict on Nov 11, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
Count me as a Nic Bull, too...
I think he can absolutely get to Pippen’s level. (Personally, I don’t think there is any way Pip is one of the top 50 ever, but top 100, sure). Especially if the Blazers start winning championships, after all, that’s a good part of Pip’s legacy…
The dwight jaynes quote ...
makes me think he’s watching a different game.
Andre>Blake at D (at 1,2, anything)
Roy >> Webster at D (at 2 and 3)h
Seriously, running around with a concerned look on your face does not a defender make. Being tall and spry does not make you a good defender either. Batum, on the other hand …
by Sound_Automatic on Nov 11, 2009 12:20 AM PST reply actions
the problem is big wings that can post Brandon/Andre up. Gerald Wallace, Artest… this is a strategy that won’t win in the playoffs, so why take time to work on it?
free bayless
Sure, except...
By playoff time, Batum will be back, so WHATEVER starting line-up the Blazers use now will be scrapped. Batum is clearly a better defender and all-around player than Martell, and he’s getting better by the day. When he’s not rehabbing, that is.
Second: while making Roy defend the likes of Wallace & Artest is obviously risky, sometimes you can turn the tables on the bigger team. Can either of those guys guard ROY?
For decades, Don Nelson has been forcing bigger teams to match up with HIM. Small ball has its drawbacks. But remember: Nellie has never had a pair of quick, versatile 7-footers like LMA and GO to complement his undersized smalls.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I remember Don's early Milwaukee teams
he always had a set of 7 footers. Mokeski, Lister, etc I guess as time went by he realized he didn’t “need” them, just a good defender/rebounder in the middle. Of course, Nellie hasn’t won anything beyond regular season games with his “philosophy”
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I recall Nellie always whining that he didn't have a dominant big
As though that were the only thing holding him back from winning championships. Gradually, I came to realize that Nellie didn’t really WANT a dominant big. He has too much fun playing David to the Goliaths of the league.
Of course, the downside is that, as you suggest, he’ll never win a championship with his “small ball.”
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Small front courts are fine, why not small back courts
From a purely hypothetical standpoint, without endorsing that Portland’s 3-guard line-up is championship material, there are plenty of teams that play pretty good defense with a small front court. Its early in the season, but using Hollinger’s defensive efficiency rankings, three of the top 6 teams have a starting PF that stands 6’9" or less
1 Milwaukee. PF: Hakim Warrick 6’9"
4 Charlotte. PF: Boris Diaw 6’8"
6 OKC. PF: Jeff Green 6’9"
… and lets not forget that Houston is surprising a lot of people despite their tiny front court.
Situationally, the Blazers 3 guard line-up is going to give a lot of teams fits, and will be a very strong asset. Just like situationally, small front courts give many teams (including the Blazers) fits. The Blazers have a hard time against small front lines. LMA has consistently had issues dominating even though he has 4" to 6" height advantage, and invariably gets called for offensive fouls of the hooking variety when he tries to do too much. [The new hope is that Oden will change this dynamic and we will impose our will on small teams, instead of reacting to their game plans.] We are not the only team that finds it hard to handle small front courts, including the infamous playoff flame out example of the Mavericks against the Warriors.
How will the Blazers 3 guard lineup fare against bigger line-ups? Do we find that the offensive efficiency of 3-guards outweighs the liabilities? Is changing the line-up against some teams a workable option? Is this an interim step and will we gradually phase over to a “more traditional” line-up. Plenty of time to explore, and fun to be had along the way.
But historically, the championship Detroit Pistons were known for their 3 guard lineup. Team chemistry on defense has a way of defying traditional wisdom and we do have a huge front court with decent foul buffer to offset size disadvantages in the back-court.
Great comment--well put
Remind me: who were the three guards on that Pistons team? Thomas, Dumars, and ?? (along with center Mahorn & PF Laimbeer). I should remember….
I do recall Vinnie “The Microwave” Johnson coming off the bench for instant offense. Someday, Bayless could conceivably play a similar role with this Blazers team.
Re/ the Blazers’ problems with small front courts: in part, this depends on how you define “small.” Some of the 4/5’s who have given the Blazers fits are small in height only. Quick guys with extremely wide, strong lower bodies are very hard to deal with, even if they’re 6-6 and you’re 7’. Think Wes Unseld & Charles Barkley—a couple of hall-of-famers.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Vinnie Johnson
But that was a 3-guard rotation. Dumars, Thomas and Johnson did not all play together (on the court at the same time) Mark Auguirre was their starting SF, John Long and Rodman came in off the bench. Gerald Henderson was the 4th guard
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/1991.html
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
OK
Another problem with the parallel is that Dumars, at least, was a good defender. Certainly better than Miller or Blake.
Then again, the Bulls didn’t have a 4/5 defensive trio of the caliber of Przy & the still-maturing LMA & GO. Not that Rodman, Mahorn, & Laimbeer were chopped liver. The league allowed lots of rough stuff then, which those guys could really dish out. :-)
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Don't forget John "Spiderman" Salley
The thing I remember about the Pistons was that Laimbeer would play position defense (kept his arms straight up, never left his feet) and try to draw the charge, then when the driver pulled up Rodman and salley would come from off the ball and try for the blocked shots. It was pretty effective to keep the opponent’s shooting percentage down, and of course they rebounded well.
The 3 guard lineup is OK against some opponents during the regular season, but when the playoffs roll around the opponents will game plan for it and make Roy and Blake pay for guarding longer/stronger players. The L*kers in particular will have a matchup size advantage at the 2,3 positions
But for now, Blake > Webster as a team defender. Better rotations, less mistakes and defensive break downs = lower OFG%, more stops and more opportunities for easy transition baskets
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
That's right--Salley is annoying as a commentator but was a very good defender
As for the Lakers, no question they provide matchup challenges for the Blazers—3-guard version or 2-guard version. But who do they NOT provide matchup problems for?
Let’s face it, basketball fans. Barring serious injury problems, the Lakers are almost certain to win it all again this season. That club is loaded, curse it!
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
They lost in 1990-1991
Still they did start Aguire/Dantley who could be called either guards or forwards.
In their first championship year they started
Mark Aguire at 6’5"/Adrian Dantley also 6’’5"; (both listed as Guard/Forwards)
Joe Dumars at 6’3".
and Isiah Thomas at 6’1",
First Championship year
This group as a combo is shorter than our “3-guard” lineup of
Brandon Roy at 6’6"
Steve Blake at 6’3"
and Andre Miller at 6’’2"
In the next championship year, Chuck Daly had Aguirre start half the games, and started Rodman for the other half of the games, when he needed more front court size (or when Rodman had been acting up).
Nice info, FromAfar
Of course, Dantley & Aguirre both played bigger than their height. We’re talking about guys with wide, strong lower bodies—and long arms to boot.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Some of the 4/5’s who have given the Blazers fits are small in height only. Quick guys with extremely wide, strong lower bodies are very hard to deal with, even if they’re 6-6 and you’re 7’. Think Wes Unseld & Charles Barkley—a couple of hall-of-famers.
Main point like you said is height alone is not the determinant. Dont take too much into the Piston’s reference other than to show a team that had a starting “back-court” that was shorter than ours, that won two consecutive championships. Championship teams can be short.
Whether our 3-guard lineup can pass mustard is another question. As individual defenders they are not up to snuff. Unfortunately even Brandon Roy is being beat too often to be considered an elite defender. However as a group maybe they have chemistry that is greater than their individual efforts.
Great Post
I tried to make similar points over at Dwight’s site but your post sums up my thoughts much better than I have been able to express. The offense was having trouble executing and the defense was porous, so Nate responded with his three best playmakers and smartest defenders at the 1-2-3 spots. I know strength of opponents and Parker going down has played a role in the teams turn around but they went from looking like they had no idea what each other was doing on the court to communicating and helping on defense and spacing the floor and moving the ball with purpose on offense. Guys are coming off the bench and fitting themselves into a unit that is already clicking instead of trying to jump start a stagnent offense.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
Barrett and Vance were talking today on 95.5
About how perfect this lineup is for Blake, because he can run after a rebound and flare out to the side and wait for a pass for a 3 pointer, instead of having to wait and receive the outlet pass and dribble it up.
Plus, the MBR lineup means that Portland has 3 guys who can feed the post from the wing, which makes it easier to swing the ball and dump it into Greg/LMA from either side of the court. This makes it tougher for the opponents to “front” the post players
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yes. Good points.
Blake says he’s loving this because he can just run up the floor after a rebound. Two point-type guards are nothing new. Back in the day, Jerry West and Gail Goodrich won a championship or two together, for instance.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Danny Ainge and Dennis Johnson
which one was the PG?
answer: Larry Bird
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yeah, that WAS an odd line-up. But Bird, like Magic, was a unique talent
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
