Nate comfortable with Miller calling Blazers' plays??

by jayfisher on Nov 8, 2009 2:38 AM PST Comment 42 comments

That's what Joe Freeman is reporting. To me this might be a pretty significant development in the the team, but I haven't seen it mentioned or discussed here. Link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/11/notebook_nate_mcmillan_comfort.html

Some of the changes since Saturday have been a little disorienting. Is this the same Blazers we know and love, that we've watched trying to grow up and then trying their wings to fly?

Many of us have spent time talking about a point guard who can run the team -- including calling the plays on the run. If this article fairly mirrors Nate's views, it seems to reflect not only on Andre Miller but also on how Nate has viewed Steve Blake's ability to run the team.

Many of us at BE have commented that as the team matures, Nate has to relax some of the reins. His relaxing the reins will probably remain a work in progress, evolving with two steps forward and one backward, but you have to start somewhere and this seems like a significant start.

Playing faster?

We'll never become a completely fast breaking team, and ball control is important, but at least now we might see an increas in fast breaks and secondary fast breaks. Miller said, "The main thing is that we don't want to get caught running sets all the time. You want to mix tempo and break with halfcourt sets. I think as the season goes on, this team can do that." My comment: This just might be fun!

Evolution?

Since the San Antonio game, we've been puzzling over the three guard lineup. As many have pointed out, three guard lineup is not a stable long term solution. Is this just a gimmick, or is this a thought out plan? Now I'm starting to wonder whether this is sort of an temporary evolutionary step and that there's a longer term plan here. It could be that this three guard lineup is an intermediate step evolving into Miller starting and Blake coming off the bench, and evolving into a more mature team.

-jfish

0 recs | Comment 42 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It does the most likely reason for starting 2 PGs.

Otherwise its got to be the most insane idea ever. Blake is a bad PG and an even worse SG. But if Nate is only starting Blake and Miller so Andre can learn the team’s plays faster than O.K. Any other reason and I’d be really pissed!

by VinnyB on Nov 8, 2009 3:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You know, critique of a player is one thing, but arrant nonsense offered as critique

is just irritating. Is Blake a great point guard? No. But bad point gaurds don’t ltake the second youngest team in the league to 54 wins.

by raoulduke on Nov 8, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Compared to other starting point guards on playoff teams, Blake is pretty bad.

Especially if you are grading on a curve.

by Nick Van Excellent on Nov 8, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Arrant nonsense is...

Thinking Blake is even a decent starting pg in this league. He was ON the team that won 54 games, he didn’t take us anywhere. He was easily the worst position player of any of our starters and as far as the league is concerned, Blake is looked at as arguably being the worst starting pg in the league. He is a solid backup, nothing more. Loyalty is good, but just playing on our team when it does well doesn’t mean that you are the reason. Miller can do so many more things for our team game, it’s not even funny. Miller even made Blake play better against S.A. Blake is a 3 point shooter who knows how to pass to one player on our team, Roy. Miller is a true point guard that makes everyone better and can actually control the game. That’s what we can use to get to the next level.

by Coastie07 on Nov 8, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"Arrant"??

Is this some brand new hybrid of “arrogant” and “errant”? Could be useful, but I don’t think it’s in Websters yet.

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You need to get a new dictionary

Definition of “arrant” at Dictionary.com (which is based on the 2009 Random House Dictionary):

“downright; thorough; unmitigated; notorious: an arrant fool.”

I think the use of the term is warranted in this case.

by MDBlazerfan on Nov 8, 2009 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I stand corrected

I was too dang lazy to pull out a dictionary and check.

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

miller doesnt

make roy better. he makes him martell webster. miller didnt do much for that offense against the spurs.

by BBG on Nov 8, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

???

Don’t even know how to reply to that one.

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What are you talking about?

You just did.

*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

by staylost on Nov 8, 2009 10:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dude!

Where’s the champagne? Nate is finally letting go!

If this is what it sounds like, I think we are at a turning point in the BRoy era.

HUGE!!!!

by Blazin' on Nov 8, 2009 3:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Is this all about not hurting Blakes feelings?

Nate thinks that by adding Miller to the starting lineup but leaving Blake he can slowly replace Blake. One day Blake will be coming off the bench and not even notice! He’ll be like, “when did this happen?”

by twggyy on Nov 8, 2009 6:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Reminds me of a bandleader I once had

When he wanted to fire a guy, he’s break up the band. Then a few weeks later, he’d hire back everyone but the guy he’d wanted to get rid of. No muss, no fuss. Perfect method if you don’t like confrontation.

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I love it

I have thought for some time that Roy needs to be either:

a) Point Guard and just always have the ball or
b) Small Forward and just learn to play off the ball

I won’t repeat the error of whatever infamous poster first called Roy “selfish.” But I think his penchant for ball dominance is creating some stagnation and uncertainty in the offense.

My personal take: I LOVE Roy playing off the ball at small forward. I love it. I was greatly influenced by the work of some poster in early summer that logged Roy’s amazing success at the small forward spot. I don’t think he’s the bull-rusher that Carmelo is but I don’t think that he has to be.

I love having Miller out there directing the offense. I don’t think it’s an accident that our two veteran players—Howard and Miller—are the ones most credited with getting low-post players involved.

I love thinking about the evolution of the lineup with Batum and Rudy filling in the guard spots in this kind of rotation. It frees the team from having to worry about Outlaw and Martel. I am not a Martel hater (I am kind of an Outlaw hater) and I’m not suggesting that they can’t be part of the Blazers. But I am suggesting that they could be LUXURIES on the team rather than the quasi-NECESSITIES that they are today. I don’t care how much you love those two guys (and throw Rudy in this mix if you want but I think it’s too early), neither has shown that they can be relied upon in the sense of a necessity.

I love the new lineup because it gets the very best players on the floor at the same time.

I love the new lineup. To me, it is another case of Nate proving me wrong right when I think that he can’t coach. He does this to me every fall. Just when I’m getting ready to submit a “Fire Nate” post, he pulls these rabbits out of the hat. And then, there it is for all the world to see: Phizbin = Schmuck.

I am done doubting Nate and I love the new lineup.

Buck Williams for the hall of fame

by Phizbin on Nov 8, 2009 8:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The biggest reservation I have about Roy playing small forward

is on the defensive end. While you can get away with it against some line ups, the idea of him having to guard Carmello, Lamar Odom or what’s-his-name over in Cleveland is scary. But like so many things in the NBA this is going to have to be match-up driven. There are going to be situations where it will dictate the pace and force other teams to adjust to us. Then there will be other times when having only one perimeter defender who weighs more than 190 lbs will absolutely kill us.

In theory the 3-guard lineup should give us an advantage in transition, but Blake can’t lead a fast break and running is not ideally suited to Roy’s game either. But if that Miller-Rudy-Roy lineup starts to click, it would be some fun basketball to watch.

by lickety brindle on Nov 8, 2009 8:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree somewhat about Roy on def. vs those SF

But, Roy is capable of playing good D vs even Carmelo for stretches, and, as you said, it will be match-up driven. I thought Martell did a very decent job on Carmelo, and I bet he gets more time specifically for defense on guys like that. Batum will take over that role when he gets back. Developing Martell as a solid defender would be huge for this team, as he may be the closest to having the physical abilities to TRY to guard Lebron out of anyone on the team.

The lineup you mentioned, first time I have really thought of it, gave me chills—Miller-Rudy-Roy. I think if this team gets to an eventual starting lineup with Miller, Rudy, Roy, Aldridge, and Oden—that could be the lineup we have been looking for, with Martell/Batum able to come in early for Rudy for a more traditional SF depending on match-up.

by TimG on Nov 8, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

in the re-caps here I saw nate giving credit to Andre for the play calling and tempo setting...

""..Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own . . . "

by LetsBlaze on Nov 8, 2009 8:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

That's what point guards are supposed to do!

Coach sets the overall plan…pg call different sets within that plan…coach no likey he call time-outy=basketball.

....formerly GonzoFan. Now, this has been a message from "The People's Alliance to Continue to Encourage Greg Oden on his Path to Dominance"

by bforsythe on Nov 8, 2009 9:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

As much as Nate gets criticism for slow pace of the offense...

he is constantly telling his players to push it up the floor. The problem is, the two starting guards (Roy and Blake) are not good at leading the break. So Nate can tell his players to push it all he wants, but it aint gonna happen. Insert Andre into the lineup and now the Blazers are running more. It seems pretty simple.

by JasonT on Nov 8, 2009 9:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Correct.

In one motion Andre stole the ball from his man and threw an outlet pass to a streaking LMA. Beautiful. Again, I think Blake is the best backup pg in the league – but IF he made that steal he would bear hug the ball until the defense got back and gave him room to advance.

....formerly GonzoFan. Now, this has been a message from "The People's Alliance to Continue to Encourage Greg Oden on his Path to Dominance"

by bforsythe on Nov 8, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Blake wouldn't be the best backup pg in the league

But he’d be in the top ten

As it is he is in the bottom ten for starting pg’s.

"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane

by MadBlaze on Nov 8, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Top 10 backup?

Possibly, unless you start including the other combo guards that provide what Blake provides (a shooter as an outlet, occasional ball handling, and weak defense).

Eddie House vs Blake? Toss up, but I’d take House
Heinrich in the Chi? lol
Delonte West and Gibson on the Cavs? I’d take Gibson, and Delonte (the player, not the citizen) if he’s on his meds
Will Bynum in Detrot? Bynum easily
Earl Watson in Indiana? Close. I think Watson’s better
Ridnour?
Arroyo in Miami?
Barrea and The Jet in Dallas?
Lowry in Houston?
George Hill in San Antonio?
Ty Lawson in Denver?

Top 10 backup PG rating for Blake is iffy.

by buck_goggles on Nov 8, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, and I was trying not to be a Blake hater (which I kinda am)

Guy above me said best backup in the league so I guess you think his evaluation is extra-specially iffy?

I’d kinda counting guys like Delonte/House/Bynum/Barea/Lawson out because they don’t really play like pg’s.

Blake is easily top ten as a traditional pg off the bench. I would have Hinrich (obviously), Ridnour (possibly) and Lowry above him but no one else I can think of.

If you want a pg who brings energy off the bench then Blake become a below average backup.

You agree with that?

"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane

by MadBlaze on Nov 8, 2009 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Somewhere between 8 and 14

If you’re somewhere between #7 to 14 then IMHO that means it’s iffy that your a top 10 backup. Blake’s top 15 no question.

I like his heart, toughness, and how he committed to improving the NBA range on his J the last few years.

Barrea, Lawson, Lowry, Hill, Watson, Udrih, Arroyo are all traditional points.

Blake’s role isn’t a traditional PG role, so it’s valid to compare him to all the non-traditional backup PGs. Gibson, House etc.

We always overrate our own players. Sergio has played 8 minutes this season in Sac.

Now in terms of fit. I think Blake fits our squad better than many of the more talented backups. So in terms of impact on wins and losses, I’ll agree he’s a top 10 backup.

by buck_goggles on Nov 8, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

correction

spanish chocolate has played 16 minutes this season.

by buck_goggles on Nov 8, 2009 5:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you guys may be overly influenced by Blake's slow start this season

Remember, he had off-season shoulder surgery and couldn’t play thru the summer like he usually does. The guy is extremely rusty. Plus, he’s been looking over his shoulder at a guy on the bench who probably outplays him every day in practice. That doesn’t tend to do wonders for your game. Just ask Joel Przybilla (he experienced the same thing the year he started in front of Magliore).

Try this. Close your eyes and remember back to last season. Remember that guy who played point for the Blazers? Nearly every time he left the game, everything fell apart. That guy was pretty good. Not great, but pretty good—an intelligent gamer with a deadly outside shot. A guy who led his collegiate team to the national championship. Not a bad guy to have coming off your bench. Not bad at all. A LOT of NBA teams would like to have that guy.

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it is relevant to compare him to combo-guards

because whether you think he is any good or not, Blake is certainly a pass-first guard.

Points of reference aren’t really there when you look at guys who play sg as much as they do pg.

"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane

by MadBlaze on Nov 8, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s funny, I was thinking how this felt like last year’s Dallas team that finally took off once Carlisle let Kidd take over play-calling duties.

Good for Nate and ’Dre.

free bayless

by Cablinasian on Nov 8, 2009 10:20 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

the 2 point guard lineup is neither a gimmick nor a well thought out plan

Remember Van Exel and Stoud? Same deal I think. If your offense is totally stagnant and you put in two point guards, that means you will have at least 2 players moving well without the ball. Its a short-term way to get some flow without calling plays. So basically it falls under the category of personnel management more than trickery or scheme.

by Sound_Automatic on Nov 8, 2009 12:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The last gameday thread I speculated that Nate might be a pod person

I think my suspicions have merit…

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 8, 2009 1:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Miller's leadership at the defensive end was just as impressive

On one sequence, Miller was set up in the middle of the lane, watching Duncan holding the ball & getting ready to shoot or drive from his familiar spot just outside the left box. Miller yelled “BLAKE” three times in succession—so loud you could clearly hear it on the KGW broadcast. For a moment, Blake stood there under the basket looking uncertain. Then Blake understood what Miller was saying, and he rushed over to double-team Duncan before he could make his move. Duncan seemed confused then, and his pass got picked off by a rotating Blazer player.

Nate has often said that his young Blazers are too quiet and don’t communicate enough on defense. With the addition of Miller, that problem has apparently been solved.

Just now, I read this excerpt from Nate’s post-game press conference, probably referencing that play (among others):

“Andre was quarterbacking that defense and doing some things that we don’t normally do. With his communication we double-teamed a couple of times and got out of those rotations and was able to cover the perimeter. We did some nice things.”

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 2:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

a quote attributed to Miller (before he was a Blazer)

“I want to be the quietest player off teh court, and the loudest on it”

Jason Quick said during his latest podcast that Andre wasn’t being as vocal coming off the bench as he had been during the preseason (remember, the RAMBO lineup was used for a few games, including the Phoenix game at the MC) Quick said he wasn’t sure if Andre was “pouting” because he wasn’t starting, or if Dre was trying not to step on anybody’s toes.

Regardless, it appears that Miller needs to be “the man” and wasn’t being vocal enough, as a reserve. This could have been part of what Nate was talking about when he said ‘we aren’t getting enough from Andre" after the Atlanta game. What the team needs from Miller most is that vocal leadership, at both ends of the floor. Dre has a wealth of BBIQ in his head, and that needs to “come out” to help his teammates. If he’s more vocal when starting…then start him.

I also don’t think it was any coincidence that Oden had his “best game yet” with Andre in the starting lineup. Miller knows how to feed the big guys—and it seems to be “rubbing off” on Brandon—because Roy finally threw a lob pass to Greg, later in the game. MIller was signed as a FA to provide vocal leadership and to demonstrate his BBIQ to the other Blazers. I’m hoping the Spur’s game was just the first of many where we will see (and hear) this in action out on the court, from the beginning of every half

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 8, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes indeed. Well said

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Miller knows how to play point guard intuitively.

And he knows the NBA game intellectually.

It’s a pretty rare combination and demonstrates that in sport, athleticism can be trumped by skill and smarts.

by Blazin' on Nov 8, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if it's necessarily a "well thought out plan"

But I do think this is sort of a transition lineup, eventually leading to Miller starting. At first I was pulling out my hair when I heard about this starting lineup—but the more I think about it, the more I can see it being a good way to work Miller into the starting role, and get him and the other starters comfortable with each other. Hopefully Rudy gets back into form soon, and he can take Blake’s spot. If we want a bigger lineup, we can instead go to Miller, Roy, Martell.

I actually possibly like this lineup, if it works out that way eventually. It’s exciting for me, because now I feel like I have something to watch for—like I might have some idea of what this year’s team is going to be going forward. It will be very interesting to see this develop.

by TimG on Nov 8, 2009 3:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hmm: maybe that Nate McMillan guy isn't so dumb after all, huh?

Come on: this was pretty dang smart and pretty dang daring. (See there: I used BE-approved language to say that.) Nate would have caught hell if the three-guard starting line-up had bombed. Very impressive stuff, I’d say.

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am so pleased with it,

viva Nate!

That said, had he just followed KP’s lead and gone with Miller from the start, this might not seem like such a coup. But with young superstar egos on board, maybe he had to go this way.

But I don’t care how we got here, just happy that we did.

by Blazin' on Nov 8, 2009 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Spurs game has very quickly calmed the anti-Nate crowd (of which I was a vocal member)

but I can already see the likely scenario that will get people up in arms again. The Charlotte or Atlanta game there will surely need to be a change made to the starting lineup (unless you want Roy guarding Crash or Josh Smith) and I’m betting that Nate will leave Blake in the starting unit and put Martell in for Miller. Hope I’m wrong but that seems more in line with Nate’s lineup philosophies…

Can you imagine the hate that would be piled on him if that happened….my gosh

"What happened to Bayless anyway? Did he turn into a pumpkin? Most teams don’t just let #11 picks rot." - Xiane

by MadBlaze on Nov 8, 2009 3:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Marc Spears would be on the phone with Andre

if Nate yanks Miller back out of the starting lineup after 3-4 games

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 8, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is it.

Andre must become indispensable in this stretch where he starts.

by Blazin' on Nov 8, 2009 3:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

If Nate let's him do his thing, that's certain to happen

This is what Andre Miller does—run an NBA team. He’s pretty good at it. Contrary to popular belief, Blake isn’t chopped liver at what HE does, either. As Blake shakes off the rust and gets the hang of the revamped Blazers (the New Oden is a serious weapon that whoever plays the point must exploit), Blake will really contribute off the bench.

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

by hurryup09 on Nov 8, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

TAKE OUT BLAKE AND START RUDY!!

The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.

"New Man Law: If you don't show up for the draft you don't get to come later if you're picked. If you believe in yourself, show up and sit there. If nobody else believes in you, take it and cry like a man...in front of the cameras."

-Dave

by faith on Nov 9, 2009 8:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs