Outside Shooting vs. Driving to the hoop

by venjance on Jul 5, 2009 2:04 PM PDT

I keep hearing over and over how whoever we get via free agency or through trades, they HAVE to have a killer jumpshot or be a 3pt threat (especially if they are a PG) and that the guys with suspect jumpers or limited 3pt range should not even be considered. I'm NOT saying shooting isnt important, obviously it is, but there are other ways to score besides shooting Js and 3pters. We've already got a lot of 3pt firepower as it is, more than most teams I'd say (Roy, Rudy, Blake, Webster, Travis, occasionally Batum and even LA) So is adding another jumpshooter/3pt threat an absolute necessity? How many guys do we have (besides Brandon) who can regularly put the ball on the floor, drive to the basket, get fouled and convert the bucket? ...........exactly my point.

Does anyone else here recall how many times last year (and earlier) the criticism that the Blazers were solely a jump shooting team who rarely got to the free throw line? We've all heard the saying "live by the jumper, die by the jumper" well with the exception of Roy, we have been living and dying by the jumper for years. How many times would you watch in horror as Travis faded to the top of the key and hoisted up a wild, contested shot, the whole time screaming for us to "drive to the basket, drive to the basket" I know I did it several times a game, and not just with Travis.

I don't think there have been enough (any?) mentions about the importance (and in the Blazers case lack of) drives to the hoop that result in fouls and us shooting free throws. This is one of the areas that the Blazers could definately improve upon This is a way that we can diversify our half court offense and add valuable extra points/possesion. Not to mention drawing those fouls gets the opposition into the penalty quicker which leads us to more free throws and more points. Besides running the fastbreak for layups and dunks, this is the best way to get "easy" points.

So while I am NOT saying shooting is something we dont' need or couldn't use more of, what I AM saying is that we might want to give more consideration to the guys out there who make a living at the free throw line, can consistently drive to the rim and draw fouls. Adding a guy like that would be a great way to mix up our offense, make defenses sag off a bit and ultimately create more room for our existing shooters, not to mention the extra points we'd gain from fouls. Just a wrinkle that I think we haven't mentioned enough.

Now I'll let you discuss who we can attain that would bring this to the table

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Jerryd Bayless?

by matthewcc on Jul 5, 2009 2:10 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

by pxilpooshr on Jul 5, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Bayless is right!

Your logic is correct, but with our existing starting 4 (excluding the PG) we would only have one real 3pt shooter at SF. LA is not a 3 pt shooter, GO also does not qualify. Brandons game only resorts to the three as a last resort or a blown assignment. That leaves one of our 18 SF’s to spot up. What is ideal (with this lineup) is having that PG who can take that occasional 3 freeing up the paint for GO, LA and Brandon.

2nd team, at this point is a different story. I can’t wait to see Bayless slash through the paint finish and drop it off to the big boys. This 2nd team ends up with at least 2 deep shooters in Rudy and whomever at SF. So we don’t need a third shooter.

by rythemjones on Jul 5, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions

makes a lot of sense

This was one of the reasons why Hinrich > Blake, Kirk was 3 times more likely to get to the FT line than Steve, according to some statistical breakdown that I read a month ago

But I also read an article this week that “pulled back the curtain” re: what KP and Nate are looking for in any of their perimeter players. The writer (or scout, I can’t remember) said that the Blazers like players who can shoot. This may have been in reference to the apparent lack of interest in Andre MIller, or it could’ve been brought up when someone asked about Sessions, whatever.

Outside of Greg and Joel (and the reported pursuit of David Lee) just about every other Blazer acquisition has had some ability to shoot the ball from outside. Even though Bayless and Sergio struggled from distance last year, I still think the Blazer’s “MO” is to not go hard after guards or forwards who have “the touch of a blacksmith” (DeJuan Blair?) If this tendency rules out the acquisition a great ballhandler (Sessions, Miller) then I guess Blazer fans will just have to “roll with it”

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Jul 5, 2009 2:23 PM PDT reply actions

Word. Rec. +1. +2. +3. What you said. Yes. Mo' drivin' = mo' points = mo' wins.

Duct tape makes you smart.

by TTRocks on Jul 5, 2009 4:00 PM PDT reply actions

We do need that guy...

I think the Blazers think it will be Bayless. The problem I have noticed with some trades is that they include Blake, Travis, or Rudy and sometimes all three. If you are trading combinations of those three guys, you are depleting your 3pt arsenal considerably. It would leave you with Martell, Batum, and Roy as your 3pt shooters if you are bringing back Wallace or Harris.

PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04

by tssbro on Jul 5, 2009 5:23 PM PDT reply actions

Its all about spacing

On defense, you give slashers room and you play close to shooters. The 3pt threat spaces the floors and allows more room for slashers to operate.

If the opposing team can’t shoot the 3, all you have to do to shut them down is play zone and clog the lane. The way to defeat the zone is to shoot your way out of it.

Yes, playing in the paint and getting to the line is important, but it can’t be the only way that an offense gets points.

by ninjasocks on Jul 5, 2009 5:28 PM PDT reply actions

Right now we only have 1 slasher on the starting unit.

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Jul 6, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions

3-point shots are very efficient shots (as long as they are taken by a decent shooter)

3-point shooters also make things easier for their teammates by spreading out the defense.Teams that shoot a lot of 3-point shots tend to be more efficient offensively and win more games than team that shoot fewer 3-point shots.

3-point shooting is something that you can never really have too much of. It isn’t a skill where you can say: “we have a good shooter at SF so we don’t need a 3-point shooter at PG.” Ideally, you want all of the perimeter players to be capable of shooting 3’s, since shooters complement each other rather than interfering with each other. Any perimeter player who can’t shoot 3’s is always going to put his team at a disadvantage compared to an otherwise similar player who can shoot 3’s.

I do think that the lack of a 3-point shot isn’t as big of a disadvantage for players who have the ball in their hands a lot than it is for players who play off the ball. Unfortunately for any non-shooter who wants to play for the Blazers, Brandon Roy needs to have the ball in his hands a lot so the other guards on the Blazers have to be effective playing off the ball to to be a good match with Roy.

by trk on Jul 5, 2009 6:55 PM PDT reply actions

Miller can do that, and did on 30% of his shots

But he can’t shoot the 3 well, so the common wisdom is we can’t sign him.

by baduk on Jul 5, 2009 7:07 PM PDT reply actions

Lopsided trade: Trout for Gerald Wallace

With our capspace this would be possbile and give Pdx another slasher whop also upgrades the D. He has four years left with the last as a player option and costs per year what Hedo would have cost. This year he costs 5 million more than trout, which means we can keep many of our unsigned cap-hold pieces.

by NWfan on Jul 6, 2009 1:58 AM PDT reply actions

I agree. This is one of the reasons I like Wallace and Hinrich.

They can drive to the hoop. Wallace has pretty good assist numbers, so you know he’s kicking it off the drive to shooters in good spots (it’s not like Charlotte has the best shooters).

Patty Mills - PG of the future. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Jul 6, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions