Rudy and Roy
by Dave on Jul 30, 2009 12:22 AM PDT
Email
PrintWe've been talking so much about the potential logjams and playing time issues at point guard and small forward this summer that it's easy to forget the biggest potential roster issue the Blazers face: the co-existence of Brandon Roy and Rudy Fernandez. Roy is unquestionably the #1 player on this team. That's not an issue. But if you're listing the players with the best talent/potential combination Rudy doesn't fall much farther than fourth, and that's at worst. Many would have him third. Put the two at the same natural position and that's an issue. It didn't show up much last year because Roy is the king, Rudy was a rookie, and the coaching staff managed to jimmy enough minutes for both. Even so Rudy wasn't completely satisfied with his role. He's expected to be a better player this year too.
One obvious solution is for one or the other player to pick up another position. Of the two, Roy seems best suited to slide at this point. He already handles the ball on many sets. He's also got some strength in case he catches some spot duty at small forward. He acquitted himself fairly well at both positions, though he had trouble defending opposing point guards when he drew them. It's easy to envision Brandon becoming a utility-type player, thrown in there no matter who is alongside him and no matter where that forces him to play on offense or defense. But you have to ask whether you want to use your star that way and what effect it will have on his game long-term. Right now if you don't have Brandon firing on all cylinders the Blazers aren't the same team. Life is going to be far easier with him happy, comfortable, and secure. Not many prime-time players enjoy being shuffled around.
Rudy, on the other hand, struggled mightily last year playing any position but shooting guard. He's not got the size for small forward. He's not got the offensive game or handle for point guard. He's not a good defender at either spot. Most importantly he's not got enough experience to get wholly settled into one position, let alone two or three. Obviously the experience will come, but he's also going to have to be conscious of the need for learning multiple spot...adjusting his game rather than expecting the game to adjust to him. Even if he makes that step we still don't know if he has the gifts necessary.
You often hear team officials talk about people being "just guards" or "just basketball players", not wanting to pin them to a position. It sounds nice but teams don't often win without clearly defined roles. If you look at the teams that have been successful in the last couple decades you can pretty much pick out precisely who did what and which attributes they brought to the table. This league requires you to be good at multiple skills but it's not a league for generalists. This article quotes Charlotte Bobcats coach Larry Brown explaining his recent roster makeover thusly:
The biggest thing when you're building a team and you don't necessarily have the depth of the more established teams, you've got to find guys that can play more than one position.
The other side of the coin is that when teams become successful it's generally because they have specifically targeted players doing the things they do best and only those things. Some players have many things they do well, some fewer, but they don't tend to switch around at the drop of a hat. You know who Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, Dwight Howard, and LeBron James are. You know what positions they play. You know how everyone else falls in place around them. The game bends to them, not the other way around. With few exception generalities and vagueness are the nails in the wall upon which losing or not-yet-there teams pin their hopes. Surety breeds victory. Real depth isn't a few people doing a lot of things decently, it's a lot of people doing a few things well.
One of the Bill Schonely-inspired taglines surrounding the Drexler-era Blazer teams was "versatile and interchangeable". The description was accurate to a point. Porter, Drexler, Kersey, Williams, Robinson, Ainge...all of them had the capability of playing multiple positions. But think back. How often did they? The answer? Outside of Ainge, almost never. At least not while the team was at its peak. Only on the downhill slide did the Blazers start experimenting with people filling multiple roles. The original impetus was Drexler's injury. The team really never recovered and never found the same success again. When that squad shone brightest everyone knew their role and played it to the hilt. They weren't inscrutable, they were unstoppable. Only when the house started to crumble did Cliff Robinson excel at three positions and Terry Porter become a shooting guard.
Even with their potential versatility it's a sure bet that both Rudy and Roy are going to do some things better than others, favoring one or another position. The Blazers have to make sure that both are playing to their strengths 100% of the time. The margin between winning and losing, especially when you're talking about the highest level of competition in this league, is far too thin to mess with anything else.
In short, both players may have diverse gifts and both may be capable of filling multiple roles but it's not a slam dunk that the Blazers will want them to in the long run.
When you start talking about multiple positions you also have to look at the surrounding landscape. Right now, at least, that's not a promising sight. The two logjams we've been debating all off-season are precisely at the two positions Roy and Rudy will need to play in order to pick up minutes. Nicolas Batum could well deserve more minutes this year. Martell Webster is coming back from injury and didn't play at all last season. Travis Outlaw is unlikely to be a great contributor unless he sees some minutes at small forward as well. The Blazers just signed Andre Miller at point guard, probably bumping Steve Blake to a reserve spot and pinching Jerryd Bayless as it is. If you add one of the shooting guards into either rotation somebody is simply not playing...ever. Another person is getting under-utilized. It's like a congressional mandate without funding. It sounds good when they pass it but who's going to pay for it?
Obviously it's possible to make room at either position, but there will eventually have to be changes to the roster if that's the norm. Expansion in one place will lead to contraction or amputation elsewhere.
I'm not sure if there's a good, clean solution to this potentially thorny issue at this point. We don't know enough about most of the players involved to make a firm judgment, let alone steer a course of action. The only reality we're sure of is that eight players are vying for playing time at three positions and there are solid arguments for each...none more so than for the two we're discussing here.
Even though there's no easily-charted path before us, that doesn't prevent a little speculation. This issue is not going to go away, nor is it likely to be resolved soon. How do you think it will pan out? There's a poll below but I'm also interested in hearing comments and analysis. How much of an issue is Rudy/Roy and where are these players headed? Chime in at will.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
169 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmmm
I Voted for Roy at 3 and Rudy at 2
I feel like with Miller at 1 this combo could be quite deadly
The main issue I think would be Roy’s defense on the bigger small forwards of the league
by blazeraider on Jul 30, 2009 12:27 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
It's a pretty good lineup for a lot of situations.
I still don’t like it that you have at least three really weak defenders on the floor. If you could find a cheap, dependable, defensive minded backup 4 to plug into the rotation you could probably run with that group for maybe 16 or so minutes a game. That might get Rudy enough minutes to make him a viable player long term.
Milsap would have been nice in that situation, but I’m sure the KP already thought of that.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 30, 2009 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions
We played 6-on-5 last year against Boston
It went well.
by Kaboomm on Jul 30, 2009 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I remember
that Roy did not play against the Celtics in the RG last year. That was the game that LA manned up big time against KG. Rudy showed he could play. We took away Boston’s swagger that game and showed we could play against anybody – even w/o our star.
Why is Roy so dogged on as a defender
Sure Roy spends most of his effort on offense, but I see Roy playing solid D in crunch time when the game is on the line. He often gets challenging matchups (Carmelo, K@be, etc) in crunch time. And he more than holds his own on the defensive end. If Roy weren’t told to spend so much effort scoring, I bet we see more solid D from him all game long. Is it the dissapearance that causes so many prognosticator to slam Roy’s defense? Or is Roy getting broken down often and I missed it (unlikey as I saw 95% of last seasons games)? Honestly I don’t think Roy is a bad defender nor is he a lockdown defender but a slightly better than average defender. Am I alone in this?
I agree.
He could be a much better defender if he didn’t carry so much of the load.
Although I still think it’s the weakest area of his game.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 30, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
This is my thought as well.
In 91 and 92, Clyde slid to the 3 to put Porter and Ainge on the floor with him at the same time. I remember this happening pretty often. It was successful. When Roy does that today with Rudy, it has worked pretty well as well. Their offensive firepower statistically has overcome defensive deficiencies. Wish I knew where those stats were for everyone to see though. It was someplace where you could look at line-up +/- or something like that. I’m not a big stats guy, so others might be more helpful in finding the specifics than I.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
Three guard line-up
I remember the Blazers even referring to this setup as the “three-guard line-up.” It is tough to compare the 91-92 Drexler, Porter, Ainge line-up with the 09-10 line-up, for three reasons: 1. the positioned doubled in 91-92 was PG, not SG. 2. The 91-92 line-up worked so well because all three guards were a deep 3-point threat; a clearly stated weakness with Miller and potentially Blake. 3. Defense. Clyde was the weakest of the three defenders, but that could easily be covered by his size and quickness as he moved from defending on the perimeter, to the post. Again, a weakness for the Blazers, now. Do we want Roy grinding down on the block with the likes of Ron Artest, Rudy Gay, & Carmelo Anthony? This still leaves the perimeter exposed by the second-rate D-skills of our current roster.
Trade Blake, give Roy a few minutes @ PG and extend Rudy’s time with the starters at SG.
Can Rudy share minutes @ Point? …A Pippen-esque point-forward?
by boiseblazer22 on Jul 30, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Did you really just say that Drexler was a weak defender?
No offense, but you should really look up the stats. Drexler was a great defender; always had a ton of steals and was one of the leaders in blocks at his position.
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Jul 30, 2009 10:35 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Great statistical defender
Observation showed he was a pretty poor position and team defender, however.
It’s the same thing with Chris Paul- great statistics on D, average opponent-PER.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jul 30, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
LOVED Drex, but he was LAZY on D....
He cherry picked the passing lanes, and got a lot of blocks because he was a huge SG with mad springs. His on the ball D was, shall we say, a bit on the slacker side….The rest of those teams were solid defensively, so his matador D was not so obvious. It also helped that back then, you could actually TOUCH someone without getting a flagrant 1, and Kersey, Porter, and Buck were so friggin’ strong…
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jul 30, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
All else aside, something that must be established when discussing Brandon Roy and Rudy Fernandez.
When Roy and Fernandez are on the court together, Roy plays the 2 on offense and the 3 on defense while Fernandez plays the 3 on offense and the 2 on defense.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Jul 30, 2009 12:35 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
Wow
Great point.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 30, 2009 7:40 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Excellent observation. Rec'd
Rudy can only defend the 2. In Nate’s system the SF is mostly an outside shooter. Right up Rudy’s alley.
Hope that with Miller’s arrival, Nate will try to get Rudy more shots off screens and cuts. I think Rudy will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Miller.
by upper left corner on Jul 30, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions
When Roy, Rudy and a PG play together
That’s a 3 guard lineup. Sure, Roy may be guarding the other team’s “SF” but chances are that opposing wing player is just another “big guard” and the other team’s coach is also playing a 3 guard lineup
This is becoming more prevalent across the NBA, similar to the “center-less” (or “no post man”) lineups that coaches like D’Antoni and Nelson have been trotting out there for years
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I would argue the question of whether a team plays two small wings and the question of whether a team plays a center are separate...
If you play: Miller – Roy – Fernandez (for example)
you don’t necessarily have to have Travis at “power forward” and LMA as “Center” simultaneously.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
In fact, I would say the opposite is true in our case
Our game-ending lineup is going to have Oden and LMA with those three guards.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jul 30, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed, notice I said "similar to"
I was comparing the trend of some NBA coaches using 3 guard lineups to other coaches with their “center-less” lineups, it was never my intention to combine the two in Portland’s case.
Greg-Joel need to be playing 48+ mpg (combined) whenever healthy. (And I prefer another veteran backup PF/C to be added to the roster in place of Outlaw, by the trading deadline…)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
CORRECT. Thank you, Mr. AK.
Rudy is a corner-3ball shooter on offense but not strong enough or big enough to cover 3s on defense.
In my own parlance, they are both “wings” who just switch men on defense.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
The merits of Roy at SF
As I’m sure many of us are aware, Roy’s advanced metrics are far stronger “at SF” (not really at SF as AK points out) than at SG. E.g., 08-09 win chart
My question is this, do you think that is more due to the fact that Roy plays better guarding opposing SFs? Or is it that he is matching up against lesser competition at SF? If you look at Hollinger’s PER stats by position, the league’s SGs are significantly better than its SFs.
On a related note, any thoughts on what playing SG vs. SF does to Roy’s longevity? I’ve heard a prevailing theory that Roy gets too banged up at SF. I wonder, however, whether most teams simply put their best defensive wing, be it their SG or SF, on Roy regardless of which position he is playing? In other words, do other teams change their defensive assignments much based on which position Roy is playing? Obviously, that’s not to say that he doesn’t take a greater pounding guarding SFs.
I think
That the slight majority of the SG minutes will continue to go to Roy (maybe 24-28 a game), with him playing some minutes at both the 1 and 3 (mostly 3). An X-factor in this could be where Martell plays and how many minutes he gets.
Things happen for a reason they say, but I say there's a reason things happen.
I have mentioned before that this is my primary concern going forward.
Roy is and should be a SG. Yes, you can shuffle him around, for short stints, and that’s fine. If he has to play extended minutes at SF or PG, then you are not getting the most of his talents.
It comes down to just how long Rudy is going to be comfortable a) coming off the bench, and b) playing 25-33 minutes per game. I really don’t think he is going to be happy doing this for more than a season or two. Eventually, he is going to ask to either start or be traded. Rudy is imo, the Blazers biggest trade chip, and his value will be at its peak in the near future. If you can hit a homerun for the one piece that you think will get you to the promised land, then you swallow hard and pull the trigger.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jul 30, 2009 12:39 AM PDT reply actions
Given that
You find the perfect fit I could live with trading him. I hate to lose him though
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 30, 2009 7:43 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree...
I say in two years after Andre is done and Steve nearing the end of his career, we could use him to trade for a solid PG. But if he’s happy playing behind BRoy then keep him. I suspect he would be if the Blazers won a couple of championships…..
I think so
I know that seems young, but he’s going to be a step slower. Does anyone really think a slower Blake is going to be a good choice for PG minutes? 3rd PG, okay, but he’s not in the mix for good minutes.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jul 30, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
RT: his value will be at its peak in the near future
Yep, I’ve been saying that Rudy’s “sell by date” is 18-24 months for awhile now, I suppose I should shorten that estimate to 16-22 months
Unless the league changes and coaches play a lot of 3 guard lineups in the future, Rudy will be finding a new NBA home similar to Drazen Petrovic back in ’91
The challenge for KP is to not wait until Rudy’s American agent demands a trade. because nothing will lower a GM’s trade leverage across the league like a “trade me!” request from one of his disgruntled players (ref: Sergio)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
We need to keep both
Too many articles lately trying to get rid of players. I particularly am not fond of the theory that we have to get rid of a potentially great player because MAYBE someday he will want to leave or MAYBE he could be better somewhere else. Conventional wisdom was to take Bowie instead of Jordan because we had Drexler. Any doubt that Jordan and Drexler could have found a way to coexist? Not in my mind. So, shall we make the same mistake again?? Maybe trade Fernandez for a second string power forward? Hopefully those who actually have the vote in these matters are students of history.
Not quite the same.
Drex was essentially a SF playing SG. At 6’7", He would have had a much better time sliding to the 3 effectively than BRoy would. I’m not saying it wouldn’t work, but that it’s not the best use of Roy’s talents.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jul 30, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Roy is 6'6"
while rudy is 6’5", granted our sf’s are taller than 6’7". Weight is often a bigger concern for guarding 3’s. That’s why Lebron is so dominant he can bull his way through/over/around most defenders. Roy holds his own guarding most 3’s just not the big bangers.
I don't think they could.
There is a quote by Jordan (couldn’t find it but I swear it exists) where he says he doesn’t think he could have made nearly the same impact in Portland if they had drafted him.
If Drazen couldn’t find a way to make it work long term, I doubt Jordan could.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 30, 2009 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Jim Paxson
Portland also had Jim Paxson, the reigning 2nd team all-nba 2 guard.
I always bring that up
And people usually dismiss Paxson. He was in a very similar position as Roy is now- face of the franchise, our one great player, etc. He was a serious star for us.
To draft Jordon (who was not supposed to be an all-time great coming out of NC) would have been the equivalent of Atlanta drafting every PF in sight, and hoping everyone can work together.
Revisionist History at its finest.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jul 30, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Paxson was eventually traded, anyway
After Clyde showed that he was the best SG on the team, Ramsay tried to play Paxson alongside Drexler at PG for awhile but even then (with hand-checking allowed and fewer quick PGs around) Jim couldn’t defend the position and was dealt away.
Paxson was just one of the reasons that Bowie was drafted, but even more important was the fact that Jack wanted a high-post passing center (like Walton) to facilitate his offense and a “long” defensive center he could put on Jabbar, who was killing Thompson and Cooper every time Portland played L*A.
(The Oden-Durant parallels are hard to miss…except in 2007 the Blazers didn’t have 2 all-star SFs “ahead” of Kevin and there isn’t a dominant center like Kareem who is beating the Blazers in the 1st-2nd round of the playoffs every year…unless you count Yao)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Add in the fact that
It was believed at the time that you needed a quality center to win the championship.
Jordan and Isiah were really the first (and last) to lead a team to the championship from the G position.
And Bowie was traded away for Buck, the guy who opened our Championship window.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jul 30, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions
RT: Any doubt that Jordan and Drexler could have found a way to coexist?
One of the Oregonian’s sportswriters wrote a great hypothetical article back in the late ’80s about this.
He speculated that if the Blazers hadn’t made the Vandeweghe deal that Doug Moe would’ve been let go by the Nuggets. Then he thought that the Blazers would draft Jordan instead of Bowie and Jack Ramsay would’ve had too many headaches with Clyde and Michael and he would’ve left Portland a few years early and the Blazers would’ve hired Moe and run his motion offense with MJ and the Glide and won a bunch of championships in the ’90s.
The big difference between that scenario and Roy-Rudy is defense. Jordan was on the 1st team NBA defensive team and Clyde was better than Roy, at least. It’s a lot easier to match up when your 2 shooting guards are both better-than-average defenders
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Rudy traded
I love Rudy, but with Roy there just isn’t enough room for him. Barring injuries or some kind of roster shakeup, I don’t think the Blazers have a chance of re signing him when his contract comes up. He adds marvelous depth to our roster, but it is kind of like we have Joe Montana and Steve Young. Getting rid of Rudy would make me incredibly sad, but I think it is something that has to be done.
A beard on a blind man! Too much, I say.
He will be a RFA at the end of his rookie contract and the Blazers can match any offer.
The Blazers can keep Rudy for at least 4 more years. 3 year rookie + option year + at minimum, one year RFA contract.
Obviously, keeping Rudy happy is important, but if a team wants to keep a player, they have the upper hand.
by upper left corner on Jul 30, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions
right
I don’t think most folks realize that the Blazers have “control” of Rudy’s pro basketball career through the 2013 season. He can’t play anywhere else unless KP deals him. Of course, Rudy and his agent can make life miserable for the Blazers if they want to (trade demands) so it’s better to keep him “happy” and that means a significant role and lots of PT
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
To much talent, not enough minutes...
I think it’s a forgone conclusion that someone has to be traded. In my opinion the only guys that aren’t available have to be Roy, Aldridge, Oden and Batum. Everyone else is expendable for the right price. As much as i love to watch Rudy play, I have to think that he’ll be gone before the trade deadline or next year’s draft.
I can't see
Pritchard letting Rudy go this season. He seems very slow to trade his draft picks. I think outlaw ends up the odd man out this year. I could see kp trading him for a quality pf. If rudy plays the extra sf minutes travis’ minutes will be cut down.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 30, 2009 7:48 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I voted Roy will be traded
Only because I thought it was a little silly it was one of the choices.
I was wondering where those votes came from.
I agree… it is the most absurd conclusion.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
Really?
If N.O. calls and offers CP3 for Brandon, you would have to consider it. CP3 and Rudy in the backcourt? Yeah, KP would probably pull the trigger.
Unlikely? Of course. But there have been blockbuster deals before.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Health
I would be shocked if kp went for that deal but who knows. I think I would prefer broy over cp3 but I do wonder about his knees.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 30, 2009 7:52 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
BRoy is our team
I don’t think even CP3 would be enough to trade BRoy. Outside of Lebron, I don’t know if anyone is worth BRoy for our team. Not only is he our franchise player and still getting better, but he also means more to our team than just his talent. For a lot of people, losing BRoy would be like losing the team.
As far as the Roy/Rudy, I would hate losing Rudy. It’s a difficult situation because I believe Rudy could be extremely valuable to us, especially in making a championship run. He does some very unique things and is a big game player. Rudy really has to play mostly at the 2 though, he just doesn’t have the versatility. Roy on the other hand does, but moving him around can only hurt his game. Playing Roy at the 3 sometimes is really the only way I could see this working. We’ll just have to see how it works.
I think somebody should get on the trade machine and come up with a 4 player deal that brings us both Chris Paul and Kirk Hinrich...
P.S. Bayless SUCKS!!!!!!!!
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Not going to happen
But I think both teams would do well with the trade.
I’d do it, reluctantly, and I think KP would as well.
by TheThinWhiteDuke on Jul 30, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
That's what I think
1. Not going to happen.
2. KP would do it if offered, but probably wouldn’t propose it.
3. Would help both teams.
But teams have traded their franchise player before. Actually, Portland has, arguably three times. All three times it was a shooting guard (Petrie, Paxson, Drexler).
Petrie brought us Lucas. We don’t win our championship without that deal. I don’t want to talk about the others….
Most untouchable players are not untouchable, really. That becomes the case even more so when you have possibly your two best players at the same position. If you are going to trade one, for which can you get the best value in a trade? I think everyone knows the answer to that.
I don’t expect it, but I won’t say never, and it might improve our team significantly.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
A difficult situation
Good point. This is indeed an issue that is only going to see more attention as the year goes on. It’s easy to say that Rudy is just a rookie and has to earn his minutes, but Rudy is also an Olympic silver medalist, and the leading scorer on that team in the Gold medal game, at that. You don’t just accidentally perform at that high of a level. Rudy is better than most people realize.
Which begs the question: Where does he provide the most value? He’s exactly the kind of player that you trade and then burns you for 30+ points every time you meet up with his new team. He unquestionably has the talent to do so in a starting position. He’s already proven this in the Euroleague and the Olympics. So even if you have him behind your best player, do you really want to let another team have that level of talent?
In a highly unmentioned quote, Nate McMillan mentioned (prior to the Andre Miller move) that he would like to see Rudy more at the point. Obviously he’s not a natural point, but if you watched the Blazers last season, it’s likely you saw quite a few spectacular passes from Rudy. I think he has a better passing game than he gets credit for, and almost every Spanish fan is upset that he is only utilized as a 3-point shooter on this team.
The truth is Rudy is a very good player who is probably the 3rd of 4th best player on the team, but where do you put him? Realistically we probably would not get equal value in a trade, and Roy plays enough minutes that (barring Roy being out) Rudy would play less, I’m just not sure where he fits in. I would love to see him hit some 3 time, though he is undersized for a 3.
I don’t know the answer, but at this point I’m glad we have so much talent that we are able to sit here and argue this point. A lot of teams don’t have such a luxury.
He’s exactly the kind of player that you trade and then burns you for 30+ points every time you meet up with his new team
I can remember the Blazers playing the Nets after the Petro trade. Yeah, Drazen was an all-star with Joisey and he shot well from the outside against Portland, but nodoby doubted that Ainge was the better “fit” playing alongside either Drexler and Porter in ’92
(Steve Blake is not the same as Ainge, of course…)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Blake doesn't eat fingers...
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jul 30, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Tree bit Ainge
it’s an urban legend that Danny bit Rollin’s finger
(you could look it up…or continue perpetuating the myth)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Please! Keep them both!
If we need to dump people because there aren’t enough minutes, let’s dump Bayless/Webster/Blake.
Roy+Rudy together on the court offers the brightest possible future for the Blazers. To not make this work represents a failure by the coaching staff.
A final rotation from 1-3 of a PG, Roy, Rudy, Batum would be the ultimate. Have some (currently) junk players like Bayless & Webster there to back them up in blowouts or when they are just being rested.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
Gonna bum a whole lot a Portland ladies out...
… if you trade Rudy. I just can’t see trading away the second most popular player. Maybe the most exciting to watch, too. Pro Basketball is entertainment, isn’t it?
Yeah, I know a lot of Laker fans. All of them, especially the girls want Rudy on their team. They will cheer him on AGAINST the Lakers and will turn on the TV to watch a Blazer game just to see him.
Now that Ariza is a backstabber in their minds they’ll probably love Rudy all the more.
Rudy = $$$. And that is the bottom line.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
Tough Decision
We definitely need to keep both. Rudy is too good to pass over and Roy is our number 1 guy. I think to solve this, we need to trade Travis Outlaw and Steve Blake. They are both talented players and we can use both to get a pretty good player at SF. This way, Bayless can get his minutes so he gets a better feel at the point and we will have a starter at SF. This can solve the whole pg and sf minutes dilemma. Not only that, we have more minutes available to play rudy and roy on the floor at the same time. Bayless can improve and progress at the point guard we crave, while Roy and Rudy can play alongside when Andre Miller is on the bench. We have starting SF with nic and martell to back him up. (don’t forget dunte Cunningham…) LA is clearly our PF and the center is covered with oden and joel. This would definitely be a team to beat.
Play them together a lot this season
With Miller at point this season, its likely they will both excel and Blazerscwill win. If not, trade Rudy
by goblazer1 on Jul 30, 2009 1:13 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Trade Rudy
But not for a while. There’s no rush; he’s useful to us and his value will not decrease as long as we can find him 15-20 minutes.
Don’t go shopping him around—wait until someone gives us a really good offer for him. It will happen sooner or later.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
rudy, roy, batum, lamarcus & greg are untouchable
these 5 are the key to our title contention and long term potential as a dynasty.
rudy should defend the opposing point guard, and roy handle the ball on offense.
we also have the option of having nic defend against opposing pgs when needed.
rudy should never be traded because anyone can get injured & we have to keep the top talent.
blake, outlaw & pryzbilla can become free agents at the end of the next season.
outlaw is the one that seems not to fit long term, and is the one who should be traded.
our long term sf combo may end up being batum & cunningham if martell does not recover.
given the progression of rules in the nba there will be more minutes available in a 3 guard line-up.
Rudy can be traded
but first we need to see how Batum develops and how Martell looks coming back from injury. If we don’t have a clear starter at the 3 then Rudy can get those minutes just like he did this season. However, if Batum improves a bunch in his 2nd year or Martell comes back strong Rudy is going to lose minutes.
Rudy has great trade value and a ridiculously cheap contract. If he’s not getting the minutes he deserves we can probably get something good for him in a trade.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
The ridiculously cheap contract is a HUGE problem
It will be very difficult to get a player of Rudy’s caliber in a trade given his tiny contract and the fact that we don’t have any scrubs with bloated expiring contracts to pair with him.
We should have offered OKC Rudy for Westbrook before the draft. Then OKC could have drafted Rubio and put the Spaniards together in the backcourt.
SF is the crux
I think that the guard dilemna will ultimately be decided by what happens at SF, If Batum and/or Webster aren’t quite ready, the guards get more PT (at SF). If either Batum/Webster however step it up and deserve quality PT, one or some of the gaurds will play less often.
Also, besides stat-building, what’s wrong with less minutes for everyone? Keep everyone fresher and more ready come PLAYOFF Time!
by trailblazeraddict on Jul 30, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh the poor Blazers, we are just to deep and good, for our own good?
Well what’s wrong with playing a little less min. from LMA, and B Roy anyway! If the first team played about 8 min. and the second team plays hard for about 8 min. If both teams play hard on both offense and defense we should be up by double figures after the firsts quarter and half of play. If the other team is strong enough to still be in the game with us. Then more min. go to the best players for more points and defense, but if the other team is being blown out like they shoud be the min.’s could go to the younger players for their developement. Besides what most of the people who want trades do not understand is that they have to be equal in value $. we would not get back = in talent for our future stars. I wish others would see that we can win it all with the parts we have now on our team mainly because of our depth. Quite frankly one of the main problems last year was not many games did our team try to put the other team away right from the start, but when they did it was a fans dream we wiped the best of them at the end of the year. Quite frankly I want this team to set goals like (# of 20 or more point wins, # of wins letting the bench empty, win every first quarter, win every first half, best in the west, NBA championship) all these goals are team goals not individual stats, quite frankly, I am quite sick of these ego players I want to chear for a team and team members not a superstar. Dexler was the 2nd best player in the MJ era but I cheared for the team more than our superstar. Lets enjoy what KP and staff has done for Portland. Thank you lets chear them on!
trade Bayless
I understand this idea doesnt sit well with many people and wasn’t an option listed by Dave, but it seems to be the best solution at this point.
by now its pretty clear that Bayless is the weakest of the three rookies from last year. Batum’s D and Rudy’s scoring and creativity are far more valuable to the team than Bayless could be any time soon. And with the Miller signing there’s just no use for Bayless and he won’t get enough playing time (if any) to improve his game.
Moving Bayless alone doesn’t completely solve this issue nor would he alone be worth any significant player in return. So we would need to couple him with Outlaw or Martell.
like Dave was saying, we need Roy’s talents to be utilized 100% and that means having him play the vast majority of his mins at SG. Freeing up space at both SG and SF creates enough room for Rudy to get the mins he needs in order to contribute and continue his development.
I'm very high on Bayless
but if I thought it made sense to start either Rudy or Roy at PG, I would be down for that.
I don’t think they can be effective that way, except in spot circumstances. If they could, we wouldn’t have signed Miller.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Is there a 12 step program for being high on Bayless?
And how did you fit him into your bong?
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jul 30, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I can stop anytime I want
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Hugs, not undersized shooting guards with tiny arms...
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix
by philly420pdxhilo on Jul 30, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions
So...
What is you opinion on packaging him in a trade?
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 30, 2009 8:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
On packaging Bayless?
He’s our PG of the future (because we’ll only get spot minutes at PG from Rudy or Roy). We’d better get something good. More than a backup PF. Jerryd can just sit for a little while, he’ll get his chance.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
Ok
I could go for bayless/outlaw for a top notch f/c.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Jul 30, 2009 7:56 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I second that
Seems like the most logical move at this point in our development. Trade Bayless and either Outlaw or Martell for a quality backup PF.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable, superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
-Albert Einstein
The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one's feet.
-Lao Tzu
third that
since i voted more Roy at the 3, the small forward bottleneck should give us trade potential for a tough rebounding PF. Bayless + any SF except Nick.
It will be about the same this year as last.
Last year -
Roy rested about 11 minutes.
PG – Roy 5 minutes
SF – Roy 10 minutes
SG – Roy 22 minutes, Rudy 26 minutes
During Roy’s 10 minutes as SF he is actually playing SF on defensive only and SG on offense, while Rudy is SF on offense and SG on defense.
I suspect Rudy gets about 28-30 minutes this year by Roy playing a little more (2-4 minutes more) at PG and SF than last year.
Next summer we will have to assess where Rudy is and decide to trade or keep him. If he improves only modestly this year we probably keep him and he continues to get 29-30 minutes. If he really excels this year we may be tempted to trade him because his trade value will skyrocket and we can’t get him more minutes. But Rudy’s salary is so low it would be hard to find a player of comparable value unless we package Rudy with anothr player like Webster or a re-signed Trout. Even then, if Rudy really breaks out we may have to do something really creative (like Miller + Rudy for star PG) to get full value for Rudy.
The only other solution I see to consistently get Rudy more than 30 minutes a game is for Rudy to play backup PG to Miller. That would free all the time we need. Neither Rudy nor Roy can guard a PG for more than a few minutes as we did last year, but maybe Batum could guard the PG with Roy guarding the SF for longer stretches. I think Nate will try this more this year (he tried it a few times last year) but it’s a long shot to work consistently.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 30, 2009 2:07 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Who would've ever thought that not having a crappy contract would be a bad thing?
You’re right about next summer, I think that’s the time to start looking at Rudy’s future and maximum trade value. You’re also right that is will be difficult to get “equal value” in return for him unless another player’s salary is included…the problem is the Blazers don’t have a Darius Miles or RLEC bloated contract to pair with Rudy in hopes of getting a high-priced player in return.
But there is another scenario where those numbers shouldn’t be a problem, I’m talking about the draft rights for Ricky Rubio. If KP really wants Rubio and Kahn is having trouble convincing Ricky to come play up in the Great White North, then Portland could offer Rudy for the rights to Rubio and find another Wolve’s player to match Rudy’s salary, eh? (I suppose Przybilla could be included in the deal as well, but it wouldn’t be necessary) Then, by the time Miller retires the Blazers would have a young superior PG to play alongside Roy (and maybe Rex) and no more SG logjam
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
With Miller instead of Blake, does BRoy still play PG in the 4th quarter
Almost all of Roy’s PG minutes were late in games. That worked because Blake could set-up for the dish and three pointer. Miller’s game is pretty much the same as Roy’s Q4 plan: drive and pull up or dish. If Miller is in the game at the end, the old style doesn’t work.
I can see Roy playing a bit more at SF on D, especially against teams with smaller SFs.
For Rudy, the wild-card is Webster, and, to a lesser extent, Oden. If either is in there when we need late offense, then he’s out. However, they have to take (earn) those minutes from him, and I think we’ll still be seeing him finishing tight games until that happens.
If the right deal for Rudy came up, I think we’d have to trade him. If Rubio came over this year, Johnny Flynn might be available…
All that glitters isn't chrome
yeah but we don't need another PG at this stage
We need a backup PF.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable, superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
-Albert Einstein
The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one's feet.
-Lao Tzu
the backup PF can be acquired
without Rudy being a part of the deal
Rudy could be packaged with Outlaw and/or Webster (later) to upgrade the SF position, though
I like the Rubio idea better, though. Just not right away. Kahn already has Flynn to play PG, Minnesota could use Rudy even more than Rubio, in the future.
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
So much depends on how far Rudy develops this year.
I think that is very hard to predict. Players often have their greatest improvement between rookie and sophomore years, but since Rudy has so many years of experience in Europe he really isn’t a typical rookie. Nevertheless, the NBA is a lot different than Europe and he had to adjust to a different style of play, better players to guard, a different role for himself, the much longer season with more frequent games, English, etc. So last year could have been a year of just figuring out what he needs to do and improve, and who knows what he will bring back after a summer to work on the weaker parts of his game.
I also think that moving Sergio might be good for Rudy. I’m sure Sergio helped him get acclimated and so forth, but perhaps he also became something of a crutch both off and on the court. Rudy will probably get a little closer to his teammates off the court, which could help the on court chemistry. I never felt like Rudy was utilized as much as he should have been last year by Blake or Roy. He and LMA started looking for each more toward the end of the season but I never saw that from Roy, and not much from Blake. Without Sergio, Rudy will need to solicit more attention from his teammates to stay involved in the offense. Miller should also help that happen.
If Rudy really fills in his game this year by adding a few moves with the ball to free himself for mid-range jump shots, and can make those shots, along with some defensive improvements, he could be a very hot property next summer. Imagine what we could then get for Rudy when packaged with some combination of Bayless, Webster, Trout (re-signed), or Miller (if we went after a premium PG like Harris). Rubio could be a possibility, but an experienced premium PG or SF may also be possible.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 30, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
No easy answers
Almost impossible to get full value for Rudy in a trade. He’s a probable all-star talent.
Almost impossible to get full value for him on the court, because of the minutes crunch.
You could go with Rudy and Roy on the wings if you had a good defensive PG. We don’t, so we would be weak defensively at the point and on both wings. Maybe Jerryd becomes the solution in a year or two. Maybe we just play zone with that lineup and hope the opponents don’t hit their 3s.
Maybe you look at Roy’s injury trouble in the past and you rest him on either the first or second of a back to back. I doubt he’d be happy with that, but it might prolong his career.
I would probably, in the short run, rest Brandon a little more (especially during the regular season), and run him some at SF (as others have said, SF defensively, SG offensively).
The only real solution, IMO, is to do a quantity for quality trade upgrading somewhere. Whether that means you trade away a PG, freeing up more time at the point, or you trade away a SF, freeing up more time there, or trade away Rudy to significantly upgrade another position, you just have too many quality players to get value for all of them on the court.
Ideally, you get Rudy enough minutes this year for him to really, really shine. Then, if you decide the only solution is to trade him, you can at least get great value for him.
One note — if you put Rudy on the wing next to Roy, the concerns about Miller’s lack of 3 point shooting are diminished. Rudy shoots 45% from distance in that lineup (or better).
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
hmm...
probable all-star?
I don’t know…
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 30, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Usually Mr. Scot is the voice of reason, more or less, but that had me scratching my head, too...
Maybe he meant probable attendee at the Rookie v. Sophomore game on All Star Weekend???
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
Put him in the right team
and he puts up huge numbers.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
quantity for quality is right.
most of last Summer there was consensus here on BE that by the end of the year, we would have a good idea which 2 or 3 of our rotation guys were going.
Then Martell got injured.
And the pressures of short term winning eclipsed any long term trial and error experimentation.
But acquiring Andre, while a good move, seems to take us a step back in the winnowing process.
Kp and Nate talk about depth as a good thing. But they must see the challenges to morale it presents. IMO, they will have to act this year, or have some serious disgruntlement on their hands.
Then Martell got injured. And the pressures of short term winning eclipsed any long term trial and error experimentation
Right. I keep wondering if the “Brandon Roy playing SF” experiment would’ve ever happened if Webster had been healthy and playing 25-30 mpg, last year. Necessity was the mother of invention.
Certainly Rudy and Batum’s PT would’ve been impacted by a healthy Martell. And who knows what the W-L record would’ve been, or if a trading deadline “consolidation” deal would’ve been made?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Five steps to avoid disgruntlement when you have "too much" depth
1. Platoon so five bench players get minutes that matter in the first half.
2. Blow out a lot of opponents by the end of the third quarter so your entire bench is getting PT.
3. Be cautious on bringing players back from injury — you’ve got other guys who can step in, and you will have a good playoff seed anyway. DON’T let Blake come back against the Clippers as happened this year, for instance. That move probably cost us the #2 seed.
4. Rest a starter occasionally when playing a 4 in 5 nights or 3 in 4 nights. Just give a guy a night off. If Popovych can do it, we can, too.
5. Win a championship.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
we're too deep
we’ve got to consolidate. there’s a logjam at every position. When your bench has a very solid eight man rotation, you’re too deep.
They have to split the role at SG and Roy will get most of the minutes. When Roy slides to the
point, only then will Rudy get more minutes. It’s a shame though, because Rudy is such a smart player. He comes up with the nice steal or block from behind. Blazers have to get him out there some how.
For all the harping on Kobe, isn't he also a player that plays 3 positions? Can't Roy be like that?
Kobe is a natural shooting guard, yet LA can just as well play a 3-guard lineup with Kobe playing and defending SF. They did it a lot in 2007-08 when Vujacic had a good run at the SG spot, last season not quite as often. And the PG role in the triangle offense really can be filled by multiple players. A lot of players bring the ball up front with the Lakers, and Fisher or Brown aren’t pure point guards. Sometimes it’s Kobe himself. He usually doesn’t defend the quick point guards, but occasionally he ends up on them. He does defend the bigger and slower ones like Billups and Kidd from time to time. And in the finals he tried to be everywhere, at one point being switched on Dwight Howard in the post and able to hack on him so hard that Dwight couldn’t stuff it and had to go to the line.
LeBron is a point-forward, able to carry the ball and distribute it but really by size and skill set mostly a small forward, eventually towards the end of his career maybe he will even transition to the power forward spot.
I see Roy more in this line of versatile players that are about always on the court, with a natural position but able to play others as needed by the game situation and the other available players who are working well that night. He has about all the skills and the physical attributes for it. And the rest of the team also isn’t that fixed in a position.
Nic is showing versatility, his French coach (who happens to be his former coach in LeMans) uses him often as a shooting guard so he can have Diaw with him on the floor who he doesn’t see as a big man like D’Antoni once did. He trusts his handles. At an NBA level he likely isn’t there yet, but the way he comfortably pushed the ball in transition last season indicated he could become a point-forward in time. And on defense he can play anyone who isn’t a lot more physical, even some point guards. Wade or Parker is quicker than him, LeBron is stronger, Kobe is more skilled, but he didn’t look totally lost against either one.
Travis is a 3/4, Bayless a 1/2 effectively saving the Blazers the need to carry a third player on SG (you can debate for both at length what they ultimately are better at), even Martell came into the league often billed as a 2 but really doesn’t look like he will develop the handles for it so far and in Nate’s offense is the 3. LaMarcus plays 4 and 5. If we play twin towers Greg occasionally even becomes a PF.
Since the focus here is on Rudy coexisting with Roy, offensively to me he is a wing player in the broadest sense (SG, or standing in the corner as a catch-and-shoot SF in Nate’s system), due to his ability to move better without the ball than others on the roster it’s not really useful to have him distribute it. Although he does seem to have the vision of a PG and the occasional desire to set others up (remember the inbounds pass from baseline to a beautiful alley-oop from Roy), like Dave says he doesn’t really yet have the handles and on defense the lateral quickness. In European basketball most players are drilled to be fairly good passers, dribblers and work hard off the ball, even bigger guys, so it’s not terribly unusual to see a player be a good assist giver even though that’s clearly not his main job. So while the Blazers might try him more extensively as a PG next season (not sure if that plan by Nate is buried completely after the acquisition of Miller), that doesn’t seem his future to use him best.
Miller isn’t the kind of player to play off Roy or off the ball for that matter most of the time. So if we assume he handles the ball, Roy won’t be playing as much ball handler late in games next season except in isolations (when it doesn’t really matter what position you are. You just have to beat your man or the player switched onto you to the spot). If Rudy is also in the game at the same time, I would assume he takes the role of “corner shooter/baseline driver” on offense with Roy playing his regular SG position, and on defense they switch with Roy taking the SF and Rudy the SG. Miller stays where he is. This might work better against some teams, and worse against others until they really have figured it out. And of course it also depends heavily on the game situation. If a defensive stop is needed, Nic might be in the game instead of Rudy. If creating a basket in isolation is needed, Travis might be in. Or both. Or any other combination that Nate sees fit.
All in all I like the versatility of this team (depth chart as is likely, might change over training camp):
1: Miller (1), Blake (1, or 2 on offense as off-guard), Bayless (1, 2)
2: Roy (2, 1, 3), Fernandez (2, sometimes 3 on offense, maybe 1 over time), (Bayless)
3: Batum (3, 2, also versatile on defense), Outlaw (3, 4), Webster (3, maybe 2 as needed)
4: Aldridge (4, 5), (Outlaw), Cunningham (4, 3), Pendergraph (4, 5 or the other way around)
5: Oden (5, 4), Przybilla (5), (Aldridge), (Pendergraph)
by Norsktroll on Jul 30, 2009 2:45 AM PDT reply actions 6 recs
recomendado
The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.
by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah...
I disagree with Dave’s claim that good teams have players that play only one role… with players playing their “natural position,” or in his words
… when teams become successful it’s generally because they have specifically targeted players doing the things they do best and only those things.
Gasol played center (53% of the LA’s minutes ) and power forward (22%) for the Lakers http://www.82games.com/0809/08LAL14.HTM#bypos. Many have argued that power forward is Gasol’s natural position.
Rashard Lewis is a natural SF that played power forward for Orlando. Defending power forwards is certainly not what he does best.
Lebron James played 56% of Cleveland’s minutes at PF, 18% at SF. http://www.82games.com/0809/08CLE9.HTM. His offensive role did not change a lot, but his defenisve role did, much like Roy.
The previous season, Garnett played 45% of Boston’s minutes at PF, 14% at t center. http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS11C.HTM
The year before that, Duncan played 49% of San Antonio’s minutes at Center, 19% at power forward. http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS13C.HTM.
Surely, there are many more examples of this pattern of players playing multiple positions. Magic Johnson famously started at center in the NBA finals as a rookie… Even if it just means they defend different positions for about 1/3 of their minutes, it’s important to recognize that this degree of flexibility is the norm. On the other hand, Dave is probably right that its unlikely that Roy’s role will be split up more than it was last year. Roy played 47% of Portland’s minutes at SG and 25% at SF (yes, mostly this meant guarding SFs and playing SG on offense). So, this split was similar to what other star players have one in recent years. I don’t see him playing PG, SG, and SF. Dave is also right that Rudy doesn’t appear to be able to play more than SG on either offense or defense. This places a limitation on the number of minutes that Rudy can play. Thus, I don’t think Rudy will play many more minutes than he did last year. He might get a few more minutes during the regular season if Roy plays fewer minutes, but then Batum and Webster will be competing for those SF minutes that Roy used last year.
The only way I can envision Rudy getting more minutes long term is if he can learn to bring the ball up the court and defend PGs. It seems possible, if not likely, that he could fulfill Blake’s role as a PG next to Roy—one that primarily brings the ball up the court and then spreads the floor with his three point shooting. If he’s not able to do that and he wants more minutes, he will be traded.
by PoliSam on Jul 30, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Do you have any idea
how 82games.com decides what position a player is playing? I would assume it’s based on who he’s defending but I don’t know that for sure.
The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.
by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions
not sure, but that seems to be what they are doing
it’s definitely not perfect data. If anything, their numbers probably under-report how often a certain player defends something other than their “natural” position.
What I notice about your list of multiple position players is they all are good defenders
Neither of the guys we are discussing are consistently good defensively. That’s a real problem for this team right now. Unless one or both improve on D, you don’t have the flexibility to play them together. Personally, I hold out hope that if some of the offensive load is taken off Roy he can become more consistent on D. Rudy improved over the year, so maybe he can become an average defender with a nose for the ball.
he could fulfill Blake’s role as a PG next to Roy
when do you think Rudy will be given the opportunity to do this? Not during the regular season, to be sure. Not unless Blake or Miller is injured
And I don’t see Steve being traded away to facilitate this “experiment”. Portland is in “win now” mode and Blake is a significant member of the rotation
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I'm of the opinion that both should start.
The difference between two and three isn’t that great these days. And Roy plays perfectly well as a three. Use Batum (or Martell if he’s healthy enough to play) to back up Roy at the SF and use a 3 wing rotation rotation.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Jul 30, 2009 5:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Not a bad idea
No question about the offensive firepower, Rudy will get plenty of open looks playing off the ball to Roy and Miller. This back three are also the more adventurous passers on our team and will no doubt create more ball movement and opportunities for Oden and LMA.
The obvious question is how much of a liability will this lineup be on the other end? The porous guard defense will surely mean early foul trouble for Oden, Aldridge and Przy.
I can’t help but feel Rudy is only one half-decent offer away from being traded.
Too much firepower/ball need, not enough D
You don’t want a pure offensive starting line-up, unless you plan to play Nellie/D’Antoni basketball. Plus, it makes sense to keep Rudy in reserve. Batum should be better offensively this year and keeps their best offensive player from getting on track early.
At the end of the game, if we’re in a shoot-out, need to come from behind, or a free throw contenst, then they both usually end up on the floor.
All that glitters isn't chrome
I urge caution, patience...
Here’s something I’ve learned from history. Sometimes something “works” on paper but you find the reality has an unforeseen flaw and in reality it just doesn’t work. Also, and I hope this is the case with Roy and Rudy, sometimes something is a “problem” on paper, but you find that in reality somehow it works.
McMillan seems masterful at getting players to accept a team concept. McMillan is really the one charged with creating a role for Brandon and Rudy and getting the most out of both, and here’s hoping he can do that.
The situation of which this reminds me the most is the Drazen Petrovich tenure. Eventually it was deemed that Drazen was just too good for the role available in Portland for him. Drexlers role was rightly, unassailable and the pervailing wisdom was that Petrovich wanted and deserved a bigger role. This was the problem as it existed perhaps in reality but also on paper. Here’s however what I remember in reality. Petrovich was awesome. He gave us so much quick scoring punch and energy off the bench. You could almost see it in the eyes of opposing players and coaches, it almost wasn’t fair, you’d have defenders working on trying to stop Drexler, almost to exhaustion, only to watch Petrovich jump up to spell Drexler. The Drexler/Petrovich combo was arguebly one of the best combos in history. I honestly believe that.
Perhaps it was inevitable. It surely became inevitable with the pursuit and obtainment of Ainge. But looking back, I always wished we could of kept Petrovich longer.
Maybe this problem on “paper” will become inevitable as well. But I do urge some caution and patience. Let’s strive to see how this team works with Rudy and Roy and not raise the specter of the “Make a Trade to Balance The Roster” ghost.
Yes, I agree that on great teams roles are defined. But also on great teams sometimes great talent accepts a smaller more precisely defined role in tangible pursuit of a championship. Multiple guard rotations of great talent are not unprecedented. Anyone remember Vinnie Johnson hitting the big shot to end Portlands championship bid?
I guess what I’m saying is that lets not rush to create a problem in reality or on paper that might not exist, or maybe should not exist. Let’s give the principals involved, McMillan, Rudy and Roy, the chance to find a way to make it work.
I’ve also learned that a team roster, and a basketball Season are living breathing, changing entities. Unpredictable. Right now, we look on paper and see Roy, Webster, Batum, Outlaw, Rudy, Miller, Blake, Bayless, 2 guards, PG’s and SF’s and it’s easy to become overwhelmed. Eventually perhaps a trade will have to be made. Eventually The Blazers might have to subtract some talent, in order to balance the roster and fill a role in another area. But let’s be cautious and patient, remember rebuilding? Remember paper thin hopes of success being tied to names like Telfair and Ha? It’s been a long, hard road to get to the point where we are discussing the possibility that perhaps we have too much talent to keep happy. But I’m happy with having too much talent. In my opinion it is seldom the problem that people think it is.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
RT: Anyone remember Vinnie Johnson hitting the big shot to end Portlands championship bid?
The “Microwave” was a part of a 3-guard rotation and Joe Dumars was a superior defender who could play PG while Isiah was resting. If Bayless developes into a Dumars then Roy and Rudy might be able to take part in such a trio, but it would require either Brandon or Rudy to defend PGs for a portion of every ballgame
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
maybe the similar trio plays 2/3 for us
and any two of Roy, Fernandez, and Batum will be in the game. – Elgin
Without you out there, we're nowhere here
player expectations and culture
From what I’ve observed of the Spanish teams Rudy played on (which is not very much), they have more of a team concept than the NBA. The European game seems more like hockey where there are platoon changes. The goal is that your tema come out ahead in the end. My guess is that this is more the style the Rudy is accustomed to playing. Which makes him more comfortable playing 26 minutes a night as long as he is a major cog in the machine he will be happy. Clearly he knows at this point Roy is the better player and desrves a bigger role at SG. I don’t forsee their being a problem with Rudy as it will be clear to both Rudy and the team that he is a key part to the Blazers success and will get minutes in the rotation somewhere.
As Dave surmisses, Rudy has the expectation that he will be a star in this league and that Rudy will one day want to be the star as is the custom in the NBA. Well, I think that is common with young american’s (D. Miles exemplified this attitude before his microfracture) , but will not be a problem with Rudy. Sure Rudy could be a star if made a starter on another team. But do oyyu think Rudy would feel more happy playing a lesser role than super-star but a key-role on a championship-caliper team or being the superstar on a lesser team. I think the European B-Ball culture would say the first option is better (and many vets in the NBA go this route at their career wind down too).
Therefore I don’t think we’ll ever really have a problem unless a 3rd all-star player is acquired at SG. But that seems unlikely as we all well positioned at the 2. I think both Roy and Rudy will stay long term without complication. Partly because of the culture Nate and KP have put in place in putting an emphasis on the team, but knowing that it is the super-star that you count on in crunch time and in the playoffs. I’d be happy if Rudy is one of those superstars along with Roy.
lebron probably isn't the best example.
he plays anywhere from 1-5 on his team. D-Wade can play 1 2 or probably 3. Magic Johnson slid from 1-5 in the Finals.
You have to ask yourself if playing another 3 or 1 with Roy will sum to more than playing Rudy and Roy on the court together. Its really that simple..
Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".
...no seriously--stop.
BTW not saying your wrong-you could make the case that Batum+Roy(AT SG)>Rudy+Roy(AT SF), I wont argue that.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".
...no seriously--stop.
I voted Roy's traded, guy is seriously one-dimensional
I expect fistfights over playing time.
personally i think we take the 1-2-3-4-5 position stuff too seriously. and its all pretty situational anyway.
Blazer Fan
i think we take the 1-2-3-4-5 position stuff too seriously
Agreed. Nate and KP have been trying to make this point throughout the FA process, but evidently it’s hard (for some of us) to break away from “conventional thinking” when it comes to these traditional NBA roles…even when the players on the court are getting taller/quicker and there’s been less and less “post” play as the years have gone by
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
It's really more a question of who can you defend.
One of the five guys on the court has to be able to chase around a 6’1 (or sometimes smaller) PG. We all know you can’t stop the elite PG’s anymore, but if Rudy could learn to play Blake-like PG defense for 20-24 minutes a night, it would solve all the minutes problems because Rudy could backup Miller instead of Blake. With a Rudy/Roy backcourt both of them could share the playmaking role on offense, but we don’t want Roy expending all of his energy chasing a PG around for 20 minutes a night. Even if Rudy could defend the PG for only 10 minutes a game, we could get Rudy more than 30 minutes easily – 10 at PG (Roy at SG), 10 at SG in a 3 guard lineup with Roy, and 10-12 at SG while Roy rests.
The other possibility I mentioned earlier is getting Batum to guard the PG for about 10 minutes during a Roy/Rudy back court. We actually did that for a few minutes last year but it won’t work if the other team has a big SF that Roy either can’t defend or would be worn down trying.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 30, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I voted Roy's traded, guy is seriously one-dimensional!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Leeroyjenkins are you serious? Yeah, all the guy does is score, rebound, assist, defend, coach on the floor and control the pace and tempo. He’s one of the most efficient players in the league, and he basically does everything else intangible that you could ask any player to do and much more. And how many clutch shots and defensive plays has he made in his short career? Not to mention he stepped up even more in the playoffs. I respect you’re opinion but I definitely believe otherwise. I mean, what more would you ask of him if you were coach? Seriously?
logjams
The Blazers big problem right now is they have 10 players that are good enough to be starters in the NBA.
One view of that is: what a great problem to have. Sure it’s better than only having 2 starter-caliber players.
But it is not a trivial problem, it is a serious one. Because, it means that 2-3 players on their roster are not going to be getting the playing time they deserve.
In my opinion, one way or another they need to thin the herd. It is hard to picture giving up an offensive dynamo and crowd-pleaser like Rudy.
I would say, might as well keep your best players. So, let’s rank them in terms of importance to the team.
Roy
Aldridge
Oden
Miller
Pryzbilla
Rudy
Batum
Blake
Martell (may be higher but is a questionmark due to him not playing last year)
Outlaw
Bayless
You can argue whether that order is reasonable. A lot of them aren’t really clear cut, but that should be a reasonable rough cut on the order of importance of the players.
In a separate category: Roster placeholders that you want to hang on because of lack of trade value and potential to fill in at the 3-5 spots:
Pendergraph
Cunningham
So you have 11 rotation players. It seems to me that is too many. Some of those guys aren’t going to get any playing time. I think you need to lop off a couple players. So you pull the bottom two off the list, Outlaw and Bayless. Both have a lot of talent, and on many teams would be the 4th to 6th best player on the team. But not on the Blazers because of the logjam of talent.
The problem is, how do you trade them? You don’t want to trade them for players because that’s the whole point, you have too many players to begin with. The logical thing would be to trade them for draft picks. But nobody has the cap space to do that.
So I don’t have an answer for this. But the point is, so long as they have this logjam of players, at some point these guys become free agents and you can bet some of them are going to want to jump ship because if they can’t get the minutes they deserve in order to prove themselves in the league, their precious years when they are young enough to be NBA players are getting frittered away.
Now if the Blazers suffer, god forbid, a slew of injuries, then the glut of players will prove to be a godsend. Of course, no one wishes for that to happen.
kidding right?
just because outlaw had one series doesn’t make him the 11th man. it certainly doesn’t put him behind martell “i’ve never proven anything in the pros” webster. i also think you have to account for long term v short term. miller is important short term but long term batum + rudy are more important pieces to the puzzle.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".
...no seriously--stop.
Yeah, that list has some things I strongly disagree with.
We are already overrating Miller…
But it is OT.
Anyway, Travis is now securely in the power forward slot so he doesn’t really come into this discussion.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
Some Truth...
I think since we just aquired Miller, obviously Blazer fans are excited. It’s like a used car, he’s “new” to us. But I do think we have to think long term and short term. There is a reason The Blazers negotiated a 2 year contract with an option for a 3rd, and that reason is that Miller is…uh…should we say, very much a veteran? Miller is help, but he is short term help as in the next two seasons, and possibly a 3rd, and really that is short term. In 3 years we won’t have question marks about Batums development, Odens development or Bayless’s development. We will know I think much better how this team fits together, perhaps adjustments will have been made, but bottom line, Miller is here for today and tomorrow but not perhaps for the zenith of this teams potential success. I feel we still are 2-3 years away from being a legitimate Championship contender, Maybe I’m underestimating the development curve for this team, but I still think we need a very sucessful season or two, and a few more runs in the playoffs. Much ultimate success hinges on Odens development. I love The Blazers but I don’t see 2010 as the season we hoist the gold trophy. …..We will should be ready about the time the Mayans predict the end of the world….2012…
If we really come together this season, I think you could bump the timeline up a season. So optimistically maybe a season away, realisticly 2 seasons away.
"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"
Keep Both
The Blazers’ top 5 perimeter players = Roy, Miller, Fernandez, Batum, and Bayless (as an attacker/scorer/defender, but NOT a PG). The 1-3 rotation should be built around those 5. They should get the lion’s share of the playing time. Blake, Webster and Outlaw are the fillers next year. Blake and Outlaw will be gone the following year via free agency or mid-season trade.
regarding too much talent
“In my opinion it is seldom the problem that people think it is.”
Maybe, but I get the feeling it is pretty rare, so I don’t know if there is much basis to judge.
I wonder if any NBA junkies here are familiar with any similar cases where a team had 10-12 rotation-caliber players and how things worked out for them?
RT: any similar cases where a team had 10-12 rotation-caliber players
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2001.html
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
the do nothing option
In a lot of decisions there are various options one of which is the “do nothing” option.
That obviously is often one of the options in basketball- for example it was one of the options for the Blazers this summer.
For now the do nothing option probably has a lot going for it. There is clearly a logjam issue but if they go a couple months into the season then things may become more clear and then it might be appropriate to consider some trade(s).
On the other hand, last year we had the idea let’s see how Bayless plays and fits in and see what his role should be, and we weren’t able to figure it out from the regular season nor summer league. So it may be optimistic to think that after a couple months of games in the regular season that there will necessarily be any answers.
However, we may know by then how some of the players we have hopes for are progressing- Oden, Batum, Martell, and we may have some idea by then whether Pendergraph or Cunningham are capable of playing in the NBA. They are going to be under more pressure than people like Oden and Bayless, because the rationale of “heck give the guy some time he’s only 19 years old” doesn’t apply for 4 year college guys.
Per 82games.com...
There’s not much doubt that Dave’s premise that Rudy is a pure shooting guard is spot-on. Rudy had a PER of 18.1 at shooting guard last year and was a net +4.5 compared to his counterpart opponent. He was net -10.1 at point guard and net -37.5 at small forward. Ouch.
B-Roy’s PER-by-position numbers are intriguing, however. Roy was a net +9.4 at shooting guard…and net +18.3 at small forward. And that net +18.3 isn’t a result of limited sample size, either — Roy averaged 12 minutes a game playing small forward last season.
Looking at our best 5-man lineups is eye-popping. Blake/Rudy/Roy/LMA/Przy was our second-best lineup in points per possession (1.28, just one-hundredth of a point behind Blake/Roy/Outlaw/LMA/Oden) and our best lineup in points allowed per possession (.91).
That lineup outscored its opponents by 93 points in just 128 minutes this year. By way of comparison, our regular starting lineup was +174 in 560 minutes. I didn’t have a dog in this fight before looking at these numbers, but now I’m convinced that Roy needs to continue playing chunks of time at the 3 alongside Rudy and Miller/Blake in the backcourt.
The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.
by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 7:51 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Thanks for looking that up.
I know it was somewhere, but was too lazy to find it myself. As I stated above, I completely agree with your conclusion.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
Keep both for now.....
I’m usually just a lurker, but I love my Rudy and had to chime in. I think we keep them both for now for a few reasons:
1) I fear a major injury is in Brandon’s future, no matter how well he takes care of himself. That happens and Rudy isn’t with us and we are s SERIOUSLY screwed. The answer to me is to wait until Martell and/or Rex have shown they can be capable backups at the 2. Then we can consider a trade.
2) I don’t know that Rudy’s problem is minutes per se, but usage and timing of that usage. I think language is getting in our way here. He want’s to be more than a spot up 3-shooter and he wants to be on the court when the game is on the line. If Nate can work that out, we might be able to keep Rudy happy another season or two. If we can get to the Finals in that timeframe, we might even keep him longer.
3) The money issue has been discussed ad nauseum, but it simply cannot be ignored – Rudy is incredibly valuable to the the Trailblazers in hard dollars, and will not be given away without receiving comparable value – the Vulcans will not allow it.
Anyway, my two cent’s worth.
82 Game Marathon
After listening to BRoy and Rudy lamenting how tired they were going into the playoffs why would they want or need more minutes? In Rudy’s case, why not be satisfied with 28/30 minutes per game? Maybe BRoy should sit out a few games a la Tim Duncan and be fresh for the playoffs?
by Original Blazer Fan on Jul 30, 2009 8:09 AM PDT reply actions
I agree... but this won't happen.
Also it seems to me like Rudy takes nights off, some nights he doesn’t run all over off the ball or find the open spot.. I have said this before and had my post deleted by the mods but it is just my honest opinion. I think we should occasionally give guys the night off.
it was his first year playing that many games. look at it from a playoff perspective.
if they were playing nothing but a 7 game series, dave is arguing we’re wasting talent. I disagree, but I think that’s more or less the premise.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".
...no seriously--stop.
It is all about match-ups....
I think Nate needs to figure that out instead of subbing out Roy with 3 minutes left in the first quarter, see how the flow is going, where we can attack. I agree Nate is a better coach than me but I have heard others say this too. I don’t know if Nate is just to stubborn or what.
Stop worrying about everyone's feelings so much...
Roy is the star period. You fit in everyone around him. If that means Rudy continues to play 25 minutes a game, then oh well. If he wants more minutes than he needs to work on becoming a better defender. Rudy has the length to play the small forward position…he is similar in height to Kobe, Iguodala, Gerald Wallace and Caron Butler. So, if he works on his body and lateral quickness, he can become at the very least a serviceable defender when guarding most small forwards.
Rudy is a play maker
Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Batum, Rudy, Miller. Everybody else fits around them.
Rudy should play 30-32 minutes … but it wasn’t the number of minutes that Rudy talked about so much as how he was used… which CoachMac addressed as well.
Rudy is a playmaker. From 3, off screens, at the hoop, making entry passes, drive and dish, fast breaks (leading and finishing), making steals, being a catalyst. Needing to trade Rudy means CoachMac isn’t a good enough coach to to make use of Roy AND Rudy’s strengths and deal with any weaknesses. They’re both 6’6 with a 6’2 or a 6’3 PG and excellent size, length and athleticism at SF, PF, C.
The issue isn’t Rudy or Roy. The minute crunch is with the backups: Blake, Bayless, Webster and Outlaw. And that will be an issue for KP, Penn and co.
by HoopsFan on Jul 30, 2009 9:00 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
While I voted for Rudy at the 3 (i.e. weak side 3ball shooter in Nate's system), I think we need to analyze the problem differently.
Believe it or not, the concepts of “point guard” and “power forward” are relatively new ones. I think PG came into vogue first, during the middle 1970s, I’m guessing. I’m fairly confident that “power forward” dated even later, middle 1980s. I know I was a mad-crazy OSU Beaver fan in the early 1980s and “power forward” is a concept that never even entered my thinking… I’m guessing Karl Malone is The Original.
Previously, it had been 2 “guards,” 2 “forwards,” 1 “center” and there ya go…
Now we obsessively conceive of a basketball team as having five positions, not three. When reality gets in the way, we fudge the data with terms like “combo guard” or “versatile 3/4” or “low post 4/5” and cheer loudly that a guy can “play more than 1 position.”
In reality, I think there are not 5 positions, but 3. However, not the same 3 that my generation and those earlier believed them to be… The three positions are actually these:
POINT GUARD (1)
WING (2)
BIG (2)
Think about it the next time you watch a game. You’ve got a 6’9"+ “power forward” and a 6’11"+ “center” working the low post; you’ve got 3 guys flitting around the outside — usually, but not always, one of whom is bigger than the other; and you’ve got one guy generally bringing the ball down the floor and initiating the offense.
If you think of things this way, the nature of the Blazers’ log jam changes. Now you’ve got:
POINTS (1)
1. Blake; 2. Miller; 3. Roy (late 4th Q); 4. Rex (bench).
WINGS (2)
1. Roy; 2. Batum; 3. Fernandez; 4. Webster; 5. Outlaw; 6. Cunningham (bench).
BIGS (2)
1. LMA; 2. Oden; 3. Przybilla; 4. Outlaw (small ball offense); 5. Pendergraph; 6. Cunningham (bench).
Still a lot of guys capable of playing and a finite number of game minutes, but less of a (false) trauma than posing the question as “how is SG Fernandez going to find time when we have SG Roy,” if you follow. Mix and match your wings…
Two things:
1. Injuries are part of basketball. We just saw a draft pick lost for the season with a broken foot, and then two summer league games in which we lost one of the three key guys for one game (Cunningham) and one of the three key guys for another (Rex). That’s five games, two injuries — in the wake of a season-ender in practice. So anyone that thinks 240 minutes / these 13 guys is going to leave players A, B, C, and D mad is simply not taking into account the very real fact that there WILL be injuries throughout the year. We don’t know who is going down and when, but we DO know that there will be guys out hurt and the actual rotation for any given game is shorter than it appears on paper in the off season.
2. I am still baffled why the baseball concept of the “platoon” has not migrated to basketball. Which game is more physical — which one really requires REST that can’t be obtained if a guy is playing back-to-backs? Basketball. I’m not speaking necessarily of the batting-related Lefty/Righty platoon, but rather the way that some teams use catchers… They REST guys regularly, realizing that 120 good games from your #1 catcher on rest and 42 games from your backup catcher is more effective than running one warhorse 162 games and watching him fade and collapse when the heat of the summer breaks him down. So, too, with basketball. Why NOT sit a guy as though he were injured on the back-to-backs, to keep him fresh (the way Pop was using Tim Duncan late last year)??? If you have 5 or 6 quality wings and nobody is hurt and only have time for 4, why are you playing the same 4 time and time again instead of keeping them fresh by resting them (rotationally) on back to backs? It needs to happen and this team is deep enough that it can happen.
Anyway, that’s more words than I planned on writing. Thanks for reading.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 30, 2009 9:17 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I like your post
but even if you keep your point/wing/big schema, there’s still a major question left unanswered about playing time. You have Blake, Miller, Roy, Batum, Fernandez, Outlaw, Webster, LMA, Oden, and Przy listed under your new categories. There’s still a big minute crunch.
And definitely guys will be injured — you’re absolutely right when you say the rotation for any given game is shorter than it appears right now — but I still don’t see a way to maximize Rudy’s value as long as Roy is a Blazer. That’s why I voted for trading him.
The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.
by BlazersOrBust on Jul 30, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I really don't think the minute crunch is all that bad... Injuries will fix the situation, as callous as that sounds...
Last year we lost Marty for the whole year. Blake was out for a huge chunk of time, etc.
Injuries are random events, but they are regular and they can be catastrophic unless a team has depth enough to cover all eventualities. We need to stop worrying so much about the egos of young millionaires… They’ll live if they have to ride pine once in a while…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Jul 30, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
can be catastrophic unless a team has depth enough to cover all eventualities
this is why I’m concerned about Joel or Greg getting hurt again, or if LMA were to go down
rookies are not depth…they’re rookies
Just one more quality veteran backup PF/C should be considered a necessity, not a luxury. Someone better than Shav, Frye, Ruffin or Diogu
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
nice fresh perspective
that opens up fresh plays and multiple adjustments. Hope Nate and the coaches can and do think outside the norm like this, esp. given the team’s talent logjams when stuck in the norm. Allows more players to contribute and/or gain trade value which = long-term contention for championships.
trust all is well
I know injuries are common but I'm not buying the idea
of starter-level players cooling their heels on the bench waiting for garbage minutes and hoping the guy ahead of them in the rotation pulls a hamstring. It’s one thing to ask an average player to park his ego, but in pro sports, the guy who has the talent and desire to be an All-Star and get paid like one is right to want the opportunity to fulfill his potential.
We fans just want to see the team win, but a team consists of individuals whose needs and abilities have to be considered. It would be great to field a Dream Team of ten stars, each of whom are content to play 24 minutes per game and earn $6 million per year, but none of them would be living up to their potential or being compensated fairly for all the hard work they’ve put in over the years and their level of talent.
As much as I love Rudy in a Blazer uniform, if his future on the Blazers behind Brandon Roy is Sixth Man of the Year but his future as a starter with the Phoenix Suns is five-time NBA All-Star I would rather trade him to the Suns. It’s even more obviously the right move when you consider that trading Rudy could bring back one or more assets that would help us in ways he cannot and help Paul Allen avoid paying luxury tax to keep him.
by MiledAnimal on Jul 30, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
there's a difference between young vets and old pros
Young vets are concerned with starting games and playing as many minutes as possible. This helps them accumulate stats that will look good during contract negotiations (Roy is usually considered “the exception” to this rule, and you notice that even Brandon isn’t going to accept a “home town discount” when it comes to his LTC…nor should he)
Old pros have already been through the young vet “stage” and are more interested in winning a ring, especially if they haven’t had that opportunity.
Contending teams should have 3 or more old pros. On the Blazers only Miller really qualifies, although Blake and Przybilla are in the neighborhood. Adding another old pro to play reserve PF/C and removing at least one young vet SF from the roster would bring better PT “balance”
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Absolutely.
Old Pro’s are also ok with playing 12-15 a game in a backup role because the shorter minutes prolong their career and the number of years they can continue to collect multi-mega-buck contracts. The ideal Old Pro can still play close to his career peak performance for short minutes, such as 7-8 minutes a half. They are also capable of playing 25 minutes a night when someone is injured and sitting out for a couple weeks. Joel is approaching the Old Pro stage in the next year or two, which is why I anticipate he will re-sign with the Blazers even though he opts out this summer to get a bigger contract. We need to get another old pro for a backup FP.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Jul 30, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m fairly confident that "power forward" dated even later, middle 1980s… I’m guessing Karl Malone is The Original
No, the term “power forward” dates to the mid-70s. Elvin Hayes was the prototype. Unseld was the Bullett’s center, Bobby Dandridge was the small forward. (Maurice Lucas was also referred to as a PF, or “Enforcer”)
Bob Cousy was the NBA’s original “point guard”
Ralph Miller’s NCAA offense never had such designations
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
As usual,
Your position is convincing.
One thing with which I disagree is that you have to have a point guard. I think Phil Jackson and his “Two for my thumbs” has disproven that. I expect anyone who plays the 1, 2, or 3 – as much as we need bother with those labels – should possess the necessary skills to bring the ball up the floor, make solid passes that lead to baskets, initiate an offensive set, penetrate with the ball, shoot from multiple spots on the floor, and guard more than one position.
In this sense, some personnel will guide the decision. Obviously a guy as short as Bayless (with his tiny, tiny arms) can only guard other really short people. He’s not versatile in this fashion. So when he’s on the court, we adjust to that reality. What I mean is, yes, we definitely have to have a guy playing the 1 when Bayless is on the floor.
But I disagree that you always have to have a 1. (I’m prejudiced watching the Bulls win with Harper (2), Jordan (2), and Pippen (3).)
Trade Rudy
I love Rudy. I have a bobblehead and where his t-shirt to every game, but the best option is to trade Rudy. He has sky high value, and Bayless can readily slide into the back up roll for Roy. We can target a solid 3 and back up 4. I am sure the Bobcats would take the call regarding Gerald Wallace.
I know the salaries don´t match, and we may have to go over the cap, but I think a true starting 5 would catapult the Blazers into contention, even if it involves the loss of a player with Rudy´s potential.
I am sure the Bobcats would take the call regarding Gerald Wallace.
Don’t be too sure, Larry Brown loves GW. I’m not sure how he feels about Rudy
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I love me some Rudy...
but for him to get more minutes in this system his game will need to improve… drastically.
At this point, he’s not much more than a (very good) 3 point shooter who occasionally dunks. He has great vision but lacks temperance, leading to ill advised decisions when trying to create. He defends the passing lanes very well, but is a rather weak man defender. I wouldn’t classify him as a rebounder of any kind. I don’t find either of these observations to be a result of him in the system, but rather a reflection of who he is a an NBA player right now.
As is, he seems perfect for a true run&gun system where the focus is simply to outscore the opponent. Phoenix from a couple years ago, the Warriors, maybe even the Knicks.
I don’t know that he’ll ever develop into a multi-faceted player (obviously one can never know). I’m not sure if it’s his size (or lack of it), what I percieve as his natural talent for the game, the fact that he’s a Euro… but I don’t see him as ever able to beat guys off the dribble or cross defenders over. I don’t see him ever being a great man defender. I don’t see him boxing out guys for rebounds.
Even if this team had no Roy I get the feeling we’d be wanting more in our starting 2 than what Rudy will be able to bring.
As is, the backup 2 and additional time when we play the 3 guard lineup is all that is warranted.
As much as it pains me to say it, Rudy might be our best bet as a trading piece. We have Bayless and Martell who could play backup 2 some, though not likely nearly as effectively as Rudy.
This reminds me of Drazen being stuck behind Clyde. It’s a tough situation, but there’s just no way you can take the inferior player.
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 30, 2009 9:58 AM PDT reply actions
wow this seems really hard, how did the guys who just threw their best players out onto the court ever stand a chance?
12345123451234512345 oh my!
Blazer Fan
Don't you think we've gotten too attached to these labels?
Back in the day, there were guards and front court players. This is a point that Nate has made. Really, the NBA game is all about matchups.
Sure, Rudy can’t guard LeBron James. But that doesn’t mean Rudy can’t guard plenty of other “threes.” Likewise, Roy can’t keep up with Chris Paul. But there are other “ones” that Roy can guard just fine. Even in cases where Roy or Rudy struggle guarding someone, that’s moot if they can do even more damage at the offensive end vs that opponent.
I might be wrong, but I don’t see Roy & Rudy being incompatible. I DO think that Trout might ultimately need to go, because he has drawbacks playing either the three OR the four position. With Trout, you’re ALWAYS balancing the benefit his magic jumper brings you vs the points he takes away from you at the defensive end and on the boards. And as for the conventional wisdom that Martell can play the two: come on! He simply doesn’t handle the ball well enough to play guard at the NBA level. So if there’s a log jam on the Blazers’ roster, I’d clear it by trading Trout and/or Martell long before I’d trade a special player like Rudy Fernandez.
As KP said the other day (in reference to Andre Miller), NBA champions are made up of high-IQ players. And that describes Rudy to a T. As Rudy continues to learn the league and as his teammates figure out how to play with him, his game should really blossom. The Blazers would be foolish to trade a player like that.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
I dont get
the fuss over Rudy and why people are so concerned about his minutes. All he’s shown is that he can be a great 3 point shooter. Hopefully Martell can cut out his minutes even more
I think we tend to pigeon-hole players into positions a bit too much.
The reality is both are guards/wings. They can play multiple positions and deal with multiple roles, and don’t need to stay confined to that position even on consecutive plays. Both “play well with others”…..and don’t need to fulfill a specific role all the time.
It’s that flexibility that allows the Blazers to keep both, even though we as fans want to push them into the 2 hole.
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Jul 30, 2009 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Once again,
this discussion is reductionist and overlooks our team offensive style. As Rudy said, it’s less a question of minutes, than how he is used. I thought it was a little embarrassing last season watching Rudy running laps around the offensive end to get an open look while the rest of the offense was basically static.
The reason I think Rudy is likely to be traded is that Nate does not know how to use his skills. And someone’s got to go.
Adding Andre Miller to the picture only makes these questions murkier, because instead of a clear cut bad fit with Nate and Rudy, we now need a period of time to see how Rudy works with Miller. And how much Nate is willing to do with Andre what he was unable to with Sergio, open up to collaborative playmaking. (Which is Rudy’s strength.)
These tensions stem from the bedrock of the BRoy/Nate offensive philosophy. Which is very conservative and is not pass oriented. Despite the lip service given to “running and distributing.” Makes you wonder why we acquire these guys whose skills are best served in a more fluid, creative style of basketball.
It’s like KP and Nate do not entirely understand each other.
It will be very interesting to see the impact that Miller has on the squad. He’s like a souped up Sergio. I think there’s about a 50% chance that there will be some real tension in the locker room next year because of the depth and confusion about playing styles.
I think Miller fits great with Rudy
And Blake fits well with Roy. But you may be right — there could be a lot of friction. Wait and see.
missed the point here
which is how well does Rudy fit with the Blazers offensive approach?
RT: It will be very interesting to see the impact that Miller has on the squad. He’s like a souped up Sergio
Not really. Yes, Andre has the court vision of Serio and the “controlled, no hurry” penetration of Roy to go along with the low assist/turnover ratio of Steve Blake. His teammates will love playing with him
Dean Demo said it best last night on Talkin’ Ball: Miller will connect all the dots
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Why are we trying to trade Rudy?
What NBA contender could Rudy be a starter on? I think Rudy has a great game, and I love him on our team. I think his role is just right. It would be nice to get him more minutes, but I think he is a perfect player to back up an all-star SG. Though he is very talented, I only see him being the starter on a non-playoff team. If we traded him to a good team, they would use him exactly like we do. To back up their star SG. We know Dave likes to trade our players, but do our players want to win it all, or get PT with Memphis/Sacramento. Did you know that Sasha Vujacic “The Machine”;-) is 6’7? He played at a very high level in 07-08, but on what true contender would he be a starter? Rudy compares to Vujacic pretty well. A back up SG on a championship contender. Who do we want our back up SG to be? Bayless? "Are you havin’ a laugh? “Is he havin’ a laugh?” Dynasties have strong benches. Let’s please keep ours, so we have a shot at being a dynasty.
This whole idea of consolidating roles is a little off the mark, when we just watched the Lakers win it all, after consecutive trips to the finals. Their roles are all over the place. It’s basically superstar Kobe and myriad combinations of talented guys. This flies in the face of this idea of consolidation, and locking down roles to a narrow rotation. For instance; if you took the 8 most talented guys on the Lakers, you would think that Luke Walton would never step on the floor, and yet he is a regular contributor. It’s about having a bench that contains the right guy for the moment. We are tying to win a ring, without strip mining our future to do so. Why continue to try and derail those efforts by sending talent away needlessly? People are very concerned about second string guys wanting PT, but that is the reality on every team in the NBA. The one way for a guy who is not quite talented enough to be a starter on a good team, to get more PT, is to go to a bad team. Those are the options. I don’t think we are hurting Rudy by letting him be a part of a legit contender, if anything, he seems to have hit the lottery being drafted by Portland. We like him too, so it’s a great fit.
Rudy:Blazers
Humvee:Racetrack.
His strengths are not being put to use. Andre Miller might change that. But it takes more than 2 passers on the floor to make for a team offense (When I say that I mean an offense that involves more than 2 players at a time).
Batum is the only other guy I see making the quick, rotate-the-defense type of pass. But he is not given license to create. Every one else on the team, the ball gets to them and the action stops. Now you might say this is due to our offensive philosophy, but if that’s the case, it supports my earlier claim that Nate and Rudy are a bad fit. Either way, if Portland’s offense does not open up, Rudy will be better served playing elsewhere.
Sorry, but I think Rudy does well shooting for us.
His perfect offense, is not going to happen anywhere, because you don’t build your offense around a guy off the bench, or your third or fourth best player, which Rudy would be anywhere in the NBA. Roy is who things will be built around. Nate has said he would like to put Miller and Rudy together in the second unit, because they should be able to compliment each other. That’s more than a lot of teams would do for a guy who is not their star. By this logic, most players in the league are probably on the wrong teams for their specific talents. Too bad, so sad. That’s life. Rudy can do a lot for the Blazers, we won’t give him away. Did I mention we are only two deep at that spot. Rudy is a Blazer.
good points
and success should ease any misgivings about playing in a Nate McMillen offense. I think this season could go a lot of different ways. And Rudy is not that critical to our ultimate success. Greg Oden, on the other hand, is critical.
Rudy = a future great point guard
1. He can hit the long ball
2. He can defend point guards (I believe!)
3. He is the second best passer (Miller’s probably best) on the Blazers
4. He can bring the ball up, give it to Roy, and then stand out at the three point line (sound familiar? Rudy > Blake)
5. He and Roy would be a devastating backcourt
6. He’s not a small forward…at all, on O or D
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
this is just way too "inside the box"
Phil Jackson just won another title with an offense that throws the traditional five positions out the window. If we can’t find minutes for both Rudy and Roy than we need a better coach.
I don’t foresee a problem. Miller, Rudy, Brandon, (eventually) Batum, Blake, Bayless… all those guys are more than capable of bringing up the ball and initiating the offense. And all of them should be capable of guarding at least two “positions.” Penetrating, passing, shooting from different places on the floor – those are basketball skills. Not “1-guard” or “2-guard” skills. Just skills.
Roy + Rudy = TLA
Roy and Rudy are going to be together forever. They’re going to write children’s books together. They’re going to sing songs about love, friendship, and championships. My sources confirm this as a legit rumor.
I voted Roy's traded, guy is seriously one-dimensional!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Leeroyjenkins are you serious? Yeah, all the guy does is score, rebound, assist, defend, coach on the floor and control the pace and tempo. He’s one of the most efficient players in the league, and he basically does everything else intangible that you could ask any player to do and much more. And how many clutch shots and defensive plays has he made in his short career? Not to mention he stepped up even more in the playoffs. I respect you’re opinion but I definitely believe otherwise. I mean, what more would you ask of him if you were coach? Seriously?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blazer's Edge
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
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- 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
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.
