Game 15 Recap: Blazers 106, Timberwolves 78
Ahhhh...what a difference a night makes. The team that was headed straight into the depths of oblivion 24 hours ago is now showing a bright spot or two. 9-5 was completely unacceptable. 10-5? Why that's pretty good.
The game started off well enough. Portland forced the issue inside defensively as usual. Minnesota only hit one shot within 10 feet of the hoop all quarter. The Blazers, meanwhile, were hitting their mid-range jumpers and later expanded that range to the three-point arc. They tried to enter the ball to the post but Minnesota, having watched the game in Oakland, was having none of that. Portland either turned it over or got no good shot when passing to the interior. But as we said, the jumpers were falling well enough so it was no problem. 23-14 after the first.
LaMarcus Aldridge started the second period with the reserves but picked up his second foul 12 seconds in. That took him out and brought Juwan Howard in. As you might expect, the Howard-Przybilla combo created some offensive problems for the Blazers. Oddly enough, though, it caused Minnesota to stop guarding the lane like the crown jewels were hidden therein. They switched tactics, choosing another Warrior favorite: trapping any legitimate scorer who touched the ball. (There were about two in at the time.) The Blazers countered by sending in another scorer in the person of LaMarcus Aldridge, but he picked up his third foul 30 seconds after re-entering the game. There came Howard again. The downside to all of this was that the offense stalled and it took a barrage from Greg Oden in the second half of the period to even get the tally to 17 for the quarter. The upside was that Minnesota never regained their turf inside. They did regain 6 points in the period though and Portland went into the locker room up only 3.
It got even more nerve wracking as the third period commenced. Portland came out with energy, getting the ball to Oden and then scoring on a Roy drive. But Minnesota responded by packing and trapping again. When that happens the Blazers have one direct counter: hit the open shot from outside. Pressured time and again Portland got it out to the perimeter. And guess what happened. No, go ahead. Guess! If you said Steve Blake missed a ton of threes you'd be wrong. If you said Rudy Fernandez worked some step-back Spanish wizardry you'd also be wrong. Instead Martell Webster got a burr under his behind and started shooting and hitting threes like nobody's business. He hit three straight. Minnesota then had to play honest defense. Here came Roy and Oden again...PA POW! Ooops! Better stop that! Get the ball to Blake and Fernandez for threes. Ooops! Better stop that! You already know Minnesota isn't fleet of foot on defense. As it turned out forced to choose between two evils they couldn't stop either. Portland gains 10 in the quarter and heads into the fourth up 13.
Having learned a lesson from the last couple of games (and honestly, probably because the offense was easy at that point) the Blazers continued to pour it on in the fourth. It was much the same as the third. Any shot, any pass...it was all good. Meanwhile Przybilla and friends shut down the interior, forcing the ‘Wolves to shoot over the top. They weren't very good. The only place they got points was the free throw line. Minnesota scores 15 in the period, Portland 30. Ballgame.
Portland shot 50% from the field, 42% from three, and drew 10 more foul shots than the ‘Wolves (though they missed those extra 10 in an uncharacteristic display of wooziness from the stripe). They killed the ‘Wolves on the boards, dished 28 assists to Minny's 11, didn't turn the ball over, and allowed only 4 fast break points for the game. It was pretty much total destruction, as indeed it should have been. But it's nice to see what happens when things click at both ends at once. Now we have to take it from practice to an actual game.
Click through for individual observations and IMPORTANT NEWS about the JERSEY CONTEST.
Individual Observations
Brandon Roy appeared to be battling the refs as much as the ‘Wolves but despite the perceived lack of foul calls he still scored 18 on 8-15 shooting. He passed up a lot of extra points going 1-4 from the arc and 1-5 from the line. He did make a concerted effort to penetrate though, committed only 1 turnover, and got 5 assists. It wasn't classic Roy but it was decent Roy.
LaMarcus Aldridge had an ouchy game with those 4 fouls in 22 minutes. It was like he was channeling Greg Oden v1.0. He had 10 points off of 5 shots. People are complaining about him being soft and not getting inside but there are other things going on when LaMarcus gets the ball. Watch when he gets in that side post position. Greg Oden cuts down and brings his man through usually followed by a guard. This clogs up the middle something fierce, making it all but impossible for LaMarcus to get down there unless he waits 10 seconds for everyone to clear. On the possessions when everybody just backs off and lets him work he actually does a decent job of getting into the lane and scoring. As I've said, my vote is for LaMarcus to be the continuity guy between the first and second units even more than Roy is. In every second-unit situation, and probably in more of the first-unit ones as well, they should let LaMarcus operate. He's not a natural passer. Oden actually sees the floor and gets clearance to pass better. Let LMA be the scorer he is and everybody will be happier.
Martell Webster, back in the starting lineup, scored a game-high 21 off of 4-7 three-point shooting. He also grabbed 13 rebounds, and that's not a misprint. The Blazer broadcasters announced that this was his first career double-double. I think he wanted to show he belonged out there. He opened up the offense for everybody by hitting those shots. The table is set for him if he'll just sit down and eat.
Greg Oden both set up the three-point shooters and benefitted from them by scoring copiously (for him, anyway) inside. When it works this offense is about synergy and he's the hub of one end of it. The guy shot 7-9, including hitting a jump hook finally, made both free throws, and ended up with 16. He had 3 blocks and kept folks out of the middle for the most part. I'm actually impressed with the growth he's made knowing when to go for a block and knowing when to just let a driver score. There are some times when he just seems to tell the guards, "You let that guy go. I'm not getting benched trying to clean up your mess." That's a positive step. He still intimidates enough inside that he's more than earning his keep.
Joel Przybilla picked up where Oden left off tonight, grabbing 11 rebounds (6 offensive), blocking 2 shots, and hitting 5 of 10 shots for 14 points. That's not a misprint either. Joel really benefitted from the spread defense, feasting on offense boards and less-than-attentive defenders. Say what you want about his offense, he knows what to do with it when he's near the rim. I swear Minnesota is going to make a run at him when his contract expires. He always seems to stick it to them.
Steve Blake played 29 minutes and hit 4-6 three-pointers himself. His didn't come grouped as tightly as Martell's and thus they weren't as dramatic, but once he started stroking them he spelled doom for the ‘Wolves defenders just as much as Webster did. If Steve can do this every night he more than justifies his court time. Oh...he got 9 assists to go with his 14 points as the passing lanes were just as open as the shooters. He didn't spend a lot of time dribbling tonight, which is one sign of a good Steve game.
Andre Miller got 20 minutes off the bench. He did have 4 assists but that second-unit offense as such still looked pretty brutal. It's hard to run an offense when you don't really have offenders by your side. What's he going to do? "Here, Rudy! Heads up, Rudy! Comin' your way again Rudy!" I'm thinking that as long as these injuries persist the Blazers don't really have distinct first and second units. They play their best five players and everyone else shuffles in and out depending on the situation. Miller is part of that shuffling. But they haven't got the shuffle down yet and that means Miller is up in the air.
Rudy Fernandez had the best 1-9 game I've ever seen him have. Him making his threes would have been too much for the poor ‘Wolves anyway. But he was all over the court (in a good way) with 5 assists, 4 rebounds, and 2 steals. It seems odd to say on a night where a guy shoots 11% but Rudy has been passing up shots he should take lately. If he'd go ahead and finish a couple drives and pull up for the easy mid-range shot he'd have a better overall percentage. He's being unselfish but he's also limiting himself to the most difficult shots. I don't think that's the idea of the offense.
Juwan Howard played 21 minutes and got 6 rebounds, 4 offensive. Except for those offensive boards I didn't notice him much on the court. That may be a failing, as there's some esoteric thing I'm not picking up on. On the other hand, that may be Juwan.
Dante Cunningham got 9 minutes, made 2-3 shots, scored 4 points, and made Mike Rice utter the same words that Larry Steele once uttered about Jerome Kersey in his infancy: "This guy is going to be a player."
Jerryd Bayless played 8 minutes, dished an assist, had a turnover, and got lost in the second-unit mire. He's completely misaligned as the weak-side guy standing in the corner. Nothing good is going to happen for him there.
Final Thoughts and Links
Check out what it feels like to spin "bell-lemon-kumquat" on a slot machine over at CanisHoopus.
The Jersey Contest scoreboard is screwed up because somebody inverted the Minnesota and Portland scores tonight. Ignore it for now. I'll not even link to it. It'll be fixed soon. However you can enter Monday's game here.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
241 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nine minutes for the Inferno... We're getting there...
Nate is slow.
"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
I still bet the main reason he's on this team is due to Larry Miller's cronyism.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Evidence?
We’ve been down this road before, with Mills.
How do you know Howard isn’t there because Paul Allen wanted him, and Mills because Miller wanted him? Or both because of Allen? Or both because of Miller?
There are so many possibilities here.
Actually, I know the real reason, and the key is found in the beginning of this article. Our vets weren’t doing a good enough job of choosing luggage for the rooks.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
There's a reason I used the qualifer "bet" in my sentence.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Yeah, I know
but we haven’t disagreed on anything for a couple days, so I had to manufacture something. :)
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
That's fair.
Hell, you should’ve slammed me just now for misspelling qualifier. A missed opportunity, y’know.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
Sorry to disillusion you
but I rarely do the spelling thing. The only time is when it is particularly ironic (like when someone misspells a word while slamming someone else for grammar), or when it is particularly humorous (for instance, if the spelling error actually results in a completely different word with a resulting nice twist in the meaning).
Qualifer just didn’t achieve my threshold.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
KP said in an interview that Larry Miller was instrumental in getting him, since he knew him from his time at Jordan brand
But not that Miller was the one to suggest him
Ceterum censeo Lakers esse delendam
yeah jscot, try to keep up
we covered the Larry-Juwan ground months ago, so don’t try to act like you didn’t notice it, back then
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I missed it
Since Juwan can’t keep up anymore, and I’m older than him, why should anyone be surprised?
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Starting line up
Looks like Roy has spoken and this will be our starting line up. I think he was definitely under utilized at the 3 and not comfortable sharing the ball with Miller. So much for Miller starting – Blake is our guy for the forseeable future…
hopefully he'll grow up
at some point and understand that once the games are tough and it’s playoff time that him being the only ball handler will kill his team just as it did last spring.
The thing I worry about
is long term, what does this do for Oden’s development? I think Greg, on sheer physical tools alone can get 12/14 ppg and command a double. But Miller (and for that matter Rudy) is always looking to get the big man the ball in scoring position. For this team to have the long window we all want, Greg Oden needs to be an offensive threat, and Andre Miller can help him get there.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 21, 2009 11:33 PM PST up reply actions
Greg was getting the ball enough to be a force in this game
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I agree
and if Roy gets committed to getting the big man involved, all will be well. But I like the fact Miller emphasizes looking for him in the half court
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 21, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
I do, too
but Miller hasn’t been overly effective at that in recent games.
Andre is struggling. He always starts slow. We probably should have waited to start him until he was really rolling.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Do you think it is a case of Andre starting off really slow or being in a lineup with two other guards
not knowing whether he’s going ot be the one on the bench down the stretch late in the game or not?
I think in the long run Brandon is going to regret not giving Miller the chance to help him get easy looks at the basket… Right about playoff time.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
Andre has known he was starting for the last seven games
and he hasn’t played like the guy we hoped we were getting.
His defense has been good, I don’t fault his effort, but he’s not been in synch.
And Blake and Roy have been playing like a 2 guard and a SF offensively, and Andre has the big targets of Oden and LMA inside. Most PGs would love to have those two guys as targets.
We hoped Andre would come in, push the pace, run the floor. I haven’t really seen it much while he was starting, except for that first Minnesota game.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Andre has changed us fundamentally by being the second Blazer to feed the Greg. Even Brandon has started to follow after ‘Dre. That’s a big, subtle thing that ’Dre did.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:55 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
and I’m not down on Andre. He’s done some good things, and like I said his defense and effort have been fine. But Andre has been far from “one of the top 10 PGs of the last decade” since he came to Portland.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
He’s done some good things
not sure if it was intentional or not, but i loled.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
Miller showed Roy/Blake the way to feed Greg?
If that was accomplished by starting Andre for a couple of weeks, then it was worthwhile. Just like Dave, most of us saw the 3-guard lineup as a “short-term” solution, but a large majority thought that it would be Blake heading to the bench, not Miller, when it came time for the “experiment” to be over. Nate’s comments at practice that the 2nd unit needed more scoring were the tipoff; certainly Andre can lend more scoring punch to the bench than Steve can.
My other concern about “seperating” Miller from the starting lineup is that he and Roy will need time to play together and jell, so they can be an effective “combo” durng the postseason. That’s being put “on hold” for now, and as long as Blake is healthy the minutes that Brandon and Andre are on the court together are going to be few and far between. That’s a good idea as far as winning regular season games are concerend, but I’m not sure it “solves” anything re: making Portland’s late-game offense less predictable and harder for opponents to defend when the “games that count” come along, in April
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Oh, and let me say this
While Andre has been starting, I haven’t been seeing him getting Brandon any easy looks at all. Maybe Brandon hasn’t been running the offense. Maybe Nate’s offensive game plan is at fault. But it hasn’t been happening AT ALL.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Eventually, the offense must rely more on Greg Oden and less on Brandon Roy.
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
I was glad to see Roy give the ball to Oden in the post 3-4 times and on the dish twice. Now to run an effective pick and roll.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:14 AM PST up reply actions
Agree strongly with both you and AK
but I was responding to a specific comment:
I think in the long run Brandon is going to regret not giving Miller the chance to help him get easy looks at the basket… Right about playoff time.
It appears to me Miller had the chance and it didn’t happen, whether his fault or not I don’t know.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
the offense just isn’t set up to accommodate two ballhandlers, in my opinion.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:17 AM PST up reply actions
But that isn't even the issue
because when Miller was handling the ball, and Brandon wasn’t being a ball handler, Brandon wasn’t getting easy looks.
So either the offense is not designed to get easy looks for Brandon when Miller has the ball, or execution was bad on the part of someone (not pointing fingers, I don’t know who was supposed to do what).
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
My point was that we generally don’t run plays to get Brandon in a certain position (though during the end of last year he got the ball at the elbow more). He gets the ball on the perimeter and starts the offense.
Our offense has little in the area of Andre creating opportunities for Brandon to attack, utilizing two ballhandlers in one sequence.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:26 AM PST up reply actions
yeah
i don’t put it on Andre as much as on our system. when both were starting, there were a handful of times where oden set a downpick for Roy, who popped up to the elbow to receive a perfectly timed pass from PG Miller. Roy caught the ball in triple threat position 15 feet away from the hoop. how could he want anything more?
Sadly, it seems we called that play about 5 times total in the last 9
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
Well, that's my opinion, too
But it isn’t about “Brandon regretting not giving Miller a chance”, is it?
It might be on Andre, but I think it is the offense as well. And that ultimately isn’t Brandon’s fault.
If Nate said, “This is the kind of offense we’re going to run, and we’re going to get you some easier shots, and you have to adjust accordingly because in the long run, it will be better for you,” Brandon might not like it, but he’d adjust.
I’m willing to give Nate the possibility that he has brought in some sets like that, and execution has failed. That’s possible — but if he has, he hasn’t made execution of those sets as much a priority as Greg fixing his foul trouble, and made the guys who won’t execute sit down.
But in any event, the problem here isn’t “Brandon won’t give Miller a chance.” That’s not an accurate assessment of the problem, unless Nate has brought in sets designed for Andre to get Brandon easy looks, and Brandon himself is the one who won’t execute. But if that is what is going on, Brandon ought to sit down for a while, if Nate has the guts to do it.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Good point
I wish Dre had made an effort to come in in top form. The thing that concerns me about inserting him into the starting 5 later is that the learning curve will simply be pushed back – I would rather deal with it early on, when you can drop a game or two and not have it turn into the end of the world.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 21, 2009 11:52 PM PST up reply actions
Brandon never needed to be a 3
At least on offense his role as the starting 2 should never change. Blake’s game is tailor made to play the “stand in the corner and space the floor” role that the 3 plays in Nate’s offense. The fact that Brandon is taller than Blake and is gaurding 3s on defense should not have changed his offensive role at all. Dre should have taken over the ball handling duties that Blake performed and Blake should have taken over the spot-up duties that Nic and Martell performed. Contrary to popular opinion, Blake handles the ball plenty as the point gaurd and is called upon to create offense. Andre should have taken over all of those duties because as a creator he is obviously a cut above Blake. Brandon was unnecessarily sacrificing at the 3 on offense when Blake should have been the one to sacrifice in that group. In fact, using Blake as a floor spacer instead of a facilitator is less of a sacrifice as much as it is an optimal use of his talent.
Get at me. I'll be the one rockin' the game worn Rudy jersey baaaaybeeee!!!!!!!!
I got love!!!!!
##
by Sir-1 on Nov 22, 2009 12:18 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Normally the 1 and the 3 are both floor spacers
Even if Blake is playing like a 3, you are still creating some problems for Roy by having a PG who can’t shoot the 3 and spread out the defense. Miller needs to have the ball in his hands most of the time to be effective, which means that Roy would have the ball less than usual even if Blake doesn’t handle the ball that much.
That's the main problem. The defense was collapsing and absolutely begging Miller to shoot jumpers.
Hence they clogged the middle or doubled Roy forcing him out of his normal offensive game. He talked after the game tonight about how good it was to be back in his normal position and how nice it was to have two outside shooters to pass to off his moves. Then he added again that he was very comfortable with Blake (sounding just like before the season started), and how great it will be to have Miller running the 2nd group. He also said he was disappointed that they (meaning Nate) had abandoned that so early in the season. I’d bet my money that the starting 3-guard line-up died last night (may it RIP) when Brandon sat next to Nate on the plane trip home from the fiasco at Golden State. This is Brandon’s team, and I think he’s taking it back.
Now Miller can either get with the program this time, or start expecting different weather after Dec 15.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 1:06 AM PST up reply actions
You hit the nail on the head.
This is exactly what many of us were talking about when Miller was signed, and the whole Miller vs Blake starting debate. How many possessions did we see, where Miller ends up shooting a jumper at the end of the shot clock? That’s not the guy we want taking that shot, but the other team clogs the middle denying drives, or entry passes to our bigs, the defenders on our other guard and SF, just have to deny passing lanes, and the best option becomes Dre for the open jumper. It’s what we knew would happen with Dre and Roy together, before they ever stepped on the court together.
That’s why Dre and Rudy always made more sense. Dre never was a great fit for the Blazers, but he was the best player available, and I still hope we find the right way to use him. I just don’t think it will be with Roy, and I don’t know if he will be happy, since he wants to lead a team, and that job is not exactly available on this team.
I think this was clear from the beginning, but the choir of those who just want the best five individual “ballers” on the court together regardless of talents, roles, and chemistry was deafening on this site and others. None of this is Miller’s fault. He is a good player, who was signed by a team that was desperate to use their cap room, and was on at least plan C if not D or E. By the time you get to plan D, you may not have a role for that player. Even the first plan we knew about (Turkoglu) was going to be a stretch as far as role, and I’m not sure he really was plan A, just the “best” player available.
The catch 22 in all this is Miller’s trade-value, since he is having trouble making it work here. If he looks like he’s lost it, just because he doesn’t fit our offense, then even with his reasonable contract we may have a tough time finding a suitor. All the bad teams have talented lottery pick point guards, so we would either need an injury to generate a trade ala Rafer Alston, or Miller may still end up a back up on a good team, but considering Philly wasn’t going to re-sign him, that might have happened anyway.
I was in the “let the cake bake” camp, and think we might be having a similar season to the Hawks if we had stuck with what worked last year with our added experience gained in the playoffs. All I hear on BE is how it’s impossible to go anywhere in the playoffs with last year’s group. That is a ridiculous idea considering the talent on the team, and that fact that their failure last year was their first time in the playoffs as a team. It was a few guy’s first year in the NBA. We ran in to a tough team and blew game 1. We lost only one home game. Most teams don’t win on the road in the playoffs period. Since we had home court, it would have been ok to lose every road game in that series, but we had to win at home, which the team’s youth allowed just once. Unfortunately, that was all it took. To put it in perspective, the much feared Celtics of two years ago won the championship while losing almost every single road game of the playoffs. If Webster plays well, and/or Batum comes back strong, we’ll be just fine with or without Dre.
I am a complete convert. However, the Bayless fans might like to have see some foreshadowing in a Miller/Roy line up. Is all hope of Bayless and Roy playing together lost if Bayless can’t develop an strong outside shot?
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
Yes
If Bayless can’t shoot, he’s not a good fit.
But Bayless is already a better shot than Andre.
Jerryd doesn’t need to hit 45% from 3, but he needs to hit at least 35% or so. Blake is effective despite his inability to take it to the hoop because of outstanding deep shooting. Bayless doesn’t have to be as good from deep as Blake because he can also punish a team by going to the hoop.
But he has to be good enough that teams can’t just ignore him on the 3 point line.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I hope Miller will accept his role because we could have a really good 2nd group in our
8-9 man rotation with Miller and Rudy. Miller is much better to run (and do mean run) that group than Blake. But I don’t have a lot of hope that he will accept that role. I made a more extensive comment on this subject in Ben’s after game comment.
I think Miller would have pretty good trade value, but injuries on other contending teams would of course open up more possibilities. I think other GMs realized when we signed Miller that he was a best available player and not an optimum fit here as a starting PG, and whatever happens here is unique to a situation where there is a all-star quality SG that handles the ball so much and initiates so much offense.
I also agree with you that it is ridiculous to think this team with a very different Greg Oden and Webster, an infinitely better backup PG, and another year of experience, can’t win a playoff series or more without a new starting PG. If we ever settle on a rotation (hopefully we will now) we can correct the deficiencies in our game plan that we had last year. It’s just incredible to me that anyone thinks that the only way to keep Brandon from being neutralized at the end of games is to get a new PG??? Or that the only new weapon we will have for the playoffs this year would be a new starting PG? Not to mention there was a long list of Blazers that played sub-par in last year’s playoffs that can be expected with experience and maturity to play better this year. Finally, I don’t know of any teams that will be playing Yao Ming against us in the playoffs this year, but if and when that should ever occur again, I expect GO to handle that challenge much better than he (or Przy) did in his injury-recovery rookie year.
Frankly, I’m sick of hearing about the Houston series. Yes, there were some things to learn from that, but we aren’t the same team or the same players we were then. We will bring new and better weapons to the next fight, and you can’t plan just to fight the last war.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions
Now Miller can either get with the program this time, or start expecting different weather after Dec 15.
So, we’re back to the “trade Miller” speculation? My how the worm can turn, every 2 weeks. Of course most Blazer fans are going to line up behind “Brandon knows best” when it comes to lineup/rotation decisions…after all, what has Andre Miller done for the Blazers, when compared with Roy? Still, if the Houston series taught us anything (and I’m beginning to doubt that it did…) it was that a Blake/Roy starting backcourt isn’t going be “finals caliber” this year, or next. Nate, KP and therefore most fans prefer to lean on "this is the starting backcourt that won 54 games—which was wonderful until it’s measured by real NBA standards—which are “this is the same starting backcourt that lost 2-4 to the Rockets”
So I suppose I can root for another contender to suffer an injury to their starting PG and their GM becoming desperate enough to make a deal for Miller in the next couple of months. That may have been “the plan” for KP all along, to sign the “best FA still available” in July with the thought that “if Miller doesn’t work out, at least he’ll have trade value” later. But unless that deal adds a better PG (or even a SF who can play “point”) who can ALSO mesh with Brandon onto Portland’s roster, then Portland could easily be right back where they left off after the Houston series, with a one-round-and-out collection of talent that can’t advance to the next level.
Like the old FRAM oil filter commercial used to say “you can pay me now, or pay me later…” Playoff breakdowns are much more painful and are remembered far longer than crappy 2nd quarters in Oakland, ’way back in November
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I don't believe Miller was signed with a plan to trade him.
But of course it is/was an option to trade him if he didn’t make the team better. If he can’t accept the role that the coach wants him to play, then I have no doubt they will trade him. It makes no sense to keep him if he is going to pout and not perform to the best of his ability. We might as well give Bayless the opportunity he was going to get when we tried to sign Turk/Millsap/Lee before finally getting down to the last FA standing.
It seems like a strange argument that Miller is so good he must start here, but another GM will have to become “desperate enough” to make a trade for him. Of course it would be easier to trade him if a playoff team loses a starting PG to injury. But if that is the only way we can trade him, it says a lot about the wisdom of signing him in the first place. But then the only other team that had any interest in him (according to Miller’s own words) this summer was NY and they weren’t interested in anything other than a 1 year contract. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me why no team in his 11 year career has ever re-signed Miller after he has played for them.
Miller apologists keep pointing out that he starts every season slowly and out of shape, but none of them have provided the date when he becomes in shape and starts playing at full speed. It would be nice to know when that is scheduled to begin. Hopefully we are only paying 50% of his salary until then.
The Houston series has become a crutch to selectively whip every Blazer someone wants to criticize. It was a collective breakdown of an inexperienced team that lost that series. We were poorly prepared coaching-wise, particularly in the disastrous first home game, and Houston played exceptionally well as a team (as they did even without Ming taking the Lakers to 7 games) and we played poorly as a team. It makes no sense to single out Blake (from Outlaw, Batum, Oden, Rudy, or even LMA) as the reason we lost that series. Blake shot exceptionally well (49% which is better than his season average, 42% from 3-pt, 3rd in team scoring) and had 6.2 assists per game (again better than his season average). Miller wouldn’t have stopped Brooks any better than Blake. We were simply poorly prepared to defend them as a team, or to handle their team defense. Team defense, both ours and theirs, was probably the key to that series.
This will not be the same team in the playoffs we had last year. We will have another year of experience, more maturity, a much better Greg Oden, Webster, and a far superior backup PG (Miller, Blake or even Bayless). The best thing we can do now is to settle the rotation (preseason’s over) and start preparing for this year’s playoffs by becoming better at team defense and developing new offensive responses to the defensive schemes Houston used, and other teams now use against us. A well coached team should take advantage and thrive against the opportunities that traps and double teams provide. We don’t need to remake our franchise player, we need to prepare more and better options to take advantage of what the defense gives us when they try to stop him.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
It seems like a strange argument that Miller is so good he must start here, but another GM will have to become "desperate enough" to make a trade for him.
Not really. The contenders all have above-average PGs in place, and their reserve PGs may be “good enough” to keep the team in the playoff chase, but there’s no guarantee of that. Miller would be most desirable to a team in such a predicament, and that’s the scenario where KP could get his best “return” in a potential trade.
If you think Steve Blake’s stats from the Houston series are any indication that he could be the starting PG for a NBA finalist, I’ve got a one-word answer:
“wow”
And finally, now that the “remake of our franchise player” (Roy as a SF) experiment is officially over…if you are Rudy Fernandez, how do you see your long-term future in a Blazer uniform—knowing that it’s taken injuries to 2 wing players to finally “free up” 25+ mpg for you—coming off the bench as a shooting guard? (Brandon only defends SFs because he “has” to, and when Nic returns, that will no longer be necessary)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Say WOW!
If you think Steve Blake’s stats from the Houston series are any indication that he could be the starting PG for a NBA finalist, I’ve got a one-word answer: “wow”
Rafer Alston PG Orlanda Magic 2009 NBA finalist Playoff stats:
FG% 38%, 3pt% 32%, Assists 4.1, Rbds 2.4, Pts 12.2, PER 11.8 Assists/TO 2.35
Derek Fisher PG LA Lakers 2009 NBA finalist Playoff stats:
FG% 39%, 3pt% 28% Assists 2.2, Rbds 2.0, Pts 8.0 PER 8.5 Assists/TO 2.0
Blake 2009 Playoff stats:
FG% 49%, 3pt% 42%, Assists 6.2, Rbds 4.0, Pts 9.8 PER 15.0 Assists/TO 4.1
Let’s see. Blake outshot both of them by 10% or more in total FG% and 3-pt%, had about 1.5 to 3x the assists, about 2x the rebounds, had the best PER by far and about 2x the assist/turnover ratio of either. From the stats, it isn’t even close. Just WOW.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions
And if you want to talk about defense ...
Brooks averaged 15.3 pts against Portland and 18.0 against the Lakers in the playoffs. Defense on PG’s is a team responsibility, but since some people want to blame Blake for Brooks’ points there’s the numbers.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions
and that was my point
If you want to hang your hat on Blake’s stats from the Houston series, go right ahead. You’ve got the rest of Blazer nation right behind you, based on the Bedge comments since the series and especially last week
And if you took a blind poll among NBA coaches, GMs and scouts and asked them “who is the ideal starting PG for an NBA championship team,” do you think Blake’s name would garner much support?
Stats. We’re talking stats? 6 games worth…and none of those stats helped much when the team needed a score and Steve shot a hurried air ball at the end of one game, and had 4 unforced TOs in game 6, just when the rest of the team was looking for veteran leadership from their PG. We’re talking stats ?
I’ve got a stat for you, the only one that matters: 2-4. How can one playoff series wipe away a season’s worth of accomplishment? Don’t ask me, but I do know that they don’t hand out rings or trophies for winning 54 regular season games. (Or for having the “best” PG stats in round 1, if your team can’t finish out games 3 and 4 on the road)
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yeah and Blake's the reason we lost to Houston?
His stats went up in the playoffs, while just about everyone else but Roy disappeared. And Blake’s your fall guy.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions
he wasn't the only one (looking at you, Travis...)
but I was saying the PG position needed to be upgraded lonnng before the Houston series, and Steve’s play didn’t help convince me otherwise, regardless of his playoff numbers
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
That isn't a relevant question.
And if you took a blind poll among NBA coaches, GMs and scouts and asked them "who is the ideal starting PG for an NBA championship team," do you think Blake’s name would garner much support?
Of course not. But that isn’t the question Nate is dealing with. He doesn’t get to pick the ideal PG to lead us to a championship. He just gets to decide whether the team is stronger with Blake starting and Miller leading the 2nd wave, or Miller starting and Blake leading the 2nd group.
That’s a totally different question. I don’t know if the Blazers can win a championship with Blake starting, but I know they won’t be winning one with Miller starting.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
He doesn’t get to pick the ideal PG to lead us to a championship
Nate had the opportunity to “choose” his PG last summer at Vegas. If he thought Blake was “enough” at the PG position then he should’ve told KP “let’s pass on Andre and we’ll give Jerryd the chance to back Steve up” But no, they told Miller that he could come in and compete for the job…but as it turns out, Andre was “competing” against Bayless for bench minutes
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
We don't know what Nate was thinking in Vegas.
I don’t know if it matters now. But what I do know (using my best KP imitation) is that Miller was basically the last FA still available. We had about $7-8M in cap space and Paul Allen’s permission to use it. So we could spend it on Miller or save it for a lopsided trade before Feb. After that it was gone until Roy, LMA, and Oden become old men.
Saving the cap space for a lopsided trade is less attractive for two reasons. You have to find somebody willing to give up someone you want for very little in return (else you didn’t use/need the cap space), and you have to give up someone you might still want (probably an Outlaw or Bayless). That’s a lot of uncertainty that you can and will want to do anything at all by Feb.
So if I were Nate I’d spend Paul’s money and take the last FA on the market. It wouldn’t be much of choice to me. I get $7M of something or I may get nothing. I’ll take the something. I wouldn’t look at it as a choice between Miller and Blake, or between Miller and Bayless. Just a $7M asset from Paul that I can use however it fits best, or trade in the future if it doesn’t fit.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
Nate plays the players he believes will win.
Brandon only defends SFs because he "has" to, and when Nic returns, that will no longer be necessary
It hasn’t been “necessary” all year. Webster has only played 20 minutes a game and Outlaw only played 21 before he was injured. Either of them could have easily played more minutes at SF, yet Brandon has been recently logging 35+ minutes at SF. Brandon defended the SF because Nate chose to use a 3-guard lineup, he certainly wasn’t forced to by injuries (obviously because he stopped starting a 3-guard lineup last night). When Batum comes back the players that give the Blazers the best chance of winning (in Nate’s opinion) will play minutes whether its Rudy, Webster, or Batum. (Rudy played fewer minutes earlier because he was shooting poorly, and didn’t deserve more minutes.)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions
Brandon defended the SF because Nate chose to use a 3-guard lineup, he certainly wasn’t forced to by injuries (obviously because he stopped starting a 3-guard lineup last night).
Not so obvious, to me. Yes, Nate was forced to use a 3-guard lineup because of one injury—Batum’s. If Nic was healthy Nate would’ve stuck with the 54 game-winning lineup, except perhaps for the change at center
The erstwhile 3-guard lineup was a knee-jerk reaction to the poor 2-3 start and the ugly losses at home. Webster was playing brutal. The starting lineup wasn’t moving the ball or defending particularly well, so Roy agreed to “make a sacrifice” and defend SFs, even though “everyone” knew he’d get beat up. Sure enough, he did. Then when his offense started to suffer, he grew unhappy. (And so Nate acquiesced and now Andre gets to “sacrifice”)
The team may win more games over the short term, but they will “need” Miller’s experience before the last game is played this season, and at this point McMillian is running the risk of “losing” Andre.
But maybe that’s a small thing to you? After all, Brandon is “the man” and Miller is just a journeyman who’s worn out his welcome at every place he’s been, right? Well, the NBA is a close-knit group and word gets around, and after this little “come here and compete for the job…uh, no you don’t” charade it just might be a long time before Nate attracts another veteran FA to PDX to play alongside Roy.
KP is fond of saying that they’re looking for “special fit” players, and I think we’re gaining some insight about what he’s really been after…it’s the kind of guys who will run Nate’s system and defer to Brandon
Or else
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
go back and check again
Webster started playing bruatally AFTER we changed to the 3 guard lineup, not before. go look at his stats those first 5 games. heck, go back and watch them. he was defending well, playing with energy and hustle, and knocking down his 3’s on offense.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
I think this is not quite it
Well, the NBA is a close-knit group and word gets around, and after this little "come here and compete for the job…uh, no you don’t" charade
“Compete for the job” means just that….it doesn’t mean the job is yours….Dre competed and lost
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 23, 2009 8:41 AM PST up reply actions
So the Lakers wouldn't want Miller?
Gee, they played a 34 year old (now 35) PG 30 minutes a game last year, and that PG has averaged a miserable 3.2 assists per game for his career (and 3.2 last year). However, he did shoot 40% from the 3-pt line last year, and 41% the year before, and averaged 10.9 pts/game the last two years.
Does that sound like anyone we know? Blake (29 years old) played 32 minutes a game last year, averaged 5.0 assists per game (better than that Laker starting PG), and shot 43% and 41% from the 3-pt line the last two years, and averaged 9.8 pts/game the last two years.
The Lakers would have to be crazy to not want Miller, right? Wouldn’t the Laker fans think it was a no-brainer to get a guy with 7.3 assists per game average career to replace the guy with only a 3.2 assists average career? Think of how he could make Bynum, Gasol, and Kobe better. What difference would it make that he shot 21% from the 3-pt line for his career. The Lakers don’t need to spread the floor for anyone.
Or maybe Phil has the same disease as Nate and thinks Miller wouldn’t fit in the starting lineup with LA’s all-star shooting guard?
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 8:25 PM PST up reply actions
Fish can actually defend penetrators
Don’t take it from me, because I only watch the L*kers play when I’m forced to…but I’ve read that one of the reasons that L*A wanted to get Derek back from Utah was because he defends the quick PGs so well. Not to mention…the L*kers run the triangle offense (which is the system that’s only produced umpteen championships) while the Blazers run “give it to Roy and get out of the way…” I think that Phil and K*be could find some use for Miller, but maybe you think they’d prefer Blake?
FWIW, I’d do “Miller for Odom” in a heartbeat, unfortunately, I don’t think Mitch Kupchak will oblige
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yeah cause none of the other players got better
soooo…if the Blazers were to meet this years equivalent of the Rockets (if there is one, I mean how many 7’6" centers are there?) …they would continue to lose every series 2-4.
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 22, 2009 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
Playoff defense is another level of intensity
While I agree that the Rockets played well as a team last April, to say that “only Houston” could have slowed down Roy and beaten the Blazers in the ‘09 post season is short-sighted. Even early this year, we’ve seen average teams game-plan to take the ball out of Brandon’s hands at the end of games, and then have success putting the Blazer offense into a late-game tailspin.
Playoff teams have more time to prepare before the series, and between games. The NBA’s best coaches will make adjustments and only teams with superior BBIQ will know how to counter those adjustments and keep scoring.
The Houston series highlighted Portland’s failures in this area, and to say that “they’ll be a year older and automatically wiser” the next time around is wishful thinking. Sure, they’ll be a year older, but not every team comes together and makes a collective jump in performance that’s required to advance against more-experienced teams.
Roy and Nate went on the record with their requests last spring, following the Rocket’s series. They both realized at the time that the team needed veteran help, and more toughness/scrappiness in the paint. Whatever KP’s off-season goals were…he added Miller and Howard to the roster and used all 4 of his draft choices to select rookies, instead of making a “consolidation” trade.
So, we’re left with a veteran PG who is being paid nearly 7 mil/year and is reduced to a backup role, and a backup PF who is a wonderful role model but is washed up as a player. Sure, the team has lost 2 rotation players to injury, but is the current roster better prepared to face L*A, Denver or San Antonio in the first round? Will the team as constituted manage to win enough games to finish in the top 4, again? Are Blazer fans heading into another period of time like 1984-1988, when the team won one (1) playoff series with the young nucleas of Drexler-Porter-Kersey? Can Brandon Roy’s knees continue to function for 4-5 more years until his “supporting cast” gains the necessary experience to ultimately reach the finals?
These are questions that Paul Allen should be asking, when he chats with KP on his Blackberry. Is the ballclub moving forward, or just treading water? And how will we know if they’ve all really arrived, until they’re tested again, in April?
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Well....the only thing I would say to that is....
Why is my extrapolation that they should be able to improve with experience (which young teams tend to do) any less valid than yours which says that everything is a a disaster based on same single playoff series in which the Blazers met conceivably their worst possible matchup (7’6" center and two of the very best wing defenders in the league).
Do I think the team is in the right place at this moment? No. Do I think this will last? Also no
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 23, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions
Do I think they'll be better equipped to advance in the playoffs this April
based on what I’ve seen/heard/read since last April?
Also, no
The roster isn’t improved, except for backup PG. It’s actually weaker at the backup 4/5, because Frye was “replaced” by Howard and rookies. Sure, the experience level of all the young players should increase incrementally, from year to year. But this same “quotient” can be added to the other contenders in the WC, so to lean on “organic growth” is a crutch, and not a foundation for playoff success.
We can all hope that the Portland players “come together” and the team takes us on a wild playoff ride this spring that includes playoff series victories against L*A and Denver, but until they actually do it, any speculation that they “can” or “will” is just wishful thinking and daydreams
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
"just wishful thinking and daydreams"
And I could say that gloom and doom predictions and 1 round playoff failures for years to come are the opposite of “just wishful thinking and daydreams”…..whatever that is.
The Spurs didn’t know they were gonna win a championship (plenty of playoff failures) until they did…..Same thing can be said of the Lakers last year…..until the Blazers win that first one, there will be questions about their toughness and ability to win the big one. Just seems premature to start going off on chronic 1st round exits …when they just made the playoffs for the 1st time in 5 years. So I would disagree that they can’t improve organically ….and would be very cautious about hitching my wagon to a veteran PG who has a whole lot more than one 1st round failure on his resume
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 23, 2009 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
I have noticed that Rudy likes to get the ball to the bigs.
Even with the Spanish National Team he’s always getting it to Pao or Marc (Gasol) so having both Rudy and Andre in the second unit might pose a problem in terms of Oden getting the ball. However, we haven’t seen the new lineup against a tougher team and I wouldn’t be surprised if we still see Rudy and/or Miller mixed in with the first unit at the end or when the game is close. We’ll get a better look on Monday against the Bulls … just hope Pryzbilla is on high alert for the lobs he’s gonna be getting! :)
The positive of Nate's big man rotation
that sees Joel in for Greg roughly halfway through the first is that Greg will get some time with Dre and Rudy
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 22, 2009 12:04 AM PST up reply actions
Rudy just needs to remember that Joel's last name isn't Gasol.
Rudy gets a little sloppy with some of those lob passes, or he throws hard low darts through the middle. Pau, and even Marc, have good enough hands and athleticism to finish the plays that Joel can’t. But in time Rudy will hopefully compensate for Joel’s hands, and I love the entry passes he gets to GO and LMA.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 1:16 AM PST up reply actions
Joel is not a Gasol
And that’s fine … he’s still awesome, one of my favorites on the team. Just seems like he’s gotten so accustomed to just being a rebounder and shot blocker that he looked surprised to have the ball come his way for a dunk. He can score too … Rudy and Miller just need to figure out how to get it to him in a way that he can finish the plays.
Joel is not a Gasol
in that he has hands of stone. Przybilla’s lack of hands has plagued him his whole career. That is why he is traditionally such a turnover machine.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 22, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
1.0 turnovers in 20 mpg
…for his career. Hardly a “turnover machine” …
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
For a guy that sees the ball as little as Joel
that is a “turnover” machine.
You'd have to take a look at his TOV% to get a clearer picture.
For this season it’s currently at 21.1% but in 2006-2007 it was a horrifically bad 31%.
Greg Oden is currently at 19% although last year was better at 16.2%.
They are both still high however even compared to Greg who is thought of as a bit turnover prone Przybilla is a clear winner.
#88 > #23 > #25
Updated for latest line-up:
#5 > #2
Give me a break.
Roy isn’t what killed us last spring. The inability of ANYBODY ELSE to do their job is what killed this team against the Rockets.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
I called this back when people were questioning the 3 guard lineup
Roy and Nate like Blake. Thats all that matters on this team. IMO they should start Przy for the first 6 mins instead of Oden if they are that set on Blake as pg because I would much rather see Oden spend the majority of his time on the floor with Miller than Blake/Brandon. That won’t happen because it would be perceived as a lack of confidence in him.
I wonder how Miller is feeling right now…..
"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane
Btw the loudest cheer of the night
Was when they announced Oregon had beaten Arizona.’
We looked like the GS game hadn’t ended until about halfway through the 3rd, then we stepped on the gas and it was good.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
FYI
A small group of people booed Blake during the starting lineup.
Btw, does anyone know if that is a new intro video (The Rise with us video). I like it but haven’t seen it before.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Nobody should be booing Steve Blake
Although I know they were probably booing the decision more than the player. Steve Blake is not a shooting guard in this league. He is missing shots he should hit but that’s about his only correctable crime so far. And booing doesn’t exactly improve the three-point accuracy. Blake is a good player to have on your team. Just not as the starting 2.
—Dave
by Dave on Nov 21, 2009 11:34 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
I think he’s a career excellent BACKUP PG. However,, there were clearly some fans that were not happy. When he threw away the first ball, some idiot behind me yelled “STEVE YOU SUCK!”.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
The same could be said about Steve Blake the PG
Blake is a good player to have on your team. Just not as the starting 2.
especially given that you have Andre Miller in the fold. For what it’s worth, I don’t think he deserves to be booed, but questioning whether he should be starting ahead of Miller is valid.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 21, 2009 11:37 PM PST up reply actions
Booing your own players is unnacceptable
As long as they try hard.
I can’t stand Blake’s game and would prefer Miller start, because I think that would be better against tough teams in the playoffs.
Blake works hard, is a good teammate, and does the best he can do. He should never be ridiculed in his own arena by Blazer fans.
by buck_goggles on Nov 21, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
Oddly enough
When I first arrived at the RG and looked up at the stat board for the starters, Miller was the only player listed on the stat board as a non-starter. Which suggests a possible late change.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Steve Blake was playing the 3 on offense when paired with Brandon Roy (2) and Andre Miller (1).
Dear Paul Allen:
Fire Nate McMillan & hire Jeff Van Gundy.
Sincerely,
AK1984
That is sad.
I’m not a fan of Blake starting over Miller, but I like the guy and think he is a good player. I don’t understand why people boo players like Blake at all.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
Because some people are d!cks.
Sorry, Dave, for the borderline profanity.
"My shoulder is OK. And away we go." -- Nic Batum
"wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow" -- Dave
by DonkeyShins on Nov 21, 2009 11:50 PM PST up reply actions
Too many fans who feel that Portland is entitled to win every game and every game should be a blowout
Of course when things don’t go exactly the way they want it to, it’s blame everyone and everything. You think we had lost this game by some of the responses here, it’s kind of sad really.
"We didn't start the fire. It was always burning. Since the world's been turning." - E. E. Cummings
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Nov 22, 2009 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
Harsh
But true. Sad, really. We should be booing Blaze.
"My shoulder is OK. And away we go." -- Nic Batum
"wang-dang diddly wubba SPROING wow-wow" -- Dave
by DonkeyShins on Nov 22, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions
Good win, but there is still room for improvement
*Blake did a pretty good job of getting the ball into the post this game and Webster seemed to find his mojo after being inserted into the starting lineup. Still, I wonder if it is a good idea long-term to have the two players who are best at feeding the post (Rudy and Miller) playing on a different unit from the two players who can actually provide some post scoring (Oden and Aldridge).
*I think Oden and Przybilla are coming out to the top of the key way too often on offense. What is the point of this? They give the ball to Oden outside the 3-point line (while his man stands under the basket and doesn’t even pretend to be guarding him) and Oden just stands around with the ball doing nothing until a guard comes up that he can hand it off to. It seems like all the time that the centers spend outside the 3-point line is basically just wasted time where the offense isn’t able to do anything productive.
*Cunningham took a couple of long jumpers from just inside the 3-point line, but seemed reluctant to be spot-up shooter from just outside the 3-point line. I hope the coaches aren’t trying to force the Inferno into the Aldridge/Frye role of shooting lots of 20’ shots but few if any of the more efficient 3-point shots.
Unfortunately, I think Dante is going to shoot a lot of those long jumpers.
Hopefully he’ll make enough, and do enough other things, to be an upgrade over Howard (it would be hard not to), but he’s not going to be a very efficient offensive player in the immediate future.
Nice post.
a lot of our flex sets start with the center at the top of the key. The major one involves Oden passing the ball to the 1 who is curling around the 4. The 3 stands in the corner and the 2 slides under the hoop in hopes of catching the defense asleep.
Now, the possessions with them aimlessly standing at the top, yes, these are annoying.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:38 PM PST up reply actions
Why start a flex set with the ball in the hands of someone
who is no threat to do anything positive with it?
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
specifically, that flex play is designed to get LMA the ball in good post position. The center can’t stand in the corner or run under the hoop, so by default they begin the play.
I would rather start with LMA and go to Greg, but I can’t recall us ever running that set for the center.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:46 PM PST up reply actions
I know all that
But you are basically playing 4 on 5 off the ball, because the defensive center can ignore Greg out there — he isn’t going to shoot and he isn’t going to drive. I see no reason to ever have the ball in the hands of someone who doesn’t at least force the defense to watch them while they have the ball.
Maybe if Greg keeps developing his PG skills….
Ultimately, our offense spends way too much time with the ball in “no threat” positions.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
that play is simply a way to get LMA in good post position, which it does 80% of the time. We do it a lot, feels like most of LMA’s post ups come out of it. If we are running the play to LMA, I have no problem with Greg in a “no threat” position for a few ticks.
It’s obvious that many of us would prefer a different offense, going away from plays with the center at the top of the circle; yet for what the play is designed to do, it fulfills its purpose.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:52 PM PST up reply actions
It seems like there must be a better way to get LMA post position
I mean, with Oden out of the play, LMA basically has to fight to establish post position against both his own man and Oden’s man. If Oden were down low he could at least occupy his man’s attention or grab rebounds or set picks.
we’ve gone away from the play where we station Oden on the left block and Aldridge on the other side. Oden would turn, set a pick, and let Aldridge establish position as they switched sides.
That was a bit more effective to my eyes.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
It is always more effective
to make the defenders move around, you can always gain an advantage somewhere.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Our offense drives me insane.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
At least it is moving someone
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
That is probably how we should do it
With Aldridge at the top of the key and Oden posting up you are making more effective use of the Blazer’s personnel and the success rate of the play would probably be higher.
If the Blazers want to run post plays for Aldridge I think they should be less methodical and leverage his offensive versatility more. Aldridge is a multi-dimensional offensive threat, he can shoot, post up, face up, cut to the basket, be involved in pick-and-rolls or pick-and-pops,run off picks, etc. Have Aldridge move around the mid-range area setting picks and playing all those other roles in the offense. Then, when his defender doesn’t expect it and is out of position due to trying to defend against all the other things Aldridge can do, that is when Aldridge should move to the basket, establish good post position, and seal off his man. The sort of methodical offense that makes it clear the Blazers are trying to post up Aldridge right at the start of the play not only misuses Oden and Przybilla, it arguably misuses Aldridge as well by not taking advantage of his versatility.
by trk on Nov 22, 2009 1:06 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Well, what can you say? Nate's been reading BlazersEdge a little. Yes, Dave, nice practice round.
Bring on da Bulls!
"Gonna stand my ground ... and I won't back down" -- Tom Petty
"You have to know the past to understand the present." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
COMCAST SSSUUUCCCKKKSSS!!!!!!!!
Rule No. 18: If you want to live to post another day, don't turn the tube on in Dave's living room.
Nate's a busy guy
I doubt reading Blazersedge is high up on his priority list. But ya, I’m ready for the Bulls!
I certainly hope not
Otherwise he would have committed seppuku after the Golden State game last night
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 21, 2009 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
From the Oregonian recap:
“I feel like we tried it (the three-guard lineup), and you could say it worked at times, but me sacrificing hurt the team, so it should get back to me playing full-out and getting some other guys in other areas to sacrifice a little bit,” Roy said.
“This team is going to go off my pulse,” Roy said. “Even if I’m smiling and trying to make it work, if I seem like I’m not totally comfortable, then Martell won’t be. And Rudy (Fernandez) will look like he’s in a funk. And L.A. (Aldridge) will look like he’s in a funk. They have been playing with me for a couple years and if I’m going well, they have more confidence.”
first round and out
oh well… maybe the championship window will open next year.
by buck_goggles on Nov 21, 2009 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
perfect
So coach gives in and lets Roy have his way, we win 50 games again, and we lose first round of the playoffs when teams will easily find ways to get the ball out of Roy’s hands.
Hopefully that spells the end of the Nate era here in Portland, and maybe he takes his starting PG with him too.
Other Reasons
There were more reasons than Roy for the first round exit, take inside play for example. The growth of Oden game by game will be a significant addition to our progress in the playoffs. Working an inside outside game with precision will help. Using Rudy more to get used to intiating in late game situations will help. Simply removing Roy from on the ball duties doesnt make the team better in and of itself.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:34 AM PST up reply actions
".. me sacrificing..." is a little too ego-laden for me. Roy apparently admits that, while "sacrificing,"
he did not play “full-out”. Is this a good thing for your star to admit?
"Gonna stand my ground ... and I won't back down" -- Tom Petty
"You have to know the past to understand the present." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
COMCAST SSSUUUCCCKKKSSS!!!!!!!!
Rule No. 18: If you want to live to post another day, don't turn the tube on in Dave's living room.
I've wondered about Brandon's ego just a little bit here and there.
It’s crossed my mind that he might not be too crazy about this becoming “Greg’s team.” The crowd reacts more loudly to Oden’s dunks and blocked shots than to anything Roy can now do (other than a game-winning shot).
ignacio
See now this here is a good nugget to chew on.
If Roy and Miller never see eye to eye it doesn’t matter. In fact if Roy simply witnesses the result of Millers feeding the big men and learns from it only to have Miller tossed aside, so be it. BUT if Roy has a problem accepting Greg as the key to a championship, well then the team is sunk. Say hello to jumpshots galore and early round exits during what could have been a dynastic run. Please, please please let Brandon see the light on this one. I have some hope regarding his response to Greg on those games during the road trip when he said “If you stay on the court and play like that we’ll go far”. Please let it just be an issue with Miller that in the big picture doesn’t amount to more than a molehill.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Nov 22, 2009 2:17 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't agree
“Full-out” was not a reference to him loafing, but rather that he was constricted by the three guard system which pushed him distinctly away from his strengths. Readdressing that for a moment doesn’t make Roy bad for the team.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:31 AM PST up reply actions
Man
Andre Miller must feel like a transfer student who rushed a sorority and is getting the “Mean Girls” welcome. It goes without saying that this team needs B Roy at his best to get where it wants to be eventually. But it also needs LMA, Oden, Rudy, etc. to maximize their potential. And I really hope that “full-out” comment was a poor choice of words on Roy’s part, although there is no misinterpreting the “other guys” need to sacrifice comment. It sounds like, unfortunately, to reach the championship level, Brandon might need to learn the lesson the Bad Boys taught Michael Jordan over several years – a one man show will not get it done.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 21, 2009 11:50 PM PST up reply actions
You're Misinterpreting
“Full-out” is in reference to the fact that in the three guard style he wasn’t able to go full-out based on the system role for him. Further that his inability to do that at the three and his subsequent stagnation was adversely affecting the confidence of some of the other players. Don’t make this into a Roy is selfish debate. He didn’t say what you’re seeing here.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
I will take your word for it for now. Time will tell. I don't want to believe that he has any more than a reined ego, and I want to believe that he always goes full-out to the extent that his body will let him.
"Gonna stand my ground ... and I won't back down" -- Tom Petty
"You have to know the past to understand the present." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
COMCAST SSSUUUCCCKKKSSS!!!!!!!!
Rule No. 18: If you want to live to post another day, don't turn the tube on in Dave's living room.
Disagree
I think/hope you’re right on the “full-out” reference – like I said in my first post, I’m hopeful it was merely a odd choice of words in reference to the physical demands of guarding the 3. But the other comments about other guys needing to make sacrifices as opposed to Brandon/other players not being able to get going if Brandon isn’t rubbed me the wrong way. I don’t think this is part of the “Brandon is selfish” deal that went viral here for a spell, but these were not positive comments, imo. This team will not win a title if the offense is “Brandon vs. the world” in the clutch not even MJ could do that. It makes me think the learning curve is a bit steeper than I initially thought before Portland is thinking title.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 22, 2009 12:42 AM PST up reply actions
How So?
You say that you’re having trouble with player sacrifice comments. Nate has been preaching this all year and so has Brandon, and if in the end this particular change hasn’t been good overall for the team, then why would keeping this change in style be better to keep in place just to make sure that Brandon sacrifices as much. The overall goal is the betterment of the team, not penance on Roy.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:49 AM PST up reply actions
Yes it is about the team
Last year, Steve Blake got torched and took some very bad shots in the playoffs. Last year the Rockets employed a defensive strategy that allowed Roy to work for and get his points, and neutralized the rest of the team. Why is it the change that most assumed would be implemented before the season started (Miller for Blake at PG) is the one that hasn’t even been attempted? Nate and Roy both want to win – nobody is casting doubt on that. But for this team to win at the championship level, it will not be on the shoulders of Brandon Roy alone, and those comments bothered me because it seemed like a retreat to exactly the strategy and structure that won in the regular season and got bounced in the playoffs. I’d rather see this team go through early growing pains and be ready when it matters. That means developing GO as a low post option, involving LMA in all four quarters, and having a point guard who can be effective even if his shot is off. As to your comment about Brandon and Nate preaching sacrifice – If you’re going to preach something, you should also practice it, otherwise you’ll find yourself without a congregation. Nate and Brandon both have room to grow in that area.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 22, 2009 1:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Preach It
I think we can easily see that Roy has been playing the good soldier and running at the three, now this change happens back and you imply that Roy has fallen short of the standard. But with Outlaw out and Marty not finding any rythem, I don’t see any proof that this was working better for the team. Also, how has Nate not sacrificed? What moves should he have been taking as coach to sacrifice?
Down with the Ruskies
Well for starters
The obvious blind loyalty of both Nate and Brandon to Steve Blake. Marty wasn’t playing poorly when he was yanked from the starting lineup – Blake was. The consensus, as I saw it, was Miller should have stepped in for Blake, not Webster. All teams have pecking orders, but bending over backward to ensure the slot of a journeyman PG in the last year of his deal – even if the coach/star like how he works in the lineup (Blake had a nice game tonight, but he has struggled with his shot most of the year) – and juggling positions to do it is non-sensical to me. Don’t get me wrong, if the offense can flow how it did tonight (Martell being key, he seems to be a guy who just plays better as a starter) that is a great thing. But I think it can do that and better with Miller in for Blake. More importantly, I’d like to have Miller get a fair shot, because based on the comments tonight/the action so far, it is fairly clear than Brandon and Nate had their minds made up, regardless of what happened on the floor. Further, Andre Miller is a much better facilitator for Greg Oden than Blake, and Oden is the key to this team’s championship future.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 22, 2009 1:18 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I was cautiously optimistic that this might be avoided.
Oh well.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
Roy nailed it
Why does Roy have to bow down and play out of position to accommodate a mediocre talent such as Miller or Blake? No matter what, starting Martell has been the right move, and it’s always been the right move. That’s what that quote was about. You want your players in a situation to play their best. Brandon Roy in the role he was in was not the right situation.
so that the team can get better
this team has maxed out what it can get out of the roy / blake back court. if brandon wants it to be his team and exit in the 1st round every year than yes, everyone should bow down.
if he wants to get better than he needs to let a playmaker get the big guys involved and improve the team.
if the Blazers have maxed roy/blake - then upgrade at the blake position.
just do it in such a way that complements Roy – rather than forcing a zebra to change its stripes.
by blacknoiseNW on Nov 22, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
No
Not in the slightest. I’ve seen nothing that actually shows this. I have seen a player willing to openly discuss his frustration mildly at playing out of position while stating clearly he’s happily willing to do so if it helps the team… but has it really been helping in the long run? Or did it simply cover over beating bad teams? Roy has been the team and will continue to be its focal point. Let the man play and we’ll find the best way to supplement with the talent we have around him.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:39 AM PST up reply actions
did you read the quotes?
if you did i’m not sure how you can say “i’ve seen nothing that actually shows this”
wow
if anyone other than brandon roy had said that everyone in here would be calling him a team killer and a cancer.
so much for his humble routine.
I know fans tend toward the young guy… but I am infatuated with Dante’s game. He moves fluidly, fights inside, sets tremendous picks, and knows how to seperate himself from the play to get the open 15 footer off the pick.
Dante is swell.
i cry for nic
How about his jumping out on pick & rolls?
Dante himself could singlehandedly make the Blazers a good pick & roll defensive team.
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
he hedges like a Big East big man. I love it.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:52 AM PST up reply actions
If you are a big that can rebound and defend in the Big East
You can do the same in the NBA. At least, that’s how I’ve always felt.
Howard
I like Howard for full foul trouble nights to help the centers, but I would much prefer that Dante play at the 4 when we have chances. Get him playing big a bit and let him grow rather than watching Howard learn another move that doesn’t quite work as well as it used to. There are certain points that Howard should play, but get Dante minutes.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
YES!
Now that Nate has had more than enough time to see what Juwan provides for this team off the bench (or should I say, “what Juwan doesn’t provide…”) What harm is going to come from putting Dante in? 3 fouls, 2 turnovers, 6 rebounds and zero points? FINE! At least it’s from a young, promising talent instead of an aging, decrepit player/coach.
INFERNO
Miller, given his history and admitted skillset, is ultimately,
just passing through. He’s not part of the core. He may want to be, but in this situation here, he is a role player. maybe a role palyer who should be starting, but not a guy you remake the team to suit.
by raoulduke on Nov 21, 2009 11:47 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
well said
54 wins is not broke, don’t fix it. Adjust the role players.
If you have nothing constructive to say about someone, I prefer that you say nothing at all.
"If Jumping to conclusions, Kicking others when they do not do well and Launching into senseless tirades were Olympic Events, some people around here would be Medal Contenders". Me
54 wins led us to a first-round exit. If 54 and out is our goal, then we need to readjust our goals.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
hehe, that was last year
Live in the past much? Learn from the past, move on.
If you have nothing constructive to say about someone, I prefer that you say nothing at all.
"If Jumping to conclusions, Kicking others when they do not do well and Launching into senseless tirades were Olympic Events, some people around here would be Medal Contenders". Me
you were the one who brought up 54 wins and not adjusting things following that season. I believe that I am the one trying to move on and adjust goals a little higher.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:56 PM PST up reply actions
If the Lakers bring in Miller to play the point, do they end up moving Kobe out of position
So Miller can run the team? I’m just saying that everyone needs to adjust and grow, but it’s appropriate that the role players make the big adjustments and the core gets fine tuning.
well, that’s the beauty of the triangle offense. it’s incredibly flexible.
I do agree that Kobe would not be moved out of position. i’d argue that he wouldn’t have to because of the offense they play.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 21, 2009 11:59 PM PST up reply actions
Kobe has already made the adjustment to his game to allow others to handle the ball.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
Several, but I never figured Roy to be the type of player that this would be lost on.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
really? Seems to me that Gasol came and embodied everything needed in a triple post offense big.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions
I remember Kobe having changed his game before Gasol went to the Lakers.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
he actually had a lower AST% the year Gasol came and the Lakers also did not gain the number one seed until the trade.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:04 AM PST up reply actions
I'm talking about his attitude and approach to the game, not whether or not he had the right peices around him to win in the finals.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
he passed about the same the year they made the Finals than the year before, statistically.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:08 AM PST up reply actions
It still took them two more seasons before they got there.
Bryant had to come to the point that he realized he couldn’t do it alone and Brandon will need to do the same.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
Kobe incurred a lot of criticism in last year’s finals before they eventually won it, though. He cost them a game by ballhogging in the fourth quarter.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:14 AM PST up reply actions
Okay
That is a lapse back into an old habit he shook a few seasons before.
My point is that Roy needs to learn to trust his teammates and let them help him in the offense. He doesn’t need to be the ball-handler in all situations. He isn’t as good at passing the ball and running the fast break as Miller and therefore should be open to working with Miller.
Regardless of how much the #1 option on offense has to take over a game because the other team’s defense won’t allow anyone else to be successful, that doesn’t mean that person should be the #1 option to bring the ball up the floor continuosly or be the distributor throughout the game either. Obviously they will have games and parts of games where that is necessary, but Brandon needs it too much for the team to be as affective as they could be.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
From what I remember, Kobe started to really rely on this teammates
more on the offensive end of the court and allow others to make plays with him stepping in when the team needed him the season before the Gasol trade.
The whole mantra of “letting the game come to the player” was supposedly happening, it just wasn’t enough to get the ring without better peices around Kobe.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
but his numbers were barely different that year.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:10 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not comparing the year before Gasol to the year with Gasol.
I’m saying the change in attitude about having to dominate the ball happened before that and it was a necessary change that Kobe had to make in order to be a better teammate and leader.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
Kobe’s usage rate was really high for one season but has stayed steady throughout the last 5-6 years.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
but no one was or is asking Brandon to be moved out of position
all along, we have wanted Miller to start over Blake, leaving Roy and Web at the 2 and 3 spot.
we still haven’t tried it. that’s what people are upset about
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
RAWMO, we ne'er knew ye
It’s hard to envision the bench unit scoring “enough” with a Blake-Rudy-Howard-Przy core. Even if Bayless and Cunningham were inserted, the +/- would be inconsistent at best, especially against playoff-caliber opponents
If Miller and Rudy can embrace their scoring/playmaking roles coming in off the bench, the Blazers have a chance to improve over last year’s result. If not, all Nate has done with his last 2 lineup adjustments is to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
and this year might end up the same
Don’t see how this team learned from the past, as we are setting to repeat the same mistakes. You really don’t think other teams know how to beat the Blazers in a playoff situation by now? Name one of the potential teams that might make the playoffs that you think we will beat in a 7 game series
The core is Roy, Greg and LMA.. Now, I agree that learning to move without
the ball will be a good thing for Roy. But the larger scheme is that the core has to play together well and instinctively and I think that gets set back if you spend a year or two playing Roy out of his natural position and out of the position he’;s going to play for the bulk of his career. Roy needs to learn to play with Greg and LMA from the 2 spot, not the 3. And if he needs to learn to move without the ball, it shoutd be in the contaxt of doing so as a 2.
I’m not a great basketball mind, so maybe I’m missing the point here, but it seems to me that while you may speed Roy’s development by forcing him to play out of position and off the ball, you may slow the the team’s development by doing that.
I’m all for growing the team.
here’s where I would differ: Brandon was still a shooting guard, or ballside wing, on offense. Sure, he had to defend a bigger guy, but Steve Blake was playing the small forward (weakside cornerman) in Nate’s scheme.
The difference is not positional but more the amount that Brandon has the ball in his hands. Thus we need to figure out what we want long-term, as you state. Do we want him off the ball for part of the game? On the ball whenever he wants? That’s what we’re seeing right now, and the early returns are saying that Brandon will have the ball a lot.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:13 AM PST up reply actions
He's a smart guy though, he'll figure out that life will be a lot better
for him when he learns to feed the post more.
did you catch the monster screen that Oden had on Roy’s third quarter dunk? The baseline parted and it was smooth sailing to the rim. Beautiful.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:16 AM PST up reply actions
against the t-wolves
anything against the t-wolves essentially counts for nothing.
i’m going to go out on a limb and guess we won’t see them in the playoffs.
That's easy
We’ll beat possible playoff teams Houston, New Orleans, OKC, whoever has home court. If we have home court Utah, San Antonio (probably), Denver (most likely). Dallas unknown, we haven’t had a chance to match up with them yet.
We aren’t repeating all the same mistakes. We are playing much better defense, and we are getting more offense out of the center position.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
win total does not equal playoff success
otherwise, they wouldn’t have playoffs.
You're not remaking the team to suit Miller by asking Roy
learn how to move without the ball and get in position to receive it for easy looks. Roy’s growth in that area would have benefited him the most out of everyone by cutting his fatigue over the long haul, but apparently he simply can’t get the idea that LaMarcus and Oden are just as important to the team’s success in the end.
"She turned me into a newt!
A newt?
...I got better."
So, tonight on the big screen
they showed a sign that said, I think,
Hey She-Wolves.
Are you in the Closet?
Is there any interpretation of this that’s not offensive to women as well as crazy homophobic?? Maybe I’m missing some pop culture reference, but I was shocked they let that go up there.
I am glad that I did not know that.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:00 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
rec
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I don't know enough to know whether you should be ashamed or not
just enough to know that Cab’s comment was pretty funny.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
I don't even have a clue who Shakira is
but given the tiny bit of info I’ve picked up in this thread, I probably don’t care whether I see the video or hear the song or read the lyrics, or whether I know if Shakira is one or more people, male, female, or in-between.
Go, Blazers!
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
If you're a dude
you want to know who she is. Watch the video on mute if you must
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 22, 2009 12:46 AM PST up reply actions
Meh
Well, based on your comment now I know that I don’t care about seeing the video or wanting to know who she is.
If I’m a man, I’m more interested in a woman than a picture.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Nah, it would only be shameful to actually like that song
I’m generally okay with Shakira, but that is just the most ridiculous, goofy song I’ve heard in a long time.
Owwwooooooohhhh
What's to say
that this style change is better for overall performance of the team. It appears that it isn’t working on all cylinders so why would returning to the tried and true role in the interem a bad self centered change? In fact it isn’t that at all.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
didn't we established that
the roy-at-point thing doesn’t work against good defensive teams in the playoffs?
by CleBlazer on Nov 22, 2009 12:56 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
Brandon can take on the Minnesota’s and New Jersey’s of the league by himself in the 1-4 and win. But this will not beat playoff caliber teams 4 times out of 7. The best one on one SG of all time (MJ) couldn’t do it against the Bad Boys. Roy won’t either.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 22, 2009 1:03 AM PST up reply actions
So memorable
Yes, Jordan’s point guards were so memorable. In fact they were very Blake like in skill set. They did have Pippen, but a more developed Rudy of Martell could do many of the same things.
Down with the Ruskies
Please don't tell me you're putting Rudy and Martell
in the same conversation as Scottie Pippen. I’m fans of both of those guys, but Pippen was one of the best players of all time at his position. Rudy and Martell are solid NBA rotation players with potential to have very good careers, but neither is going to the Hall of Fame like Pippen. Second, Brandon Roy is not Michael Jordan. He’s great, but come on, that isn’t even a discussion. If the Blazers are going to win a title, Roy will be the offensive focal point from the wing, but both Greg and LMA will need to make huge contributions in the post. And if you have a better option than Blake at PG, you use him.
"man, steve blake is clutch *dead*" - Ben Golliver on Twitter
by blazeraddict on Nov 22, 2009 1:26 AM PST up reply actions
No we didn't
What we saw was that when Roy works the point AND our inside game is poorly utilized while our 3pt shooting was streaky was a nail in the coffin.
Down with the Ruskies
We established this
The Roy at point thing doesn’t work when you also have the following problems:
1. Inexperience team-wide causing you to fold in the first game and give away home court advantage.
2. Weak defensive rebounding at backup 4.
3. Several key role players who had never faced playoff pressure before and were poor throughout the series.
4. An opponent with a lightning quick PG that you can’t defend well.
5. An opponent with a 7-6 center that you can’t defend well.
6. A coaching mistake in the first half of the first game in the defense of that center.
7. No effective backup PG.
8. Lack of a consistent interior offensive threat, especially from the center position.
I’m sure I could come up with a few more.
I have seen people on Bedge say the Houston loss proved we needed to change the Roy at PG thing, and turn around and say the Houston loss proved we needed to change our backup PF. The fact is, the Houston loss proved one thing: Houston, from coach to starters to backups, was a better team than us overall, and able to exploit virtually every one of our weaknesses — and we still gave them a good battle, almost regaining home court advantage.
All we had to do was fix any two of those problems and we win that series. Think we’ve solved any of them? I do.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
+92
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 23, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions
if by him dominating the ball he is scoring 18 and creating good shots for others, we can live with a high usage rate. Let’s not forget that he is one of the most efficient offensive players in the league.
i cry for nic
by Cablinasian on Nov 22, 2009 12:47 AM PST up reply actions
again...
that defeats the whole purpose of KP bringing Miller here in the first place.
we were thrashed in the playoffs by an exceptional defensive team because we had a plodding, predictable offense that ran our star into the ground by the end of the series.
Maybe
but the other reason was the lack of effective use of an inside game. God forgive me citing Big Chuck, but they need offense aside from jumpers and getting LMA and Oden going inside is the most important change. But if that can be done while not throwing Roy’s game off kilter, I don’t care if Andre ever sees the floor. If he can work well with Roy and keep the flow…great. If not, welcome to the 2nd unit, make them the best 2nd unit in the game man.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
ever notice that really good teams
don’t have 2nd units. they have 5 starters and 3 bench guys that see the floor. wasting miller on the “white” unit is dumb. it’s a repeat of last year.
steve blake is horrible play off starter and he will kill us again if we don’t make a change.
At no point
Did we look like we could win that series, or e’en that we thought we could. I think that qualifies as a thrashing, no matter what the final scores may indicate.
After three games and three quarters
We certainly looked like we could regain home court, and win the series.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
i thought the whole purpose of KP bringing Miller here
was to save face for losing out on the FAs he really wanted?
it seems like we're at an impasse
Roy/Blake are not as good as Andre/Rudy at delivering the ball to Greg/LMA in the post. Seems like the only option is to move Greg to the bench, but that isn’t fair because he has earned the right to start.
"B-Roy is the best shooting guard I have played against"
-Ron Artest
He did have 16 points tonight
Seems like he’s getting the ball.
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
yea,
but i’m making this point based on a general trend, as opposed to this one game. Seemed clear to me when the season started that Andre and Rudy were the ones who really pushed the ball into Greg, it took Roy and Blake some time to do the same thing.
"B-Roy is the best shooting guard I have played against"
-Ron Artest
by premthegrem on Nov 22, 2009 12:55 AM PST up reply actions
I agree that Andre and Rudy are better at entering to the post
But it seems to me that Greg’s developing offensive game is starting to make an impression on Blake/Roy which means they’ll get him the ball more.
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
Passes from
Roy and Blake as well. I concur that the every player but Howard and Andre need an assistant coach to yell in their ear at least once a quarter, to FEED GREG now.
Down with the Ruskies
by TheSabasFan on Nov 22, 2009 12:55 AM PST up reply actions
I've offered this solution before, but no one listens to me.
Bring Roy off the bench.
What could possibly go wrong?
πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.
Just an observation from the NBA highlights
Greg blocks Pecherov’s shot out of bounds in the 2nd quarter and after he points at Roy and then at himself like ‘my bad’ for not directing it towards Brandon better. I love that Oden is thinking about using his blocks to gain possession rather than just to intimidate or prevent a shot attempt.
This is a personal obsession of mine – I find it aggravating that players like Lebron, Dwight and Anderson blocks shots violently into the third row, act all macho and then these plays find their way onto SportsCenter as ‘top plays’. In reality this type of block is no more useful than a tipped pass out of bounds, its just more athletically impressive. A controlled block directed to a team mate is a play I can really appreciate – it shows the cerebral side of the game that I find more satisfying than the machoistic showman style of play characterized by many ‘superstars’ nowadays.
"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane
Agree
Bill Russell was a master at this, as was Walton. Or so I’m told.
"I'd like to see Nate McMillan stop treating fouls like they are rollover minutes." - Blazer Guy 11/4/09
I love that about Greg.
He came into the league with so few learned basketball skills, but he has understood from the beginning that swatting the ball into the bleachers is equivalent to an offensive rebound for the opposition.
Russell was a master, and Walton too. I remember more than once Walton going for a block and actually catching the ball and coming down with it
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 22, 2009 1:48 AM PST up reply actions
Saw someone do that recently
I think it was Dwight but it was more by accident than anything – he sort of blocked it into the backboard and it ended up right there so he came down with it. I think that would be far more disheartening for a player than seeing your shot blocked out of bounds. If a guy can just pluck your shot out of the air then you know he has your number – I would love to see some of that stuff from Greg, would put a grin on my face from ear to ear.
"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane
pretty soon
Greg will start just taking the ball out of the air. As if the shot from the guard was a lob pass to Greg.
by pdxlifer on Nov 22, 2009 2:25 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
First time that happens
I’m buying the bar a round
I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
by haildablazer on Nov 22, 2009 7:35 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, Russell and Walton both
A block into the seats IS better than tipping a pass out of bounds in two respects:
1. It usually comes later in the shot clock, so puts more pressure on the offense.
2. It has an intimidation effect that makes players more hesitant to drive the lane, and affects their shots in future when they do.
But it will be far better if Greg does as Russell and Walton did.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Anyone else think the lineup change is a way to showcase Roy for a trade to make room for Miller?
by tominhawaii on Nov 22, 2009 5:14 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
I do.
Maybe Roy’s selfish personality will fit in at Memphis, and we can get a real backup 4 like Steven Hunter.
πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς, οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.
+92
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 22, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
ur killin' me...
…
Elizabeth had a partner and he had a rap from the cops, Him and Lenny Suckerpunch were just out Tooling around
by Lizzy Lowblow on Nov 22, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
Just finished watching the game
I like it when our offense is on.
Not much to say besides I was yelling at my computer screen for Nate to put Oden back in in the 4th. Yeah, the game was well in hand, but he needs DEVELOPMENT. He isn’t a normal starter. He needs minutes to practice moves and continue to get comfortable… and padding stats never hurts either.
Martell did well as the starter before this season, and magically does well again when he starts once more. He will be up and down, but he’s got a lot more pep in his step being with the 1st unit. He is human, and I don’t mind it as long as he’s with the 1st unit.
I like wins.
Mortimer
I am overjoyed that we ended the silly 3 guard lineup as well
And more than willing to be happy that Blake is the starting PG, and not Miller.
It DOES work, and Miller can squeeze his way in as he comes around. After the pain of the 3 guard lineup, I am totally fine with the better PG playing backup as long as we’re going with a good traditional lineup from now on.
That was why Nate did the 3 guard lineup… to butter us up for whatever else he wanted!
Morty
I wanted Oden back in, too
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
Still laughing
it’s nice to see what happens when things click at both ends at once. Now we have to take it from practice to an actual game.
I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
Petition Jerryd Bayless into the rotation
What the Blazers are missing I think is that big play maker who can get the team excited and isn’t affraid to go up big and score hard. That is what the blazers got with Outlaw off the bench and I you can see Martell was that man last night but Jerryd can do it all the time. He is fearless and you saw that last year when he took it at the Nets and even KG
A poor Blazer in the State of New York
Juwan Howard
I think people are too critical of Juwan Howard. Most players don’t have a knack for being thrown into a game for short minutes and playing at the top of their game. (that’s one reason Joel Pryzbilla is worth his weight in gold)
If Howard had substantial minutes on a routine basis he might be playing a lot better. However, it’s doubtful he will ever get those minutes so it isn’t clear whether Howard is much of an asset to the Blazers on the court in light of the role they have for him.
I do hope we see Cunningham get more playing time. With all the injuries, he is the best prospect on the Blazer roster right now to fill in as backup 3 and 4.
Howard got more than short minutes at GS
He went for 12 minutes straight.
"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5
on this point:
As I’ve said, my vote is for LaMarcus to be the continuity guy between the first and second units even more than Roy is. In every second-unit situation, and probably in more of the first-unit ones as well, they should let LaMarcus operate.
I have been calling for this too. We should never purposely have Howard and Przy on the floor together. That is more 19-2 runs waiting to happen. Assuming LA can go back to not being in foul trouble, he needs to play that early 2nd/4th quarter run with Przy/Rudy/Miller. Work the offense through LA.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
I'll take that idea one further
If the lazer had a decent backup PF, I could see starting them in a Luke Walton, AC Green kind of role, or similar to what Batum did, last year. Then bring LMA in off the bench toprovide scoring with the 2nd unit
Why?
Because, as long as LMA and Oden start the game together, there’s no way to make sure they both get enough “touches” to stablish their low post games, simultaneously. So, either you get Greg “off” early and LMA floats around the perimeter, or they do like last year and get LMA “off” early, and Oden plays goalie on defense and gets 2 fouls before touching the ball on offense
Since there is no decent backup PF to be found (grr) Nate could go back to starting Przy and bring Greg into the game with Andre and Rudy. Then the bench has a chance to outscore the starters, like happened frequently, last year.
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
well, I was going to proofread that
but my funky keyboard posted it, before I was ready
“lazer” in the first line should be “Blazers”
There should be a space between “to_provide” in the second line
“stablish” in the 5th line should be “establish”
I think the rest is “OK”
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
It's interesting but LaMarcus would never go for it.
I’d be interesting in removing LaMarcus very early in the first quarter to allow Greg to work the low post and bring in LaMarcus with Przybilla at the five minute mark giving LaMarcus room to roam and a freedom to play offense without concerning about other players touches too heavily. It would also be an interesting way of breaking the opponents back early, hammering with a dominant centre followed by an offensively gifted power forward once the starters are beginning to tire on their particular stretch of play.
It would vastly improve the second unit if Miller, Rudy and LaMarcus can strike up a chemistry for the later half of the first period and maybe the start of the second.
#88 > #23 > #25
Updated for latest line-up:
#5 > #2

by 





























