Nate McMillan Talks Point Guards
It's really starting to feel like crunch time as we get closer to the draft. Some of the light-heartedness at the Practice Facility is evaporating and smiles are increasingly turning into focused stares. We're not at the finish line yet -- there are still two sets of workouts scheduled for early next week -- but the end is in sight.
We started this offseason with the notion that room for improvement could be found at both the point guard and power forward positions. Nothing that's occurred since the team was eliminated by Houston has swayed my opinion on that subject, although repeated statements by Kevin Pritchard seem to see a frontcourt upgrade as more urgent than a backcourt upgrade.
With this draft being so deep with point guard talent and relatively shallow with true power forward talent, it's been a little curious to hear the excitement the team has shown over some of the power prospects and the relatively tight-lipped approach they've taken towards guards. And not just ones... the twos/tweeners as well.
One person who hasn't weighed in extensively on the current point guard situation and potential point guards in this draft is Nate McMillan. So I tried to pick his brain a little bit today. Here's what he had to say.
Do you see a developing trend towards platooning at the point guard position among the successful teams? The Lakers keep 3 point guards, the Magic had 3 true point guards on their roster, both teams enjoyed success over teams like Denver and Cleveland that maybe didn't have the same depth at 1.
Our point guards have been good, we've improved each year, Blake and Sergio did a really good job. Bayless I think is going to get his opportunity. We can slip Brandon at that guard position some, so our guards have done some good work for us. We don't win 54 games if they're not playing well.
Blake goes out, Sergio and Bayless stepped up. They've done some good things, they're young, but they've done some good things for us. We take advantage of our guys and their skills. Sometimes you slide Brandon there and put a shooter, with Martell coming back next year, there's a number of things we can do with Rudy, seeing him play for a year. There's a number of things we can do with our players.
There's a lot of flexibility there in the backcourt. Do you see other teams trending towards that strategy as well whereas maybe in the recent past there was more rigid, differentiated roles in the backcourt?
Teams do it. Down the stretch, if you look at the championship teams, who handled the ball? Kobe for the Lakers and Hedo for Orlando. What those coaches were doing is taking advantage of what their players can do in a situation like that.
We are capable of doing that, giving the ball to Brandon and letting Steve spot up. Letting Bayless or Rudy spot up. We can do the same thing and we did. You just take advantage of the strengths of your team.
This draft has been called a deep draft for point guards. How many impact point guards do you see coming out of this draft?
I think it depends on their situation. Where they go. How they will be used. It's hard to say. It's hard to say.
How many guys who will come into this league and have an impact? It's hard to say because they're rookies.
That's tough.
Were you surprised by how much of an impact a guy like Derrick Rose had last year?
Not surprised. I think you expected him to do some good things and he did. I think as he got comfortable with the league and got a better feel for what he can do in this league, he started to play better.
He got confidence and towards the end he was playing really good basketball.
From what I had heard people say about him and what I saw of him before he was drafted, I can't say I was really surprised. We thought he was going to be a good player and he lived up to that.
Is there a point guard in this year's draft that you can see doing what Rose did last year? Or is Rose a cut above the guys in this class in terms of immediate impact?
In drafts in the past, you've seen guys in the second round bust out and do something really good for a club. A lot of things have to happen right. They've got to get the opportunity first to play for somebody. And then you get your confidence and good things can happen.
Did you see Brandon Jennings' comments about Ricky Rubio being "all hype"?
I heard about it. Well that's just two players... he's just trying to get some leverage for the draft.
Our guys have seen you play. They've gotten intel on who you are and what you're about. Guys making comments or not.... we have a pretty good read on guys we're drafting. For us, hearing guys talk we pretty much know who you are.
Did it at least make you smile a little bit?
No. I really don't.
You hear it, you read it, it's no big deal.
Three things jumped out at me from this brief exchange.
First, I sensed a little defensiveness in his first answer, as if he thought I was implying that the Blazers' current roster lacked depth at the 1. The first question was meant to have a general, league-wide focus and you see immediately that Nate backed his 3 point guards and didn't really engage the question asked. This was a bit unusual for Nate. From my (limited) experience talking to him, he generally takes league questions at face value and offers pretty straightforward -- although often couched -- answers. So perhaps my reputation preceeded me here or maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. In any case, it wasn't the answer I was expecting.
Second, it was very interesting to hear Nate, without prompt, mention two names -- Martell and Rudy -- in his discussion of next year's guard rotation. Martell, like most of us have concluded, is locked into the Blazers roster. Most have assumed Rudy is staying put too. But this seemed like a clear indication that Nate sees Rudy taking on an enhanced role next year. Not earth-shattering but maybe a tip that we shouldn't expect any blockbusters on draft night. Oh, by the way, Bayless got some interesting name-checks there too, didn't he?
Lastly, it's always a reality check seeing how NBA decision-makers react differently to "big stories" like Jennings' comments in comparison to fan and media reaction. I've probably watched that Jennings video 15 times and I laugh every time. But the mention of those comments didn't even cause Nate to blink. And Nate has a good sense of humor too. I guess maybe some things just aren't funny if you are an NBA coach. Or maybe you just chuckle behind closed doors when there's not a microphone in your face.
-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)
1 recs |
26 comments
|
Comments
blake staying…. fml
s
The Princess of Blazersedge
by BlazerFan1 on Jun 19, 2009 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you unhappy re Blake?
(Just checking my reading comprehension)
"Just kidding"
by CatMan2 on Jun 19, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
#10 Pryzbilla the Vanilla Gorilla
by Hookah_John on Jun 19, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben, you probably intimidate Nate a little bit.
2-4 the who
by 24thewho on Jun 19, 2009 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It sounds a lot like more of the "we like our guys, we like their potential, they are young" record
I also get the feeling they don’t see the same problem as we (incl. Dave) often seem to identify regarding not enough minutes for Rudy, Martell, Nic and Travis, so a consolidating move needs to happen at some time. Rather that this is a “good problem” to have for the foreseeable future.
If no significant move comes, I hope that all turns out right and we have the necessary pieces. If we don’t there comes a time when we seriously hit the talent wall compared to other contending teams and then there is no more room to maneuver without making very hard cuts.
by Norsktroll on Jun 19, 2009 1:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Nate may be resisting all the upgrade talk
KP by his nature is always changing and upgrading, but Nate pretty much wants to go to war with his guys, not new guys every year.
by Sonic Boom on Jun 19, 2009 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nate only mentioned Sergio in the past tense
Blake goes out, Sergio and Bayless stepped up.
We are capable of doing that, giving the ball to Brandon and letting Steve spot up. Letting Bayless or Rudy spot up
Nate also mentioned sliding Roy to PG twice. Hmmm
by two4larue on Jun 19, 2009 2:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
More evidence that we won’t be making a move, methinks.
proud hinrichsheeple
by Cablinasian on Jun 19, 2009 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I didn't think Jennings' comments were funny either.
I cringe when I see someone stepping into his own mouth. Reminds me too much of myself… That aside, he didn’t say anything that I thought was funny or original, just smacked Rubio unnecessarily. I hope they meet on the court next season.
Ben, what’s it like to ask Nate for an interview when you’ve very publically ripped his starting point guard to shreds? Huevos grandes, hombre!
by MiledAnimal on Jun 19, 2009 2:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nate has always been very nice to me and is extremely accessible in general. i don’t think he really cares about what i write nor should he.
by Ben. on Jun 19, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate's an adult
Why would he find the “jennings thing” funny? All it was was a dumb kid making a fool of himself in public. Hilarious….. It’s the kind of thing high school kids get jacked up on I guess.
by R11 on Jun 19, 2009 2:35 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Mountain out of a molehill
Orlando had a lot of point guards because one got hurt. I can’t think of many other teams with a plethora of point guards.
How can anyone expect a blockbuster night of the draft when in the team’s past 38 drafts, there has only been one blockbuster draft night?
Jennings’ comments were entertaining for the drama and also immature. Nate is a professional and would never say Jennings’ comments were funny because they were disparaging to another player.
by tominhawaii on Jun 19, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Big Story?
The Brandon Jennings was a big story, really Ben???
Perhaps its a funny little blip but come on, don’t make it out to be more than that.
Fifteen times??? Really? It wasn’t that funny.
by Balian on Jun 19, 2009 3:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it was front page of espn, discussed on pti, ath, etc… twitter exploded.
maybe it’s funnier to me because i’ve been through hours of not-funny-at-all pre-draft interviews in the past month.
or maybe i just really like young money.
by Ben. on Jun 19, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get really tire of the same old PC stuff
I can understand how something out of the ordinary is at least a bit interesting.
"Just kidding"
by CatMan2 on Jun 19, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not the same
“Exploding” on twitter, discussing on pti etc does make it a big story. Its an interesting blip, but not a big story.
by Balian on Jun 19, 2009 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was the biggest single story of this pre-draft run up.
by Ben. on Jun 19, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the next big story of the pre-draft?
That Rubio’s buyout has been sold to the Spanish IRS? That Hansbrough actually is about as tall as Griffin? That two of the worst GMs in the league control the top two picks? That many prospects returned to school? That player agents control much of the process now and have made it harder for teams to actually see the players they want to see play ball?
It’s nothing earth-shaking, but it did provide some nice entertainment that made waves outside of Sacramento where it happened?
by Norsktroll on Jun 19, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exposure is not the same as importance or relevance.
In a 24 hr news cycle environment, media has to constantly come up with material. The more confrontational or sensationalist, the better. Creating sensationalism over what is pretty much a minor story is a widely accepted pratice under today’s journalistic standards.
The proper responce to Jennings comments? “Sure, Brandon. Whatever you say.” Followed up by an off the record “I suggest you grow up young man. It doesn’t say much for your character when you bad mouth another person, particularly for your own benefit.”
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Jun 22, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate on point guards
Nate played with a good point guard, what was his name? Oh yeah, Gary Payton! I wouldn’t bother reading into what Nate is saying. He’s probably waiting like us. He knows what the plan is, but he doesn’t know the outcome. Why would talk down the guards he might have to rely on?
by 7677maniac on Jun 19, 2009 5:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Trade for Veteran PG
Prichard likes his young talent a lot, which is fine, but it’s pissing Nate off that he doesn’t seem to want a veteran player. Pritch is a great GM, but his definition of a veteran is someone who’s been in the league for only 3 years. THAT’S RIDICULOUS PRITCHARD! Watching Blake make poor decisions in the playoffs and Sergio disappear, it should be apparent that the Blazers need a guy who can teach and calmly lead verbally—someone like a Sam Cassell who has 3 championship rings. A guy like that wouldn’t want too many minutes during the regular season, so you could get him for Sergio and a couple second round draft picks (although idk, he might be a free agent/retired). Then draft Jeff Pendergraph who is being ridiculously underrated in this draft (think Jason Thompson from the Kings who would be a decent backup PF on any team) and sign Drew Gooden for veteran PF leadership—he’s a free agent no one is talking about.
by dr.seidman on Jun 19, 2009 5:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
say what?
did you just use drew gooden and leadership in the same sentence?
by JohnCanzano on Jun 19, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blake has how many years in the league? FWIW, Blake is the perfect "veteran" type...
a player in his prime with some years (going on 7, now). The Cassell types don’t do anything for me.
The Blazers are a young team, especially if you focus on their rotation. However, this team primarily lacked experience making a run at the playoffs and actually playing in the playoffs. They have a little bit of that now, and will have more next year. Next year isn’t the “championship” year (although I’d be surprised at nothing, now). Next year isn’t the championship year primarily because baking the cake is better than changing the flavor after the recipe is already mixed. Pulling a Boston is not what most of us want to see. I sure don’t, anyhow.
The Blazers have no compelling weaknesses. They were a bit weak at PG. Bayless will be better, Blake will be average, and Sergio doesn’t want to be here. So, I’d expect some movement to improve this position, even if Blake remains the starter. The Blazers were also a bit weak at center, but I’d expect that position to improve with a natural development curve for Oden. Webster brings added depth; Outlaw is better than adequate as a 6th man, Batum will improve, Rudy will expand his game, etc. etc. etc.
Change for change’s sake is hardly a compelling reason to make a change.
by blacknoiseNW on Jun 20, 2009 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Late post, Thanks Ben.......................
I’m still a firm believer that Nate is not going to give a rookie pg playing time, with everyone healthy.
Chacho is only referred to in the past tense :)
I can’t stomach another season of his defense, shooting, or complaining about playing time. Don’t get me wrong….. I loved what he and Rudy did, and I’m sure he is nice person. But keeping him for that small number of plays makes no sense. Rudy is a big boy, he will make new friends.
Any pg worth his weight will be throwing those same lobs to Rudy in no time. And will hopefully be able to stop small, quick pgs from getting to the rim.
Go Blazers !!!!!
by FrenchieFan on Jun 22, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




















