ROLES, AND BUCK THE TREND?

by rednblackattack on Sep 21, 2010 11:16 PM PDT

ROLES...

What does that really mean? Does it mean team chemistry? Or does it mea

n know your place rook.

What I think it means, and I would like to think that most of us think, is that it is acceptance.

Acceptance of what the Team truly needs. All championship Teams have them and they are usually players that are not playing for a contract, but players wanting more. Knowing that little details in a team concept aren't so little. IT separates good from great, and great from the best.

This offseason I saw the Blazers cut the fat and finally decide a course of action. What I saw was a cemented decision of defense and players that can fill a defined role. The players lost were not going to flourish here and might not ever. They were the right moves to make at the right time.

The time now for the Blazers is to define ROLES. Call it chemistry, intangibles, IT, or what ever you want. It all comes down to players accepting their roles. Cohesiveness! Tight nit! Gritty! Sacrifice! Consistency! Tenacity! Big! Anticipation! Clutch! = CHAMPIONSHIP! None of that spells ME!

I remember being in high school and riding Tri-Met home right before the start of the 89-90 season. The Blazers had just gotten Buck Williams from New Jersey and I was talking to a guy on the bus about the team. He said that the Blazers would just fold like they always did and my response was that this just felt different, there was this IT factor that I couldn't explain. But I told the guy that this was a different year and to watch out for them. He had no response. Youth was probably his response in his head. IT always stuck with me. IT was Buck.

Just like that IT took us from good to great, but unfortunately not to the best. However, all those intangibles were brought forth. This Blazer Team is at that same exact point in time when Buck arrived in the PDX in 89. With all of the coaching changes done this offseason, Buck could be the difference. This Team is far more advanced than that of the late 80's and early 90's was. Except in one area. ROLES. The evolution of this Team is just coming into the veteran stage, and hence understanding the true value of their ROLES. It is to be accepted that players need to define themselves as players before they truly know their ROLES.

This Blazer Team has been learning instead of knowing. That stage has lessened its grasp on this young and talented Blazer squad, ROLES will be allowed to define themselves this year just by time itself, and hopefully Buck.

Buck Williams instilled IT with his Team, and I believe he will instill IT with this Team.

A quiet, consistent, workmanlike confidence, where everyone knew their ROLES The new era will soon begin.

IT will be fun to see IT happen.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 4 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Rec for hilarious

by Marvin100 on Sep 22, 2010 12:28 AM PDT reply actions

I said this in a fan post called the "Buck Williams sffect" back in Aug. 17th, 2010

Agree the effect in small changes can make great differences. The year Walton carried us to a chamionship it was Lucas being an enforcer which allowed Bill to dominate the center of the court. The joy of the following year as we dominated the league 50 wins 10 losses. Then Bill’s injury it takes the joy out of …. Well anyway we were always strong teams into the Dexler era but the addition of Buck changed the chemistry enough that we should have won at least once durring that time. I see this team as stronger all the way to the bottom of the bench.

by prof.mike on Sep 22, 2010 10:04 AM PDT reply actions

I agree. I loved the Drexler teams, but the Roy/Oden era is deeper

At every position. Not saying that Roy is better than Clyde, or that LMA is better than Buck, they just have different skill sets. The players behind them are MUCH better. Say what you will about his health, but no matter what Oden > Bowie.

I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

by haildablazer on Sep 22, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Great Post....super well written, with the force of conviction! Nice...

Buddy is a goooood dog!

by nascent on Sep 22, 2010 12:02 PM PDT reply actions

Not saying that Roy is better than Clyde,

Ok I will say it then. Roy is better than Clyde. I don’t think it is really even close. I trust Roy’s decision making and his clutchness much more than I ever did with Clyde. Porter was way more clutch than Clyde as well.

by rednblackattack on Sep 22, 2010 3:52 PM PDT reply actions

lol

Yeah, Roy’s efficiency makes it a lot closer than even the most nostalgic fan would like to admit. Clyde’s game was more exciting, Roy’s is more conducive to winning close games.

I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

by haildablazer on Sep 22, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Respectfully disagree

Roy has a ways to go before he is to be considered better than Clyde. Besides being more athletic, Clyde was a superior passer, better rebounder and heaven help anybody that tried to defend him in the open court. Brandon’s advantage is in his craftiness, his ability to use both hands at the rim and being able to get a quality shot against most defenses with which I think is being misinterpreted as clutch. Clyde was never the shooter that Brandon already is, so more of his points came from driving and slashing. I always cringed when Clyde pulled up for a jumper, especially a three. Brandon will never have Clyde’s superior physical skills but Brandon’s approach to the game and diversity give him the potential to be better player in the long run.

Nothing is as frustrating as arguing with someone who knows what he's talking about. ~Sam Ewing

When they asked me how you danced, I'll say that you danced real close.

by BoogiewithStu on Sep 23, 2010 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions

If you break down the Yankee dynasty under Casey Stengel it was all about roles

and little else really. Good post. I agree.

by Kaanyr Vhok on Sep 22, 2010 4:52 PM PDT reply actions

Misinterpreted as clutch? Really Stu?

Hmm, where do I begin. I’ve watched Clyde’s whole career as well as Brandon’s, and I will assume that you have as well for arguments sake alone. I will give you that Drexler was a better rebounder but not a better assist man, and I will tell you why. First the offensive styles that both players played in were completely different; with Adelman"s pace being much faster which means more possessions and that equals more assists to actually give. Another reason is in Nate’s style of slow play there are a ton of isolations featuring several players but most feature Roy, which equals less less passing and in turn less assists. I know what I have seen in both players and Roy is the more intelligent player by far and on so many levels it’s not even close. It’s easy to find a wide open guy on a fast break that results in a layup or dunk. And how you don’t consider Roy as clutch is beyond me. In Drexler’s third year he got into an all star game, at the same point in Roy’s career he’s had ROY, and 2 All-Star appearances with some tremendous guards in the western conference to compete with. Is Clyde a better athlete, of course. Does Clyde have better stats, yes. But have higher stats in a more productive offense does not translate to a better player. I have one question for you Stu, at the end of a game who would you rather have with the ball in their hand… Clyde or Roy?

CASE CLOSED! YOU LOSE!

by rednblackattack on Sep 23, 2010 9:37 PM PDT reply actions