Nate McMillan: "Steve Blake is our Starting Point Guard"
by Ben Golliver on Jul 27, 2009 2:38 PM PDT
in News
Email
PrintToday on Wheels at Work, Nate McMillan tried to kill me.
Vote in the poll and discuss in the comments.
-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)
281 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Whoever starts, Blake will play plenty.
Those thinking Blake will now play the amount Sergio did will find they don’t understand the team concept of the Blazers very well. Blake has proven he can be counted on, at least to the coach if not the fickle fan base, and he will be on the court with either unit. No one has mentioned it yet, but you may see Blake and Miller on the court at the same time, because of their complimentary skill sets. Blake will be one of the guards in the rotation of Roy, Rudy, Miller and Blake. Expect all combinations of those four players. Defensively you wouldn’t play Blake and Miller together a lot, but offensively those two would play well off each other in a small line-up, considering both guys have high b-ball IQs. When and if Oden and Aldridge become more of a force in the paint drawing more double teams, you may see the Blazers playing three guards more often, and Nate knows he can count on Blake to make shots, and not make mistakes. I think Nate is happy to have another player he can count on in addition to Blake with Miller. The biggest thing Miller brings to the team is the ability to give Roy a rest, because of his ability to get to the hoop.
An out of the box way of looking at this could be that Miller is really more of a back-up to Roy than a replacement for Blake. Miller is a guy capable of putting up 20pts on a regular basis. I’m not saying he will sub in at SG for Roy, I’m saying he replaces Roy’s scoring ability more consistantly than Rudy. So if you look at Miller as the scorer for the second unit, where Roy is the scorer for the first, you start to see what Nate might be thinking, and what he might tell Andre about his role. “Andre, your role is to back-up our all-star, not our PG”. Essentially Rudy would be the back-up for Blake, not as far as position, but for role, as deep threat. Looking at it that way it seems a little more plausible, and egos aren’t hurt if Andre is a coveted “sixth-man”, and Rudy knows he needs to be the deep threat with AM, while Blake is the better ball handler than Rudy to work with Roy. I think Nate may be looking at it that way. AM is a perfect “sixth man” because he can create his own shot, but because it is only short range, he should play with a long range shooter, enter SG Rudy. Blake/Roy is similar, except Roy is also a threat from deep, hence “all-star” status, worthy of having a guy like AM backing him.
Miller may start, but looking at it as not so much a competition with Blake, but a job to take pressure off Roy makes the situation look entirely different. Either way Miller and Blake will form one of the top 3 PG rotations in the NBA, and be part of one of the best four guard rotations in the NBA.
by wingzeta on Jul 27, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also, Miller's ability to run
complements our bench better.
I said the same thing in earlier post
When I suggested almost the same thing, I was told that Miller should play with Greg. My answer to that could be “Leave Greg in the Second unit”.
With BRoy and LMA on the first unit, Joel would not need to score; plus Joel is used to playing with the first unit. You could always stagger the line-ups to give Miller and Greg time with the first unit. Of course, Nate position is to make the players compete for playing time so the units may change anyway. But, I agree completely with BRoy being the scorer on the first unit and Miller on the second unit. The problem is if the second unit consist of Miller, Rudy, Martell? Travis? and Greg, In time that unit might surpass the first even with BRoy and Aldridge.
hg.
nothing wrong with Nate not wanting to rub it in Blake's face...
but we all know Andre will be starting (or at least should be).
Here’s hoping that Nate isn’t so stubborn as to stand by his comment if and when Miller shows his worthiness.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 27, 2009 2:44 PM PDT reply actions
Nate has changed his mind on starters sort of crazily before.
Remember the Batum/Outlaw debacle?
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
Ugh.
At least we know Andre won’t keel over when being named the starter on game day.
Pubert Jones > Hedo
by rockingharder on Jul 27, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Nate kind of has a pattern on sticking with the last guy
and then changing his mind after two or three games. I think thats about how long Jack continued to start after Blake came back. The same will happen with Andre. He will be starting by game 5 unless we start out 5-0.
i dont think nate is trying to be stubborn here
He did say “right now.” Blake may not be a better individual player than Miller right now, but you can’t deny that he is a good fit at the moment. Once Miller becomes acclimated to the team, I’d trust that Nate will make the right choice as he can’t complain about our backup pg’s inexperience as both of them are experienced now.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Rec
Right now he’s thinking “which point guard fits better with Roy.” At some point he’ll say, “which point guard fits better with the starters.”
thanks
lol i feel proud to have a rec from the well respected TiH. Its on par with receiving the purple heart in my opinion.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Who's this well respected TiH you speak of?
Surely not the often vilified (deservedly so) tominhawaii….
=)
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
total rec
this is exactly what I was thinking.
by In Walks Rudy on Jul 27, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not that Nate is trying to be stubborn
It’s that he read my fanpost, and he always does what I say.
If I give him permission to start Andre, then he can look at that.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
When you give him permission to run an Excel spreadsheet
and finds out that there’s not enough minutes for both of them, then he can look at starting Miller. I did it, and it’s actually really tight, if you want to give Rudy 30+ minutes per game.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
Yeah
I think he knows about the minutes crunch. Probably bothers him less than it does us, though.
If Rudy gets 25 productive minutes where he’s playing his style and we are winning big, I think he’ll be pretty happy. Everyone likes winning, and no one minds too much if their minutes are lower because the scrubs are playing in blowouts.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
i did a poll on this
http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/7/24/961798/starting-pg-poll
267 votes said Miller would start
66 said Blake will start
Here what I said:
I think Blake should start, until Miller proves otherwise. It all comes down to who fits what unit better. If Miller is a better fit with the 2nd unit, then he should come off the bench, but if he is better with the first unit he should start. Right now, Blake is our starter, but all could change after training camp.
PS-Ive since come to my senses—Miller will be the starter. I voted for: Nate is just saying that as a professional courtesy to Blake.
The Dude: Hey, careful, man, there's a beverage here!
by cavejunctionblazer on Jul 27, 2009 2:44 PM PDT reply actions
Literally, he still is the starting PG. It's his position to lose.
Will he still have the job the 1st game into the season? I doubt it.
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
by Net Ranger on Jul 27, 2009 2:44 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
yeah, that's my interpretation as well.
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 27, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Why is this green and the original comment is not?
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions
recced
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I 16th'd it just so you'd look silly .... ;)
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 Jul 27, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
lol, we'll now its up to 18 so there!
will I get banned if I start Rec'n every comment?
by In Walks Rudy on Jul 27, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions
actually, if you listen to the radio broadcast
it’s pretty clear that McMillan has seriously considered starting Blake. It doesn’t mean Blake is guaranteed to start, but Nate did not say the starting spot is Blake’s to lose. He talked about how well the starters played and how well Miller fits with the second unit. McMillan also said that he spoke to Miller about coming off the bench.
Right
Nate isn’t stupid. He can see how brilliantly Andre fits with the bench unit.
Andre still plays more minutes than Steve. But it will be no surprise if Steve starts.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Kind of like Batum last year.
I think we’ll see Blake on the floor at the end of games though because of his ability to spread the floor.
I do differ with you on that
I expect Andre to close out close games, generally.
But we will see. It might depend on the opponents.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Yeah Blake may start but he doesn't have to
This year we truly have two good options to start/finish games at PG not just one option.
yup
exactly what I got out of it too.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 27, 2009 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The infatuation with players like Blake and Outlaw
absolutly kills me
Portland Trail Blazers 2009-2010 Western Conference Champs
by OSUBlazerfan on Jul 27, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
then, please:
Stay dead.
Both of these players helped the Blazers a lot last year. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 27, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 11 recs
lol
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 27, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Harsh
Portland Trail Blazers 2009-2010 Western Conference Champs
by OSUBlazerfan on Jul 27, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions
so were you though.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
Outlaw actually hampered the team quite a bit, Blake was very average
But it’s hard to explain that to Blake and Outlaw fans
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 27, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't consider 42.7% from 3 point range "average".
He fit his role very well.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
Hitting a few threes is great, but that's a tiny part of the larger picture
Also last season was an anomaly for Blake. There’s no way he ever shoots that % aagin.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 27, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay.
Blake was also 5th in the entire NBA in Assist-to-Turnover ratio.
C’mon, give the guy some credit.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Jul 27, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am, I think Blake would be an amazing back-up and I don't think he ever hurts your team...but compare him to the PG's for the other teams in the NBA and you find that he's very average
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 27, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, but what I'm saying is that we need two things out of a point man who is paired up with Roy.
A.) He needs to limit turnovers and distribute enough to be effective.
Evidence: 5th in NBA in assist to turnover ratio.
B.) He needs to be able to stretch the floor for a penetrator.
Evidence: 13th in the NBA in 3 point percentage. Of those 13 people, only THREE players had more 3 point makes.
Sure, in a different offense he may be just “average”, but he’s exactly what someone like Roy needs. I agree, consistancy and his ability to replicate last year’s performance again is an important issue.
But if an offense suited to his strengths, he’s more than average for this team. You have to look at him in context.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Jul 27, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
all I know is
Blake and Outlaw each took RIDICULOUS threes at the ends of two very crucial games towards the end of the Blazers’ season
trouts a slow learner
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
if that's all you know, then that's all you know
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Jul 27, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
If you're talking about the shot in Houston...
he was shooting really well that day and was wide open. Rudy wasn’t the only one keeping them in the game. Maybe it was at the edge of his range, but there was no guarantee they would have gotten a better shot on that possession. He also hit from the same spot on the next possession. I forget whether it was Battier or Artest in the game, but either one would have made it very difficult for Rudy to get a good look, especially since they knew the Blazers had to chuck a three.
I caught every game and I can count the number of ill-advised shots I saw Blake take on one hand. That’s another aspect of Blake’s game that he doesn’t get credit for.
average isn't bad
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
I'd take Blake over...
Either of the starting PGs for the teams that played in the Championship.
by superfly05 on Jul 27, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Blake over Alston or Nelson
Nelson was an allstar this year.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 27, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Nelson is probably the ideal PG to play next to Brandon Roy
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jul 27, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions
pretty sure Paul or Williams would be even more "ideal"
will I get banned if I start Rec'n every comment?
by In Walks Rudy on Jul 27, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, according to some Blazers fans Paul dribbles the ball too much
Can’t have that, now can we?
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jul 28, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
True
Maybe we should get Rose instead, that would be better, right?
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
In exchange for Roy, Oden, Rudy, and Andre Miller
Sure, why not.
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jul 28, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Salaries don't match
Too bad.
I’d love to take advantage of you, and you forgot LMA.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Is this a global trend?
Or an offseason BE dynamic where every PG is rated solely on his ability to shoot the 3?
Is that because you're assuming Roy is going to be handling the ball constantly like last season?
I don’t think he will be. Therefore I don’t see the need to have our PG spotting up for 3 constantly.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 27, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I'm not assuming that.
It’s because Roy needs less defenders in the lane to be effective. A good 3 point shooter keeps a defender occupied and thus less chance they’re in the lane.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
We have a real PG now
We don’t have to rely on Roy to do all the ball handling and penetrating. I have faith our offense can find a way to compensate for the portion of the 2 3’s/night Blake averaged last season that he’ll lose while not on the floor.
Okay?
Roy is at his best when he’s penetrating. Why load the back court two penetrators? That clogs the lane making penetrating less efficient.
The one thing I do see, though, is that Roy does have the ability to make the 3 which will help Miller be effective in the lane.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
Roy's best asset
is his all-around game and ability to do what it takes to make the team win. Reducing him to a “penetrator” is not only unfair to him, but a gross oversimplification.
Which is not to even begin to mention things like Dre’s ability to back down PG’s, making bigs commit, and finding an open LA or a shovel pass to Oden for an easy dunk. Roy is our best player. He’ll find a way to get his. Dre will make almost literally everyone else on the floor a better player and give them better looks. He has the fourth highest total for assists among active players and should break the top-20 all-time by the end of this season. I’m pretty sure he’ll be able to figure out a way to keep Roy happy.
by Daaaaave on Jul 27, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I didn't reduce him to a penetrator.
I said that’s when he’s at his best. his fg% on close range 2 pointers (ie layups/dunks/etc) is among the best in the NBA.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Jul 27, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Reminds me of Ruben Patterson's game.
by tominhawaii on Jul 27, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Except Ruben Patterson didn't run the pick and roll and couldn't pass.
As I remember, he mostly posted up, had no midrange game, and rarely took people off the dribble.
yeah, Roy's not just a pentrator but...
…he doesn’t move without the ball as well as Rudy for example and he rarely catches and shoots unless he’s behind the arc. He likes to hold the rock.
Roy isn't as good without the ball.
He singled that out as his biggest offensive weakness.
why is that?
i could get why that might be a strong argument given a few games, but over the course of a year and shooting many times from that distance Blakey stroked it.
you don’t just forget how to shoot from there…
But I like to be here. Oh, I like it a lot! Said the Cat in the Hat. To the fish in the pot.
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 27, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
true
Blake will make an excellent reserve though
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 27, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions
ouch
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
Hey Elgin
There are some sore people around here, when we backed up Blakey last week, they just deleted our comments. Maybe thats why the comments seem one-sided?
by trailblazeraddict on Jul 27, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
you're kidding!
Surely there was some other reason for deleting the comments, other than they were in favor of (or against) Blake or Outlaw.
It is so tiresome to continue to point out that Outlaw is 24 years old and is still improving, and Blake even at the age of 30 is still improving. But you’re not going to see it if you don’t want to see it. – Elgin.
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 27, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I take that comment as an insult.
Comments aren’t removed because someone disagrees with you. If everyone agreed, there’d be nothing to talk about. It’s primarily by engaging with people you disagree with that growth and learning can take place. Anyone that’s here with that authority knows that and lives by that.
Comments are removed when they are inappropriate. If yours were removed, it could have happened one of two ways. You stepped over the line, or, more likely, you responded to someone who stepped over the line. There’s just no way in the site’s software to keep those responses. When we delete the original thread, all the responses automatically go with it. So, if you respond to someone who is attacking others, using profanities or is just being a jerk, your comments don’t have anything to stick to when those comments are gone.
I apologize for sounding angry. But please don’t take circumstantial evidence and come to a damning conclusion. Especially when I agree with you. Blake’s a good guy to have on this team. He’s especially valuable now that we have signed Miller.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
And Miller will help even more.
Not trying to offend anyone, but this blind overvaluing of Steve Blake is what makes Portland fans look foolish to anyone outside of here. The loyalty is nice, but Blake and Miller are not on the same level or really even close. Anyone outside of Portland would laugh at the thought of Blake starting in front of Miller. Andre is just a much higher caliber of a point guard than Blake and always has been. It’s joke to think any different. Nothing against Blake, he’s a more than solid back up, but there is no other fan base, nba player, or coach that would would put Steve Blake above Andre Miller.
And as far as this whole “Miller would be a great fit for the second unit so he should come off the bench” idea, that just makes no sense. You start your best point guard. Plain and simple. And Miller is easily our best point guard now.
Coastie
Where have you been man. I’ve needed your rational thought around here. Well said.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 27, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions
but there is one coach who apparently values Blake
and it is the one who knows him best. Can you believe other fanbases? Such as the Philly blogger referenced in Timbo’ fanpost who cited “Jeff Blake”? Do you remember all the smack from the Knicks fans after they sole the Double-Double Machine Zach Randolph? Had they ever really watched him in Portland?
I see people here with an understanding of the team’s dynamics who value Blake, the starting PG on a 54 win team. They are raising valid points: the team, which doesn’t run, needs another way for efficient scoring, such as three-point shooting or players capitalizing on the space provided by three point shooters.
Best players aren’t always best fits, ahem, Zach, ahem
But it won’t surprise me if either one are the starter and I would imagine it is because they mesh better with the first unit, most of which is set.
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Jul 27, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Please support this statement
You start your best point guard. Plain and simple.
Why?
Manu doesn’t start for San Antonio. Is he not better than whoever Pops runs out in front of him?
For years John Havlicek came off the bench for Boston, and was certainly better than guys who started in front of him at times.
Those two teams were highly successful.
So why must you, plain and simple, start your best PG?
If you say, “Your best PG gets the most minutes of playing time,” I’m right with you. But why does he have to start? Is there some kind of magical team zapper that will zap your team if he doesn’t start? Will David Stern have a temper tantrum? Will the Columbia River run red with blood? Will Britney Spears start to wear modest clothes?
Most teams do start their best players at each position. There is no rule that says you have to, and some teams have found great success (as in multiple championships) doing otherwise.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
PG
Manu – SG
Havlichek – F/G
Odom – F
Outlaw – F
All of them were/are the best at their position but don’t start. None of them are PG. Please name a PG who fits this description. To my knowledge there aren’t any. That is what he based his statement on.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 28, 2009 7:28 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Nothing magic about the PG position
Especially when you have a facilitator/creator at SG.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Thanks for proving my point.
As stated above, every example named wasn’t a point guard which was exactly what I said. Why is the point guard position different you ask? Because of everything that position entails. The point dictates the flow, helps control the game, sees the court, sets his team up, calls the plays, and helps START the team game plan. Yes other positions, especially when you have Brandon Roy, help with some of this, but it still is primarily the point’s job. This is why every example you could come up with didn’t include a point guard.
Thanks for proving my point.
As stated above, every example named wasn’t a point guard which was exactly what I said. Why is the point guard position different you ask? Because of everything that position entails. The point dictates the flow, helps control the game, sees the court, sets his team up, calls the plays, and helps START the team game plan. Yes other positions, especially when you have Brandon Roy, help with some of this, but it still is primarily the point’s job. This is why every example you could come up with didn’t include a point guard.
by Coastie07 on Jul 28, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
good points
I know it’s tempting to put Miller in the 2nd unit (see jscot’s great post) but I still think you start the best players as much as you can especially on PG, especially when Miller is so much better in setting the team up and getting players involved than Blake, especially when we’ve had so many troubles starting the games last season.
Spears is fairly modest
You might want to go with fergi or lady gaga.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 28, 2009 7:30 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Except Manu Ginobili hasn't been a 6th man every season of his career
He has gone to the bench in the past few years because it’s the best way to protect his body (which, as we’ve seen the past few years is slowly breaking down).
The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.
by Ozzie Montana on Jul 28, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah Especially Blake...
How can people like a guy who gives 100% every night, Bleeds Blazer Red and has been heavily involved in the growth of this team from a 21-61 team to a 54 win team. And to make it worse he’s a great locker room guy who never complains and is relatively inexpensive for a starter… get it a rope…
Oooohhhh
I forgot that point when I put together my fanpost. You are right, Miller starts.
No, wait. Since Greg will be starting, Joel can be the second unit chair kicker, and Steve can do it on the first unit. I was right all along.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Naw....
Nate is setting it up to be a competition. I think we all have our ideas about who will win that competition, but there is absolutely NO reason for Nate to snub a guy who could still have a key role to play with this team. 18 minutes a game with a good 3 point shot……no need to trash him.
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Jul 27, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes
Nate loves him some Blake, and so does Brandon.
I suspect Miller starts when Brandon plays with him and finds their games meld together well. Not until then.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
It has always seemed
like Nate is very egalitarian. The person coming out of camp (like Batum, for example) who does the most to earn the spot will get the spot. It’s motivation for both players because it lets both of them know that nothing has been decided.
I think you mean "fair-minded" or "disinterested"
rather than “egalitarian.” The latter would mean that he plays everyone 20 minutes regardless of talent or fit because 240 (minutes) / 12 (players) = 20
Honor Alaa Abdelnaby.
First in the NBA. At least alphabetically
Blake was the starter on a 54-win team last year.
Miller has to prove he is better. If he is, he’ll start. Nothing wrong with that.
Now if Chris Paul were joining the team, Nate might look a bit foolish insisting that Blake is the starter.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 27, 2009 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
agree
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
Miller fits WAY better in the second unit
its not even close. that second unit is built to run and andre miller is the guy to lead the attack. miller has to have the ball in his hands to be effective. roy needs the ball in his hands too. rudy doesnt. first unit will be a half court orientated roy led team, while the second unit will be more of a fast breaking miller led team. its perfect. best of both worlds. teams will have to deal with the spurs (1st unit) and the suns (2nd unit) every game. awesome
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, Batum, Outlaw, Webster, Bayless, Blake, Miller, Joel... Holy crap!
by axel360 on Jul 27, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Miller fits way better on both units.
He’s better on the break and in a half court set.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
miller is the more versatile player
Hypothetically, if Miller is substantially better than Blake, but can fit into both units, whereas Blake can only play in the 1st unit…what then? Keep things as they are but take away Blake’s closing minutes? Or swap roles?
In the end, I’d be surprised with Blake getting more than 30 MPG this year.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a conundrum.
But you don’t solve it by benching the better player. It would make a billion times more sense to trade Blake for someone who does fit with the second unit. CJ Watson is available. He loves to run and shoots over 40% from distance. Do a sign and trade with the Warriors and call it a day.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
exactly
I often find myself agreeing with Mr. Excellent.
We’ll never win a championship with the Brandon Roy show. We saw that against Houston. And having two offenses doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Just because Brandon is an all-star, doesn’t mean he should be coddled. And he has demonstrated his ability to work hard and learn new skills. So why deny him the benefit of playing alongside the best point guard on the team?
Put another way, why complicate things, Nate?
Wow
nicely put.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 27, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
No
You don’t solve it by trading a guy whose game meshes so well with Brandon, and who is a team leader.
You solve it by making sure that Blake gets all of his minutes next to Brandon.
When Rudy is out there and Brandon is sitting, Miller is on court, too.
Give Andre his 28 minutes, and Steve his 20. That means that Steve gets 20 minutes with Brandon, and Andre gets 15 with Brandon and 13 when Brandon is sitting.
You always have a creator/distributor on the court, and teams have to prep for Brandon + Miller as well as Brandon with the court spread. And they have to prep for Miller leading the fast break with Rudy on one wing and Nic or Martell on the other.
You get maximum value out of Steve by having him always on the court when teams have to focus on Brandon’s threat, so you get maximum benefit out of Steve’s 3 point threat, and you don’t lose the synergy that Steve and Brandon have built up.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
If roy
Meshes best with unathletic players who struggle to create their own shot we may be in trouble.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 28, 2009 7:35 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Yes.
1.) Miller played 43 minutes a game in last seasons playoffs. So you want Blake to get all his 5 minutes per game next to Roy next post season? Sounds like that’s pretty doable without Blake starting. Miller doesn’t need the rest, especially on this team, so it makes sense having him out there as much as possible. You don’t bench a Gerald Wallace so you can find minutes for your Jason Kapono.
2.) Blake “meshes” with Roy almost by default, mostly because our other point guards happen to be worse. Considering all aspects of both their games , Miller is a much better player next to Roy, not to mention Aldridge and Oden. It’s not that Miller doesn’t fit with the first unit, it’s that Blake only fits with the first unit. That’s his problem.
You get maximum value out of Steve by having him always on the court when teams have to focus on Brandon’s threat, so you get maximum benefit out of Steve’s 3 point threat, and you don’t lose the synergy that Steve and Brandon have built up.
I don’t even know where to start with this. You my friend, IMHO, are the smartest guy on Blazersedge. I had to read it a couple times just to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying.
First of all Steve hasn’t build up “synergy” with Roy. He’s built up “not sucking as much as the next guy on the depth chart”.
Second, if Blake is so great why has the organization tried as hard as humanly possible to replace him since he got here? Blake is a perfect fit next to Roy so we’re going to draft like 50 point guards in a row? You get the maximum value out of Blake by trading him for someone we actually need. If he only fits next to Roy then he doesn’t fit. Not long term. Not today. Not tomorrow. And certainly not in the playoffs.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 28, 2009 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the nice words, but you are wrong
about me being the smartest guy around.
And some of the other things, too. :) Steve has converted from a ball-in-his-hands PG to an off-the-ball deep threat, and bumped up his 3 point shooting (volume and percentage) accordingly. He takes care of the ball, and has a superb assist to TO ratio.
KP and Nate are very high on Steve’s value. Andre was surprised at how high they are. Apparently you are, too. You are in good company, because Andre is a smart guy. But so am I, because KP and Nate are no slouches, either.
Steve is a decent PG. In fact, he’s superb for your second PG. He’s probably in the top 20-25 range of NBA PGs. You might debate that and knock him down to 30, but wherever the right place is, it is very good for a second guy.
You don’t just dump a guy like that lightly, especially when he is a team leader, knows the players, etc. Did you notice our team defense was gelling and improving at the end of last year? Of course you did. Blake was part of that.
You might say he’s not a great fit with our second unit, and I agree. But Andre isn’t a perfect fit with our first unit, either.
Andre isn’t going to play the entire game, and he personally will be more effective with our reserves, for reasons I’ve detailed elsewhere — their games will have a greater improvement with Andre than our starters.
I wrote this in another thread, in answer to a question:
Let me put it this way. Suppose that Miller + starters gives us 100% possible efficiency. Suppose that Blake plus starters gives us 95% possible efficiency, because Blake, while not himself as effective, is such a good fit with Roy that it doesn’t reduce total team efficiency very much.
Now, suppose that Blake plus bench gives us 50% possible efficiency, while Miller plus bench gives us 80% possible efficiency, because his skills are such a good fit with the rest of the bench.
I don’t think those numbers are necessarily too far off. In that case, I’m willing to suffer the 5% loss of efficiency of having Blake’s PT be with the starters in order to gain the 30% efficiency of having Miller with the bench.
I’ll still want Miller to have time with the starters, because 100% > 95%. And I’ll still want Miller to be with the starters at the end of close games (in most situations) for the same reason. At the end of the game, you aren’t worrying about who is going to be playing with the bench in 6-8 minutes, and having that be an efficient unit. You are focused on gaining the maximum efficiency right now.
No, I don’t see us trading Blake for another backup, especially because of the hope for Jerryd to progress. So you look to allocate minutes in ways that get the maximum efficiency. To me, that means Steve’s minutes come primarily next to Brandon.
And I really don’t want a 33 year old PG playing 43 mpg. He’s got a great track record of keeping healthy, but I hope we don’t push our luck on that. He’s a great asset to have acquired.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Couple things.
1.) I don’t actually think Blake was really part of the team improving. I think Brandon Roy improved and teams had to double him more, leaving Steven to feast on wide open three’s. The fact that he hit them is nice, but not really that surprising. It’s a little suspicious that Blake’s “career” season just happened to coincide with Roy’s emergence as a super duper star. His defense also seemed a little worse this year, which of course makes him a less than perfect fit playing next to Roy.
2.) Again, I’m not really arguing about the regular season. (even though Blake won’t start then either) Mostly I’m just interested in how minutes are distributed in the playoffs. We had an eight man rotation in the post season last year. There was no real second unit, which sort of makes the idea of Blake starting pointless.
Roy played 40 minutes a game. Sergio played 5.4.
The second unit as we knew it was dead.
3.) I don’t think we will trade Blake. I think he’ll probably just walk when his contract is up unless something terrible happens to Miller.
4.) We should talk about it again once the season starts. I’ll try my best not to gloat because that would be rude and childish.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 28, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I usually try
to go back and change my “couple things” headings when I end up with four points. :)
1. I think there was synergy, they work well together. (Doesn’t mean Andre won’t be even better).
2. I AM talking about regular season. First half of it, really. Things will metamorphose as Andre gets assimilated, and none of us know how we’ll look.
3. We might trade Steve, but only if Jerryd convinces Nate he is ready to take Steve’s minutes. I can also see several scenarios in which Steve is re-signed next year, maybe even as 3rd string injury cover.
4. My policy is to gloat all I want, but to do it mostly in private so people don’t know how rude and childish I really am. But I won’t be surprised if Andre starts, and I won’t even say it is a mistake if he does. I just see a lot of benefit in going the other way, too. IMO, it’s a fairly close-run thing. But I do know this — I want to see Andre running the break with Rudy on the wing, when Brandon is sitting. And not just for this year — if we play the style in which Rudy shines when he is on the court, he is likely to be happy in Portland over the long term, and that is important.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Why would Blake walk?
He played on a 21 win team and wanted to come back. Dude likes Portland and Blazer personnel respect his game.
the only reason I can see
Is that he wants to be a starter more than he wants to be a part of a championship team. Steve has mentioned that he wants to be a “starting PG” on an NBA title winner in the past, but now that he’s “settled” in Portland and the team has improved so much he may be content to be a role player and win a ring before he hangs ’em up.
Keep in mind that there’s no guarantee that he will be offered more money/years if he tries to “walk” and find a starting job elsewhere. And if he does decide to “take the money” from another team, will he have a better chance of winning that ring?
If a top 10 team like L*A, Cleveland, San Antonio, Denver, etc makes a strong push to acquire Blake then yeah, he could walk. But if his “prospects” are limited and the teams that are most interested in him are all marginal contenders, he may just decide to stay in PDX and ride the Roy-train all the way to the top.
and I’m sure Nate/KP will be glad to have him on board for the duration
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I'd be surprised if Blake got much more than 20
but, I wouldn’t be surprised if he started.
by PoliSam on Jul 27, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I like Miller in the second unit for the same reason....
I believe the starting job is Blakes to loose, at least for now. Looking forward to seeing a unit with Andre, Rudy, Nic, Travis (or Jeff ) and Greg. I’m going to have to see Miller and Roy in the back court together before I’m sold on Miller starting over Blake.
What a terrible problem to have, 2 players who could start at pg, sf and c. Thanks KP !
Go Blazers !!!!
I just want them to work together.
Both Blake and Miller will play a lot. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
by 22baylor on Jul 27, 2009 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
yes
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
nice sig file
I hope we can get Wall. That would be perfect timing. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
yup
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
You'll get over it
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I'd say wait til training camp
sums it up. Even if Miller basically beats Blake out, McMillan may start Blake anyway because he’s such a good fit with Roy. However, I don’t think so. I think Miller will fit well with Roy, and the team needs that extra oomph at the beginning of the game more so than any other time during the game. Miller will get them into their offense sooner and more consistently than anyone else, but he has to show it before the games start.
also a good point
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
I agree.
Wait and see, even if we know what is probable.
"Right now" the team doesn't play basketball.
I could be the starting point guard right now; doesn’t mean anything. The important part is who is the starting point guard in the fall.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
I could see that...
The bench needs Miller’s play making more than the starting unit
by AverageJon on Jul 27, 2009 2:51 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Whatever PG comes off of the bench, they'll still be playing with a starters.
Nate never does full substitutions unless it’s a blowout.
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
How so? I keep hearing this argument w/o much to back it up
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 27, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe
First team = Roy
Second team = run
more or less. Doesn’t make much sense to me either.
i thought that for the past 3 years
but nate has proven me wrong in the long run.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions
what I'm thinking...
is that we’ll want either Roy or Miller on the floor (except during garbage time). Having them both start means one of them won’t be as fresh when the other is on the bench.
Between Roy and Aldridge the starting unit will have plenty of fire power. I think Blake will fit better with with Roy and Aldridge, because he’s a better shooter and can spread the defense.
We’ll see how they work together next fall.
Nobody else on the second unit gets to the rim off the dribble.
Both Travis and Rudy can get their own shot, but it’s almost always a jump shot. Rudy moves without the ball well, which works with Miller’s game. With Blake on the second unit, it’s chock full of jump shooters with nobody who gets into the paint consistently. Miller also runs more.
Mix & Match of skill sets
more important than intro fireworks.
I like the Oden/Rudy/Miller bench core, keeping Joel and Blake to begin the game with Roy and LMA.
Mix & Match iweb and Nic to taste.
I think Miller will get more minutes and plenty of time with Roy too.
10 Deep more important than 5 starters.
RT: Miller can play in the second unit with Rudy and Greg.
So does that mean the starting lineup would be…
Blake
Roy
Batum
LMA
Przy…?
That’s not much offense surrounding Roy and LMA, does Nate think they can “pitch a shutout” in the first quarter?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
martell for batum
makes it slightly better.
that was our starting lineup for most of last year…which traditionally finished the first quarter with a deficit. it does need a bit of tweaking.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Absurd
Miller is better than Blake at everything except shooting 3’s
Miller will start, mark it down
Blazer Fan
Blake is also better at mid-range jumpers.
But I agree regardless.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
Mid-range jumpers are a horrible shot :p
Also Blake can’t get a shot off without help
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Jul 27, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Miller, but...
99.99% certain Miller will be the starter, but Nate and the Blazers owe Blake the opportunity to compete for his job. Right now, he’s the incumbent and it’s up to Miller to unseat him. I think he will, but I think Nate’s also right to say that Blake’s still the starter until someone else proves he’s a better option.
Plus, Miller’s been around long enough to know the score. Gonna hurt his ego a lot less to hear this kind of quote than it would for Blake to hear the opposite before Miller even practices with the team once.
We're fortunate to even be having this debate. The depth on this team right now
is about as good as it gets.
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
The OTHER vote: Blake will start, but....
Look, Blake has earned McMillan’s respect with his hard work and solid, albeit average play. And he will start, but only for a while. This fall, he will know the team best, and run it better than Miller. But as Miller learns our system, he will probably win out with his superior talent.
Expect about 6-8 weeks before Miller takes over. Still, both will garner significant time.
Play like your contract year was last year.
by LimitedUpside on Jul 27, 2009 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
To be honest Nate shouldn't have answered the question at all, it's just going to cause tension
Shoulda said “I don’t know, we’ll see who earns it” and left it at that.
Blazer Fan
He should have rocked the local sports media world by announcing Jerryd was the starting PG.
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
by Net Ranger on Jul 27, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
no, I've got a better one
he should have said that he’s going to step in and be player/coach
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
rocking the local sport's media
they probably begged Nate to say that Blake would start so the Portland market will have some “buzz” for a few days
Nothing McMilian says in July matters after training camp starts, and even if Blake does wind up starting it’s not going to “kill” the Blazer’s season
I’ll say it again, this reminds me of Ridnour starting and Daniels closing for McMillian, up in Seattle.
Nate is nothing if not predictable
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Well of course..
If we had signed Turk, do you think McMillan would have said, “Nicolas Batum is our starting small forward right now.”
Of course not.
..but Miller and Blake are a lot closer than most people think. The 3pt. shooting factor will ensure Steve gets plenty of time to play, regardless of whether or not he starts. Anytime you have two players who are close skill-wise, it’s always the smart move to create the foundation for competition during training camp.
But I think barring some huge setback Miller will start 90% of games, at least.
What month is it?
Does it really matter what they SAY right now? No. Training camps, practices, chemistry will determine who starts; all in good time.
blake is the incumbent
so he is starting, i believe that miller will take the job by the time the season starts
bayless leaves over my dead body
Blake starts and plays 20 min. Andre plays 28 min.
This make everyone happy?
Portland's PG of the Future - Meet John Wall
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
Thats what will probably happen
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, Batum, Outlaw, Webster, Bayless, Blake, Miller, Joel... Holy crap!
does Joel start ahead of Greg, as well?
can you see where this debate is headed?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yes.....
but only until Greg can take the spot from Joel, Joel isn’t going to just give up his spot either……
not really
give Roy 3-5 mins at PG
rudy 1-3.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
This..
Might be the best use of resources
RoadBlazer
good analogy
Miller strikes me as the type of player that would not be bothered by that. I could be wrong, of course, but he doesn’t strike me as having an Allen Iverson type of attitude.
Seems simple enough.
Blake is the incumbent; and the job is his until proven otherwise.
I fully expect “otherwise” to be proven in short order—like, in training camp.
Otherwise, PA is wastin’ money.
I am Spartacus and I approved this message
PA is wasting money on what?
his head coach’s salary?
Miller and Blake are going to earn a combined 11mil next year, regardless how many minutes they play, or if they get hurt and miss the entire season
Outlaw had better stats than Batum last year, was PA wasting his money because Batum started most of the games at SF?
Maybe Raef should’ve started at center instead of Przy! After all, LaFrentz was “earning” more money than Joel…
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
PA was prepared to pay more
for a backup PF.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Jarrett Jack thought he was the starting PG a few years back
how did that work out?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
If blake starts
“trade KP” lol
seriously, miller better start OR ELSE
S
The Princess of Blazersedge
Sports do not build character. They reveal it. - Casey Dillon Stengel
With the culture of this team and the way Nate coaches
Who the hell cares who starts? A lot of the players buy into the fact that starting doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the best player, and players who don’t start can still close out games. We as fans seem to be conditioned to thinking a coach has to start the best 5 players at their respective positions, however this is rarely the case anymore in the NBA. I may have complained at how Nate has conducted himself in regards to the Batum and Outlaw flip flopping, and the games he played with Greg, Sergio, and Bayless last year, but he is totally spot on right now in regards to Miller and Blake.
If he is truly trying to be fair and establish competition then he acted 100% correctly in my opinion. If things change, then Miller can start, and Nate wouldn’t be contradicting himself the way he did when he said T. Green will win us 3-5 games, bc Nate is saying “right now.”
We question Nate a lot on his decisions and indecisions, however this shouldn’t be one of them.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
disagree
not sure what is to be gained by saying this publicly. And plenty of potential drama gets created as we are here demonstrating.
Keeps up fan interest through the summer
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I didn't hear what was said
and am formulating my opinion on what is wrote, so I could be misinterpreting it. However Nate tends to speak what is currently on his mind. Sometimes he is posturing, and sometimes he just changes his opinion, but for the most part he usually answers most questions directed at him when compared to KP.
If he was asked this and then he answered it, I have no problem. If he on his own free will just disclosed this information, then I would question it as well.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 28, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
RT: Nate tends to speak what is currently on his mind
Canzano said that McMillian could be “using the media to send a subtle message” similar to his old NBA coach, George Karl
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Sorry fans, but Miller is in a different tier than Blake
Not trying to offend anyone, but this blind overvaluing of Steve Blake is what makes Portland fans look foolish to anyone outside of here. The loyalty is nice, but Blake and Miller are not on the same level or really even close. Anyone outside of Portland would laugh at the thought of Blake starting in front of Miller. Andre is just a much higher caliber of a point guard than Blake and always has been. It’s a joke to think any different. Nothing against Blake, he’s a more than solid back up, but there is no other fan base, nba player, or coach that would would put Steve Blake above Andre Miller.
And as far as this whole “Miller would be a great fit for the second unit so he should come off the bench” idea, that just makes no sense. You start your best point guard. Plain and simple. And Miller is easily our best point guard now.
by Coastie07 on Jul 27, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
And as far as this whole "Miller would be a great fit for the second unit so he should come off the bench" idea, that just makes no sense. You start your best point guard. Plain and simple. And Miller is easily our best point guard now.
Usually, it makes sense to start the best player at each position. Depending on roster composition, however, it often makes sense to have one of your best five players on the bench. PG is no different than any other position, in that regard. Many, many coaches, hall of fame coaches, have realized this and, in fact, having a sixth man that is a better player than one of the starters happens frequently. For example:
Odom is better than Bynum, but Bynum started when healthy.
JR Smith was better than D. Jones, but Jones started.
Outlaw was better than Batum (at least at the start of the season), but Batum started.
Jason Terry was probably the Mavs third best player, but didn’t start.
Ginoboli… didn’t play a whole lot last season, but still came off the bench for San Antonio much of the time.
I have seen very few people claim that Blake is as good as Miller. That’s not what the discussion is about.
None of those guys are point guards.
Give me an example where the teams best (clearly best) PG came off the bench.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Chris Paul was better than Jason Kidd in the
Olympics.
Sure it’s rare, because it’s much more likely to make sense of your SG is a great shot creator. That being said, there are teams that have done it. Williams was the starter for Miami in 2006, even though Payton was better. I don’t think there’s now a big difference between Fischer and Brown/Farmar, but Fischer will be the starter because he’s the better shooter. When the Bulls were in their prime, they started a good shooting PG and played a playmaker at back-up. They probably never had anyone as good as Miller, but if they did. The Cavs messed around with all types of different PGs in 2007.
The Olympics?
Payton was old and posted the lowest PER of his career. Williams was probably the better player at that point.
Fisher is still better than Farmar, who had a awful year. Brown came into the season late and didn’t know the offense or he might have started.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, Payton over Williams is not a good example, in hindsight
I think I had the Payton from the Lakers confused with the Payton on the Heat. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see what the Lakers do next year regarding Brown and Fischer next year.
In general, teams with really good playmaking wings, (like Bryant, James, Jordan, or Wade), have played a variety of guys at the PG position and few have had a player as good as Miller.
Two of those guys...
Jordan and Bryant, played for Phil Jackson, so it’s a completely different offensive system than the Blazers run. If he was our coach I wouldn’t be so worried about the PG spot, I’d be more concerned with finding a versatile SF.
Wade is a good example. James hasn’t exactly overachieved so I’m not sure he has the right players around him.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
That's a pretty good one.
Still, that’s only one relevant example, and Johnson was a lot closer to Porter skill wise than Blake is to Miller.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Granted, Blake over Miller would be pretty extreme... but it's not unprecedented.
Lindsey Hunter started over Fischer on the Lakers in 2001.
I’m sure if I looked up some of the Bulls games, I’d find some examples there too.
I'm not saying it won't happen...
I’m just saying it’s very unlikely. About the same chance as Rex taking Blake’s spot. It’s possible and there’s some good arguments to support that idea: Bayless fits better with the second unit, Rudy is a playmaking SG, cheaper, more promising long term solution, adds more defense to a unit short on defense, etc.
I just don’t see it as a real possibility.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions
fitting with the 2nd unit
Its funny how different sergio is compared to all of these other PGs, but the general consensus is that Blake doesn’t fit with the 2nd unit.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 28, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
That's why I clarified point guard
None of those players are point guards that you mentioned. I agree sometimes it works at other positions, but point guard is different because they are your floor general and dictate your team’s flow. You always want to your best point to be the starter because of how much they control your team. Name a team that doesn’t start the clearly better point.
Floor general?
That’s part of the point (no pun intended) is that Brandon is a pretty good floor general, too.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
manu = sg
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
who controls the ball more than Ginobilli on offense?
when he is playing, especially at the end of games, almost every set runs through him
"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West
"una canasta a Pau en la cara" Rudy
by Honka Playboy on Jul 27, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions
controlling the ball does not equal PG
thats like calling hedo a PG or centers when teams go inside out.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 28, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Everyone is entitled to an opinion...
…Mine is that Andre is a better player but that he should have to beat Steve for the starting job with this team. It is also my choice to not care that I am considered a fool for being loyal to a player who I’ve enjoyed watching and who has shown himself to be a great competitor and teammate. Should I care if someone in Memphis laughs at us because Blake starts in front of Miller when we beat the stuffing out of them with that line up? Furthermore what another fanbase, player or coach would do has no bearing on this situation. Nate will decide who starts and who doesn’t and I will cheer for them all.
I am also going to go out on a limb and say that most comments that begin with,“Not trying to offend anyone” actually are trying to and are prefacing it that way to seem diplomatic… just my opinion though.
"Not trying to offend anyone"
I wouldn’t view those words the way you do. I take it as someone intending to express a strong opinion.
However, it can give that impression, and when it is followed by basically insulting people by saying “blind overvaluing” and saying that people “look foolish” then that just reinforces the problem.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Yeah...
I guess they hit me wrong for the content of the message more than for the words themselves…
Blind overvaluing of Blake makes Portland fans look foolish?
Oh. Silly me, I thought it was Nate who made this statement, not Portland fans.
These fans who “blindly overvalue” Blake are actually, well, apparently in good company.
Sorry, fans, but I happen to think Nate knows more about basketball than 99.99% of Bedgers, and he thinks there is a case to be made for starting Steve Blake. If saying that makes me look foolish to “anyone outside of here”, then I guess I don’t mind too much.
I’ll keep on supporting the guys who got us 54 wins and seem to know what they are doing. I’ll keep on supporting them and the new guy they brought in to fill the role that they think makes most sense. If I see them doing something that isn’t working, I’ll say so, but Nate gets the benefit of the doubt with me. That would be true even if I hadn’t already written a fanpost that agreed with what he is saying. The fact is, I for one can see the logic behind still starting Blake. I don’t think people are stupid or blind if they disagree — I can see the argument both ways.
But I don’t think it is wise to talk about “blind overvaluing” when we’re talking about a statement from a very successful coach who knows the players well.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
You really think Nate plans on not starting Miller?
"Blindly overvalue" is a pretty good description of anyone who thinks Blake is as good as Miller and should start. Blake is decent at best and I really hope you don’t think that anyone outside of Portland thinks Blake is better than the average point in the league. That’s what would be foolish. There’s not a coach that wouldn’t start Miller if Blake was the alternative. And as far as what Nate “thinks,” I also really hope you don’t believe he thinks Blake is better than Miller too. They just signed the guy so of course he’s not gonna come right out and say Blake is a bench player now. And lastly, saying Blake got us 54 wins as a defense is old too. Just because someone was on our roster doesn’t mean they got us the 54 wins. I guess Luke Walton won the Lakers their championship too.
I don't think Blake is as good as Miller
though I would put him above average. He’s probably around 25th best PG in the league, something like that. Below average as a starter, but able to start on maybe 7-8 teams and better than almost every backup PG.
I didn’t say Blake got us 54 wins. I said that Nate and KP built a team that got us 54 wins and seem to know what they are doing.
I think there is a strong possibility that Blake starts, even though he isn’t as good as Miller, but only plays about 20 minutes. Like Nic did last year.
Why wouldn’t he come right out and say Miller is going to start? If Hedo had come, I guarantee if he’d been asked that question he would have said Hedo would have had the inside track to starting.
Sure, this is outside the box. Sure, you usually start your best player. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
Nobody is going to hand the starting job to either Blake or Miller. But if Nate says that Steve is our starter right now, that means he thinks that we have a very good team with Blake starting and Miller off the bench, and reasons to keep it that way. That doesn’t mean it will stay that way, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t.
Finally, you are conflating two things: 1) Blake is as good as Miller 2) Blake should start. It is entirely possible to believe the second and not believe the first. That isn’t blindly overvaluing.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Once again...
When it comes to your point guard, you do start your best. You can not compare it to Nic because of the position difference. Obviously there’s examples at other positions, but there’s not a clear example at point guard because of what that position entails. And unless you’re bringing in a Chris Paul type player, a coach rarely will ever say the new guy has already got the starting spot before they’ve even had a practice. It’s just a respect thing to your players.
Well, we'll see
You may be right about Nate’s words, or you may be wrong.
There is no rule anywhere that says you must start your best players, PG or not. It just isn’t there.
You have to start a very effective unit. Usually, that means your best PG. I understand where you are coming from. I just don’t think it is as black and white as you are making it out to be, when you have a “point” shooting guard. So I’m willing to grant the possibility that Nate actually meant it, especially since he says they discussed with Andre the possibility of him not starting.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Wait
Didn’t some people say Nate liked Jarrett over Sergio because Jarrett was black? And now, Nate likes Steve.
This race thing gets me so confused sometimes. Being a foreigner and all.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
I'd pay to see a Battle of the Races tournament or reality show.
Blacks versus whites. Asians versus Indians. Sprints. Cross-country. Relays. They could call it The Racial Races. Rachel Ray could do the color commentary.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 28, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Ethnically diversified poker tournament?
they could all take turns playing the “race” card
(thank you very much, I’ll be here all week! Try the veal and don’t forget to tip your waitress…)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I'll just settle for not getting "banned"
It not easy keepin’ it real in a PC world
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Nate deserves criticism if the starting unit plays better with Miller
but he continues to start Blake over Miller. If that happens, I will be driving the “Nate has a man-crush on Andre” bandwagon.
No one, including Nate, can know which combination of players will work best on the first and second units until 20 or 30 games at least into the 2009-2010 season. It seems silly for folks to get worked-up in advance of that.
this is true
but Nate also replaced Jarrett Jack with Blake shortly into the 2007 season, after JJ beat Steve out during training camp. Then last fall he changed his mind twice about who to start at SF after Webster went down
it’s about performance, but it’s also about the right “fit” and which rotations give the team their best chance of winning every quarter, not just getting off to a good start at the beginning of each half
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Isn't Miller known as a guy who comes to camp out of shape?
I don’t know why you would temp fate by telling him he’s got the job. Better to create an illusion of competition.
Miller draws tons of fouls, I believe more last season then Blake has drawn in his entire career. Having Miller and Roy putting opposing bigs into foul trouble early is a huge benefit. It messes up the rotations of the other team, makes them more tentative on defense, gives Oden a chance to dominate small guys, etc. That’s something you want to do early.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 27, 2009 4:09 PM PDT reply actions
nate just knows
that KP is going to parlay miller and Petteri Koponen into Chris Paul baby! And then CP3 is going to ride the pine behind Blake because Nate is old school like that
by 50backflips on Jul 27, 2009 4:25 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm cool if Steve Blake starts, Andre Miler finishes, and Jerryd Bayless rides the pine.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
i'm cool if any combination leads to a deeper run in the playoffs
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, I'd still like a combination of Andre Miller and Kirk Hinrich.
That ship has sailed away from my line of sight, though, but that’s life.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
i wanted to see hinrich succeed here
just to say “i told ya so” to the haters.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm with you.
Plus, less people would misspell Kirk Hinrich’s surname as Heinrich.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
If Nate is serious about this, I'm fully support firing him....
…for the lack of creativity and rigidness to his system. IF he is serious.
I suspect Miller will be the starter opening day. I think Nate is blowing smoke.
"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith
he is a coach
i’m pretty sure coaches don’t always publically say what they believe, but they say what is necessary to get the most out of their team and their players. by saying that blake is the pg right now, he is clearly setting a tone for the team, and is allowing blake the benefit of the doubt to elevate his game.
this is clearly a different approach than the regime that was here when pryz was first starting out. pryz was never deemed “the starter” and was never really thought of highly. however time and time again pryz has come around and regained his starter position.
i applaud nate for approaching it this way vs the way cheeks did in the past, especially with how young and mentally fragile some of our other players are.
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he should have left his answer more ambiguous.
He just sounds silly proclaiming Blake is the starting point guard. In the same line of thought, you could interpret his comments as undercutting Miller’s value to the team. If he didn’t want to say Miller is the starter, he should have just said training camp will determine the starters.
"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith
ok i can accept that
Senior Asian ambassador of Blazers Edge
by Philthyanimal on Jul 27, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Good grief
Just like Pops should be fired because he is so uncreative and rigid as to not start Manu.
Perhaps the creative and non-rigid approach is to use unconventional substitution patterns to maximize your assets.
Newsflash: If Nate is saying this publicly today, and he discussed not starting with Andre, then KP knew that Andre might not start on this team when he made the signing. And Paul Allen undoubtedly knew that as well.
But, since Paul Allen was prepared to pay even more for longer for a backup PF, I doubt Paul is too concerned, as long as Nate keeps winning.
Let me see. Yes, 21 wins, followed by 32 wins (more than people expected given personnel), followed by 41 wins (more than people expected given personnel and Oden’s injury), followed by 54 wins (more than people expected, especially if they had known Martell would be out all year and Oden and Blake would have injuries).
Followed by 60+ this year. Fire Nate, he underachieves.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Who knows...
Maybe Nate is trying to kill Ben. If he pronounces Steve Blake a frontrunner for team MVP, we’ll be forced to conclude that is the case. :)
I am Spartacus and I approved this message
here is the podcast, Nate joins in towards the begining. http://955thegame.com/tabid/70/mid/402/view/detail/ItemId/2373/default.aspx
I think Nate is just dealing in hypotheticals, philosophicals and theareticals right now in regards to Andre’s role on this team. I think Andre will end up winning the starting job, but the 4th quarter minutes are the minutes that are truly up for grabs. It all depends on how the team meshes with Miller in the lineup.
Tony Luftman Is an Animatronic Robot created by Cyberdyne Industries for the purpose of the destruction of the entire human race, no one shall be spared.
P.S.
I was in the studio at the Game at the time of this interview, Wheels and Jay were pretty sure that Nate was just trying to soften his praise of Miller for Blake’s sake and they think that Miller will eventually be crowned the starter
Tony Luftman Is an Animatronic Robot created by Cyberdyne Industries for the purpose of the destruction of the entire human race, no one shall be spared.
by Jiggamant on Jul 27, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Thanks for the behind the scenes perspective.
"I'm at the thingamajig talking the yakety-yak" - Kenny Smith
what can I say that hasn't already....
meh, what I think is that it’s mearly a curtiousy call to blake, and token of faith in him…..
but honestly, I figure the starting role will go to Andre when the season starts.
maybe 1,2 preseason games, but by then…… Andre should have it locked up.
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 Jul 27, 2009 5:55 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Totally what you'd expect Nate to say...
for the same reason he only signs one year contracts. You’ve got to earn it.
Should be an interesting training camp… 3 starting positions up for grabs, at least in theory.
point, SF, ..... center?
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
I don't want to spoil anybody's fun
but didn’t you notice the logjams at PG and SF?
How convinient, Blake and Outlaw’s contracts expire after this season and their positions are well covered (well, at least the SF).
I’d bet Steve is out of town before the trade deadline for some kind of improvement.
Also, that doesn’t mean he won’t be back next season.
Nobody expects a Spanish Acquisition!
Good point
I dont think Andre has an ego problem with being the first guy off the bench,followed shortly by Rudy,Brandon slides to the 3. If a poor team wants those expiring contracts then Steve and Travis are valuable trade assets,but no need to HURRY and any move now.
by southern oregon on Jul 27, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Their salaries and our remaining $2.5-ish cap space once the 3 euro cap holds are gone during the regular season (KP’s favorite new CBA section, I guess Tom Penn earned his raise although that was discussed on a lot of boards) fit some scenarios nicely. Like Gerald Wallace, a la what Charlotte now did with Okafor (contract until 2013/14) for Chandler (contract until 2010/11).
Why are we tiptoeing around Brandon Roy?
He’s a smart strong teachable athlete, no? Why can’t the first unit run when appropriate? LMA and Batum have the bodies and the skills for it.
I for one was not so impressed with our first offensive unit as to think that it can’t be touched.
Goofy is what it is.
I think this is valid
but I don’t think you try to totally remake his game, either. He’s a superstar the way he is. By all means make some adjustments, though.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
blake should start because he is the perfect fit with roy.
but i think miller will end up getting even or more minutes than blake
"shaq and zach randolph have the same trainer... "
best one liner i ever heard.
Nate is the head coach of course he's going to say that
Blake is our starting point guard and he’s not going to just up and say he’s lost his starting job to someone, someone who just got traded to team, without even competing for the position first.
"Should I ask? What's a punani?" - by annthefan on May 3, 2009 1:55 PM
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Jul 27, 2009 7:59 PM PDT reply actions
why say anything?
Blazers just got a superior point guard. Let it play out in training camp.
I guess its not that big of a deal, but if you say something like that just to comfort Steve Blake, that’s just goofy. I guarantee you, Steve doesn’t want the kid gloves used with him.
Blake's skill set compliments the starters better than Millers
Miller should get more playing time but Blake should start.
Ben, if Nate really wanted to kill you...
he would have said that Bayless was going to be the starting PG.
I thought the point of this signing was to...
take some ball handling pressure off of BRoy. If he isn’t going to start with Roy, what’s the point of this acquisition??? Wait until training camp….we shall see.
It's to take scoring pressure, and defensive pressure off Roy.
Not ball handling pressure, which Blake already did. Roy will still have the ball in his hands as much, and I imagine he will play with Miller and Blake, though we will see who he plays with him more as time goes on, by which combination works best. As others have said Miller may get more minutes, but either guy could start. If an opponent has strong interior defense, but weak perimeter D, Blake may be on the floor more, and if the reverse is true AM will play more. On average Miller being a strong scorer should get more time, but if the flow from the end of the regular season where we blew out the Nuggets, Spurs and Lakers by double digits with Blake running the show continues where it left off, AM would be the perfect sixth man combining for an inside/outside attack with Rudy. Let’s not forget we had a team that was blowing out the best teams in the league other than Houston by the end of the year. Nate may take a look to see if that continues before deciding where best to use a weapon like Miller. I won’t be surprised by anything. I could also see us blowing out teams with AM starting from day one, or a period of growing pains as the team learns to play together all over again. An improved Oden is still the key no matter who the PG is. If Oden raises his game a little, he could give Miller his career year, but likewise for Blake.
RT: An improved Oden is still the key no matter who the PG is
We already have seen how Greg plays alongside Blake, the hope is that Miller will feed GO more lobs.
So, if does Steve start, does that mean Oden should come off the bench to have dinner with Andre?
And finally, if Blake and Przy both start, will the starting 5 have enough scorers to complement Roy/LMA?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
What we saw was Oden couldn't catch the ball, or go up without getting stripped.
His improvement will help either PG. People think he was a legitimate scoring option last year, and somehow Blake couldn’t get him the ball, but I think they didn’t run plays for Oden much, because he was a liability, and why not give it to LMA or Roy if you are trying to score. Blake had no problem getting it to bigs in the post prior to this. Also, do you think Joel is a big offensive threat if only Blake would pass it to him more? Miller is a better penetrator, so he should be able to do more than Blake to set up our bigs, but to think Blake is not capable of making an entry pass, lob, or a dish under the basket is ridiculous. It’s the rookie in the post that was the issue. Hopefully he will take a big step forward this year. I predict Oden will be at least 25% better. Miller may add to that.
Nate is right... he said "right now" Steve Blake is our starting point guard
but Andre will be our starting point guard come first regular season game.
If anyone is being overvalued here
it is Andre Miller. But don’t fans most always do that with new acquisitions?
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
Some comments
should not be said. There’s no good reason as a fan to gin up team dissension. Sometimes as a fan you leave some things to play out.
the only scenario where I want Miller to come off the bench...
is that Przybilla is the starter and Miller comes in the game together with Oden.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
- The Facebook campaign to hire Will Ferrell for All-Star Game player intros is underway
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
