Pre-Season Answers
by Dave on Sep 16, 2009 12:32 AM PDT
109 comments
I got a few e-mails yesterday pointing out that while I identified many of the potential stories and issues forthcoming in training camp and pre-season I didn't really give thoughts on the resolution of those stories and issues. A couple people thought this curious and a couple others were dissatisfied I guess.
For those who are new here, likely coming on for the season, I'd hasten to point out that this is a slightly different place than what you might be used to. Ben and I have never written because we love the sound of our own voice. I've never wanted this blog to be about me or my glorious opinions. It's about the Blazers and the conversation that surrounds them. I am a part of that conversation, surely. But I see my role as facilitating conversation more than dominating it. Sometimes I will ask questions that I leave open because the comments are more fun that way, straying away from the "Dave is right!" or "Dave is an idiot!" dualism that's common but of limited entertainment and educational value. If you look at the comments in the original post I think you'll see what I mean. I don't think people are in the dark as to my opinions, at least not if they've been reading for a while. But I don't feel the need to lead with my opinions all the time as if they were the point of the exercise.
Also remember that identifying important issues is more than half of the conversational battle. Don't underestimate how much time and energy people will spend debating issues that turn out to be peripheral while keys to the season go assumed and/or unaddressed. Framing inquiries properly is the first key to understanding more clearly.
Nevertheless, I'm game to take my shot at answering some of the questions brought forth by yesterday's post. Just so nobody feels left out or cheated...
1. How many minutes can Greg Oden carve out?
I said in the original post that I expect Oden to reclaim the starting spot this season, though I'm not sure when that will happen. As long as he comes into camp in shape my bet is that he'll start the season as a starter. I believe Andre Miller will be good for his offensive game and the extra months of getting used to the knee should make him more agile on defense. That said, I don't expect to see shades of the dominating, league-destroying Oden until next season. I know we've heard glowing reports this summer but I never believe those until they're translated into actual performance in real games. In some ways this is Rookie Year Part Two with less adaptation necessary and more exploration possible. I would be quite happy with a 30 mpg, not-fouling-out, solid defender version of Greg. I believe he'll be in the 28-32 minute range by December.
2. How the heck is the small forward rotation going to work?
Ugh. Why did I ask this? I'd say that Martell Webster will have the hardest road early on, coming back off of injury and having to squeeze his way into a crowded lineup. But I think his experience will eventually allow him to persevere and his outside shooting will win him the starting role again. Batum will become a heavily-used reserve assigned to defend the opponent's best scorer, much as he did as a starter last year. Travis Outlaw will start ahead of Webster in the rotation and could come out firing because of his contract year. Eventually he will find himself pushed more into the reserve power forward role. At some point the trade speculation surrounding him is going to swirl hot and heavy. Brandon Roy will also see some small forward minutes in three-guard lineups. Nobody is going to get as many minutes as they want.
3. Will the Blazers run more on offense?
Yes, with an asterisk. Andre Miller is going to allow LaMarcus Aldridge, Nicolas Batum, and Rudy Fernandez to run more. You're going to see more fast breaks off of turnovers and fortunate rebounds. However the base offense will still be centered around Brandon Roy. Greg Oden will figure in more this year as well. Those both spell halfcourt. (Oden will likely remain too bulky to run consistently.) What you might see more of is the secondary break where the third or fourth guy down the court gets a wide open opportunity either at the bucket or from three. This could become a staple of the offense...not rushed but still breaking.
4. Do we finally have a pick and roll defense that works?
Was this issue glaring last year? Like Kate Gosselin glaring at Jon it was. Like Robert DeNiro glaring at everybody it was. Like Sophia glaring at fans smiling at Blazer dancers it was. As we discussed yesterday it's going to take more than one guy to fix it. Part of the responsibility comes at the point of attack. Steve Blake didn't quite have the physical chops to get through or around picks in time last year and Sergio Rodriguez just stopped dead when screened. Andre Miller is better suited for it. He doesn't have to stop opposing point guards. He just has to shadow them close enough that they don't get completely free with only a big man to beat. Last year that big man was Greg Oden, which caused a fair amount of trouble. Oden needs to be quicker and more selective. Whether it will all come together remains to be seen. Were I an opponent I would immediately involve Oden in pick and roll situations until the Blazers prove they can cope. My bet is that it'll be better but not beyond regular exploitation. Then again, even a little better might be enough to eke out some extra wins.
5. Where do you find minutes for Rudy?
It's going to be tough. His minutes won't go down. Brandon may even cede him a couple in order to keep fresh if the Blazers can maintain leads. But something's going to have to give in the rotation for Rudy to find 30+ minutes. Fernandez is not going to be able to play small forward for extended periods because he'll give up too much weight and power to opponent threes. Brandon can play some small forward but with Batum, Webster, and Outlaw over there he probably won't see a ton of minutes. Perhaps the Blazers will go small when Travis slides to the four. But Rudy might have been playing those minutes anyway. The great hope, and the eventual opening, comes at point guard. Either Brandon or Rudy could get a look there with an eye to developing more as Andre Miller ages. Rudy definitely needs to pick up some ball-handling skills to play that position. Brandon sliding to the one would open up more minutes for Rudy as well. Either way, this is the long-term solution if there's going to be one. Otherwise we're going to get to the end of the year and start talking about the answer to this question being "somewhere else".
6. How much has LaMarcus grown and how much can we lay on his shoulders?
Without seeing first-hand we don't really know. LaMarcus has always seemed driven. He's improved each year. It'll all depend on the work he's put in and his confidence. The Blazers will rely on him as much as they can.
7. Who comes to training camp in shape?
The only real concerns here are Travis and Greg. Outlaw has a history of playing himself into condition during camp but again his contract status may rear its head and he may start early this year. We're still getting a gauge on Oden's baseline. What's better for him, bulky and strong or lean and fast? I lean towards the latter but knee conditions make that hard. We've not yet seen an unblemished Oden and I worry that we won't to start this season either. A more in shape Oden is not out of the question though. That's what I'm hoping for. Speed and stamina will go a long way towards helping his game.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
109 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Silly, silly Dave
OF COURSE this blog isn’t about you and your glorious opinion. It is about ME and MY glorious opinion.
Carry on.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 12:54 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
strangely accurate, despite the sarcasm
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Sep 16, 2009 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I could have said "first" instead
This seemed marginally better.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i mean there isn't much to say... we just have to wait and see and find out what happens...
i liked the first post.. it was a good way of outlining the themes
by mandoman10 on Sep 16, 2009 1:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the second most important question is “How does the Blazer chemistry hold up with eleven rotation players fighting for minutes?”
I worry.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 1:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The rotation will be withered down to 9 until the all-star break or latest the playoffs
Injuries and complete training camp surprises aside, Jerryd and one out of Travis, Martell, and Nicolas won’t see nearly as much time on the court as they would like to and will have to settle for a role like Channing with a lot of <15 minute games or DNP-CDs. Dante, Jeff (depth is good with injuries), and if they get filled #14 and #15 are afterthoughts.
There's Gotta Be More To Life
by Norsktroll on Sep 16, 2009 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on...
Everyone who writes is seeking some kind of attention while simultaneously releasing thoughts that are bundled up in their minds. Why else would someone write? Are you Zarathustra in a cave with a pet bat? No. Therefore you have some peer approval stuff going on.
Human Nature. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. It’s just the nature of the beast. The human beast.
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Sep 16, 2009 1:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Quit trying to draw attention to yourself on Dave's blog
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 1:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
but what about me?
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Sep 16, 2009 1:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point exactly
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I comment for donuts.
Still waiting…
by MiledAnimal on Sep 16, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Travis Outlaw will start ahead of Webster in the rotation"
Dave – what does that mean? You have Webster starting, so what do you mean Outlaw will start ahead of Webster in the rotation?
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 1:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
During the early pre-season
Travis will get more minutes than Martell. (“Start” here means “at the beginning” rather than “occupying the starting role”.) I am anticipating Martell gradually taking a higher spot. In fact I anticipate Martell starting (now meaning “occupying the starting role”) and Nate not wanting to do without Batum’s defense, by default pushing Travis to the 3rd small forward and the 2nd power forward spot.
—Dave
by Dave on Sep 16, 2009 2:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
MY POINT! WHAT ABOUT MY POINT?!?!?!
If i wear hat you can’t see it…
"No disrespect to Jeff Blake"
by Eat Politicians on Sep 16, 2009 1:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The wonderful thing about this game and this blog is there are no answers
Only snapshots of answers. What we see in preseason may not continue into the early season (see Webste and Oden). What we need in some games differs from other games. What a player is experiencing may and probably will change over the season.
All this fuels the opinions and refutations so necessary to drive this blog. There are no right answers is my answer. I have my opinion as well and it is that the more weapons Nate has available the better chance he can counter an opposing team in any given game or situation. Having hungry players desiring more minutes can create positive results or negative results. One key factor on determining which one is the character of the player. That smacks of KP’s emphasis on culture and tips the scale mostly toward players simply working harder to get the minutes. At the end of the season there will be some options for those players not succeeding. But fan clamor against a team winning 60%+ of its games seems pretty small potatoes.
Now I will enjoy the banter and education I receive here most nights (sometimes jscot doesn’t show).
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 2:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
About number 3
Yes I love to see us run more but its good to know we are gonna have the half court style of play cause its not about regular season running teams out of buildings, its about playoff and championship basketball.
by tevisthe4th on Sep 16, 2009 2:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point. And the team is among the most efficient in the league
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 2:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Running does a couple things, though
If you like having all the depth, and I do, a fast pace increases the benefits of that depth.
If we play at a pace that restricts the effectiveness of the starters (on both teams) to about 30 mpg, then it is a battle of the bench for 18 mpg, and we’ll win that battle.
Also, running helps with the so-called “minutes crunch”, because it really isn’t a “minutes crunch”, it is a “plays crunch”. If we average six possessions (3 offense, 3 defense) per minute, instead of 4, our subs will get more opportunities to make plays and be a part of our success. It helps keep the bench players happy with limited minutes if you increase the number of plays in those minutes.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you have to assume no significant increase in turnovers
(Nate hates turnovers)
Even though running should increase the FG% and thus at least moderate the efficiency loss.
And running means no crashing the boards so a decrease in rebounds as well?
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For purposes of winning
You have to balance things out. If you run the opposition weary, then they will either play tired starters or backups — which is likely to impact their efficiency.
You are also going to be playing backups more, which may hurt your efficiency as well. But ultimately, with a deep team, it’s going to help you more than it hurts.
Late in the season, Nate instituted a rule, everyone across mid-court in four seconds. That should ALWAYS be the rule with our depth, even if you then run the half-court offense. If you do that, the opponents cannot jog back on defense. They have to hustle back, and play defense for the whole 24 seconds. We can better withstand fatigue than they can, we should be pushing the pace always.
I’m not sure pushing the pace really brings a loss in efficiency. You will get a few more turnovers, but you’ll also get more easy baskets. You’ll also draw more fouls, which helps your efficiency (free throws) and hurts the opponent efficiency (fewer easy baskets because your defense is always set after a free throw, and top players have to sit because of fouls).
As to rebounding, running should increase your chances of offensive rebounds. Out of a normal offensive set, the defense will naturally have inside position on the boards, so they have the advantage. This is why defensive rebounding percentages are always higher than offensive rebounding.
But in a fastbreak, you have your centers trailing the break, and often arriving just after the shot went up. There is no positional advantage, the centers are both hustling down court. There is not really a chance for the opposing center to block out your center. Our PF is perhaps the fastest PF in the league, so he’s going to arrive quickly as well. Everything is in transition, opponents are scrambling to cover guys for the shot, you have mismatches, and the rebound is up for grabs.
You may also have a 3 on 2 or even 4 on 2, which not only gives you a strong likelihood of an open shot, it also gives you the advantage of numbers on the rebound.
Ultimately, the advantage on the boards on a fastbreak usually goes to the team that has guys with agility and length, who can go after the ball and reach it. Think LMA, Travis, and Nic especially.
By mid-year, or next year at the latest, this will be an advantage for Greg as well. He was the fastest guy in his draft up and down the court. Once he regains that speed, it would be a travesty to walk the ball up court. Run it up, and 3-4 times a game he’ll beat the opposing center down court, leaving a PF or even SF to try to prevent him tearing the rim down on a dunk.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:41 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Gotta rec this one
’cuz I agree with almost your every point. Well put.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
by TwoDeep on Sep 16, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our PF is perhaps the fastest PF in the league, so he’s going to arrive quickly as well.
C’mon now. Maybe the fastest traditional 4. But certainly not the fastest 4.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is faster?
This is an honest question. I can’t think of any.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't either...
Only person I would think of would be Amare before the knee surgery. And even then, its close.
by Jeremiah S on Sep 16, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tyrus Thomas.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, I'll buy that
The difference being that Tyrus is a guy who plays PF who is very fast, and LMA is a basketball player who plays PF who is very fast.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 17, 2009 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interestingly Andre Miller turns the ball over 16.5 times per 100 plays in his career, 14% last year
That is on par with Steve Blake (16.5, 13.6). Despite a higher pace and more aggressive penetration. So I wouldn’t expect our turnovers to go higher up dramatically just be putting him in the rotation as a main ball handler and increasing the speed a bit. Maybe some other players will struggle a bit, but with our efficient shooting and rebounding a few more possessions and easier shots should be beneficial to the Blazers (like Dave said close up or wide out, also for the trailers).
There's Gotta Be More To Life
by Norsktroll on Sep 16, 2009 4:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
most def
and for pure entertainment value it rules, specially with our high-fliers. But in the playoffs its gonna be good to be confident in grinding it out when it comes to that.
by tevisthe4th on Sep 16, 2009 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
w0rd
I don’t expect our overall pace to increase substantially, but I do expect a nice increase in fastbreak buckets.
Andre is a master at rebounding and running the ball down court and scoring or creating for someone else. That will translate to us as well. So, we will get more fastbreak buckets of that sort, but we don’t become more of a ‘running’ team per se.
Just a team that smartly strikes more for the ‘easy’ buckets, which has been a weakness of ours in the past and I think a lot of it had to do with the PG play.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Sep 16, 2009 4:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy at backup PG or else he's gone within 2 years.
I’ve been saying that for months, but few people seem to agree he has a chance at PG. It’s good to see someone else consider it.
I believe the key is Rudy being able to defend the PG as well as Blake (not too high a hurdle). Roy may handle the ball as much as Rudy when they are in the back court together (as he does now with Blake), but Roy doesn’t want to defend the opposing PG. I think eventually Rudy would be more creative than Blake at backup PG, get to the hoop more, and shoot just as well from 3-pt range when working with Brandon (he will get more open shots than he does now, as Blake does playing with Roy).
I’d give this a 50% chance of working if Rudy wants to work for it. He may not. He may just want to move on.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 2:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It certainly is a possible solution
As you say, the key is defense. Maybe we can cheat by playing zone when Rudy is at the point.
Of course, this creates a minutes crunch at the point, but I’m not sure we have anyone at the point as talented as Rudy. Bayless might be that talented, but first A) he has to learn to play the position and B) he has to learn to play the position in such a way that it utilizes his athleticism and scoring ability, while fitting within the role of PG. Even then, if that happens, Jerryd would be the starter, and Rudy is more talented than anyone we would put out as a backup PG. If Rudy becomes a backup PG, it will almost certainly mean either Steve or Jerryd is gone next summer.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately, I doubt we can keep both Batum and Webster.
They may both be 30+ minute players. So next summer, or during next season, we can probably convert one of them, plus a combination of Blake or Bayless (or even possibly Miller as an AMEC) into a long term starting PG.
If Rudy doesn’t work out at backup PG, then we can use him in that trade and keep Blake or Bayless as the backup PG.
Of course somehow Bayless could impress enough to stay in the running for starting PG, but I just don’t see how he gets the minutes to do that unless there are injuries.
in any event, we should extend Blake. We will either need him or need his salary for trading purposes since we will be over the cap.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 4:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's really a bizarre situation
We have so much talent stockpiled. If we trade some of these guys, who do we get for them? Someone else who is a good player and needs minutes.
A two for one trade? Sure, that helps — but the guy had better be pretty good, right? If we’re giving up two talented players for him. And then, if he’s good, does he fit? And if he’s that good, he’s probably a key player for the other team, right? So they won’t want to give him up, will they?
You have to find a guy who is good enough to justify giving up two of our talented players, AND his team is willing to let him go, AND he is a good fit with our other players (positionally and playing style). Oh, AND you have to make salaries match, too.
Either that, or move our second team to Seattle and start a franchise up there.
Perhaps full-scale platooning where everyone plays 24 mpg.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 5:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, trades are going to get tougher
as soon as the Blazers are over the cap
KP has created this “problem” of too much depth at the wing positions. His next test will be to “thin the herd” with consolidation deals. This is delicate work, and much more difficult than building a roster from the ground up. “You’ve gotta know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em” applies here—it’s always a gamble. But these "tough’ (and often unpopular) decisions that he will have to make (soon) will determine if the Blazer win a title, or multiple rings, or continue getting bounced in the playoffs like they have for the past 30+ years
KP’s good, but he’s going to have to step his game up to RC Buford’s level for the Blazers to become the Spurs
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A big part of the problem is still not knowing who we really want to keep.
We have an amazing collection of talents, but many of these guys are so young their skills are still developing rapidly. You’d like to wait as long as possible to make irreversible decisions, but if you can’t give young players many minutes they eventually get upset and their growth is stunted anyway.
Can Rudy play backup PG? Will we know for sure by the end of this year? What if it looks promising, but he isn’t there yet? Does he even want to play backup PG?
We haven’t figured out if we want Batum or Webster long term. Will we really be sure by the end of this year? Maybe yes, but probably no. Hopefully Webster will be able to show us what he can do this year, but he will still have room for improvement and Batum should still be on a rapid growth curve. Could we keep both by using one of them at backup SG and trade Rudy if he can’t or doesn’t want to play backup PG?
What about Bayless? How can he show if he’s improved, if he can’t get quality game time? Could we end up trading away our long term PG answer because we added a short term Miller? Should we give him some long runs while we rest Blake or Miller against weaker teams in the middle of the year? (I think we may do that to sort this out.)
We can’t let Blake just walk at the end of the year. We need to extend him. We may need him as anything from a backup PG, to a starting PG (suppose Miller’s luck finally runs out after drinking the PDX water and he’s injured), or a salary to trade. But that all depends on Rudy and Bayless.
What if we can’t find a good deal for Outlaw by the trade deadline, and he starts rebounding and playing defense in his contract year? Do you suddenly put him back in the small forward mix? Would you then try to re-sign him to play or trade later? Or do you just let him walk this summer, or try to get a sign and trade deal?
What if Joel opts out and someone decides to offer him a really big contract? Do we get in the bidding if the price is around $10M a year? Do we want him that bad?
We’ve got so much talent, but so much isn’t mature talent. KP can’t let paralysis by analysis stop him, but it won’t be easy to sort this all out. In the end, circumstances will probably dictate what happens. It takes (at least) two to trade, and who we trade not only depends on us, but on who’s available and what the other sides want in return. Serious injuries could also determine what we have to do.
But as Mike Barrett likes to repeat over and over, it all depends on Oden. Well, maybe not everything depends on Oden, but If he breaks out we can win it all with Roy, Oden, LMA, and a lot of combinations. Otherwise, these decisions may make or break our chances for years to come.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you know... im watching rudy on 360 right now...
its not like he has too many ball handling duties…
a
it might be matchups… the coaches gameplan… or whatever else….
but a few things strike me…
1) its not like spain does a whole lot of gasol smash brother post ups..
2) when they do use non-point guaurd ball handling its like juan carlos or someone else
3) felipe lopez and ricky rubio dont do to much with the ball and dont seem like they would demand it all te time with their overwhelming skll.
this strikes me as interesting in so far as id like to know what rudy thinks about this. if he complains about not being on the ball with the blazers… why does he think about this situation? how does he make sense of it? and what needs to happen for him to be an off the ball, fast breaking, energy guy for the blazers/trey bomb specialist?
by mandoman10 on Sep 16, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what needs to happen for him to be an off the ball, fast breaking, energy guy for the blazers/trey bomb specialist?
Well, that’s his role already. But for him to get 25-30 minutes either the Blazers would need to 1) trade Brandon Roy, 2) fire Nate and hire a coach like Mike D’Antoni who will play a lot of 3 guard lineups or 3) change their style of play to cater to Rudy’s game
Chances? Slim and none, and Slim just left town
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
na man... i dont mean actually his role... i mean for him to be ok with that just being his role.
read wot i wrote.
by mandoman10 on Sep 16, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, I can't answer for Rudy
but I suspect he would be pleased if he could be an “off the ball, fast breaking, energy guy for the blazers/trey bomb specialist” for 25-30 mpg
but there are other players on the roster, and the Blazers success shouldn’t be based on how Rudy feels about his role
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe Rudy can learn to defend point guards
I worry about him being able to dribble past opposing point guards and provide a credible scoring threat.
—Dave
by Dave on Sep 16, 2009 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he will be dribbling past PG's to score much.
I think he starts out mimicking Blake’s game, spreading the floor and shooting open 3-pt shots off Roy’s assists. But then he should be able to use his height advantage to receive the ball while cutting to the basket. He can also play a two-man game with Oden more effectively than Blake (we saw that a few times last year). I don’t think we have to worry about him being a scoring threat from the PG position.
I think he’s a more creative passer and has better court vision than Blake, but he’ll have to watch the turnovers. He’ll also grab a few long rebounds that Steve wouldn’t. If he can just equal Blake’s overall contribution at backup PG (I think he will eventually do better than that), we get to keep him and we gain a big advantage by also having him as our backup SG.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 4:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is not a good enough ball handler yet to bring the ball up court constantly against the quicker guys (and there are a lot)
Roy might be able to with his ability to instantly change direction when dribbling to avoid traps and steals, but he also is not “a natural” at that and it costs him energy and concentration, which is why he put that forward as a criteria for the job description of the other guard next to him. And yes, defense is the other thing. Honestly I don’t see Rudy as a point guard ever even if he improves those two things and it would be nice for our rotation. There are not many 6’4’’+ guys who successfully converted, and some who are in Europe weren’t terribly successful in the NBA (Jasikevicius and Spanoulis who are stars in Europe on the PG position maybe the most prominent ones).
There's Gotta Be More To Life
by Norsktroll on Sep 16, 2009 4:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, I give this no more than 50% probability of success.
And I’m just assuming Rudy would be a backup PG, i.e. 15 minutes a game.
But, as I mentioned above, I have doubts Rudy even wants this. i suspect he would rather be traded somewhere that he had a shot at earning the starting SG position, although I don’t think he has demonstrated that ability yet either.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if there was a handshake between him and Paul Allen that we would trade him after some period of time (2 or 3 years) if his playing time dropped below some threshold.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 4:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we'll do everything we can to make it work
The team, the fans, the management all like Rudy and what he can do, and I’m confident we’ll do our best to make everyone happy.
As of last season, Rudy was not good enough to be a starting SG on a good team. He was a backup. A good, important one, but a back up. If he continues to improve enough to be a starter on a good team, I’ll understand his predicament more— especially if we can’t offer 25+ minutes a game.
But if he becomes that good, we’ll find a place for him somewhere. It’ll mean some combo of Roy being a 1/2/3, guarding whatever gives him the most favorable matchup, and likewise for Rudy, with Rudy fulfilling that Blake role of waiting on the perimeter for a 3 pointer.
The nicer thing about that with Rudy is, he’s MUCH better at the pick and roll than Blake was, and he can create that way. He just can’t create without a screen, off the dribble. Or handle a tough press, like Norsk mentions. So, it means more ballhandling duty for Roy, in addition to possible greater defensive responsibility to compensate for Rudy’s tween-ness on defense.
It’s hard to say what Rudy will become. The first year for Euros is traditionally a tough adjustment, and Rudy did pretty good. I believe that if he is good enough to warrant the worry, we will find a way to make it work.
There ain’t gonna be no Joe Johnson situations here, I hope.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Sep 16, 2009 5:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point Guards aren't just for scoring...
I know that I want my PG to be able to bring the ball down the court, attack the basket, dish off, then move outside and set up for a shot. To do this they need Ballhandling skills, speed, and smarts.
Rudy doesn’t handle the ball well enough at this stage, and I doubt his ability to attack the basket. Now, he (like seemingly all spaniards) can pass the ball fairly well, so he’s got the potential if he were willing to convert over. I’d love to see him do it, because then we’d have a PG who could both throw and receive lobs. How many guys can you say that happens for?
by Jeremiah S on Sep 16, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's "almost as good" as a Xerox
I believe the key is Rudy being able to defend the PG as well as Blake
But don’t you want to see the Blazers reach a higher standard of perimeter defense from the PG position? I know I do, and I think Nate does, as well. The Blazers might score more with Rudy and Roy playing together in the backcourt, but it’s easy to imagine them having difficulty defending quick PGs and that “perimeter sieve” leading to easy baskets for the opposition, and foul trouble for Portland’s big man’
Too many “concessions” are being made for Rudy’s PT. He’s good, but he’s not essential to the Blazer’s future success.
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thoughts
1.) hmmm blazer dancers! smiles
2.) Miller may also come into camp out of shape as he’s stated he relaxes over the summer.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
by ratbastird on Sep 16, 2009 7:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Has Miller ever been known for being out of shape?
The news interviews and features down through the years have painted a picture of a man driven to hard work and over achievement . He is faced with a new battle for starter position. He wants to win a championship. My bet is he is the best conditioned player not named Blake at the start of camp -but that is just my impression.
I just listen for Casey. His voice gives me tingles. —Dave
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quick Answers
1. I think Greg is on track for 15/11 in 30 minutes.
2. Martell starts, to offset Miller’s poor outside shooting. Batum plays with 2nd unit, which has Rudy and Blake as outside shooters.
3. We’ll run more, not just because of Miller, but also because of Oden’s defensive rebounding and outlet passing.
4. P&R defense will be somewhat better, due to Miller’s larger size and Oden’s improved quickness and decision making. Quick PGs will still give us problems, like everyone else.
5. A very nice “problem” to have. Rudy will get minutes as we try and play Brandon a bit less. We’ll also play Roy at 3 some, with Rudy at 2. This cuts into minutes for Webster and Batum, but I think Rudy brings enough to force this to happen. Lot’s of 4th quarter minutes for Rudy. Over time, I think he’ll become like Danny Ainge, the 3rd guard off the bench, playing both 1 and 2.
6. LaMarcus gets his first all-star appearance. Gets just above 20 points, due to Miller’s P&R, lobs, and fast breaks, and to Oden’s presence preventing double teams. His improvement will be going to the basket more, and in focusing more on defense.
7. Travis comes in shape for once, but has trouble winning any small forward minutes. He’s the backup 4, but gets the call often in the 4th quarter in offense – defense substitutions when we are behind and need points, with LaMarcus at center. Greg will be in pretty good shape, but get better at stamina through the year. Martell will take some time to get in game shape, but he’s young, despite his injury, and will be ready for significant minutes.
8. The one thing you didn’t mention is pressing. I think we will do both against the other team’s starters to wear them down, and against their 2nd unit to get turnovers. LaMarcus and Nicolas playing “free safety.” Rudy is especially good at free lancing the passing lanes.
by Blaz06Draft on Sep 16, 2009 7:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, re Rudy
Add to #5: Rudy as Ainge-like 3rd guard, especially if Nicolas can point forward the ball up the court.
by Blaz06Draft on Sep 16, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
less late game comebacks, this year
Travis…gets the call often in the 4th quarter in offense
I’m hoping the Blazers will be protecting a lead the majority of the time in the 4th quarter this year, so Outlaw’s late game “heroics” won’t be as necessary
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one thing you didn’t mention is pressing
This is often mentioned during training camp but rarely seen during the regular season. It’s more difficult to “rattle” pro ball-handlers, and the fatigue factor makes “trapping” hard to sustain during the regular season. Nate’s Sonic teams did some of this (coach Klop? defensive assistant) with his bench unit, but I don’t expect a return to this strategy (even though teams with “deep depth” would seem to have an advantage putting full-court pressure on their opponents…)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LaMarcus has to average 20 and 10 to make the All-Star team this year.
There is just too much competition in the West: Pau, Amar’e, Dirk, Dunc, Boozer, West, Artest, and Carmelo are all older and are already All-Stars. Lamar Odom, Kevin Durant, and even Richard Jefferson have the PR edge. Al Jefferson has better stats and would be ahead of LA if the T-Wolves didn’t suck like a Hoover vacuum.
LA will have to blow away the field with his play and do it early in the season to have a shot. I don’t see that happening, given that he seems to play his best each season after the All-Star game, not before it, and LA averaging over 10 rpg seems about as likely as Steve Nash winning DPOY.
LA’s best chance at an All-Star berth this year, realistically, is if he plays at least as well as he did last spring and the Blazers destroy everyone in their path and his competition declines due to age, injury, or whatever. Such a confluence of events could happen, but I doubt it will.
by MiledAnimal on Sep 16, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your aren’t adjusting for the fact that when a team is successful, they get multiple all-stars. Jefferson and Duncan will be voted in as centers, not forwards. Pau, Dirk, Carmelo, and Durant will make the team. West, Boozer, Amar’e, and Artest will probably not. If the Blazers are good, LMA will nab the fifth forward spot.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I did. I just didn't mention it.
I could counter by pointing to the fact that the Blazers are a small-market team tucked away in the NW corner of the country. Or how wildly jealous everyone is of the Blazers rise, or how unpopular KP is, or how young the Blazers are, or how we haven’t got past the first round of the playoffs yet, and so on.
by MiledAnimal on Sep 16, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(1) The Blazers are on national tv a lot and get quite a bit of hype as a Western Contender from ESPN. They aren’t an unknown anymore.
(2) Are people really that jealous of the Blazers rise? Were they jealous of New Orleans when they were leading the conference as a young team and David West made the all-star team?
(3) KP is unpopular with A-Woj and Warkentien. I fail to see how this harms LMA’s chances to be voted in by the coaches.
(4) How young the Blazers are? I don’t understand how this affects LMA’s all-star status.
(5) First round of the playoffs? David West’s New Orleans team had never even been to the playoffs.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point -- Counterpoint
- So what? No one back east watches Blazer games, which typically start at 10 or 10:30 p.m. EST. And no one thinks we’re a contender yet, since we’ve not got past the first round.
- I think some jealousy and resentment exists, plus the attitude that ,“Blazer players have to earn what they get, I’m not going to hand them awards just because they aren’t the Jail Blazers anymore.”
- True, I forgot that the coaches vote for the All-Star reserves.
- All-Star teams never have enough places for all the players who deserve to be on them. Young players seldom displace a veteran All-Star now until they show a body of All-Star-level work considered better than one of the current All-Stars over at least two seasons. Plus there is the feeling that young, rising players have many years to earn a berth, while older players who deserve a berth may not get another chance.
- That’s the exception, not the rule.
All of this is trivial compared to the main point of my original comment, and your reply about team success being a factor. What I probably should have responded with was that almost all the other forwards I listed are playing for playoff teams, which negates any advantage our success would provide LA this season, unless we win 80% of our games in November, December, and January.
I already indicated that Jefferson won’t get in again. LA will have to dramatically outplay West, Boozer, Amar’e, and Artest to make the team ahead of them.
by MiledAnimal on Sep 16, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer and Artest were not all-stars last year, so LMA would not have to dramatically outplay them. West is not statistically dominant or a league personality… he will be easily supplanted.
Amar’e is an issue. He’s coming off an injury and has a much maligned public rep at this point. Not sure how many fans he has among the coaches.
Bottom line: Coaches reward teams for winning games. Who cares that the public doesn’t see the Blazers? The coaches know what is going on in the NBA. They reward winners.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duncan will insist on being a forward for All Star purposes
He already forced that a couple of years ago. Duncan and Amare will be voted in by fans leaving just 1 PF spot on the reserves. Carmelo is likely because they went to the conference finals last year. Pau is a NBA champion and is likely to repeat. West, Boozer, Artest and Dirk and not as good as LMA but Durant is going to be tough if he is putting up 26 a game and they are winning over 50%.
I just listen for Casey. His voice gives me tingles. —Dave
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First, they don’t go by power forward / small forward. It’s all under forwards.
Duncan doesn’t get to force his way to being a forward, does he? If he does then Greg will be an all-star by proxy.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outlaw
That will be great if Outlaw plays his heart out on account of this being his “showcase” year to try to land a big new contract somewhere, and the fact that there is such a glut of talent on this team you are going to have to play like a maniac to stand out.
That will be good for both Outlaw and the Blazers. A trade will be worked out with another team. Outlaw will make big bucks, maybe not as big as he has been hoping but big considering the economy. And the Blazers will get something good in return.
I suppose the biggest obstacle is the cap space thing. The last thing the Blazers need is to acquire a new player in trade. They’d be best off to trade Outlaw for a draft pick but that is an asymmetric trade that probably no teams can do (and those teams that do free up cap space are doing so in order to compete in the Lebron lottery next year)
by lsjogren on Sep 16, 2009 8:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Outlaw for draft pick
would leave us without a backup PF.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Travis has an expiring contract
so he can be dealt to another team without risk to their salary cap next July, unless they choose to resign him
Outlaw’s salary is 3.6-4 mil, depending on who’s website you read. This number can be combined with 2-2.7 mil (Euro cap holds, which will come off right before opening day) and fetch a veteran PF and a draft choice. The only question is, which team has a veteran PF they would deal for Travis who’s salary is around 6 mil?
Indy: Jeff Foster. Make it so, KP
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woah, are you turning into AK1984?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Sep 17, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's a thought
“Either that, or move our second team to Seattle and start a franchise up there.”
Now that’s an “outside the box” solution to their player logjam!
by lsjogren on Sep 16, 2009 8:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
lazzzzy lazzzy dave...
I knew you were approching burnout, but I didn’t expect completely recycled material until next summer …..
;) /s
The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.
"New Man Law: If you don't show up for the draft you don't get to come later if you're picked. If you believe in yourself, show up and sit there. If nobody else believes in you, take it and cry like a man...in front of the cameras."
-Dave
by faith on Sep 16, 2009 8:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You make an interesting point here:
2. How the heck is the small forward rotation going to work?… Brandon Roy will also see some small forward minutes in three-guard lineups.
I think the biggest reason Roy is going to see minutes at the three is that Brandon Roy is the team’s best small forward. Better than Webster, better than Batum, better than Outlaw. The problem is that he’s a shooting guard.
That bring Rudy into the equation, albeit somewhat indirectly. If Roy is both out best SG and our best SF, then who is the second best? Is Rudy a better SG than Webster, Batum or Outlaw is a SF? Roy will get his minutes, but depending on the answer to this question, we will have the answer to where Roy plays the majority of his minutes.
As much as I like Batum, as much as I like Webster, as much as I like Outlaw, I think Rudy is better at his position than any of the others are at theirs. That doesn’t mean that Rudy necessarily starts, but he does get a major sixth-man role. That means that Rudy and Roy get significant playing time together as well. Of the 96 minutes available between the two positions, Roy and Rudy should get 64-70 of them (or would if I had my way). But who gets the leftover 26-32? One solid player? Split between two, or three? That’s the question in my mind.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Sep 16, 2009 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or do Rudy and Roy
take some of the PG minutes as well?
Nate has so many options to consider. I hope we run so hard that everyone is exhausted and wants to sit on the bench for a few minutes.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's possible.
But Neither Roy nor Rudy are our best PGs. Miller and Blake play the position better than either of those two, and should see the most time there.
But another way to look at it is to expand it further. Do Miller and Blake play PG better than our SFs play the 3? Or is there a disparity between the level of PG play to SF play to the point that we would rather be weaker at PG position to strengthen our SF position. I lean towards keeping Miller and Blake in, and leaving some of our SF’s out. But it can at least be argued in that way.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Sep 16, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All the convoluted guesswork about what position our SFs and guards might play
and how many minutes each of them might get at those positions makes me think even more
that Rudy will have to leave the team sooner or later.
My guess is that most players prefer to focus on one position, the one they fit the best, because it makes their job simpler, they can prepare better for each opponent, and they perform their best at that position.
There is no way anyone on the team plays PG better than Andre Miller will this season, and probably no one other than Brandon could play it better than Steve Blake. So the idea of regular PG minutes going to Rudy or Nic this season is a stretch. (I’m talking about the skills those guys have right now, not the skills, like ball-handling, that some of us fantasize they could acquire and would need to play regular minutes at PG. Not to mention size and quickness issues.) The same problems exist for Rudy and Brandon getting SF minutes over Nic and Martell.
I think this will be the season where the team does so well and but the minutes get to be such a hassle for everyone that KP is forced to consolidate talent next summer — which is probably his plan anyway, given that it will be the Summer of Cap Space Love and he undoubtedly saw it coming five years ago.
by MiledAnimal on Sep 16, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Sign and trade for a superstar? Could happen.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...m hoping will happen,
though it would require Paul Allen to be willing to pay another big contract.
I was kidding — sort of — the other day when I wrote that we could see a Travis, Martell, or Nic + Rudy + Jerryd trade for Chris Paul. I’m sure that particular fantasy won’t happen, but that’s the kind of deal I’m thinking KP will have to make for some star player to provide the Blazers with the kind of roster balance that will keep AK1984 and the players happy.
by MiledAnimal on Sep 16, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If point guard role is to bring the ball off and shoot from the outside Rudy may be better than either
If Rudy can fight through pick and roll plays he can be an adequate defender at the position.
If we need a playmaker then Miller can play. And Roy is still out best playmaker.
When Rudy is out Blake needs to play for his shooting.
All possible weapons depending on circumstances. So won’t the role needed dictate the choice?
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nicolas and Martell can play SG, too. Nic is doing it for the French national team so they can have him, F. Pietrus and Diaw out at the same time. He could become a valid option on both spots, especially defensively but also if Nate lets him create more.
There's Gotta Be More To Life
by Norsktroll on Sep 16, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That brings up an interesting idea.
Starting Rudy and Roy might become more tenable in that case with Batum and/or Webster backing them up depending on Outlaw’s place on this team.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Sep 16, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon Roy is the team’s best small forward.
Roy is not any kind of a forward. He guarded some SFs as part of a 3-guard lineup that was used primarity because Martell was hurt (and Batum was a rookie) last year. The need for this “work-around” no longer exists, unless the opposing team plays a 3-guard lineup and Nate inserts Rudy to match up with it
Otherwise, there is no strategic advantage in sliding Roy over to SF to guard a larger player
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brandon doesn't need to be any kind of forward
to be our best small forward.
The reason for this work-around is simple. If Brandon and Rudy as our two wings is a better combination than Brandon plus one of our SFs as our two wings, then we’ll see that combination.
Rudy’s competition for PT is not primarilty Brandon, but our other wing players. If he is enough better than them to justify the defensive difficulties that it brings, then he’ll get some of their time. If he isn’t that much better, he won’t. Ultimately, that’s what it comes down to. Last year, because of Martell’s absence and Nic’s youth and offensive ineffectiveness, it was an easy decision. This year, it depends on what Martell does, how far Nic has progressed, and if Rudy can take enough of a step forward to be clearly ahead of one or both of them.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's precisely right.
Rudy’s playing time competition is Batum and Webster. Last year it was Batum and Outlaw. The discussion usually focuses entirely around SF. Is Roy/Rudy a better SG/SF combination than Roy/Batum or Roy/Webster? (Here we are talking about 10-12 minutes a game, not a starting role).
But I think it’s often overlooked that we still need a backup SG. We can’t keep guys this talented very long if they are only getting 10-12 minutes agame. So eventually one of the three has to go, and one of them will also play backup SG. So we must add to the previous question, who do you want playing backup SG – Batum, Webster, or Rudy? It’s the sum total of those two questions that is ultimately important. (Yes, I’m leaving out Bayless as a backup SG candidate.)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who do you want playing backup SG – Batum, Webster, or Rudy?
Of those choices I’d pick Nic, assuming he and Webster are still around and are playing well enough to warrant 48+ mpg. Batum can defend SGs already, and his offensive game and playmaking skills are only going to get better with experience
but I expect a decent backup SG to be aquired if Rudy is dealt, perhaps even in the same trade. And there’s no reason Bayless couldn’t eventually play alongside Blake, Miller or Roy, depending on the “length” of the opposing backcourt
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So do you expect Nic to replace Rudy at backup SG this season?
I suspect Nate thinks Rudy is a better backup SG than Nic. So do I.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nah
I was just thinking who I’d go with at backup 2, if Rudy wasn’t available
I think Nate used Batum at SG last year when Roy/Rudy were out, but Nic’s ultimate position is SF
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
4.
“My bet is that it’ll be better but not beyond regular exploitation”
Seems like the proper perspective. This is the year Nate gets to prove that he really is a “defensive minded coach.” If he can scheme his way to respectable defense on the P & R with Blake and Miller, he’ll have my sincere admiration. For that to happen though, most of the improvement will have to come from Oden, since the PG’s probably won’t change much. Furthermore, if we are successful bringing help to the P & R, teams with quick PG’s will likely flatten/spread the floor and go iso to take Oden/Pryz out of the play, .
Fortunately, with this team, for every worrisome issue, there are 5 or 6 strengths to be excited about.
by JMoon on Sep 16, 2009 9:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Webster v. Batum: I still believe too many people are concerned about Miller’s outside shot. Why do we need to have an outside shooter paired with him when many critics of Portland (such as Charles Barkley, who knows a lot more about basketball than I do) complain that the Blazers rely too much on jump shots. Batum can shoot the outside shot, and apparently is learning how to play much more aggressively over the summer. Aldridge likes is mid-range jumper, Roy can also shoot from out there. Miller’s defense isn’t much better than Blake’s, so you still need Batum out there for perimeter defense.
Rudy’s minutes: I think this could be a problem for both him and Travis. The return of Webster could squeeze both of them a bit. I just hope they handle it as well as Sergio did last year. The other possibility is that Webster or Batum doesn’t get the minutes we all think. We know Nate likes both Travis and Rudy out there. My gut feeling is that Rudy only gets about 20 minutes a night. He won’t be happy, but won’t be a distraction as long as the team is winning.
Aldridge: I really hope this guy becomes a monster this year. If for some reason the Blazers can’t sign him to an extension, he could either sulk and drop off, or go crazy playing for a contract.
Running: yes, they will run more. The strong finish to last season was due in part to a more aggressive offensive approach. Bringing Miller in will help that. So will the improvements in Batum’s game. Webster is one more athlete to run the floor. If Oden also improves, that will be so many more rebounds they get, and hopefully he will develop a solid outlet pass, to boot.
58-24, first in division, 2nd in conference, make it to the conference finals. There, I said it.
by hercher on Sep 16, 2009 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The question of outside shooting is from KP
who stated two years ago that with Oden and LMA we need to surround them with shooters.
Inside-out offense is still the stated preference of Nate and that means forcing the double team inside to get open shots outside. If the shooters are missing the strategy backfires.
I just listen for Casey. His voice gives me tingles. —Dave
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't take much more of this
This news dead zone we’re floating in here is killing me. I need training camp to start now. All this what-iffing is making me crazy.
"It all depends on where his growth will come and we think his growth will come within us" -- Kevin Pritchard on Jerryd Bayless
by Jumbo on Sep 16, 2009 9:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ben and I have never written because we love the sound of our own voice.
that’s what the podcasts are for! lol
by Ben. on Sep 16, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I just listen
for Casey. His voice gives me tingles.
—Dave
by Dave on Sep 16, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn i love our BLAZERS!
WIth this being Trouts last year and all. Will we keep him to see how he produces? Or try and get what trade value we can when his interest is at its peak? Just a ponder.
Are you kidding me!
by NW_BRED on Sep 16, 2009 12:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
sell when high
KP shouldn’t wait until real close to the deadline when his rival GMs will know he has to dump Travis or risk him walking away for nuthin’ at season’s end
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For sure!
I just hope Travis gets the best out of any situation I mean the guy had to lug around sheeds luggage! :p
Are you kidding me!
by NW_BRED on Sep 16, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I forgot about that
Anybody who had to do that and still stayed in Portland is worth a lot. Maybe we’ll win our first thirty games so no one will want to disrupt the team, and he’ll get to stay for at least our first championship.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Works in reverse
The question is when a player KP wants comes available. That is when KP might make Outlaw available,
On the other hand if Outlaw is producing more for this year than anyone KP can acquire he keeps him to get the championship and deals with him as a FA. We still hold his sign and trade rights after July 1 but the important thing is to win baby, win.
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot has to go right to get a sign and trade.
If a team with cap room wants him you may never get a chance to do a S&T. Or teams that want him may not have anything you want for a S&T.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That depends on the team and the player
If a certain FA wants to sign with the Blazers and the NJ Nets want a couple of Blazer players and have cap space NJ can facilitate the sign and trade (is this legal?) and use their cap space to get the Blazer players while sending the FA to the Blazers. This assumes the FA would not want to play for NJ and NJ has no other FA it wants better than the Blazer offerings.
I just listen for Casey. His voice gives me tingles. —Dave
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, that's not legal.
You can’t sign and immediately trade another team’s free agent. i.e. you can only re-sign and trade your own free agent (a player that had been playing for you). If you sign some other team’s free agent you must wait 3 months or until Dec 15, whichever is later to trade that player.
But you were originally talking about us “holding sign and trade rights” to Outlaw when he becomes a free agent. I was simply saying that as an unrestricted free agent he can sign with another team and we may never get a chance to do a sign and trade with him.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 16, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Running does NOT eliminate the half court set!
I have seen many posts on this blog (some above after jscot’s excellent post) state something like "the Blazers won’t run because they have great half court efficiency, and BRoy likes a slower pace". The assumption being we don’t want to be a run and gun team like Phoenix or NY or GSW, because "we have a great half court set", or "because running teams don’t win playoff games"…
These posts miss a fundamental fact:
Running a good fast break does not eliminate the half court set!
I’m not suggesting a shot within 10 secs on every play, or some other "Nellie" strategy. I’m suggesting that the Blazers basic offense should ALWAYS look like this:
-Grab the board and quickly find a safe outlet pass, as far down court as you can
-EVERYBODY run your butt off on the break.
-If no opportunity exists on the primary break, look for the secondary break (GO)
(1st 10 seconds off the clock)
-If no fast break, set up the half-court set. This should include P+R attempts with the bigs, baseline cuts by the wings..
-If nothing there, look for an open 3. (P+R should take about 6-7 secs)
-If nothing there, give it to BRoy for ISO at about the 7 second mark.
So, while running doesn’t preclude the need for, or utilization of, a half court set, running DOES solve a LOT of our logjam problems.
1) We have an athletic, youthful, deep team. How do we take advantage of it? RUN! (Duh!)
2) Running will result in more shot attempts (as jscot pointed out above). And this is really what guys mean when they complain about "not enough minutes" – it’s "not enough shots for me!"
3) Many players (Dre, Rudy, Batum, LA) like to run. They will be happier with fewer minutes at a higher pace than more minutes "doing a Portland" (standing around looking at BRoy iso)
4) A running style requires more substitutions, and stars aren’t going to mind (as much) getting a rest after busting it at 110% for 8-10 minutes.
5) Running will result in more blowouts (result of tired, foul-plagued stars yielding to their weaker bench), giving the stars the rest they need, and the reserves the minutes they need.
Seriously, if this team doesn’t greatly improve their efficiency by running nearly every possession, I’m going to be very disappointed, and will looking to post on the "FireNate" website…
by Visionary2 on Sep 16, 2009 12:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
if this team doesn’t greatly improve their efficiency by running nearly every possession
So if Brandon doesn’t run at every opportunity, are you gonna start a tradebrandonroy website? Coaches can tell players to run “when it’s there” and most do, but that doesn’t mean the players are going to do it everytime. This isn’t college or high school, and Nate isn’t going yank Roy out if he chooses to walk the ball up the court
adding Miller to the mix will help, but as Brandon goes, the Blazers will go
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to see
Nate yank Brandon out if he disregards a blanket rule like “4 seconds to cross midcourt”. You can’t have players disregard the coach’s instructions, even if he’s an all-star.
I don’t see any reason for Brandon to be bringing the ball up except on a break, anyway.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 16, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Brandon doesn't run, then yes...
I would start a trade BRoy website if he slows this teams pace and development, yes.
I know, sacrilege… but trading BRoy would sure open up a lot of minutes for a lot of other players (he says tongue in cheek, knowing much bashing would accompany it)…
As good as Brandon is, he is NOT bigger than the rest of the team. Let me put it to you tihs way: if everybody else runs like crazy, and when BRoy is on the bench, the Blazers destroy the opposition with an efficient running game and fantastic ball movement in the half court; and when he is in, he continually slows the tempo, hogs the ball, and goes iso with everybody standing around ‘doing a Portland’… then yeah, trade his butt out of here!
Now, I don’t expect that to happen. I don’t believe this team will learn how to run over night (and yes, running a good fast break takes more than speed, it takes high BBIQ, spacing, dedicated practice time, etc.), and I believe BRoy when he says he’d love to fill the wing on the break, but….
by Visionary2 on Sep 16, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect them all to run "when it's there"
but not following “nearly every possession”
After all, even the best defensive teams take the ball out of the net at least 40% of the time. Nate isn’t going to morph into D’Antoni, and I don’t think Mike’s “score in 7 seconds” philosophy translates well in the postseason, anyway
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 16, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope they run even "when it isn't there"
But I’m not talking score in seven seconds.
Push the ball every time, even if it “isn’t there”. Maybe it will be there if you do — but even if you don’t, you are wearing down the opposition.
That’s why Nate had that four second rule. It’s a great rule for a young and deep team. It is the best way to get benefit out of your depth when the playoffs roll around, and there aren’t any back to backs.
We may not have this kind of depth forever, but we should get the most out of it that we can.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 17, 2009 2:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps the best insight I have seen on this subject
was provided above by Norsktroll:
Interestingly Andre Miller turns the ball over 16.5 times per 100 plays in his career, 14% last year
That is on par with Steve Blake (16.5, 13.6). Despite a higher pace and more aggressive penetration. So I wouldn’t expect our turnovers to go higher up dramatically just be putting him in the rotation as a main ball handler and increasing the speed a bit.
by lee3022 on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
