Barrett on Roy
Roy is in town and sportin' new kicks
2 months ago
92wastheyear
59 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
"Should I ask? What's a punani?" - by annthefan on May 3, 2009 1:55 PM
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Sep 16, 2009 7:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Cool!
What’s it called?
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
by GonzoFan on Sep 16, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Air Max Rise
"Should I ask? What's a punani?" - by annthefan on May 3, 2009 1:55 PM
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Sep 16, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy played at 215 last year
and this year he’s at 206?
I do not want to hear any more dreck about how Brandon guarding small forwards is somehow in the best interests of the Blazers
Martell’s back, Batum’s busting out…let them play all the SF minutes. The 3-guard lineup thingy worked for Nate last year and got the team by, but now they’ve got a couple of young SFs who have the size to actually defend NBA 3s
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 7:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not that simple
The 3 guard line up is still an important way to get Rudy on the court. Minutes gotta come from somewhere and its not like Brandon was wasn’t terrifyingly effective in that lineup.
by Decaf on Sep 16, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The statistics don’t bear this out. Brandon was better defensively against small forwards last year. Why? I don’t know. Just because it doesn’t seem to work theoretically isn’t a big enough reason to ignore the data that screams Roy/Rudy was an effective wings combination.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 16, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because quickness is a bigger advantage than size and weight
when defending wings.
That’s all.
I’m not talking about defending LeBron. You need size and quickness for that. But who cares how big/heavy you are if you are defending Bowen or Prince or a lot of other SFs? The big key there is A) are you close enough in height/wing span to be able to bother the shot and B) are you quick enough. Brandon is fine against those guys. His extra quickness gives him an advantage.
"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 3:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Pippen was 210 and 8-time All NBA 1st defensive team.
Bruce Bowen was 200 pounds and 1st defensive team 5 years in a row and 2nd defensive team for 3 years in a row. He defended SF’s and SG’s.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 17, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NBA.com and RealGM have pippen at 228, but the same for bowen and he was darn good defender.
by Silky Johnson on Sep 17, 2009 1:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
basketball-reference.com has him at 210.
The higher weight is probably at the end of his career? His all defensive team honors spanned 1990 through 2000, and he retired in 2003.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 17, 2009 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to say
Weights are always wrong and outdated and misleading.
You can’t trust any listed weight.
Roy is strong and has a big frame for his position, he can handle SFs, though he doesn’t have the same size advantage he usually has at SG.
M—
by Mortimer on Sep 17, 2009 2:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember when Carmello posted up Roy?
I do. He blocked his would be game winning shot.
"Goals are good. Plans are better." -Ben.
by Sabonis4Ever on Sep 18, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy can do anything he wants to do.
I love Brandon Roy.
Signed,
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Sep 18, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy is not Bowen
he’s an all-star, all-NBA 2 guard and shouldn’t be guarding players 10-20 lbs heavier than him on a regular basis/ Last year it was necessary because the SF depth was young and thin. This year te position is deep and relatively experienced
You all have to stop looking at what Rudy adds to the offense stats and take a hard look at the potential mismatches playing a 3 guard lineup would create at the other end of the floor. Roy isn’t getting “lighter” so he can defend SFs, and if the other team’s coach sees him trying to defend a 220+ lb SF he’s gonna send that guy into the post and try to punish the Blazer’s SG, as much as possible. It’s just smart basketball to “wear down” the most potent player on the other team, if possible
I guarantee you the L*kers aren’t thinking about “how small of a lineup can we play and not get hurt defensively?” Size matters, long and big teams with equivalent talent will always beat the little guys, when push comes to shove
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 17, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not looking at what Rudy adds to our offensive stats. I’m looking at what he adds to our efficiency differential. We were terrific last year when Roy and Rudy were together. Who are these 220+ lb SFs with post up games? Really good offensive 3s are few and far between in today’s NBA.
The statistics say that Roy was better guarding the small forward than the shooting guard. This is pretty cut and dry. Why? There aren’t many good scoring 3s.
The Lakers played a three guard lineup with Sasha and Kobe at the wings, especially when Vujacic was playing well in 2007-2008.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not going to happen. At least not very much.
"Last night looking at that, I didn’t like it right from the bat,‘’ McMillan said. “Because all of the sudden Brandon goes from guarding (Eric) Gordon to guarding (Al) Thornton – and that’s a big difference. He takes a pounding. With those bigger guys he will take a pounding and that can wear on him.”-Oregonian
If Nate doesn’t like it and Brandon doesn’t like it, then I don’t see him playing a ton of minutes at small forward. Last season he only played about 1/4 of his minutes at SF. That ends up being less than 10 minutes a game, which is clearly situational and not huge chunk of time. When the other team goes small then Nate can go small. When that happens it works well, otherwise we just don’t do it.
So yeah, the numbers look good because we only do it in situations that are guaranteed to work.
by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 17, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he played a quarter of the team’s small forward minutes, which ended up being a little more than 12 per game. That’s a fair chunk.
We went with Rudy/Roy against LA, Dallas, NO, etc. There are only a few teams that can punish that lineup.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
The Blazers were searching for ways to find minutes for Rudy. They basically went with Rudy and Roy whenever they could and it still ended up being less than 12 minutes a game. I don’t see a way that number is going to grow, especially with Webster coming back.
If the argument is that Roy should play SF about 12 minutes a game, then I’m with you, but I don’t see any logical reason you would want him playing substantially more than that.
by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 17, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, Rudy played 25.5 minutes last year,
about 11 of those minutes were played while Roy was resting. Then 10-11 minutes average in a 3-guard line up (with Roy defending the SF and Rudy in the SF position on offense), and finally 3-4 minutes average with Roy and Rudy in the backcourt as PG/SG. The exact minutes were situational to an extent, but they followed a fairly repeatable substitution pattern.
I expect Rudy’s minutes to be about 25-28 this year, with no more than 12 minutes average in the 3-guard lineup, 11-12 while Roy rests, and then 3-4 minutes at PG early in the season with an emphasis on finding out if Rudy can defend the PG and get the ball up the court. If Rudy shows he can play the backup PG he could take more minutes from Blake by the end of the year. If not, we’ll probably be looking for another home for Rudy next summer or next year.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Sep 17, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When the other team goes small then Nate can go small. When that happens it works well, otherwise we just don’t do it.
That pretty much sums it up. Nate used Roy at SF last year because he had to, not because he wanted to. This year Brandon is reporting 10 lbs lighter, that tells me his SF-guarding days are over.
If the other team wants to play 3 guards, it’s their funeral. But I don’t expect Nate to sub Rudy in for Nic/Martell every night to try to force the other coach to go small. That’s never been in McMillian’s coaching DNA
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 17, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fact: we were a better basketball team with Rudy and Brandon in the game.
Fact: Brandon’s was statistically better guarding 3s than 2s.
Fact: We played Brandon and Rudy together for a fairly consistent amount of time every game, regardless of the opposing 3.
Whether or not Nate wanted to, the combination worked extremely well. If he doesn’t play them together because of it being perceived as a poor defensive lineup, then that’s a bad decision. It’s about scoring more points than your opponent, something we consistently did with Rudy and Roy in the game. We were good on offense and defense.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
- Fact: Nate “hates” playing Roy at the 3.
- Your second point is entirely dependent on matchups. Roy guarded three’s when matchups allowed it. Of course he would do better.
- Uh, I would like to see evidence of that. At OKC, Rudy only played 15 minutes, that might have something to do with them having two huge wing guys. Against the Hawks Rudy only played 17 minutes, again against a team with two huge wing guys. In fact, just glancing down the game log, almost all the games in which Rudy played less than 20 minutes were against teams with big wings. Lakers, Rockets, Raptors, OKC, Hawks.
It’s all about the playoffs, and that’s when teams are going to be able to take a harder, longer look at the numbers. It’s not like apposing scouts aren’t going to realize that Roy and Rudy are very effective in a small line-up. You figured it out after all. Anytime Nate sticks Roy and Rudy in, Phil is just going to put Kobe and Artest back in. Same thing with Carmelo and Smith, Jefferson and Ginobli, Kirilenko and Brewer.
Roy is going to be beat up and tired from guarding bigger guys. Not a good idea, regardless of whatever garbage stats people trot out as evidence.
by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 17, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(1) I don’t care what Nate says about that, to be honest. He’s the one who activated Mike Ruffin over Shavlik. The statistics say that it is effective.
(2) He guarded Artest in the Houston series. Other than Game 6, Artest did not have fantastic efficiency numbers.
(3) Rudy suffered from back spasms in the game at OKC, and the game at Atlanta was his first game back from the Ariza incident. Roy guarded Johnson quite a bit in the 2.20 matchup. He was hurt against LA, missing the fourth quarter. So other than injuries, he only played fewer than 20 minutes a few times.
I welcome the matchup against Kirilenko and Brewer and Carmelo/Smith. Roy ate Kirilenko alive last year and did a good job defending him. Smith couldn’t run around the picks to keep up with Rudy, and Carmelo has to defend Roy as Roy has to defend Carmelo.
As I said, the Rudy/Roy combination was fairly consistent last year. There were a few games affected by injury and a few where he flat-out didn’t play as much. In an 82 game season, that’s not many.
In the playoffs? Rudy/Roy was a very effective combination in Games 2-5. Though Rudy’s point totals weren’t spectacular in a few games, this is because Battier often decided to not help on defense and let Portland play 4 on 4. This is a win for the offense.
Roy and Rudy should continue to play 12 minutes per game together. It’s effective against most teams in the league and allows Rudy to play more mintues.
If Batum or Webster develops an offensive game with passing and pick and roll play like Rudy, then that changes things. Currently, though, teams can stick their star on the 3 and let them rest for offense.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
- The last game when Rudy started against the Rockets he played 41 minutes total. Artest scored 27 points on 52% shooting. That’s a perfect example of how inefficient Roy and Rudy are together for long stretches against big wings.
- You don’t care what Nate thinks about it? That’s a strange thing to say.
- Rudy/Roy was not effective during the Houston series. We lost. They won.
by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 17, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sample size? We can’t look at one game Artest had and ignore the rest of the series. Plus, I’m not advocating Rudy play 41 minutes with Brandon. Just about what he played last year, 12 minutes.
I don’t care what Nate thinks on this matter. He has a lot of opinions that have no basis statistically. Mike Ruffin was a significantly worse player than Shavlik last year.
This is false cause-and-effect. We lost to Houston because Yao was too much to deal with in the post. The Rudy/Roy combination was dynamic for much of the series. Just because we played them together does not mean that is the reason we lost.
We can agree to disagree. My argument would be that Rudy and Roy was a very successful tandem and to neglect it would both cut Rudy’s minutes and hurt the team.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then we agree.
- 12 minutes per game is a fine amount of time for Rudy to play with Roy. I said that above.
- Statistics don’t rule everything. Defensive stats for example are usually pure garbage. There are just too many other outside factors. There are, after all, no statistics to determine the abuse Roy takes to his body.
- A huge part of the reason we lost to Houston was matchups. Yao was a problem for sure, but our wings didn’t matchup very well either. Roy shouldn’t be guarding Artest, Batum can’t guard Artest very well, Rudy can’t guard Artest at all, and Outlaw can’t guard anyone.
- I’m not sure why you keep saying Rudy/Roy was so effective against Houston. They played about 81 minutes together. A huge chunk of that time was in the final game when we got killed and Artest scored 37 points. Not good.
I see what you’re saying about Rudy and Roy working well together. I think it’s true when the situation is right. Unfortunately the situation isn’t available enough for it to work long term. Rudy is probably always going to have a 30 MPG glass ceiling on the Blazers. If he’s fine with that then great, if not then he probably needs to go.
by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 17, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was responding to this:
Martell’s back, Batum’s busting out…let them play all the SF minutes. The 3-guard lineup thingy worked for Nate last year and got the team by, but now they’ve got a couple of young SFs who have the size to actually defend NBA 3s
I concede that the punishment to his body is not statistically measurable; however, there aren’t that many punishing 3s in the league anymore. Sure, he shouldn’t be guarding Crash Wallace, LeBron, or Artest for extended periods of time… but the Josh Howard/Tayshaun Prince/Paul Pierce? Good players, but not hugely different from Brandon in terms of pure muscle mass.
If you look at the record in the regular season, our wins and losses corresponded quite a bit with our ability to rebound. The fact that Houston had two perimeter defenders to stick on Roy, quick PGs that could get by Blake, and Yao in the post were what I believe to be the main factors in the Blazer loss.
I just rewatched the Houston series and was struck by how good Rudy and Roy were at points in the series. Rudy was on fire in Game 3 and a huge reason for victory in Game 5. Battier refused to help at one point because Rudy was hitting threes consistently.
I think my dispute is more with two4larue than you. I think the Rudy/Roy combo is very effective for twelve mintues per game… it seems that you do as well. He was arguing that Roy should play no small forward.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
I think it works when it works. I"m not sure I like it more than… I don’t know, 15 minutes per game, but I guess you have to get Rudy minutes somewhere.
I think Rudy is a better overall player right now than either Batum or Webster. Having him on the court with Roy IS a good thing, especially because of the ball movement. I just worry that he’s tapped out on his minutes per game and it seems like he wants a bigger role. That’s probably not going to happen.
If Rudy is happy with a modest contract to reflect his modest minutes there won’t be a problem. I’m just afraid that he’s going to start making a fuss and that will kill his trade value.
But yes, against certain teams, situations, matchups, a Rudy/Roy backcourt isn’t a bad thing at all.
by Nick Van Excellent on Sep 18, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Currently, though, teams can stick their star on the 3 and let them rest for offense
Last year, teams left Batum open and he didn’t (always) make them pay. Since then we’ve seen that Nic has stepped his game up on team France, and he’s only going to get better as he gets older.
Two years ago, teams wouldn’t leave Martell open from behind the arc, and it helped spread the floor for Roy/LMA. Same role as Rudy
Are Batum/Webster better shooters than Rudy? No, but they are better overall players when their defensive/rebounding contributions are factored in. They will allow Roy to guard SGs this year, and they’ll get the lionshare of the SF minutes, unless one of them gets hurt
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 17, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are Batum/Webster better shooters than Rudy? No, but they are better overall players when their defensive/rebounding contributions are factored in.
Do you have statistical evidence of this? Rudy rebounded well for his position and was a significant offensive upgrade from both Webster and Batum. So much of an upgrade that he was clearly better in almost every metric, including adjusted +/- and the like. It’s not like he was hurting the team… he was even better when Brandon was in the game.
Rudy’s role was shooting threes, yes. He’s also a significantly better playmaker than both Nic and Martell and this point, though.
Nico has stepped up his game for Team France. We don’t know that this will translate to the NBA. I personally am very high on his potential and would play him big minutes in this coming year… but it’s not cut and dry. He struggled through some months last year.
Here’s what I would say: Webster is a clear rung below Nicolas, Rudy, and Brandon by nearly every statistical metric, including those that account for defense somewhat. (Subjectively, he was a little above average as a man-on-man defender, but Rudy was a bit better team defender).
Why, then, if Rudy is our third or fourth best offensive player, would we sit him for Martell? Martell, who had a PER of under 13 and hasn’t played NBA ball for nearly 17 months? Rudy/Roy, Rudy/Nico, and Roy/Nico are all statistically solid pairings that can adjust to the opponent as necessary.
I personally think Rudy will be gone at some point, and we’ll use Nico/Martell/Roy at the wings. I’ve stated this before. Though I believe this to be true, it’s pretty clear as of today who the three best Blazer wings are and who should be getting the minutes.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Batum is a better wing defender
Webster is a better wing rebounder
either one playing SF will be an improvement in those areas as opposed to a 3 guard lineup consisting of PG-Rudy-Roy
it’s about the matchups, and Nate is a “reacter” to the size/length of the opponent’s lineup, he’s not gonna play a small lineup to force the tempo. If the other coach (D’Antoni, Nelson, etc) goes small then Rudy will get his run with Roy. How often and for how many minutes this will be over the course of the season is a stat that no one knows, but the roster dynamic has changed with the return of Martell and I don’t expect the same wing rotations at the 2-3 as last year
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 18, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Martell and Rudy have similar ORB% and very close DRB%. Due to the law of diminishing returns applying to defensive rebounding, the 1.8% overall difference in rebounding is somewhat negligible considering our rebounding at the center position. OVer the long run, we’d grab a few more defensive rebounds. It’s hard to call this margin that statistically meaningful, though.
I concede that Batum has a big edge defensively over Rudy, but I’m not sure that you can state rebounding as a significant edge for Martell. Rudy rebounds very well for his position.
The original argument was this:
Martell’s back, Batum’s busting out…let them play all the SF minutes. The 3-guard lineup thingy worked for Nate last year and got the team by, but now they’ve got a couple of young SFs who have the size to actually defend NBA 3s
Regardless of how much the three guard lineup plays, it was a very effective weapon that was employed in nearly every game last season.
Also, why is Nate only a “reacter?” He used Radmanovic at the 4 (and even the 5 a few times) in Seattle and puts Travis in at the 4. He’s shown that he isn’t afraid to go small to force the other team to adjust. I have a feeling that Rudy/Roy will continue to be a major weapon this year.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 18, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are Batum/Webster better shooters than Rudy? No, but they are better overall players when their defensive/rebounding contributions are factored in.
Do you have statistical evidence of this? Rudy rebounded well for his position and was a significant offensive upgrade from both Webster and Batum. So much of an upgrade that he was clearly better in almost every metric, including adjusted +/- and the like. It’s not like he was hurting the team… he was even better when Brandon was in the game.
Rudy’s role was shooting threes, yes. He’s also a significantly better playmaker than both Nic and Martell and this point, though.
Nico has stepped up his game for Team France. We don’t know that this will translate to the NBA. I personally am very high on his potential and would play him big minutes in this coming year… but it’s not cut and dry. He struggled through some months last year.
Here’s what I would say: Webster is a clear rung below Nicolas, Rudy, and Brandon by nearly every statistical metric, including those that account for defense somewhat. (Subjectively, he was a little above average as a man-on-man defender, but Rudy was a bit better team defender).
Why, then, if Rudy is our third or fourth best offensive player, would we sit him for Martell? Martell, who had a PER of under 13 and hasn’t played NBA ball for nearly 17 months? Rudy/Roy, Rudy/Nico, and Roy/Nico are all statistically solid pairings that can adjust to the opponent as necessary.
I personally think Rudy will be gone at some point, and we’ll use Nico/Martell/Roy at the wings. I’ve stated this before. Though I believe this to be true, it’s pretty clear as of today who the three best Blazer wings are and who should be getting the minutes.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 17, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those shoes he is wearing are in screen shots of NBA 2k10 already. How'd they know before everyone else?
by BRoyInThe4th on Sep 16, 2009 9:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
MAGIC!!
"Should I ask? What's a punani?" - by annthefan on May 3, 2009 1:55 PM
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Sep 16, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
hahahahahahahaha this made me laugh so hard
"Put your drawers on, and take your gun off."
by cloudydays on Sep 17, 2009 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, Roy's shoes in the NBA 2K10 screens are the Hyperize.
by AwFuhK on Sep 16, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Live 10 has them in the game...
He’s wearing them in the Hangar in the Demo. Plus Live’s shoe resolution is 10 x better than 2k’s.
by EagGolfer3 on Sep 16, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
how much is that weight loss going to affect is game?
i can see him being quicker, maybe jumping higher, but could it have some negative affects on his game? Also, is it affect or effect? i get those confused lol.
"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting"
"I don't like jail, they got the wrong kind of bars in there"
Charles Bukowski
by jpaulson on Sep 16, 2009 10:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
affect
The Kings have the best bench I’ve seen. There are easily 14 guys on this team good enough for every bench in the league. Now if we could only get some starters, I’d totally jizz in my pants.
Kings fan
by dyshooter182 on Sep 16, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Um no it's effect.
If you’re going for the most common meanings, affect is a verb and effect is a noun. I find it easiest to remember by thinking of their other meanings, which I will helpfully omit here.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
by pualo on Sep 16, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh whoops
I was going for his “going to affect his game” which was used correctly.
The Kings have the best bench I’ve seen. There are easily 14 guys on this team good enough for every bench in the league. Now if we could only get some starters, I’d totally jizz in my pants.
Kings fan
by dyshooter182 on Sep 17, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Affect/effect
That weight loss will (or won’t, as the case may be) affect (verb) his game.
That weight loss could have some negative effects (noun) on his game.
The original comment had both a verb and noun usage. So technically, you shouldn’t have said “Um no” because dyshooter was half right….
"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 3:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
affect his game (verb), negative effects (noun)
BTW, that read suspiciously like an in-article ad for Nike. MB sellin ad space for the blazers on the blog now?
by Dunemonkey on Sep 16, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
holy cow
b roy has a chef, he’s diddy rich!
by elconquistador on Sep 17, 2009 1:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully now Roy doesn't have to change his shoes mid-game anymore
That was always worrisome, what with his talus bone problems in the past, and obviously how important one’s shoes are in basketball. They gotta feel right, or other problems can happen.
He went in the locker room and had to change them at least a half dozen times, if not more. I hope this makes him more comfortable.
M—
by Mortimer on Sep 17, 2009 2:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Air Talus would be a cool name for a BRoy shoe
There's Gotta Be More To Life
by Norsktroll on Sep 17, 2009 4:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His old Nike Zoom MVP's were garbage
I always thought that was the reason he had to change shoes all the time
"Should I ask? What's a punani?" - by annthefan on May 3, 2009 1:55 PM
by Sexual Tyrannosaurus on Sep 17, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if the weight loss is a clue that the team is thinking about giving Roy more minutes at the one?
The SF position is full with Martell, Nic, and Trout.
If they are trying to get Rudy more minutes, having Brandon pick up a few more minutes at the one is a pretty obvious solution. Rudy doesn’t have the handle to play PG, nor the quickness to defend quicker PGs. It seems to me that the only way to get more minutes for Rudy is to shift Roy to either the 3 or the 1, and the weight loss seems like a big clue as to what they are thinking.
We all know that Nate and KP both like size and length in players.
It also may be an indication that they are going to work towards pairing Roy and Bayless and they may want Roy to take the lead in terms of playmaking.
Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but I don’t think Roy does much by accident or without talking to Nate and KP.
by upper left corner on Sep 17, 2009 8:30 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
no
Miller + Blake = 48 mpg
If they wanted Rudy or Brandon to play PG, they wouldn’t have signed Andre
And there were some really bad PG stats posted last year of when Rudy and/or Roy playing the PG. Really bad
“Let’s try to find Rudy more minutes” in the lineup is reaching “Have I got a trade proposal for you!” proportions at Blazersedge. I’ve got an idea…how about if Rudy goes out and beats someone else out for his PT, if he can
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 17, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
Miller is a short term solution. Blake is in the last year of his contract.
I think PG remains the position of greatest long term flux on the team. Whether that need is filled by Bayless or some other player remains to be seen. Roy is a heck of a playmaker and dominant as an iso guy off the dribble. He doesn’t have the quickness to guard most of the quicker PGs for extended minutes, but getting lighter may be an attempt to address this issue.
I would be willing to bet that Nate will experiment with Roy at the 1 for some minutes this season. How those experiments work out is an open question.
Rudy has and will continue to earn time on the floor. The three guard line-up was one of the teams most effective. Why the attitude about Rudy?
by upper left corner on Sep 18, 2009 7:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have an "attitude" about Rudy
It may seem like I do, but if it comes across that way, it’s because I’m responding to the concept that other Blazers (Roy especially) need to change positions and guard players that are larger/quicker in an effort to gain more PT for Rudy. I think that’s not in the best short or long term interest of the team or Brandon
(Nick Van Excellent summed it up pretty well, above)
If Rudy is happy with a modest contract to reflect his modest minutes there won’t be a problem. I’m just afraid that he’s going to start making a fuss and that will kill his trade value.
I tend to look down the road a little and anticipate problems. Rudy may be a Blazer for the rest of his career, but if I was a betting man, I’d put the odds that he’ll be gone sometime in the next 15-21 monts, mostly due to Roy playing the same position. With that possibility in mind, how much should the Blazers cater to him, at the “expense” of Batum and Webster’s development? (Especially if the “small” lineups that some recommend aren’t going to be effective in the postseason, when the results count the most?)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 18, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Especially if the "small" lineups that some recommend aren’t going to be effective in the postseason, when the results count the most?)
Evidence?
The Fisher-Vujacic-Kobe trio made it to the Finals. That’s fairly comparable to Rudy-Roy-Miller/Blake.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 18, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and the L*kers liked K*be guarding SFs so much
That they used Ariza instead of Sasha last year, and signed Artest this summer
You can go back and find “exceptions” to the rule if you want, but I’m talking about Brandon Roy and Nate McMillian. Roy is smaller than K*be, and he has taken off weight this summer so that signals (to me) that his days of guarding SFs are over. Nic is a year older, Martell is back, so Rudy’s got his work cut out for him to carve minutes out of a crowded wing rotation. The best long-term solution is to thin the herd, unless there’s another injury. Whether Rudy stays or goes will depend on his role and need for PT, but his biggest “obstacle” is that Roy will be playing 35+ mpg at the 2 guard
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Sep 18, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We shouldn't "cater" to him at all
But to my way of thinking, he’s a more effective wing than either of our SFs at this point in time. Perhaps they’ll have taken that extra step forward.
That being the case, until they come up to his level, you play him at the wing. He has to be better than them, because they have the size advantage that helps at SF. Last year, he was.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 19, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
10-15 pounds lighter
Is this the same as the routine, offseason gain of 15 pounds of “muscle”?
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Sep 17, 2009 9:29 AM PDT 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.
