Why the Blazers Will Do Well Part 3: The Point Isn't the Point
This is the third in our series of columns on why the Blazers should do well in the coming years despite a renewed lack of interest from the media and burgeoning summertime angst from the fan base because of the lack of big moves. Here are the second and first parts in case you haven't seen them.
Much of our discussion since last season ended, and not a little hand-wringing on the side, has revolved around Portland's point guard position. Some point to the relative merits and liabilities of Andre Miller. Others want to champion or pillory young Jerryd Bayless. Almost everybody has spent a paragraph or two speculating on the possibilities of Chris Paul in Portland's lineup. In all cases, the consensus has been that something is missing right now. Arguments revolve around whether the gap will be bridged by people on the current roster or whether the Blazers need to make a move to rectify the situation.
My answer: It's OK! Whatever immediate issues the Blazers have at point aren't serious enough to keep the team from progressing. None of those issues are going to keep Portland from prospering long-term. The contention over the subject is out of proportion to its impact.
Should the Blazers upgrade at point? Of course, if they can. Had Paul really been available the Blazers should have snatched him up the same way you should cash in your Ford Explorer if someone offers you a Ferrari instead. The Explorer is a fine vehicle, but how many chances do you get to own a Scaglietti? And if Portland's goals are more modest--better gas mileage or handling or whatever they target in a price range more comfortable to their tax bracket--and can be achieved trading with Houston or Toronto or New Jersey then the Blazers should do it. There's no reason to be attached to any point guard currently on the team if you assess someone else as better. Portland has carte blanche to shuffle the position. No worries, no strings.
But what if they don't or can't? Is this the fatal flaw that will doom the team to mediocrity? Indeed not. Andre Miller is a competent, capable, in many ways brilliant point guard who should be A-number-1 on any team's list of guys they'd like to "make do" with in their lineup. If he's not your dream point guard you'll not find a better fill-in until you can achieve your dream. Jerryd Bayless brings scoring, athleticism, and a growing game to the table. If you counted teams with worse reserves you'd exhaust your fingers at least before you were done. Yes, the overall fit is in question with both of these guys but talent isn't and performance isn't.
How important is a perfect fit in the immediate future anyway? What, exactly, will those seams in the lineup keep the Blazers from this year? Portland will not win a championship in 2010-11. The immediate goal is the second round. Once that is achieved, everything else is delicious gravy. Whether or not the Blazers do make the second round (or the Conference Finals) will depend on several factors, none of which rest on the shoulders of Miller and Bayless. There are plenty of positives and few consequences for the negative in Portland's current point guard position.
The team does need to get more settled at point over the long haul. But that long-haul picture has either little or nothing to do with the current situation. Andre Miller will not factor into the equation when Portland gets good. In fact he'll not factor into the equation after next year as his contract will either be used for a trade before then or cut after another trade addressing the position or there will be a lockout and the contract will just peter out without him playing. Jerryd Bayless might be a factor, but only if he's good. If he doesn't fit the Blazers will move him and try again with Armon Johnson or Elliot Williams in reserve. If he does stay that means he worked out, right? In neither case are we saddled with whatever particular inadequacies people deem him to have. Today's problems will not be tomorrow's.
But what if Bayless doesn't work out and Miller leaves? That leaves the chamber empty, right? It does, but that eventuality won't look as dire in a couple years as it does now. Even in their early, young stages these players showed that they could succeed with a competent-but-not-extraordinary point guard in Steve Blake. That kind of point guard is going to be available in the future, especially if a guy like Bayless ends up being traded in return. In fact the next year or two could be seen as a free experiment to see whether Jerryd (or Johnson or Elliot if you prefer) can become something more than just competent...whether whatever shortcomings that emerge are counterbalanced by the added value and talent a Bayless brings to the table. Just because the Blazers are rolling the dice on an upgraded model doesn't mean they can never go with the baseline model again. And they'll be fine if they do. Even if you prefer a Miller-like veteran, those guys can be had too. Portland could easily bring in a new senior sensei every 2-3 years during the Big Four era...a guy who knows the job and knows how to stay out of the way of the stars but also packs a shooting or scoring punch. In short, the position--or at least the effect that the position has--won't look worse than it does this year...and it looks just fine this year. Equivalent guys will be readily available and the team will need them less.
The Blazers should absolutely dream of, and do everything they can to acquire, their ideal point guard. If that ideal isn't achieved this year, no problem. If that ideal is never achieved, still not much of a problem. The talent they've got and will be able to get at that position should prove adequate to the task at hand. If it's not the team has bigger problems that no acquirable point guard can solve.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
144 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Portland could easily bring in a new senior sensei every 2-3 years during the Big Four era…a guy who knows the job and knows how to stay out of the way of the stars but also packs a shooting or scoring punch
This has been my take. For a franchise that hasn’t drafted and developed their own star PG for 25 years (Porter) why not draft the BPA and make a deal for a veteran PG who has some actual playoff experience to lend to the roster?
Hey, what if Melo doesn’t sign with Denver…Chauncey Billups, anyone?
Lets say Tony Parker’s playing time is getting squeezed by George Hill? How about a French Connection in the Rose City?
Don’t think “young” when it comes to PGs of the future, think…Brett Favre. A long in the tooth sherpa will take you much further up the mountain, because he knows all the shortcuts and how to avoid the post season pitfalls
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Yeah but
Can Brett Favre play any D? What about his outside shot?
I just don’t junk he is a good fit with a halfcourt team.
Just my 2c.
Bayless and Roy= Fire and Ice (TM)
Spread the word
by SpyderRyder on Aug 18, 2010 12:09 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I just don't -think-
Damn iPhone.
Bayless and Roy= Fire and Ice (TM)
Spread the word
by SpyderRyder on Aug 18, 2010 12:11 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
he makes all of his teammates better
and his outlet passing? Fugetaboutit
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I hope he's past those
7 all of last season, that was down-right risk-averse for #4
then 2 big ones in the NFC title game = typical Minnesota Vikings get-your-hopes-up then rip-your-heart-out tragedy
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Dribbling
We all know that he can put the ball on the ground.
http://twitter.com/pdxmenonsports
by Derek @Portland Men on Sports on Aug 18, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Regarding Chauncey Billups, I think he stays in Denver regardless of how the Carmelo Anthony ordeal ...
plays out here. Billups is a local Colorado kid, went to college at the University of Colorado, and already has a championship ring on his finger. If I were a betting man, my money is on Billups retiring a Nugget.
Denver
That and I don’t see the Nuggets trading him to a division rival.
http://twitter.com/pdxmenonsports
by Derek @Portland Men on Sports on Aug 18, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
funny - wasn't playoff experience cited as one of the, if not THE most overrated stat?
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 18, 2010 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions
depends on what kind of playoff experience
A backup center who waved the towel from the bench on a finals team? Worthless
A starting PG who played in 4 conference finals in a row? Priceless
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
that PG started somewhere
it’s the chicken and egg conundrum. Having won an NBA championship is not a pre-requisite to winning an NBA championship. Granted, it may reduce some uncertainty with regards to whether a given player has the appropriate cajones to play at a high level in the playoffs – but the SA model of Parker/Ginobli/Duncan surrounded by highly effective roles players isn’t and cannot be duplicated in Portland.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 18, 2010 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
good point on the experience "prerequsite"
Actually, it is more satisfying to step up with your “home grown” talent, rather than just follow the pack groveling for the “proven talent”, expecially in the current market (which, mercifully cannot last). I am generally not impressed when people want to denegrate a player just because they haven’t achieved something with their previous team’s, as if it must be all their fault, or something they just can’t do.
The Blazers have recently shown an eye for young talent which has made the the team the threat that it already is. An enlightening breakout is distinctly possible.
"You be realistic," Oden said. "I’m going to stay happy. All right?"
Well said
I hate the “superstar” mentality of the media, the players, and the fans. No one ever seems to see the “chicken and egg” aspect of superstardom. Do you win because your team has the superstars or do your players become superstars because they win?
Nothing would please me more than for the Blazers to win it all with home grown talent that has largely flown under the national radar.
by upper left corner on Aug 19, 2010 5:54 AM PDT up reply actions
steve blake seems so much bigger than bayless in that photo...
Jeff Pendergraph:
FGM - 3
FGA - 111
Min - 30
Reb - 10
by Tofu Anonymous on Aug 17, 2010 11:24 PM PDT reply actions
Blake looks ripped - but Bayless looks like he has 21" guns
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 18, 2010 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Foul!
What a hacker.
http://twitter.com/pdxmenonsports
by Derek @Portland Men on Sports on Aug 18, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
generally two separate camps of people
For instance, I really like Miller, Bayless? Meh.
Nice
In general, I agree.
The reason PG gets so much attention is because (given health) we’re absolutely set at the other four positions, in some cases we’re set two men deep. PG is the obvious place where we can upgrade.
But yes, we can win with a player like Blake at the point, so we should be able to win more with Andre and Jerryd.
We have players who play defense now, look out!
Also
PG are like qtr backs, rated as hero’s of the team regardless of who else we have. There is also the factor that Dre and JBay may not be a perfect fit, but others may not be perfect either. Bayless and Dre are becoming familiar with our other players and will learn their own short-cuts.
A star for another team may be nothing more then a bench player to our team
Besides PG are dime a dozen {:>).
hg
And PG is the player you control the most in video games
A boring PG makes it not fun to play with a team, so he’s the first guy to upgrade
"Listening to the media only increases your odds of failing at whatever you are doing" - Mark Cuban
Blazers own rights to Petteri Koponen
Petteri has developed well in Europe and maybe Blazers could bring him in if they sell Bayless or Miller.
What's this Dave guy on about?
He reckons the blazers won’t be contenders next season and their goal should be to get to the 2nd round of the playoffs. Whatever!!! The Blazers are contenders. They’re better than every team in the west and in a 7 game series vs the Lakers we can take them… especially if we get billups from denver when melo leaves in the next month or so.
Go Blazers!!! 2011 NBA champs!
by hugetrailblazerfan on Aug 18, 2010 12:24 AM PDT reply actions
The likelihood that we get Billups is virtually nil
We have players who play defense now, look out!
Do you know where Denver is headed post-Melo?
because at this point I don’t even think that they do
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
While that's true, it doesn't mean Chauncey Billups is going anywhere.
If Carmelo Anthony is traded from the Denver Nuggets to the New York Knicks, my thought is owner Stan Kroenke, his son Josh, and team advisor Bret Bearup demand Anthony Randolph in return with such a transaction. With Randolph, the Nuggets hope would be to retool rather than rebuild. I’m not a big fan of Randolph myself, but I’d understand the reasoning behind retooling versus rebuilding—especially from a marketing and sales standpoint.
Wherever Melo gets traded Denver is going to get something good back, or they won't do the trade.
Otherwise they wait for him to leave next summer and probably get a huge trade exception that will net them something good in exchange. (Last summer ever team that lost its star to free-agency ended up with a trade exception from an after-the-fact sign and trade deal – LBJ, Bosh, Amare, Boozer)
Also: No team (except maybe NY) is going to trade for Melo unless he agrees to sign an extension with Denver concurrent with the trade, so Melo will essentially have a trade veto.
So, if Denver gets something good in return for Melo (whether he is traded or eventually leaves as free agent) they probably have no reason to want to trade Billups.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 1:33 AM PDT up reply actions
That's my reasoning
We have players who play defense now, look out!
counting chicken's before they hatch
First: Melo hasn’t left yet.
second: We don’t know that Billups would be interested at his age to move to Portland.
Third: We have to still get all our players on the floor or healthy at the same time to see what we have.
IMO, you take little steps in your goals with the big prize still looming in the future. That does not mean you are settling; it means that you are still advancing.
I want the Championship right now too. I am 70 and my window of the opportunity to see the Blazers the champs again is closing, but I will still be tickled pink if they get to the second round or higher. Heck, I will be tickled pink if they make it through the year with Greg still suited down and playing by the end of the season, or if we make it to the play-offs again.
Bottom line: with age you learn to be pleased much easier
hg
I'm not buying into any prescriptions for a "lost season".
My expectation for this year is to make the conference finals. Just making the 2nd round would disappoint me. Last years team would have made the 2nd round if not for injuries. Of course, it makes a big difference how well Oden plays, but I think he should be playing well enough by the playoffs to make this possible.
Andre Miller will not factor into the equation when Portland gets good. In fact he’ll not factor into the equation after next year
Then there’s no reason to be hanging on to him now. I’m certain Cho’s #1 priority is to replace Miller and I expect him to get that done this year. Else Paul might as well have let KP sit out the rest of his contract and watch the cake continue to bake.
Portland could easily bring in a new senior sensei every 2-3 years during the Big Four era…a guy who knows the job and knows how to stay out of the way of the stars but also packs a shooting or scoring punch.
I don’t think it’s quite as easy as Dave suggests, but I think Cho can do it. So let’s get our PG this year, not wait for next year. Let’s get him integrated into our offense with Roy and Oden as soon as possible and start accumulating experience and familiarity as a team with that unit this year. Anything less is wasting an opportunity this year.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 12:52 AM PDT reply actions
You always build for the future
You do it one step at a time though.
In actuallity today is all we have.
I can’t trade my today’s for hopes of tomorrow.
As long as Dre is producing let’s keep him.
hg
Haikus come in three lines
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 18, 2010 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Look at how the Lakers are built
We are in the same mold. The point is that we reach our ceiling with Roy, LMA, Oden, Batum (the big 4) developing and moving into their primes. There is nothing we can do to expedite this process, and tinkering with the PG position (removing familiarity when you currently have extremely capable options) could be counterproductive to the ultimate goal.
Roy – Kobe
Batum – Artest
LMA – Pau
GO – Bynum
I’m not sayin, I’m just sayin. And yes, LMA and Pau are different, Roy isn’t Kobe, blah blah blah blah blah blah.
fearless controlled aggression
I don't understand the logic of your post.
Dave said our goal should be to get to the second round and that Miller will not be part of the team when we “get good” and will “not factor into the equation after next year”.
So if you accept that premise, and are still arguing against my point, what do you achieve by keeping Miller for another year? Miller’s will be gone anyway and all you got from him is a 2nd round appearance. You haven’t built anything for the future between him and anyone else.
How can getting the PG we need for the future this year be “counterproductive to the ultimate goal”? The sooner we get that PG the sooner we begin to build the experience and familiarity as a team with the personnel that will achieve our ultimate goals. What sense does it make to spend more time with Miller who won’t be part of that?
If you are disagreeing with that then it seems you are really arguing that Miller will be part of a contending Blazer team, which means “Roy, LMA, Oden, Batum (the big 4)” need to develop and move into their primes even faster, which you say can’t be expedited.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure you build for the future
Even if Miller is gone after this year, getting to the second round with him as a starter still can help build for the future. You get guys more comfortable in the playoffs with added games/reps, you can help Nic and Greg’s development/confidence by getting them integrated into an offense and helping them get comfortable taking on bigger offensive loads both in the regular season and playoffs, which, IMHO, is far more important to our future success than simply having a PG integrated into an offense while Greg and Nic are still finding their way.
Indeed, this has been a fairly constant refrain from Dave the past few years as an answer to why Blake was playing over Sergio/Bayless. It’s hard to develop multiple guys at once, particularly when one of them is a PG. Back then we needed all of Roy, LA, Oden and, to a lesser extent, Webster/Batum to be develop into contributors/stars, and having Sergio or Jerryd out there would have hindered that by taking shots/touches away from them. Now, we’re just down to Greg and Nic, but the principle is still the same: them becoming more complete NBA players and contributors is going to be far more important in the long run than having a complete starting lineup playing together for multiple years.
So if starting Dre furthers their development more than starting Jerryd or some other PGotF this year because individually they have more “long term potential”, then we should absolutely stick with Dre as far as I’m concerned.
Besides, familiarity between the entire starting lineup is overrated anyways. The Lakers have made the last three finals with a different starting lineup every time. The Magic made the finals and the ECF the past two years with a different starting lineup from the previous year both times. The Spurs spent the entire decade shuffling different centers and SGs throughout their lineup. Doesn’t seem to have hurt them very much.
#52
Cho isn't going to trade Miller for a PG that is less likely to get us to the 2nd round.
In fact, Miller’s never been to the 2nd round of the playoffs, ever. So his resume is no argument for leading anyone into the 2nd round.
But we’re going to get to the 2nd round of the playoffs this year, with or without Miller. If you don’t believe this team (healthy) will get to the 2nd round this year then there is no chance they will be a contender without major trades, and we should be talking about that and not PGs.
So the argument about Nic and Greg getting more playoff experience with Miller than a new PG doesn’t work.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Dre says he can play about four more years
I think. If so we can keep him until some of our inexperienced PG gets blossomed or just get a new one every two or three years.
The thing with me is we need time to gel with the players we have and that may take another year. Then we may know for sure what we have and who to trade. To trade half of the unknown for another unknown for the sake of “building for the future” and he doesn’t pan out then you have to do it all over again. Right now I just don’t think we are in dire need of a PG. Of course I don’t know which one’s we can get anyway. If we could get one that can play right now and be part of the finished product then go for him, but don’t give up what we have for the hopes of someone else doing good in the future.
My biggest disagreement was being disappointed with just second round this year and I am saying you build for the future but don’t give up a good possibility of getting out of the first round this year and I believe the team we have can do that.
If you think we can get a PG that can take us to the promise land this year then I am not going to argue, but if he can’t and you cheat me out of seeing my Blazers advance and I die of a heart attack, I’ll come back and haunt you.
Oh did I ever tell you that I am very conservative.
hg
Hey Blazerfan1970
I 100% agree with you.
Great post.
by hugetrailblazerfan on Aug 18, 2010 1:22 AM PDT reply actions
Dave, I often agree with you, but in this case I respectfully don't.
Getting to the second round this season isn’t enough. We need to build a contending team as soon as possible. Because even if we’re contenders, that’s no guarantee during any given year and it could take several years of trying until it happens. So, if we’re a move or two away, isn’t point guard the important move?
For those who agree that we’re one or two moves away from being a contender, my question is this: What position(s) are we thinking about? We have quality at the center, both forward positions, and shooting guard. The “move or two away” must be at point guard. The point guard is a very important position in the recent NBA with its new rules. So it can’t be that we adopt the approach that we’ll automatically do well. We do need to worry about the point.
You are right about the season's goals.
The window is officially open: the Blazers much move into the upper echelon of times this year. Merely shooting for the second round is not sufficient. Leaving aside platitudes of aiming to win a championship every year — that isn’t realistic unless you are the Lakers — the Blazers must make it to the WCF.
I believe Oden is in the last year of his rookie contract. He must demonstrate now that he can stay on the court for the full season (by which I mean 70+ games and the playoffs) and be a significant presence in the paint at both ends of the court. Nic Batum needs to make further strides in his game, especially offensively. Nate McMillan needs to show that he can run an elite offense, not one whose primary goal is to avoid turnovers and slow the game down to a dull crawl.
As for Portland’s roster needs — concerns about the pg position are more long term rather than immediate. I have no problem with Miller this year and next. After that…. who knows? I’m more concerned about our depth at the center position. Obviously, Oden is not a guarantee to remain upright. Camby is old. Joel is coming off a major injury and is no spring chicken either. If Oden doesn’t work out, do we reconsider LMA at the PF spot? He isn’t a true PF, so he needs a true center to really shine, IMO.
Fortunately, the Blazers’ immediate concerns outside of health are not dramatic. The long-term concerns are a bit more serious, however.
So if Nate doesn't make it to the WCF he walks the plank?
I’m not sure I’m ready to go there. If they play a tough series in round 2 and lose in game 6,7 to L*A then that will be a successful season. One round and out (again) will signal changes
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
If the team is healthy
I’d say the post-season assessment will definitely look at whether Nate was outcoached – or not.
There will be only three possible outcomes this season: 1) the talent is all we think it is and they challenge for a championship; 2) the talent isn’t all we think it is and they don’t challenge for a championship; 3) injuries postpone the argument (again).
If 1) happens during the regular season – then a deep run in the playoffs will be mandatory. If 2) happens during the regular season – we will all be shocked (two consecutive 50-win seasons will do that to you) and Nate will take the blame. If 3) happens, Nate will still be on the bubble and wholesale changes will probably still happen.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 18, 2010 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions
well, your first line is a forth possibility
no problem with talent, just mismanagemant kills the team.
"You be realistic," Oden said. "I’m going to stay happy. All right?"
I don't like absolutes like that.
I would be reluctant, if I were Cho or Allen, to say that if the Blazers don’t do x, then we get rid of Nate, even though I am very critical of Nate already.
I think it is more a matter of this needs to be the goal. If we don’t reach it, we need to understand why, and we need to recognize that the coach may be part of the reason we didn’t get there. After all, suppose the Lakers suffer a bunch of injuries this year, and wind up with a low seed, and face the Blazers in the first round. But when the playoffs begin, the Lakers are fully healthy. You can’t be ashamed of losing to the reigning champions, even in the first round.
More my point is that the Blazers need to move into the elite this year. If they don’t, then I think changes have to be made. If everyone is healthy, and they don’t become one of the teams that everybody else worries about, then yes, Nate must take the blame.
Nate is not a bad coach, but I’m not persuaded he is a championship coach, either. Like Greg Oden, he has (or should have) this year to prove himself once and for all.
I said above the goal should be to make the conference finals this year.
But I also believe that if we lose in round 2 to LA (and only LA) that will still be a successful season. As I put it a couple days ago to my wife, the goal should be to lose to LA this year, but that just sounds horrible.
In reality, it means don’t let anyone but LA beat us short of the conference finals. (I refuse to even think about finishing 8th and playing LA in round 1.) And if we get to the conference finals against someone other than LA, then who knows?
Once you get to the conference finals I believe anything can happen. Look at how the 1977 championship team jelled after they got past tough first and second rounds. They mowed down the Lakers (with Kareem) 4-0. Some players (sometimes unexpectedly) step up when they get within reach of the prize.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Ummm
As I put it a couple days ago to my wife, the goal should be to lose to LA this year, but that just sounds horrible.
See what happens when you talk sports with your wife? :)
Actually I agree with you — we’re both saying that the goal is to reach the level of elite teams. Once you get to that level, then you see what happens.
But we don't know what we have yet.
Our future PG may very well be in the makings as a Blazer already. With all the injuries of last year, how can you say trade, trade, trade when we don’t know what we have yet.
It is true that Dre and BRoy never hit it off good at first but they never had much time to get better with BRoy’s injury. same goes with Greg.
We don’t know if Greg can make it through the year, if he can’t the future trades will be completely different.
hg
So it can’t be that we adopt the approach that we’ll automatically do well.
We also can’t adopt the approach that a new PG would automatically do better
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
That is true
Nothing comes automatic.
Miami is not automatically going to win the Finalss.
Or auttomatically win the Eastern conference,
getting all the stars doesn’t automatically maker them better
It does automatically make them scary in my book though :D
hg
Not according to Jeff van Gundy!
According to JVG, Miami is going to win more than 73 games, including more than 33 in a row. He says they are unguardable, and we may as well not bother playing the season, Miami is so good!
Maybe JVG is looking to have the year off? He only needs to wait a year for the lockout.
They very well could
They could do everything JVG says they can, If fact they probably should, but it will not be automatic. I even like Portland’s Match-up against them. I don’t think I will like the Refs matchup though
hg
word
there’s some serious “grass is greener” syndrome around here, which is understandable as that often happens with sports teams. But to think we can just immediately upgrade from Miller/Bayless while retaining our core 4 at the other positions is unrealistic. Not to mention we still haven’t been healthy, this will be Bayless’ first go around as the true backup PG, and the rest of the roster is much improved from our 54 win team.
Andre Miller is a really really good player…you can’t just upgrade the position whenever you want for nothing.
If we really want to follow in the Lakers mold we will eventually get a cheaper PG who is a better fit stylistically, like Mike Conley Jr. for example. Someone who does more than Fisher because LMA is not at Pau’s level and Roy isn’t at Kobe’s level, but still fills that same kind of role.
fearless controlled aggression
Good Post
In point of fact, the urgency some have to address the PG issue now, as opposed to later, is not controlled by the Blazers, but by the teams who have point guards the Blazers might want to trade for. And, in point of fact, there are only a handful that are better than Miller, and most of those are untouchable – as everyone finally figured out about Paul. The rest are not an upgrade over what we now have. As was pointed out in another thread, Bayless, for example, averaged 17 minutes per game last year, but only 7 of those minutes were played at the PG position whereas the rest were played at the SG slot. This was due to both the fact that Miller is an iron man and Blake was kept until we traded for Camby, leaving Bayless with little playing time at the PG slot, whereas the injuries to Fernandez and Roy created a need at their position. This will be the first year when Bayless actually comes into camp as the second team PG – which means that he’ll finally have some consistent minutes to play the position that the Blazers claim they drafted him to play. The problem with the Point is that you don’t get better solely by practicing – you have to play, and 7 minutes per game isn’t going to get you there. So, given that there are only a handful of PG’s that are better than Miller – and that we don’t yet know how good Bayless will or won’t be, this will be the year that we find out.
As far as Blake type serviceable PG’s, 1/2 a dozen switched teams this year, to include players such as Heinrich, Felton, Blake, etc. We can always pick one of those up.
You can’t, in the end, trade for what isn’t there. And PG’s that are better than what we have are rarely traded. And, I might point out – they are also very expensive. If we are strong at the other 4 slots, then an above average but not necessarily All-star type PG will work quite well.
by Eben Calder on Aug 18, 2010 4:44 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
You are correct
The Blazers are just about set, just need to fish or cut bait with Rudy, stay healthy and start smashing. Those eastern road trips are doing to be a tad tougher this year. Western foes will cower however.
by doomsdaymachine on Aug 18, 2010 4:59 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Where there's a will there's a way
While I agree with your analysis that the PG position will be difficult to upgrade, what remains to be seen is how much of a priority it is for Allen and Cho. We’ve heard that Paul and Larry were hot on the trail for CP3 before the draft, but those negotiations fell through. Is that the end of their PG-upgrade pursuit, or do they have other targets in mind? That’s open to debate, and we’re debating it, here
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Im sick of Nate...
Seems like he is the problem not the team. Be a coach, laugh, shoot the sh%t with the players and take advantage of their strengths. Having only 8 turnovers a game is great, but when you do it at the expense of letting the opposing team shoot 60% and have an offense that consists of stagnant ill moving sets tha result in a Lamarcus jumper( givin that he cant seem to pass or put the ball on the floor out of a double team) or Brandon iso. He seemed like a good idea to bring in to crack down on the young kids, but now those young kids are young men and dont need disapline but a good coach with unique and advanced offensive and defensive sets. Just imagine if Jerry Sloan was coaching this team. wow.
Let the players play Nathan, and stop trying to have everyone play like they are molds of yourself. I mean our offense is bad right?? and our defense is bad right??? God I hope it changes with some help from the assistants, but i think Nate is just Nate and im personally kind of over him….. Let me know what u think
Welcome back Mr. Williams. Yes.
so bad
we won 50 games each of the last two years with one or more of our key guys out for the majority of the season.
So bad that he’s an assistant for the friggin USA team.
So bad that he’s rated highly by ALL of his peers, or at least I’ve never heard the opposite.
So bad that he was 3rd in coach of the year voting last year.
But yeah, I’m sure your armchair assessment is so much more accurate (sarcasm, in case it doesn’t come dripping across)
by Billy Hoyle on Aug 18, 2010 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So Mike Dantoni is one of the best coaches in the league??
Just cause hes on the FRIGGIN USA Team…. Blake is better than Andre Miller too. And actually Ray allen is quoted saying he didnt get along with nate because of his lack of personality and style change. Same with webster, even that guy Rudy. Coach of the year voting means nothing it only makes my case that yes, we were injured, but it wasnt Nate that carried us, but our talant. Great player. Bad coach. Go back to seatlle..
Welcome back Mr. Williams. Yes.
by RipCityBlaze on Aug 18, 2010 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
It's true Ray Allen was happier with Bob Weiss as head coach due to his up-tempo flex motion ...
offense. Yet, as I clearly saw with Weiss, him being a players’ coach ended badly, since many of the guys eased up and played pitiful defense. Bob Hill didn’t fare much better after Weiss, either.
http://www.nba.com/thunder/news/weiss051003.html
Anyway, I agree that Nate McMillan is a shoddy coach. I don’t want a players’ coach, however, but rather a sharp leader who’ll coach a pro-style pick-and-roll offense, staunch man-to-man defense, and communicate clearly — even if it’s blunt honesty the players don’t want to hear — such as Jeff Van Gundy.
For real...
And i know what u mean bout too much of a players coach…I love Jeff!!! He’s hilarious!!
Welcome back Mr. Williams. Yes.
by RipCityBlaze on Aug 18, 2010 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Just imagine if Jerry Sloan was coaching this team. wow
Jazz fans on their blogs crack back on Jerry and his system/game strategy, too
it comes with the territory
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
yea i believe it...
Welcome back Mr. Williams. Yes.
by RipCityBlaze on Aug 18, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
but i guess what i meant by that is if we are going to play a slow down half court- Brandon Roy style offense, that at least sloans system gets easy buckets on lots of movement and screens.. one of the reasons they always lead the league in assists.
Welcome back Mr. Williams. Yes.
by RipCityBlaze on Aug 18, 2010 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions
For what it's worth, Jerry Sloan runs a medium-tempo offense. In the halfcourt, though, you're ...
right that his modern-day version of John Wooden’s old UCLA high-post offense relies a ton on off ball movement, high screens, side screens, staggered screens, and pick-and-roll plays.
It's been shown time and time again you don't need an all-star pg
Good post Dave. Fans put way too much importance on the point guard position – a position that is relatively new to basketball. Rule changes have helped to make penetration easier and increased the value of that position, but clearly all you need is an adequate point guard to win a championship if the other pieces are in place and often times it seems that having a truly great point guard hinders a team’s ability to go all the way.
We don't need an all-star PG. All the CP3 talk was fun, but unrealistic.
I think only Mike Barrett believes Portland is still trying to get CP3.
We just need a PG that is a good fit with Roy and Oden, and will be around for the next 4-5 years, so we can put this team in the contending mode and make some runs at a championship before we lose Roy or Oden because of their knees. That window could close much sooner than we would like.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions
For at least the next two seasons, I still bang the drum that bellows Kirk Hinrich would be a good fit.
It seems like he wouldn't be that hard to get.
I only saw him play a handful of times last year, but it seemed to me like he had slowed down a lot on defense. But it was a small sample.
Anyway, if we wanted him why not do a 3-team deal with Charlotte. Send Miller to Charlotte, they need a PG, Charlotte sends something to Washington (then need almost everything but a PG), and we get back Hinrich. It’s works salary cap wise for us.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Armon!
From the Summer League reviews, I really like Johnson as our latest “Point Guard of the Future”. I have grown to like Bayless, but I think he’s already reaching the peak of his abilities. He’ll never be a deadly outside shooter or dime-throwing machine. He is what he is – a solid outside shot, modest passing abilities, able to apply pressure on D, a guy who can march to the free throw line and has moxie to step up when the team is down. That’s a great guy to have on your team; I just don’t think he’ll get that much better.
What I like about Johnson is that he seems to have the poise and confidence already. He’s athletic enough to play a Bayless-style game, but he also seems to have a Roy-like awareness of what’s happening all over the court.
M, period. Fresh, comma.
Isn't Johnson older than Bayless?
Interesting how a young man can reach his peak NBA potential at age 21
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Nash says hi
didn’t enter the league until age 22 – and didn’t have a breakout season until age 26 – his fifth season in the league.
Billups had his breakout season in his fifth season, too (age 25)
Not everyone is a Rondo that starts for a champion in their rookie year (and then – he was a role player to the Big 3) or develops like Tony Parker (above average player after his first season at age 20)….
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 18, 2010 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions
they’re still the players who they were from the get-go – those players DNA and style didn’t change when they broke out, they just got better at what they already did. And ‘run plays, set up guys’ is not part of Bayless’ game. His game is get into the lane, draw fouls, and hit a decent number of jumpers. He’ll get better at that, he’s not going to change his spots.
M, period. Fresh, comma.
Given the amount Bayless improved last season, expecting him to plateau at the ripe old age of 21 seems ludicrous.
Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion isn’t backed by the available facts. Bayless improved across the board last season. Why would you think that he is done improving at age 21?
His shooting improved, his defense improved and yes, his skills as a distributor improved. His turnovers are down, his assist percentage is up, and his decision making has improved. Particularly given that he played at SG for his one season in college, and that because of injuries and the PG logjam in front of him, he played more minutes at SG than PG, why would you expect him to be done developing as a PG? Do you expect him to go from playing HS PG straight to the NBA?
IMO, your position makes very little sense. It defies common sense and the available statistical evidence.
by upper left corner on Aug 19, 2010 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions
But
Do the fans have the patience to develop their PG of the future these days. Bayless is younger than Armon, and neither will ever be a starter unless they get the playing time to develop. And, given that the SG slot is locked up with Roy, Matthews who started for Utah last year at the same spot, and Williams, both Bayless and Armon are left playing behind an ironman like Miller, and dividing up 12 or 13 minutes a game. This is the year that will decide Bayless’s fate, because I can’t see him staying around in some 5th or 6th guard role. He’ll want to go where he can play, and if he doesn’t get a real shot at PG in Portland, then it won’t be here.
It's not out patience that really matters
it’s how much PT Nate will give Jerryd and Armon in a season where the goal is to reach the 2nd round of the playoffs
Bayless should get much more time at PG than he’s received in the past 2 years. Andre’s minutes may be reduced slightly, because of age
Johnson I don’t expect to see much of, it would be good to send AJ to the D-league because the jump from the WAC to the NBA is not an easy one
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
If Bayless earns the playing time he'll get it.
I don’t think Nate would even have a problem making Bayless the starter if he shows he can do the job better than Miller. Even if Miller is traded for another starting PG, it doesn’t change Bayless’ situation. He needs to step up this year and take over if he can do the job. It wouldn’t be that hard for him to show that he a better fit for this team if he can do what a lot of people here believe he can.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
For once, we agree on something related to Bayless ;-)
IMO, if Nate is smart, he will stagger the PG rotation so that Bayless gets a significant portion of his minutes with the first unit and Miller gets a significant portion of his minutes being the QB of the second unit.
In my mind, this sort of rotation will allow the team to take better advantage of Roy, Miller and Bayless. Bayless can get a “dress rehearsal” playing Robin to Roy’s Batman. Roy can take advantage of having Bayless’, imperfect but improving, ability to spread the floor. Bayless will have the advantage of sharing the playmaking responsibilities with Roy. Miller will have 12 minutes per game when he can utilize his skills running the team while Roy is on the bench.
If Bayless can continue to improve as a defender, hit a decent percentage from 3 pt range, and use his burgeoning PG skills to run the pick and pop for LMA, the pick and roll with GO, and the drive and kick for Batum and Roy, he may be what we need in a PG.
This is the Bayless, I envision: hitting 35% or better from 3 pt range; getting to the line about 5 times per 36; having an AST% of between 25-30%; keeping his TO% below about 13-14%; getting his TS% up to about .550; and getting his USG% down below about 22%. I think this type of improvement over the next two seasons is realistic, given Bayless’ improvement last season and given his work ethic. Do you think this sort of performance is realistic and, if he could get to this point, would you be prepared to change your opinion about Bayless?
If Bayless got his TS% up to around .550 and his USG% dropped below 22%, and his AST% stayed above 25%, would you be willing to change your opinion?
by upper left corner on Aug 19, 2010 6:57 AM PDT up reply actions
This past season, Louis Williams had a 57.6% TS%, had a 34.0% 3PT%, drew a foul on ...
14% of his shot attempts, had a 22.9% AST%, had a 12.0% TOV%, and had a 21.1% USG%. Even if Jerryd Bayless put up those regular season numbers this upcoming season — since Williams surpassed him in each of those categories except foul rate last season, as well as did so with a lower USG% — I’d still consider him as a defensively outmatched, high-octane backup combo guard who’s a poor stylistic fit with Brandon Roy.
“What’s this Dave guy on about? He reckons the blazers won’t be contenders next season and their goal should be to get to the 2nd round of the playoffs.”
Valid criticism.
It seems to me the Blazers have the talent to be a championship contender, but it will take a lot of smarts to figure out how to translate that talent into actually playing like a championship contender.
Once again they have awesome depth, but having the 13th and 14th guy on your roster being rotation-caliber players doesn’t do you any good. (except provide insurance in case of a 100-year flood)
Here's hoping last year was our 100 year flood of injuries.
I am no longer "young" enough to know everything!
So we're calling this the "Big Four Era" now?
Let’s check ourselves before we riggity wreck ourselves.
There are still way too many question marks with 3 members of that big four.
Just sayin’.
yeah seriously.
Hey folks, we’ve been one of the best offensive teams in the past couple of years and a very mediocre defensive team, mostly because of poor pnr defense by our bigs and very weak help rotations on the interior. How about focusing on that instead of daydreaming about every PG in the league?
Dre might not be perfect but he’s a top 10 to top 15 PG in the league. Let’s give this angsting a break.
But...
The largest obstacle between the Blazers and the finals is the Lakers, who seem to be the most vulnerable against teams with great point guards.
by mannoname on Aug 18, 2010 8:51 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
if Phoenix taught us anything
is that you can’t have holes of your own (on offense) if you want to take advantage of a hole in their defense.
Miller can take any point guard into the post. Bayless can take any point guard off the dribble. Neither can do either if the defense doesn’t have to respect the other four positions.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 18, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Couldn't Disagree More
Lets pretend the Blazers are a high performance racing vehicle with five wheels. It’s like the Blazers went out and bought four new tires but did not replace the fifth one. So the vehicle’s owner’s choice in the fifth tire is either one of those small spare tired donuts (Bayless) or an old retread (Miller) that is known for failing at high speeds (playoffs).
If the vehicle is going to win the race, it’s going to have to beat other high performance vehicles that are running at their peak with five dependable tires. Having the Blazers run at their peak is already a problem, so having one vital component that is destined to fail is just plain dumb.
The Blazers need a permanent solution at point guard and the sooner the better.
But, we don't know anything yet
That small tire may end up being a perfect fit and performs perfect because it has to work harder to keep up
That old retread may be more reliable then you think if all the other tires are in balance and rolling freely without to many bumps
There is never a perminent solution. great tires have blow outs, they get worn thin and they need recapped. but wait, you said recaps or retreads were obsolete.
I say let’s wait and see what to trade for.
hg
Well if Bayless is the answer then he needs to be the starter
He’s rotting on the bench behind Miller and needs to get acclimated with the starters.
The problem with Miller, and I’ll stick with the analogy, is that when his tread comes off, and it will in the first round of the playoffs, just like every other year. When the tread comes off, it can be catastrophic. I have seen it happen before, the tread can stay stuck to the tire and spin around damaging the car’s body, the vehicles around it, and even the driver.
I am one of the few people here who believes knows that Andre Miller is an injury vampire. So this new analogy is even more fitting because Andre Miller is unsafe at any speed.
If Bayless is the answer
Then I believe people are asking the wrong question.
It doesn't matter who we get at the point
It has now become a stigma for the ultra-blazer “experts” to find every possible flaw for the PG.
It is only the PG that doesn’t get to play that is considered the answer- until of course he gets to play and then the cycle starts all over again.
This is the key to the Bayless disputes around here
Those who think Bayless is (or might be) the answer are asking a different question from those who think he isn’t.
The real debate around here is not about Bayless, but about what is the right kind of PG for this team.
We have players who play defense now, look out!
I think the reason the tread came off Andre in the playoffs
is because the Blazers had no other viable options. Roy and Batum were hurt. They had no center. (No disrespect to Marcus Camby intended) Aldridge at times looked like a deer caught in the headlights, and didn’t know what to do with a double team. Rudy quit. Bayless tried his best, but he was a bit overwhelmed much of the time.
So Dre has a good first game, then Phoenix puts Grant Hill on him. Miller can’t post him up, and had no one else to turn to. So to keep with your metaphor, Miller’s treads came off because he was forced to go off-road over huge shards of glass and rusty nails.
Not quite sure what you mean by an injury vampire.
Most players would have adjusted their game
Why didn’t Miller just outrun Hill? Hill is like 80.
Here is a quick list I made a while back of all the players Miller fed off us to keep his continuous game streak alive.
He has a thirst for big men. The number is the games they played in that season.
Injury Vampire
1999-00 Cleveland Cavaliers
Brevin Knight 65 games
Danny Ferry 63 games
Zydrunas Ilgasuskas 0
2000-01 Cleveland Cavaliers
Matt Harpring 56
Chris Mihm 59
Jim Jackson 39
Zydrunas Ilgasuskas 24
2001-02 Cleveland Cavaliers
Lamond Murray 71
Zydrunas Ilgasuskas 62 – Played 81 games after Miller left
Tyrone Hill 26
2002-03 Los Angeles Clippers
Elton Brand 62
Corey Maggette 64
Lamar Odom 49
Michael Olowokandi 36
2003-04 Denver Nuggets
2004-05 Denver Nuggets
Marcus Camby 66
Nene Hilario 55
Kenyon Martin 70
2005-06 Denver Nuggets
Kenyon Martin 56
Marcus Camby 56
Nene Hilario 1
2006-07 Denver Nuggets & Philadelphia 76ers
Carmelo Anthony 65
J.R. Smith 63
Marcus Camby 70 – notice the increase after AM left
Nene Hilario 64
Joe Smith 65
2007-08 Philadelphia 76ers
Shavlik Randolph 9
2008-09 Philadelphia 76ers
Elton Brand 29
Donyell Marchal 25
Theo Ratlif 46
2009-10 Portland Trail Blazers
Brandon Roy 65
Rudy Fernandez 62
Nicolas Batum 37
Greg Oden 21
Joel Pryzbill 30
Travis Outlaw 11
Jeff Pendergraph 39
Patrick Mills 10
BTW
I am not a true Dre lover, I believe he is good, but doesn’t roll well with driver at normal speeds maybe the tread mismatches :D.
I would like Dre with the other unit to give experience and a leader
hg
I don't really think he's a leader
He’s an angry loaner. I don’t see him motivating his teammate to overachieve. If anything, maybe they get in line to keep him from complaining about them to the media.
An angry loaner ?
Perhaps like you ??
"You be realistic," Oden said. "I’m going to stay happy. All right?"
Lucky for the Blazers they don't have to worry about the PGotF any more.
Now that we have Armon “Hammer” Johnson set to take over by the mid point of the season we can all rest easy.
What’s that? No you say? Hasn’t played in an NBA game? Can’t shoot a jumper outside of fifteen feet? I dismiss your concerns because I have belief, and won’t let something as petty or small as “facts” get in the way of that.
;-)
Well we've proved we can't draft one
so it’s time to trade for one. We’ll never have better trade chips than this very moment so lets go get a balanced young player. I’d be interested to know what qualities bedgers want in a point guard; brilliant passer, defense first, 3 pt bomber, just what are we looking for? I like an all-around player like Devin Harris. But a great passer like Calderon is also nice, especially when we have so many quality starters.
Premature judgement leads to mistakes
Bayless is 21, and has played fewer than 1000 minutes at PG in college and the NBA.
AJ hasn’t even laced up his sneakers.
Giving up on promising young players before giving them a chance to develop is the fastest route to regret and mediocrity in the NBA.
by upper left corner on Aug 19, 2010 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions
in the PG dispute
No one has mentioned that BRoy is practicing his PG skills. Usually what BRoy wants BRoy gets. Therefore we need a PG that can switch off to the shooting guard.
Or (wait for it) after watching Batman playing the 2, he may at times move to the shooting guard and let BRoy play the PG. We have Matthews to play the three adequately as he can shoot the three and is exellent on D.
What else could you ask for?
PG-BRoy
SG-Batum
SF-Matthews
PF-Camby
Center- Greg.
hg
Too bad youre leaving out LMA
Our second leading scorer and rebounder, for a guy whos 37 yrs old.
by collectiveshane on Aug 18, 2010 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
That was my second unit or Defensive unit
Starting unit
PG-Dre
SG-BRoy
SF-Batum
PF-LMA
Center- Greg.Dre
But switch LMA for Camby and Joel for Greg for the second unit and if Batman and BRoy starts sucking wind we put in ArmanHammer and JBay
hg
haha I guess I should have read your post first
but still. camby is a better rebounder, defender, for sure. But LMA is a scorer, and a good one.
by collectiveshane on Aug 18, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
That is true
That is why we need him anytime Greg is in the game. They can’t leave Greg like they do Joel. But at the end of quarters when you want to shut down, Camby should replace LMA. Leave BRoy for offense and Batum with Matthews for D
We would have adaquate scoring and great D. If I knew more about Arman I would put him in at PG for a defensive team.
hg
It seems a little silly to plan the big man rotation. We’ll play Greg as much as his foul trouble allows, Camby as much as niggling injury allows (up to about 34/night) and Aldridge will mop up the rest, with Dante mopping up spot minutes. Basically our big man rotation will be determined by factors not within the coaching staff’s control.
I wasn't actually planning anything
Mostly daydreaming and show that we have many options as far as PG’s are concerned already
As U said, the big man and also the guards either the 1 or the 2 will be determend by factors
hg
Seems we're overrating Matthews though
I for one haven’t seen him play hardly, and while I’d like to think he’s a lockdown top-10 defender and an excellent shooter, I don’t really know yet.
by collectiveshane on Aug 18, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Who's going to run the pick-and-roll?
To me, Brandon Roy isn’t a point guard whatsoever. As it is, Roy is a ballside wing who dominates the ball with his high usage, as well as efficient play. Yet, just because Roy can rack up assists with his drive-and-kick game, it doesn’t mean he can run an offense altogether.
Reasonable by Dave but not the answer
If Portland had Avery Johnson in his prime, there would be no reason not to win a championship … we know how well Damon Stoudamire’s prediction turned out. The PG has to help win in the playoffs but doesn’t have to be an all star.
It’s not that Miller is a negative or a problem or … It’s more about fit, benefit, and the long-term. Portland hasn’t found a starting PG that fits and is a benefit and they’ve had auditions for YEARS. Miller is a quality stopgap. No, he and Bayless won’t prevent a championship, but if I was a betting man I’d bet against them ENHANCING the chance of going deeper into the playoffs.
The issue is that APEC, JPEC and good youth exist now. Consolidation can be done now. When assets for upgrading the PG are fewer, that’s bad. The abundance of relative riches for trades—without touching the four pillars—won’t last. This is where I disagree with Dave. It is an issue now and waiting can only go on so long.
You expressed my feelings cearly
The answer is not clear to me but waiting is out. My understanding is the management is looking and working hard to make a deal. After the Matthews deal it’s impossible to imagine a trade for anything but a point guard. We are totally set at the wings and up front (Are you ever totally set up front with Oden?) That leaves the point where we have nothing but question marks. I like Bayless and Miller but I’m having a harder time seeing either one as permanent. I like Bayless’ attitude a lot but is it enough?
The question is if, and when, it makes sense to make a trade.
AM’s expiring contract isn’t really expiring, because we have an option for another year. We are under no obligation to make a move now. We can wait till the trade deadline or we can excercise the option and trade him next summer or even before the trade deadline next season.
Joel’s contract is expiring, so there is more pressure to make a decision before the trade deadline this year. However, Joel and Dre are both far more than just ECs both are quality players who fit current needs for our team. We have tremendous need for depth up front given GO’s and Camby’s injury history. We may be perfectly capable of filling the long term need at PG by continuing to develop two quality young prospects JB and AJ.
In my mind, there are lot of reasons to wait. We need the answer to several questions:
1) How is GO? If Greg comes back strong and fit and plays without injury up to the trade deadline, trading Pryz becomes much more acceptable.
2) Can Joel play, and at what level? Lots of folks seem to take it as a foregone conclusion that we want to trade Joel. I’m not one of them, and based on Joel’s comments to Barrett, he isn’t either. Having three big men may be a way to extend both Camby and Pryz’s careers. Even if we do decide to trade Joel, his value will be much greater if we wait till he has proven that he can play.
3) How do GO and Camby fit together? How about Joel and Camby? We have never seen any of these combinations. It may make sense to keep Joel if he is willing to sign for less money to stay in Portland.
4) How is Bayless developing and how does he fit next to Roy? If Bayless picks up where he left off in the playoffs, he may very well be the long term answer at PG. Even if he doesn’t show enough improvement as a distributor to look like a future starting PG, if he continues to demonstrate improved shooting, defense and decision making, his trade value will only increase.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
by upper left corner on Aug 19, 2010 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with Dave
To this point, the L*kers won multiple times with Derek Fisher. Miller >> Fisher.
Fisher is terrible
One of the worst starters at any position in the NBA last year.
Andre was a top 10 point last year.
Miller is definitely better than Fisher
Fisher consistently plays 30+ minutes and get basically 5 points and 3 assists
by collectiveshane on Aug 18, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Fisher fits the Laker system far better than Andre Miller would.
You didn’t see them (or anyone else for that matter) going after Andre Miller when he was a free-agent. Fit is why the Lakers went after Steve Blake right away (the moment they couldn’t get Mike Miller, another great fit for them). Blake’s a very good fit in their triangle offense.
Players that fit together make championship teams. Championship teams get that.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I know
he fits. But I think Andre would do better with the Lakers than Fish, because individual talent DOES sometimes end up beating out “fitting”, and Fisher really has little left.
by collectiveshane on Aug 18, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Which just reinforces Dave's point:
A team that rightly expects Great Things from its non-point-guard starters
(be it Coby-Artest-Gasol-Odom-Bynum or Roy-Batum-LaMardridge-Oden)
can win consistently at the highest level with a sub-elite point guard.
The L[xxx]rs have been doing it with Fisher, and we WILL be doing it with whomever.
Do it! Do it! Do it 'til you're satisfied!
Individual talent is the stuff that superstars (or dreams) are made of.
You can’t win a championship without at least one, and probably two, of those guys. But after that it’s fit, fit, fit, IMO.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 18, 2010 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
That is so wrong in a million ways
The Blazers would have gotten out of the first round with Fisher and probably would have won 60 games.
Fisher is a proven leader and a winner. He can hit clutch shots and can hit the 3. Miller makes the offense worthless when he’s not holding the ball. If he’s not running or posting up, then there is really no reason for him to be in the NBA.
Miller is going to work out just fine.
Now it seems that the general feeling about Miller is that he can’t shoot from 3. However miller is a great post player. He is on the block more then any other point guard. His post up moves are so good that he draws double teams. I can’t be the only one who remembers those few games when miller and Greg were clicking and we saw what they could do together. Miller dropping it off to Greg for the slam were some of the best highlights of the year. I think Andre is a great point guard and when the team is healthy and Miller has someone to pass to. We are going to see why drawing double teams on the block is much better then standing on the perimeter waiting for Brandon to need a bailout.
Bayless will be in the HOF
if the Blazers let him go they will have grave regrets
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
I have no problem with Brandon Roy at the point – I just don’t want him GUARDING the point on defense.
That being the case, I don’t care what kind of offensive role Brandon Roy’s Co-Guard (or, the BRCG) has,
just so long as he defends the NBA’s point guards, especially the younger, more rabbity crowd
(especially Rondo and Brooks) that’s in the act of re-defining the position
as the classic, bigger traditionalists like Kidd, Fisher, Baron Davis, and, yes, Andre Miller phase out of the NBA.
(Chris Paul is really a swiss-army-knife, every-great-style-in-one point guard, capable of playing like Kidd OR Brooks,
whereas Deron Williams is gonna end up a throwback, a pure big-quarterback-type
in a Point Guard: The Next Generation league – which is perfect for Sloan and Utah.)
My point (har!) being (as relates to this post), the pool of current young Blazers, let alone potential Blazers,
who are viable candidates for being the BRCG during this team’s prime should be bigger than Dave talks about here.
Anyone with the capacity to defend point guards is a candidate.
That means ALL guards – not just point guards, including not just combo guards,
but full-blown shooting guards, SG/SF wings (you had yer chance, Rudy – coulda been you!),
and yes, even quicker, defensively savvy small forwards – I’m look at you, Batum.
Which is to agree deeply with Dave:
The opportunities to have a fifth member of the Roy-Batum-LaMardridge-Oden squad in their prime
are so vast, and the demands on that fifth so meager (at least as compared to the other 4),
that one can rest assured: It WILL be covered more than sufficiently for that squad to flourish.
I’m adding that I think the opportunities for that fifth guy are even greater than Dave insinuates here.
Do it! Do it! Do it 'til you're satisfied!

by 






























