Answers to some questions...

by OmoriumVerum on Apr 30, 2009 10:51 PM PDT Comment 55 comments

Okay, now that the season is over, we can pause to reflect.

We finally have some answers to questions surrounding this team. The biggest being what will we need to take the next step?

One way of looking at this year and our playoff trip is that every one of our guys got some serious experience to take with them this summer and they will only grow from this.

The great thing about this experience is that we now know what we need to obtain this off-season.This playoff run really exposed our weaknesses and deficiencies and will, ultimately, better prepare management in making the decisions that they need to make this summer. Perhaps they will think that this year was a great success and that our team only needs another year of experience together to correct our deficiencies.Only time will tell.

Now onto my observations...what we need.

1) A point guard. Steve Blake has been a solid point guard for this team throughout the year, but he made some monumental mistakes in the playoffs. Essentially, he cracked under pressure. We need a heady and steady point guard who can defend and run the offense as well as be able to handle pressure situations. Steve will make an excellent back-up, but this series showed that he is not the answer for us at point. My pick would be Andre Miller who is an unrestricted free agent this summer, and, by the way, had a hell of series against the Orlando Magic. He fills our need at point and will also give us a veteran presence on this young team, without usurping the leadership responsibilities from Brandon and LA.

2) A post up game. I think we may be able to stand pat on this one. Greg (I hope you put some serious work into your offense skill-set this summer) can develop a nice inside game with some practice and some one-on-one mentoring (Mr. Allen, please prepare your check book!) I think Oden starting next year and Przy coming off the bench we will be extremely solid at the five spot. I think picking up a veteran big man such as Joe Smith or Antonio McDyess would be a great pick up for us.

3) Lastly, we need a new coach. In my humble (yet accurate) opinion, our biggest problem in the Houston series was the fact that Nate was thoroughly out-coached, and it was glaringly evident in the last game of the Houston series. Nate's player rotations were off the entire series. He just seemed to not have a good feel for the games in the playoffs and how to coach his team during them. Now, I know Nate is most likely not going anywhere, so perhaps hiring an assistant and delegating offensive responsibility to him would be beneficial; much like Doc Rivers has done with Tom Thibodeau and the defense for the Celtics.

All-in-all, there is absolutely no reason for us to hang our heads. In fact, losing like this may be a benefit to us. Our young team just found out that their 54-win season doesn't amount to much if you can't win in the playoffs. Hopefully, going out like this will leave a bitter taste in the Blazers mouth and will manifest itself in hard summer workouts/improvements and a great season next year.

Next season I see us with a different starting point guard and Greg starting at center, with more of an emphasis to get him involved in the offense. Also, I don't see Outlaw with the team next year either. With his total no-show in the playoffs as well as Webster coming back and Batum's quick development, I just don't see any room for him on the roster. Of course, his friendship with Brandon and Nate's obvious infatuation with him may prevent any trade.

Also, if Nate is still around, Rodriguez may be gone as well, which is unfortunate since he is our best offensive orchestrator. I think he and Channing would benefit the most from a coaching change, particularly when it comes to the offense.

In the end, however, I have to tip my hat to this young Blazer team. What they accomplished this season was nothing short of remarkable and they will only get better with more time together. This season was just a prelude for what's to come. Next season will be one for the ages and I'm sure the rest of the NBA is not looking forward to facing us in the years to come.

Thank you Blazers, for a great year! See you next season...

2 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree mostly....

But I’m not sure we need to close the book on Nate just yet. I think he needs to make some adjustments for sure, but i think it is a little short in his evolution as a coach to call for his head.

by Tyler Durrden on Apr 30, 2009 10:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree about Nate as well...

My main point is that it may do us well to pick up an “offensive coordinator”. Nate is a stand up guy and a good coach. I just don’t know if he can take us to the next level. I really don’ t know if he was outcoached or if the guys just stopped listening. Either way, it’s bad for him.

I also agree that he is learning as well. So this season may be just as pivotal for him as for the players. My biggest gripe with him was his insistence of playing Outlaw when he wasn’t delivering…over and over and over and over…. If Sergio or Channing made the same mistakes they would’ve been pulled in 30 seconds. (Oh, nevermind, they were..) Sorry, couldn’t help it..

by OmoriumVerum on Apr 30, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great idea

offensive coordinator. Any suggestions as to who that might be?

I don’t want Nate to go unless we pick up Poppovich (what’s his status anyways), Tom Thibbedeau or someone of that caliber. I don’t think anyone like that is available.

"Death is not final," Gita says. "If any man thinks that he slays, and if another thinks that he is slain, neither knows the truth. The Eternal in man cannot kill: the Eternal in man cannot die. The soul in man is neither born nor does it die. Weapons cannot cut it; fire cannot burn it; water cannot drown it.

The Bhagavad Gita

by Idog1976 on May 1, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doc Rivers has given Thibbedeau permission to field head coaching offers. But I don't think Nate is going anywhere.

Why does everyone think Nate did such a bad job? The players he had to execute his game plan had never been to the playoffs before, and would have stolen a game on the road, if they didn’t absolutely fall apart in the last 8 minutes. Nate is not to blame for that. The players are. Nate didn’t lose this series. The players did.

by dario argento on May 1, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We need experience not more coaches

The guys were spending a lot of time “thinking”. They were a beat slow in the whole series. An offensive veteran scorer would have made every one look better. Nate is strong. He is a good communicator with a maniacal work ethic. Look what he gets out of time outs and look at the quality of young men he is turning out.

by Jacksonville on May 1, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right that Nate got outcoached a bit in this series

but considering how young and relatively inexperienced most of our guys are in regards to the playoffs, it’d be ludicrous for us to even consider getting rid of Nate. He did lead us to 54 wins, a mark most of us thought would be optimistic, if not ridiculous.
If we don’t make another leap next year in record or performance in the playoffs, then you may well have grounds for a dismissal of McMillan.

"Smile! You're on a poster!!" - Mike Rice

by lefty6283 on Apr 30, 2009 11:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with the Nate firing!!!

He has improved the team by double digits in wins since he has been here!!
Aweful. And what if he does it again…I am tired of this direction of the team!.

by blazersrock on Apr 30, 2009 11:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

First time in the playoffs since 03 and we lose a tough series to a veteran team. 54 wins, 58 next year. Let’s not get too carried away with this new coach idea. Nate’s great.

by Blaze of Glory on Apr 30, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is that sarcasm I detect...? ;)

by OmoriumVerum on Apr 30, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt you're that perceptive

Your humble opinion is about as accurate as a leaky BB gun with crooked sights.

by tominhawaii on May 1, 2009 1:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Amazingly enough...

Due to my military training my shot with a leaky BB gun with crooked sighted is exceedingly accurate. Coincidence??? I think not!

On another note, I’m not saying to can Nate (I’m actually a huge Nate fan), what I am suggesting is bringing in another coach to help stimulate the teams offensive sets. Granted, the team did well enough throughout the season, but giving one coach 6 or 7 games to figure out how to disrupt it wasn’t a huge challenge.

by OmoriumVerum on May 1, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The offense wasn't really the problem.

Despite being a jump shooting team, they were one of the league’s most efficient offenses. Attacking the basket more would be a good place to start, but a lot of that has to do with the development of our bigs’ individual back-to-the-basket games.

And think of who we were matching up with: one of the better defensive teams in the league.

Perimeter defense and bigs getting in foul trouble are the problem.

by Benjamanic on May 1, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed on the point guard point. i also think we need an actual 4 to back up LA. I know outlaw can play it… but he excels more as a 3.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGH!!!!!!!!- Sabonis getting fouled.

by sabonis on Apr 30, 2009 11:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

u think so?

when Trout is pulling off his 4th quarter heroics, he is usually playing the 4 is he not?

I got 6 years of playoff blue balls going on, and I'm ready to release. GO BLAZERS. ~Mortimer

by Philthyanimal on Apr 30, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

Trout, traditionally, has excelled at the 4. He doesn’t have the ball handling skills to be a very effective 3. My biggest gripe with him, however, his is blown defensive rotations and overall lack of smarts on the basketball court.

by OmoriumVerum on Apr 30, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea but u could argue

if we had a banger/decent post player/rebounder/defender as our backup 4 we might not need 4th quarter heroics

by Yawnie on May 1, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nate surely got outcoached

but that doesn’t mean I want him gone. Hell Doc Rivers won a title.

I got 6 years of playoff blue balls going on, and I'm ready to release. GO BLAZERS. ~Mortimer

by Philthyanimal on Apr 30, 2009 11:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ageed...

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying we should fire Nate, but he is obviously limited when it comes to offensive schemes. I’m just saying it may be beneficial to hire an offensive “specialist”.

by OmoriumVerum on Apr 30, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dont know nate

but judging by articles saying how stubborn he is…i doubt he’d be down with an offensive specialist. he supposedly is a defense first coach, yet our team excelled offensively with an elementary system.

I got 6 years of playoff blue balls going on, and I'm ready to release. GO BLAZERS. ~Mortimer

by Philthyanimal on Apr 30, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

limted?

Are you sure it’s the schemes or the personnel that are limited? By my count we have precisely two players that were in the rotation this year who could create their own shot off the dribble and one of them was Travis.

A cook needs the right ingredients.

by nikolokolus on May 1, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think if we are going to improve then KP needs to make the descision for Nate.

Nate has his favorites. Jack leaves, Nate uses the tools he has to work with. He uses Sergio more, Sergio improves over this season. If KP trades Outlaw or Blake and gets players in return. Nate is forced to build around them…

I think Nate is a good coach who just needs the right pieces and probably isn’t able to give up on someone after putting in all that effort. So KP needs to step up and do it for him, and make the hard decisions.

by lethaldose on Apr 30, 2009 11:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree to disagree...

I see what you are saying about KP needing to make the tough decisions Nate having to work with the tools he has. My issue is that you didn’t fully utilize the tools he has at his disposal. He has (arguably) the most talented roster (1-10) in the league and never figured out how to best use them. It appeared that he was starting to figure that out at near the end of the season, but I’m thinking game 1 of the Houston series planted some seeds of doubt into his and his teams mind.

I also don’t think Nate is giving up on anybody. However, as a coach you need to understand the situation you are in, i.e. who’s hot, who’s not, mismatches, defensive schemes, etc. Now, I’m not saying he doesn’t recognize those instances, but I find myself questioning some of the moves he makes during the course of a game.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand how young this team is, and to be honest with you, I wouldn’t be all that mad if we don’t make any trades/pick ups this summer. For all we know, this team (coach and players) just needs another year together to reach their peak. As I said…time will tell.

by OmoriumVerum on Apr 30, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All right, here's my off-the-wall idea regarding a potential overhaul.

1. Right before the 2009 NBA Draft, trade Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw — who both have non-guaranteed contracts for the 2009-2010 season — as well as the draft rights of Petteri Koponen to the Chicago Bulls for Kirk Hinrich.

2. Select DeJuan Blair in the first-round of the 2009 NBA Draft, even if it costs cash considerations or any of the team’s four second-round draft picks to move up and get him; subsequently, sign Blair to a four-year, rookie scale contract.

3. Select a defensive-minded point guard (e.g., Darren Collison) with the #32 pick and a tall, sharp-shooting combo guard (e.g., Nick Calathes) with the #38 pick, so long as those picks aren’t moved earlier in an attempt to snag Blair; subsequently, sign Collison and Calathes to two-year, minimum-level contracts (i.e., 2009-2010: $457,588 & 2010-2011: $762,195).

4. Don’t tender Channing Frye a one-year, $4,264,760 qualifying offer.

5. Wish Shavlik Randolph well in unrestricted free agency.

6. Usher Michael Ruffin into retirement.

7. After the July moratorium, re-sign Raef LaFrentz to a three-year, $16.65 million contract (i.e., $5.55 annually) — with only the first season including a guaranteed salary — and trade him in conjuction with LaMarcus Aldridge and Rudy Fernandez to the Toronto Raptors for Chris Bosh.

8. Trade Martell Webster, Jerryd Bayless, and Sergio Rodriguez to the Minnesota T’wolves for Mike Miller.

9. Sign Steve Blake — so long as he’s waived by the Chicago Bulls after the Hinrich trade — to a two-year, $4,139,200 contract (i.e., 2009-2010: $1,990,000 & 2010-2011: $2,149,200) with the bi-annual exception.

10. Sign Quinton Ross to a one-year, $1,033,342 contract — which is thie minimum for players with six years of NBA experience — to be a defensive-minded backup for Brandon Roy at shooting guard.

11. Sign Robert Swift and Ime Udoka to one-year, $959,111 contracts — which is the minimum for players with five years of NBA experience — to fill out the bench.

12. Invite Joel Freeland over to the United States and sign him to a four-year, rookie scale contract.

Here’d be that theoretical roster.

C: Greg Oden
C: Joel Przybilla
C: Robert Swift
PF: Chris Bosh
PF: DeJuan Blair
PF: Joel Freeland
SF: Nicolas Batum
SF: Mike Miller
SF: Ime Udoka
SG: Brandon Roy
SG: Quinton Ross
SG: Nick Calathes
PG: Kirk Hinrich
PG: Steve Blake
PG: Darren Collison

That team could win the 2010 NBA Finals.

by AK1984 on Apr 30, 2009 11:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

WOW! Get a grip man! Thank God KP is in control!

Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
LMA Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I <3 LMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMA - Putting the POWER in POWER FORWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The concussion must have jarred him into "Destroy All Opposition Terminator Mode!" - BlazersOrBust

by LaMarvelous on May 1, 2009 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude, if KP could somehow pull of that roster, he would be a genious of epic porportions

by jksnake99 on May 1, 2009 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Currently, I'm not thankful the man who didn't acquire Kirk Hinrich this mid-season is at the helm.

by AK1984 on May 1, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hinrich yes

but what is your obsession with Mike Miller? I don’t and never will get that one. Hinrich is still 3rd tier for pickups in my book. But Miller isn’t even in the addendum about sub-par players I want as back ups. Rudy is twice the player that Miller is!

The Bhagavad Gita

by Idog1976 on May 1, 2009 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I can understand being excited about Andre Miller, but Mike? ugh.

by nikolokolus on May 1, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bold....

And a lot of wishful thinking. I totally agree with you about getting Hinrich though if we can. He would be a great addition to this club. Though I think Andre Miller would be good as well. I would still like to see what Webster can bring to table in the 3 spot, with Batum as a back-up. I also wouldn’t mind getting Udoka back (I was never a fan of losing him in the first place).

Great response by the way.

by OmoriumVerum on May 1, 2009 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My own fear with Martell Webster is his lack of handles, passing ability, and lateral quickness ...

defensively. At Webster’s potential peak, he compares kind of favorably to a prime Michael Finely. Yet, whether or not Webster can ever reach that point in his career is up for debate, which makes me wary of him.

Webster’s percentages from the field have been somewhat weak for a spot-up shooter, too, while his rookie campaign a few years ago doesn’t fare all too well nowadays compared to Nicolas Batum this season.

Lastly, I’m a bit concerned with Webster being out all this season with an injury. That can’t be a good thing.

by AK1984 on May 1, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can see your concern with his durability...

…what I like about Webster though is his drive and intelligence. If he can stay healthy and focused I think this next year will really have some people talking.

by OmoriumVerum on May 1, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Martell is a smart player. He is also a better rebounder and passer than any of our SF’s. If he is healthy he makes us better next year.

by Odenrising on May 1, 2009 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Congratulations, AK1984. This is a brilliant effort and not off-the-wall at all.

You obviously put a lot of thought into it, which puts it light years ahead of 99% of most trade suggestions I see on BE.
You took the time and effort to come up with a complete plan instead of a one-off trade.
Your plan has a vision for what you want the team to be in terms of fitting players together on the first, second, and third units.
The plan is realistic. All the players you listed are said to be available and, while I’d need to check the math, the team you built possibly might not cost Paul Allen any luxury tax money once the contract dust settled.
You traded with the understanding that the Blazers need to consolidate multiple decent, young players into fewer but better players and gives players like Rudy and Sergio a chance to blossom elsewhere.
The players you would bring-in all seem to be good character guys who fit the culture, as far as I can tell.

I might quibble that I would prefer a C/PF instead of Swift, or question how well Mike Miller would accept starting behind Nic, or point-out that Kirk Hinrich isn’t any quicker than Steve Blake when it comes to covering the Tony Parkers and Chris Pauls of the league, but it’s not possible to get everything you want and this is about as close to that as anyone could get.

Well done.

by MiledAnimal on May 2, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahahhahhaha

Sorry for laughing but:

1. You want to trade almost everyone on an up and coming team that just won 54 games.
2. I think you accidentally typed “Robert Swift”.

by BlazerBen on Apr 30, 2009 11:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Okay, let's see your take on the Portland Trail Blazers third-string center this season.

Huh, what’s that? Oh, that’s right, the Trail Blazers didn’t have one for some asinine reason.

Regarding pivotmen, a well-balanced roster has three of them — since true centers are oftentimes injury prone and likely to get into foul trouble during games — yet, unfortunately for the poor Trail Blazers, Kevin Pritchard left Nate McMillan with a plethora of bottom-feeding power forwards (i.e., Channing Frye, Shavlik Randolph, & Ike Digou/Michael Ruffin) to choose from when he needed a emergency center.

So, while you go ahead and knock Robert Swift, there’s absolutely no denying that he’s a servicable back-to-the-basket pivotman who can perform adequately when called upon for spot minutes. All things being equal, I’d prefer to sign Radoslav Nesterovic to a two-year contract worth the bi-annual exception; though, he’s likely to sign with a team that’ll guarantee him backup minutes at center (e.g., the Toronto Raptors).

Now, on the topic of 54 wins, I’m surprised that someone would be satisfied with an above average effort in the long run. Without question, the Trail Blazers need to improve — with only its franchise cornerstones of Brandon Roy and Greg Oden being assured of their spots on the team — if the ultimate goal is to win a NBA championship trophy. I, of course, 100% assume your one and only desire is to bring a title home to the Rose City, which ought to be the whole objective here.

by AK1984 on May 1, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree...

about Swift being a serviceable 3rd string center. Not having on really hurt us in the Houston series. Of course, Nate could’ve put Frye out there for more than 2 minutes to see how things would have worked out. One of Nate’s shortcomings is his lack of patience with certain players and his overt favoritism with others. Ultimately, I can see it leading to some dissension among the troops if he’s not careful.

by OmoriumVerum on May 1, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, the Swift thing was a joke.

But I dont agree with blowing up the team and realistically, thats the last thing KP is going to do this summer. Everything the Blazers need to improve (save Hinrich) is already on the roster. This is because we have the youngest team in the league and they will only get better with time. Do you think LA, Roy, Batum, GO, and Rudy have reached their ceilings? Really? Its time to blow up the team because a bunch of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year players didnt go farther in the playoffs?

by BlazerBen on May 1, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think either of those five guys have reached their ceilings, although both Brandon Roy ...

and LaMarcus Aldridge are close to it. Other than rare exceptions — and it occurs most oftentimes with point guards — players don’t progress too much after their third year in the NBA. Roy, without a doubt, is a superstar at this point, although I have some serious questions regarding LaMarcus Aldridge.

As it concerns Greg Oden, I’m one of his biggest supports on here. You can check my comment archieve if you want verifcation on that issue.

I, too, like Nicoals Batum and Rudy Fernandez, but I’m willing to part with the Spaniard under the right circumstances — as he’ll always be blocked in Portland by Brandon Roy, since his defensive limitations in man-to-man situations make it unrealistic to pair them in the backcourt together — however, that’d only be in the case wherein the Trail Blazers can acquire a true second fiddle like, oh, Chris Bosh.

Anyway, I’m sorry for responding in a flippant to your first reply. I, however, can be a jerk at times.

by AK1984 on May 1, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lamarcus concerns?

Really only needs to make subtle improvements at this point. With Oden in the post consistently next year LMA will be even more deadly

by Odenrising on May 1, 2009 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its all good man.

Im just saying this is the first year most of these guys are playing together and they’re clearly still growing, both individually and as a unit.

But what do you do if your proposed team gets just as far? Blow it up and start again? Patience is a virtue.

I enjoy your opinions. I just hope you wont get disappointed when most of that stuff doesnt happen.

by BlazerBen on May 1, 2009 1:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The one fear with trading for Chris Bosh is if he leaves as an unrestricted free-agent ...

during the summer of 2010, so the only way Portland could realistic trade for him is if he’d willing sign a contract extension immediately after joining the team.

Thus, with regards to pragmatic thinking, the likelihood of Bosh coming to Portland during this summer is next to nil. All the other ideas — except for maybe Darren Collison and Nick Calathes falling to the second round — are practical ideas.

In any event, though, I’m curious as to what moves Kevin Pritchard makes this off-season. Undoubtedly, he’ll have his hands full.

by AK1984 on May 1, 2009 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Getting Bosh

And losing LMA doesn’t fix the problems…does it?

by Odenrising on May 1, 2009 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Impossible to tell.

Thats why they play the games.

by BlazerBen on May 1, 2009 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and with regards to being "disappointed," I don't expect any of my ideas to happen.

I have a pretty tight grasp over what’s reality and fantasy, although I still enjoy diving into the world of my own imagination.

by AK1984 on May 1, 2009 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Regarding pivotmen, a well-balanced roster has three of them "

Can you name one “well-balanced” roster in the NBA that has 3 serviceable centers?

by usmcr3049 on May 1, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

im not in favour of drafting rookies

i think our deficiencies will be solved with veterans who can fill a role and provide some consistency.

by Yawnie on May 1, 2009 12:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

do you draft veterans instead?

(couldn’t resist . . . . )

put a body on 'em

by RayBourque on May 1, 2009 2:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol I thought the same thing

by usmcr3049 on May 1, 2009 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easy baskets and one or two rugged defenders/rebounders at the forward spots are a must

I don’t know why the youngest team in the league gets so few fast break points. It’s ridiculous. Also the team (cue broken record) takes way too many jumpers. An offense dependent on jump shots will never be consistent. Fact. The Blazers can’t get an easy basket when they need one, except Roy of course. And when Roy is prevented from getting those easy buckets like Houston did, it’s game over. So a must is someone who can get us easy fast-break points and/or penetration. Sorry Steve.

Also you see how badly we were abused at the foward spots with our softy guys. Gonna need some muscle at those spots. Can’t win with girls at the forward spots in this league.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on May 1, 2009 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

P.S. That's not to say the rugged guy(s) need to play big minutes

We can still use our soft yet skilled forwards like M’Lady, Batum and Outlaw sometimes but you gotta have someone you can put in at those spots when the going gets rough out there. Charmin Frye is not the answer behind those guys. Joel is a nice enforcer at the center spot, but we need at least one more guy like that willing to shove guys around. Right now we do not have it.

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on May 1, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

draft dejuan blair.

It's time for one last offseason, one last time to prune the roster. It was a great ride to 54 wins, and our playoff loss exposed the deficiencies we must address. In KP I trust.

draft dejuan blair

by Cablinasian on May 1, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What did we learn about our players?

Mostly Positive Impact in the Playoffs:

Roy: Is our superstar. I think most of us knew this already. But having the performance he did in the playoffs against Artest and Battier solidified what a stud Roy is.

LMA: Love LaMarcus. He had some good games, but did not show up in a couple of games and that cost us dearly. LMA needs to work on low post game and taking other power forwards off the dribble.

Joel: Best defense I may have ever seen played was in game 5 against Yao. Joel brought it this series. Even though you may have not seen it in the stats book, Joel was a anchor for our defense and kept the ball away from Yao for most of the game.

Mixed Impact in the Playoffs:

Rudy: Had some great games and we all wanted him to get more minutes…and be inserted in the starting lineup. However, he got his chance, and when we needed him most, he laid an egg. Rudy had a fantastic rookie season and will continue to get better. I’d like him to put a little muscle on and work on his defensive footwork and offensive moves to get himself his own shot. We need another scorer who can create his own shot, and if Rudy can prove that he can do this, we will be in good shape.

Oden: Showed flashes of blossoming greatness. Foul trouble kept him from really having as big of impact as he could have. Will need LOTS of work this summer on footwork and conditioning.

Blake: Until last night, had a great assist/turnover ratio. Made some boneheaded plays down the stretch of road games. However, made the play of the game in game 5 when he went around Yao and layed it in. Blake is what he is. If we want more production from the PG position, he is not going to magically become a different player…we will have to go out and get that player or hope that Bayless develops into what we want.

The rest of the players had very little impact or a net negative impact in the playoffs.

by JasonT on May 1, 2009 7:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

firing Nate is crazy talk

Who would you hire that is better?

However, I have been thinking for a while that bringing in Antonio McDyess would be a shrewd move. He’s still pretty good, he’s tough, and he wants to win a title very, very badly. He’d be a great backup PF, and could give us better minutes at center than Frye (sorry Frye).

by matthewcc on May 1, 2009 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Playoffs aside

The team consistently had the second rated offensive efficiency in the league, it just didn’t look like it because we played at the league’s slowest pace.

Offense wasn’t the problem. (except against Houston where we didn’t have a point guard who could break down a defense).

by nikolokolus on May 1, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oops.

this was supposed to be in response to OmoriumVerum below this post.

by nikolokolus on May 1, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again...

I never said “fire Nate”. I said that we need to bring in a coach who focuses on offense. I actually would entertain bringing Marc Ivaroni in to see how he would do with the offense. Let Nate deal with the overall running of the team, but let someone else create the offensive game plan.

by OmoriumVerum on May 1, 2009 11:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not in a hurry to get rid of anyone

but the only real keepers are Roy, Aldridge, and Oden. Anyone else could be gone before the next season starts.

I like them all and I hope they succeed wherever they are.

I don’t think we saw the real Channing Frye this season and I wouldn’t be so quick to just give up on him. I would encourage him to find a deal from another team and if that deal is not too high, I think we should match it.

I think we need to upgrade at both point guard and small forward. We need better defense and the ability to get a shot off at both positions. It is not outside the realm of possibility for the existing players at these positions to improve dramatically during this off season.

Whatever happens, this was a great season. It was fun to watch them develop together. Next year, we may have a vastly different group on our hands. It will be fun to see what KP does. – Elgin

Brandon Roy: Strengths-remarkably efficient player who appears to effortlessly score and facilitate. Weakness-he’s just a figment of your imagination. - Canis Hoopus

by 22baylor on May 1, 2009 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs