Do Mike&Mike (&Rebecca) Hate Andre Miller? (with Poll)

But I notice what you’ve noticed too. I think they definitely have a personal connection or bias for Blake. The evidence of course, is the use of the name, “Blakey.” It’s interesting the lens they look at Steve. It’s certainly not an absolute objective one. It seems (inside) they know he’s been struggling and hope he gets out of it. You can hear that when they say (after Steve drains a three), “Blake really needed that, etc.” It’s curious too they don’t really criticize Blake for his deficiencies like his fumbled fast breaks or botched inbounding. Contrast that with how RIce lays it on Outlaw and Webster for not crashing the boards harder. I think they view him as some sort of underdog of sorts.

The vitriol towards Miller is a little mystifying for me. I can see how some might have an axe to grind with Blake since he’s been here for several years. Everyone is familiar with his strengths/weaknesses and tendencies, but Miller is the newest guy! Some may claim he’s been playing “crappy” since the beginning, but surely he should be given some of the “rope” Steve Blake’s been awarded to prove doubters wrong. Or at least to change their opinions.

is that the team is much more fluid when Miller is on the court. I agree with the observation that when Blake makes a good play, the announcers really gush all over themselves. However, when Blake makes a bad play, somehow it’s generally overlooked. Miller is not afforded that luxury. I noticed in the GSW game, Mike and Mike kept mentioning Blake’s ‘great’ man to man defence. But I’ve also noticed that it’s not all that effective from keeping the other team from scoring – just one less player for a double-team. I’m certain that it looks good to the coaches (in a teacher’s pet sort of way) when the game film is reviewed but Miller’s help defence and threat to make steals are underappreciated. So what’s the difference between a missed field goal by Blake and one missed by Miller? Well Miller’s shot form is not a thing of beauty and it looks awkward enough that it stands out more than when someone else misses but has good form doing so.

Also it’s apparent that Miller and Roy can indeed play together without affecting Roy’s game. When Blake is on the floor, the other team basically has to worry about not losing track of him when he drifts to the corner. When Miller is on the court, the other team has to worry about the pass, the drive to the hoop, posting up, and offensive rebounds. Sure looks like a weapon that management wanted to bring in to help take the pressure of Roy. Mike Rice made a comment in the GSW game that Miller dribbled the ball a little too much on one play. It seems to me Blake does that times 10 and all too often makes a pass with three or less seconds left on the shot clock. Where is the critique when that happens?

Blake does play hard and I applaud the effort. But every time he’s in a game more than 20-25 minutes and Miller (the much better player) is riding the pines, it’s seems to reflect how upsetting it must have been to the coach to be replaced by Gary Payton so quickly back in his playing days.

I say give Miller more meaningful minutes to run the team (he can coexist with Roy quite easily), give Bayless the majority of the backup minutes (gives him a chance to learn), keep Webster in the game longer and give him a chance to be a more consistent 3 point threat (Blake’s major asset plus you get some rebounding) and not go the three guard lineup like clockwork, and have Blake for spot minutes and rare situational matchups.

When Blake brings the ball up the court, he’s bringing the ball up the court and passing it to somebody and is defended quite easily. When Miller brings the ball up the court, he’s a weapon. He also has a lot of practical experience in running a team. The coach made the comment that he’s now going with the hot player ( a change for the better). When Blake’s hot, he’s making 3 point shots. It’s easy to quantify. When Miller’s hot, it’s usually because he’s facilitating and the team is rolling. This is something much more difficult to put into easy-to-understand statistics.

So I guess all the above is my way of saying that I agree that the announcers seem to have a bias against Miller.

By the way, does anyone else ever cringe whenever there’s a sideline report from Rebecca Haarlow?

There are definite biases in sports. It’s only fitting that there MAY be some bias elsewhere in favor of Blake, because there is DEFINITELY a bias against him — from top to bottom — against him on this board.

Quick example: If Blake went 7-18 from the floor (with no 3’s) and 6 turnovers, there would be very little love for Blake on this board as it was for Miller performance on Saturday. Equally, there would be only foaming at the mouth hate if Blake had shot the ball the way Bayless has shot the ball recently.

Other than frequent trips to the free throw line, Blake does and has done all of those things. Blake is the personification of a competitive spirit.

Now even the broadcasters are giving him a hard time? I wonder if KP making the PG situation worse than it was last year will have more of an impact than the lack of a solid big man…

both Rice and Barrett agreed that Portland really needed Blake in the 4th quarter to spread the floor. I guess Martell’s five treys were good enough.

Today on 95.5 the game they interviewed Mike and he came right out of the gate saying how much the Blazers missed Steve Blake in the loss to the Clippers. Then he goes on to say that Martell and Howard stepped up for Portland. Not once did he mention the name Andre Miller or the FACT that he had a HUGE game.

20 points and 16 assists and you don’t even mention him? All you can say is that we really missed Steve Blake…his backup?

Come on! Pull your head out Mike!