The Blakester

by Dave on Jul 26, 2007 4:01 AM PDT in News

With the Steve Blake introduction yesterday this seemed like a good time to share my thoughts on the Blazers' most recent acquisition. It's one of the things I didn't have the time to cover fully during Summer League and besides I hate giving just my knee-jerk reaction. I like to let things marinate a little because situations can look totally different after just a few days of reflection. So here you go.

These are the reasons I like Steve Blake as a Blazer:

--As George Karl said to us on the day the deal was announced Blake is a steady presence and is good at involving other people. Our young guys will probably need a hand scoring and a point guard like Blake setting them up makes it easier. Both of our other point guards are young and somewhat inconsistent so adding him makes sense.

--I love his outside shooting. He'll hit the shot if you leave him alone and our point guards are going to be left alone a lot this year. It's a dimension we don't have in the same way without him.

--He knows how to play halfcourt offense as well as running the fast break. The other guys (that we've seen play anyway) are either-or.

--He can slip into a starting role or come off the bench and still give you production.

--He won't make many mistakes. Jack and Sergio are prone to them and by the number of times Nate mentions "turnovers" I'm sure it drives him crazy.

--For a point guard he doesn't need the ball much. He'll be willing to defer if Brandon needs touches.

--He's a perfect "culture guy" for Pritchard and Nate is already familiar with him. He's also a likeable community player for the fans.

--The two year deal with a third-year option is no-fault for us. If he never plays a minute it's no harm, no foul.

Here's what I'm worried about:

--We may end up needing a little more punch at point guard...not a 20-point scorer or a ball hog but someone the defense will fear a little and respect a lot. I don't see Blake as that guy. Another way to say it is that he's good at most everything but not great at anything. We already have a lot of players like that.

--He's a willing defender, which is nice to see, but that's different than being a good defender. A lot of people tend to mix up those two, especially when one or two good defensive performances stick out in the mind as a fan. He's a decent, basic defender but he's not going to stop great players or stay in front of quicker ones. I don't see him alleviating a lot of the defensive pressure on the backcourt or saving the big guys a lot of fouls.

--While I like his long-distance shooting when he's open I don't like his shooting at all when he's covered. His ability to get his own shot is just a notch or two above Ime's and that's not good.

--He's coming off a year where a bunch of things went south on him. His track record before that year was neither long nor sterling. Sometimes guys rebound from that. Other times they just sink into oblivion. I'm not sure what will be the case for Blake.

--I don't like what this does for Jarrett Jack's confidence. If you believe in Sergio you shouldn't like what it's probably going to do to his playing time either. Granted as far as acquisitions and displacements go this was a mild one, but it's still there. Blake isn't a grizzled veteran brought in to play third-string point guard and teach the kids on the way to his first assistant coaching gig. He's going to compete for the starting spot and require minutes even if he doesn't get it. It's hard to envision him starting on a championship-level squad and with that contract you've got to assume he's either gone or coming off the bench two years from now. What happens in the meantime to the guys we expect might be there? I know they're not ready yet but I'm not sure how much this really helps...especially Jack. Maybe there's some leading by example but youngsters need more than example. They need court time and support. Granted this was more a move to support Oden and Aldridge than Jack and Sergio, but still.

I guess in the final analysis I see some hope in this move and I understand the reasoning behind it. Nevertheless in my gut it still feels like a lateral move...not a bad move, just a sideways one. I'm hard pressed to find much wrong with it, but I'm also hard pressed to see why it won't be semi-immaterial by March of next year. Either Jack and Sergio will fall flat on their faces and we'll need someone better than Blake to take over the team or they'll start to fulfill some of their promise and we won't really need him. The worst outcome of all might be that we never find out. Blake should definitely make it easier on Lamarcus and Oden, which again is the main point, but I can't help wondering why year after year we can't seem to find an answer at the point guard position that's satisfying. Oh well...I guess that's a question for another day.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 58 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Koponen

I'm really hoping that Koponen comes over next year and takes the starting PG job. He showed flashes during summer league and seems to me to be the best equipped to run this team(maybe with Sergio) in the future.

by danielfarrell on Jul 26, 2007 5:19 AM PDT reply actions

totally diasagree

I saw his last two games of summer league in person and thought he was very, very raw. If you take everyone's complaints about Sergio and then, at minimum, double them, then you have the problem with Koponen. Terrible at running the half court offense, waaaay too much dribbling (but unlike Sergio, he did it with his head down), his shot didn't look good, his ball handling was loose and almost chaotic, and he looked overmatched on O and D--he seemed pretty out of control half the time he was out there. Knowing what Nate likes in a PG, I gotta think he would get almost zero minutes if he was on the squad this year, and I doubt that will change enormously in one year.

That said, he is VERY young, so it'll be interesting to see how you improves and grows.

by sergioFTW on Jul 26, 2007 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions

thanks

Thanks for the first hand knowledge. I just watched them games online and couldn't see details. It seemed like he got a whole lot less pressure applied to him while he was bringing the ball up than Sergio did... I assumed it was because he to have more control... but it's possible that they just didn't pressure him for some other reason.

by danielfarrell on Jul 26, 2007 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions

yeah

i doubt ball control was a deciding factor in pressure. sergio is undeniably one of the best ball handlers in the NBA.

by sergioFTW on Jul 26, 2007 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't know...

It seems like we draft our PG of the future every year. Telfair, Jack, Sergio, and now Koponen. I hope Koponen comes over next year and shocks the whole league with his skills, but I think the chances of it happening (next year, at least) are approaching zero.

Hopefully one of these guys overtakes Blake in the near future, but I would rather focus on developing the guys we have rather than putting all of my hopes on whoever we draft each year.

by HarryManback on Jul 26, 2007 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Nothing wrong with that

Eventually one of them is going to turn out and then everyone will forget about the ones who didn't.

by jamon51 on Jul 26, 2007 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions

Agree with everything

I've long said that Blake is an average point guard who looked good by being average during an AWFUL year of Blazer basketball. Because of his solid, BASIC play that year, he has become overrated with certain segments of Blazer fan high society.

I don't dislike him as a player, especially not as a person, and while I have been mildly annoyed with his overratedness I kinda am okay with this signing. I'm a big Jack fan, but he was SOOOO BAD on the fastbreak. If this competition fixes that part of his game, great. If Blake is the better PG, great. I believe in steady competition creating the starting lineup and rotation, but we all know politics and expectations play a part in who plays and if you make a big deal of bring Joel or Blake over, you gotta play them.

The one thing I might take exception with is that Blake couldn't be a PG on a championship club. I'd say that with a trio as (potentially) great as Oden/Aldridge/Roy, your PG doesn't have to be much aside from a guy with no holes in his game. Blake is average across the board, and won't make mistakes and cause the coach to worry when he's out there. That just might be enough... but is "enough" good enough? If the average PG is good for chemistry and is good at working the big 3 into the offense, then an average non-stellar PG is probably good enough to be a championship starter.

Recent teams making it to the finals have affected my view a bit... 2 years ago, I'd say I'll be the starting SF for the Lakers before Antoine Walker was the starter for a championship club. Sadly, I was waived by the Lakers and Walker (aka WORST PLAYER ASIDE FROM ADAM MORRISON) actually won a title. Eric Snow, eternally sub-par lame PG Eric Snow, has been to two finals. You can point out the circumstances he's gone to the finals under, but he's been there twice.

My point is, mediocrity can easily be a key piece of a championship club if they compliment the STARS well. Couldn't Blake be a Derek Fisher? BJ Armstrong?

I'd even go as far and say a star PG (aside from the best of the best like Nash, Magic, or Isaiah) is a bad component to have if you expect to go "all the way". Star PGs dominate the ball, shoot too much, and super rarely are good enough to lead a team to the title, or even play fair with other stars on the same team.

Another ball handler to go along with Roy, someone to hit shots, not NEED to shoot, good passes, smart player, can run or halfcourt it, no attitude or ego to worry about-- at PG, I'd say that's all we need.

I definately think Blake is overrated by many, and I would gladly welcome someone better as long as he (or she???) doesn't dominate the ball and is a pass first kinda guy (or girl???) who can still shoot. I still expect management to look at upgrading the PG (and for that matter the SF) spot to get better than mediocre.

But with 3 team player superstars, a Blake might be able to get us there.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 26, 2007 5:45 AM PDT reply actions

What about tony parker?

Isn't he a star PG? Seems like he has a few rings.

by sergioFTW on Jul 26, 2007 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions

There are exceptions

And the Spurs with Tony Parker is ALMOST an exception, but the Spurs win championships with another decent PG there. DUNCAN is the key there, even though Parker was Finals MVP this year... Parker was MVP just because Duncan has won it so many times already.

I'd also say that Parker is so well regarded because he is on such a good team that doesn't expose his weaknesses. He IS good, of course, so I'm not saying anything like that...

Just that Duncan's overall dominance is the key to the Spurs, and Parker's starosity is the exception of my "star PG might be bad" semi-argument.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 26, 2007 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions

He could be John Paxson

Why not?

by jamon51 on Jul 26, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Steve Blake

will let our young guys mature at a faster rate than alot of PG's out there. Can Sergio or Jack step up a notch from the OLE' defense they play?
I seriously worry that neither one of them will EVER be able to play adequate D. Besides, an adequate defender may be all we need. Blake may just be savvy enough to "guide" his opponent into what every NBA team out there wishes they had, one intimidator inside. Well soon we will have 2(how sweet is this), allow me to say it one more time, TWO of them on the floor at the same time! I see interior defense as our biggest assest in the not too distant future. From what I saw from Denver in the playoffs, Blake was hitting money ball shots and in the clutch more than a few times. Best of all, he is not a dribbler, and he knows when to deliver the pass inside. I think KP brought him in specifically to let our big 3 work out the wrinkles. The more the ball stays in the hands of BRoy, LMA & GO the faster their learning curve will develop. Blake will stay out of their way and still contribute. Not an easy thing to do.

Besides, in a couple of years P Ko' can Finnish' the issue of just who will be our future point guard.

The Oden Era, Day 29

by Heymoe on Jul 26, 2007 6:17 AM PDT reply actions

I've been a Steve Blake fan since his freshman

year at Maryland. He was instrumental in bringing Maryland it's National title. Admittedly I'm biased when it comes to Blake.

I was very excited the first time the Blazer's signed him and predicted that Blazer fans, who were mostly lukewarm to the news, might find themselves pleasantly surprised. Based on the comments I've seen here, a significant segment of you have developed a decent opinion of him.

I am very glad to see him back and think he will be a great fit for Portland. The only down side for me is that I'm also a Jarrett Jack fan and like Dave I'm a bit concerned about how this effects his development. My hope is that Jack gets good minutes as a combo guard off the bench. He can learn watching Blake run the offensive while concentrating on his scoring and defense when he's in the game.

As for Blake, I think he still has growth potential to his game and with steady playing time will continue to surprise Blazer fans.

PS - I can't help noticing that the other PG on the team who's also won a National title has been making a nice impression on the Blazer staff so far.

by timg56 on Jul 26, 2007 6:22 AM PDT reply actions

About PG Defense...

all the time people will mention a potential or prospective PG's defensive ability. And most of the time, the defense is found wanting.

Look back at the Phoenix-San Antonio series (withou looking at the officials). Throughout that series Nash and Parker took turns driving around each other. In the Spurs next series against Utah, it was Williams and Parker taking turns looking at each other's backsides. It's the same all over.

Defending elite, quick NBA PG's may be next to impossible. There just aren't too many gary payton's coming into the league anymore.

If Blake's defense is "weak", I would be interested in knowing what PG's were available to portland that had better defensive abilities?

by moldorf on Jul 26, 2007 6:57 AM PDT reply actions

Very well said

by jamon51 on Jul 26, 2007 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions

The thing about great teams is their defense.

Our size and length is special. Our work ethic and our coaching staff's commitment to defense is rare. We will need to be steady and smart about using the floor, and we'll need to minimize the breakdowns. We'll need to force opponents into difficult shots and own the glass after. A smart, proven, consistent, yes, mostly consistent presence at point will define our on court personality and will also extend our big's game minutes (controlled by personal foul management).

While I'm really disaapointed that we don't have five or six all star players yet (KP's such a slacker) Blake looked likr the only option availab;e who could do the above things.

Sergio is such a defensive liability as to have all our bigs riding too much pine. U think there is a chance he would have more assists in the other teams stat sheet than in ours, send him to Boise with Monty for a year please. Jack will be fine. He will grow into Blake with a season or two of 20 minute nights as back up, but he doesn;t seem likely to be much better in the next couple of seasons. PKO like most new, shiny things, is easy to get excited about. Let's see what emerges as he grows up and there is more to analyze. I'm betting that the PG of our championship may well dominate in the dance of 64 next spring.

Blake is the right next step in our development of the three we're counting on, and his contract length tells us everything about KP's plans for him.

by ojala on Jul 26, 2007 7:02 AM PDT reply actions

sergio bias

i understand Sergio doesn't get the benefit of the doubt--he is young and not a starter, etc. But please, seriously, don't act like Jack and Sergio are miles apart on defense. Jack's D is bad and Sergio's D is bad. I think if you watch both's games closely last year it would be hard to come to any other conclusion. They both may let guys go by them, but Sergio has shown an aptitude for getting steals (he is good at lurking within striking distance) and his per 48 steals numbers are far better than Jacks from last year (1.55 vs. 1.93)--which is worth something, especially since Sergio almost always converts those steals into successful fast breaks.

and if either has a higher potential for growth you gotta say it would be Sergio, he is more athletic and quicker than Jack, and Jack has already had the benefit of more experience at every level and is nearly 3 years older.

by sergioFTW on Jul 26, 2007 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions

the wrong expectations

this was a great move. not a great pg. so what. not what blazers needed. blazers needed an upgrade and got one.

blazers need to NOT WORRY about the pg when he's on the court. blake is the role player/veteran they needed.

i don't know who said he was blake was the pg of the future, certainly not the blazers, i.e., look at the contract. but he's perfect right now.

by rburg on Jul 26, 2007 8:23 AM PDT reply actions

We need the season to start

You can't worry about how Jack is going to take it. Then again, that is the whole point. I think Jack will be his agressive rookie self with a 3rd year guards' polish.

Blake could be a fine member of a championships team. Kerr, Paxon anyone.

I reeeally hope we can keep all four point guards this year and all see time. Kaponan can come over next year and try to brake into the log jam.

I love women and basketball... but not women's basketball.

by T REX on Jul 26, 2007 8:30 AM PDT reply actions

I'll go one step farther.

I see no reason why Blake couldn't be our point guard of the future. The short term contract is just insurance in case he doesn't work out (or someone else comes on like gang-busters). If he is a good fit, then the Blazers will have to pay more for his sevices a few years from now. So you see, it would would have been a gamble to sign him long term but it's also a gamble going the short term route.

My personal biased prediction based on my astute knowledge of the game (ha, ha, ha, ha!): He will be our long term starting point guard. Sergio may be traded if the offer is right. Jack will back up both guard spots.

by TwoDeep on Jul 26, 2007 8:48 AM PDT reply actions

we csn win a title

with steve blake,see dave when you talk about jack and sergio,their biggest detriment is jack is already proving he's too damn sensitive.he has rabbit ears,and if he does'nt beat out blake he's as good as gone pyschologically.as for sergio the language barrier and style of play is his problem. blake*green on the other hand are winners period. and the culture that pricthard is preaching is about leadership at the point.and at the end of the day,i see blake*green as the pg's of the future,and i see us signing 1 in 09 as a bigtime f.agent..

by fatty on Jul 26, 2007 8:57 AM PDT reply actions

Keep this up

and I'm going to get a serious case of man love for you fatty.

by timg56 on Jul 26, 2007 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

He kind of grows on you

like a fungus or something. (sarcasm Rotund One ;-)

"I'm a buffet of goodness."

by TP43 on Jul 26, 2007 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions

I gotta say..

I was just in your backyard Fatty. NY that is and, while I was there I couldn't post much. However, I did a fair amount of thinking and a bit of reading. I've come to respect your opinion when you don't bust out the vitriol (Save that acid for our boy Stern and the mid-season whiners).

That said I noticed in another diary you seem to slightly contradict yourself here. I too am a T. Green fan and think the kid has alot of potential and more importantly a champions mentality right now.

In the other thread you stated you thought the PG of the championship team will be someone not in the NBA. I've had the thought myself that we haven't seen him yet. So my question to you is do you see Green as a valuable role player or a possible starter. His biggest flaw seems to be his size but I love his defense (when his head is in the game he blows away anyone else at point D) and the energy he brings to the floor.

So O'rotund one is it green/blake (and which one starts?) or mystery man X backed up by green/blake when the championship runs come in 2010-20xx?

Can Oden Norse God of Hoops redeem a city Hungry for a return to the National Championship? Only time will tell.

by Idog1976 on Jul 29, 2007 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions

The answer to your last question is simple

"but I can't help wondering why year after year we can't seem to find an answer at the point guard position that's satisfying. Oh well...I guess that's a question for another day."

A.) The Blazers haven't drafted well

B.) The Blazers haven't signed a high quality PG

Since Porter we've had Strickland, Damon, Telfair, and Sergio/JJ/Blake. There have been good PG's available during that period, I just think Portland has always chased after the wrong ones.

by leeroyjenkins on Jul 26, 2007 9:02 AM PDT reply actions

You can't get no satisfaction

...if you think Rod Strickland wasn't a good PG during his time with the Blazers.

by hugs on Jul 26, 2007 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions

My main points

Blake is good at BOTH fast break and half-court play.
Blake adds depth and experience at a very decent price, with a very manageable contract.

It is what it is really. Blake is not the savior at PG. KP did not sign him to be that. Alot of fans seem to be analyzing this trade based on the assumption that KP signed Blake to be the long term solution at PG. In reality, KP signed Blake to be the long term solution at backup PG. You need a team player like Blake coming off the bench in order to win a championship. You want steady, versatile, and dependable players coming off the bench... Blake is that.

I think this was mostly a move that reflects managemen'ts trust in Jack and Sergio... which isn't very high. Going into a season with such a young team, those guys still arent steady enough to be a calming force. It's an impressionable season for the likes of Ridge and Oden, and they need a more dependable QB calling the plays. Jack and Surge still have a ways to go.

by mcmillion on Jul 26, 2007 9:16 AM PDT reply actions

Blake's defense

I remember the games, and there were more than one, of Blake guarding Kobe and doing well, and the Blazers winning those games. What games has Blake been burned in? I remember a game in which Sergio had a big game against Denver when Blake was on the team. If I remember right, Sergio really pushed the ball, and made things happen in the open court. Was Blake not doing well on transition defense? One thing's for sure, Sergio played great, and was an unknown to the league at the time.

I tend to think that Blake's strengths as a defender are about denying penetration and staying in front of his man and getting his hands up, making his defender shoot over the top, and his weaknesses are about denying the pass, which allows a Nash type point guard to do well. But that kind of goes hand in hand. I don't think Blake gets burned that much, he makes the other point guard beat him by making great plays. And his level of consistency on defense is high. I think that's what you need from point guard defense, personally. Gary Payton made his name during a period of different rules for perimeter defenders.

by ranma on Jul 26, 2007 9:24 AM PDT reply actions

An average pg can win championships...

I think we all agree Blake is an average point guard. We also agree that there have been examples of teams winning championships with average point guards. Somehow we'd all like to see hall of famers (a true dream team) at every position but ultimately it's not needed in order to be a great team.

The only exception I take to the previous posts is the sentiment that Blake "won't make mistakes". I agree "on average" he won't make mistakes but as an "average" pg he'll be prone to mistakes at high stakes crunch time (even though he is not a choker) simply due to his average skill set. Watch for Blake to get the Blazers positioned for victory at crunch time but for Roy to once again take over and bring it home when it matters.

by jon @ Blazer's Edge on Jul 26, 2007 10:23 AM PDT reply actions

Exactly

Blazers don't need Blake to be the crunch time ball handler. Roy can drive and kick out to him (a la Jordan-Paxson) for the dagger 3.

by jamon51 on Jul 26, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions

blake is good fit

Alright, so this is my first post after reading for a long time.... So here goes.

First off, Blake plays excellent D. He's had excellent games guarding great point guards.

From Mike Barrett's blog....

"...and Steve Blake will play the two, and yes, will once again guard Kobe Bryant. Against the Blazers, and Blake, this season, Bryant has scored 41, 27, and 35 points... Portland beat the Lakers on January 11th in Portland, and again on March 1st at the Rose Garden. ...Phil Jackson talked about facing the Blazers tonight. He said, for whatever reason, they've been unable to figure the Blazers out in Portland this season, but said they'd be ready on Friday."

Yeah, for the sake of argument, remember that bryant was aver 40+ a game at that time, if not higher, so whatever holes are in Blake's D, are pinpoints...

Here's more... from a laker's site...

"For the second time this season the Los Angeles Lakers were upset by the Portland Trailblazers, as Zach Randolph of the Portland Trailblazers scored 20 points and Steve Blake added 19 points and five assists in the 99-93 victory Wednesday night."

So throw those no O comments out the window too. Just because he doesn't throw up #'s doesn't mean he can't score, he's got a sweet floater and a great hesitation move within 18 ft. Opposing D's have to come out on him. No under on the pick and roll with blake. If you go over the top, that opens up the inside, and if you double the initial pass the weakside will open up too. Blake's a perfect fit, well balanced assist to point aver and low to's. nuff said.

Take a step back from the point position and think about this... Should we be babying JJ? I think not, how is he supposed to prove he's a leader if we have to constantly be worried about what he thinks... That's the whole point of confidence isn't it? Seems to me that JJ shouldn't need to be told anything, he needs to improve his game on both sides. I remember watching him last season during fast breaks where we had the #'s and he'd consistently blow it, I'd rather see anyone else but JJ run the break... How do you miss LMA and TO on each wing??? Really, it makes me cringe everytime he tries. As a friend of mine says, "know your role". We were worst in the league last year on fastbreak points.... Still think JJ's a potential playoff point guard? Laughable.

And Sergio? Good kid, might pan out, still needs guidance, not a playoff point guard... needs to control his game and work on D.

For the salary and contract comments... So is everyone worried that we aren't building around LMA, ROY, ODEN, TO? They all have short contracts, with this argument, it's like saying that we aren't building around someone unless they have bloated contracts a~la Z-bo and Miles? Didn't we learn from that debacle? I would hope we have. Kp's smart he won't set us up without flexibility. Nothing wrong with a 3 year contract. Also, nothing wrong with clearing cap space for 2009. Don't forget Lebron only signed a 4 yr contract with the Cav's and I'd laugh at anyone who said they aren't building around him... btw, the 4th year's an option, 2009 season he can opt out.

I'd rather have a distributor on offense and someone who can play D on point. And that's my point.

Thanks for the time and a great site!!!

Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.

by pdxborn on Jul 26, 2007 10:24 AM PDT reply actions

Great post

Welcome!

by jamon51 on Jul 26, 2007 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions

thanks

Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.

by pdxborn on Jul 26, 2007 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions

Welcome aboard!

I love reading guys like you who give careful, thoughtful analysis. There are a number on this site who do, and a growing number who just shoot from the hip.

by TwoDeep on Jul 26, 2007 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions

thanks again

The mindless dribble from a few other sites have brought me here, where it seems that the posts are much more thoughtful and people seem to have a bit more respect for each other and the game.

Get busy livin', or get busy dyin'. -the shawshank redemption.

by pdxborn on Jul 27, 2007 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions

All-Star Teams

It's been shown that a top college team will usually beat an NBA all-star team. OK, a big reason is that the college players have been playing and practicing together and the all-stars have not. But there's another reason: there's only one ball, so winning teams need role players. I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest that Jordan's Bulls were better off WITHOUT a star point guard.

Sure, if you have a shot at a great point guard--a Nash, Parker, or Deron Williams--you grab him. But if you already have 3 potential all-stars at the 2,4, & 5, that's a luxury. I usually agree with Dave, but I question that the Blazers couldn't be a championship team with a Steve Blake at the point.

by hurryup09 on Jul 26, 2007 10:56 AM PDT reply actions

"It's been shown"

Where? I've never heard of that.

by jamon51 on Jul 26, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

"It's been shown"

Fair question. In fact, I don't recall when a college team played the East or West NBA all-star team. Possibly that's never happened. But USA national squads, including many NBA all-stars, have often tuned up against top college teams, and my recollection is that with the exception of the Magic/Bird Dream Team, the all-star team has come up on the short end more often than not.

But admittedly I don't have the research handy to back that assertion up. Possibly someone else can help out there...

by hurryup09 on Jul 26, 2007 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions

The closest was probably

the 1980 US Olympic team that Carter prevented from going to the Moscow games.

They played a series of exhibition games against various groups of NBA players, which included a number of all-star caliber players. They also won every game but one. Pretty much wiped the court with the pros. The one exception was in Seattle. The Sonics had just signed Paul Westphal as a FA and it was the first time he suited up for a game in Seattle after signing. I won't swear to his point total, but I believe he poured in something like 40 points, including the ones to send the game into the 1st, OT, the 3rd OT and the game winner. Westphal single-handedly kept his team from losing. An incredible performance.

The guys on the Olympic team? check the link below.

http://www.usabasketball.com/history/moly_1980.html

by timg56 on Jul 26, 2007 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess

I just find it hard to believe that the best the NBA has to offer (many of whom are former college players themselves) couldn't win 95% or better of the time against any particular college team. I think it's just not that likely--size, experience, talent, all heavily favor the pros.

I do see your point about college teams acting more as teams, but for one point--the short three-point line means they just pass the ball around the perimeter until the shot clock winds down and then they fire up a three. Lame, lame, lame--not teamwork. Why I've never been an NCAA fan.

by jamon51 on Jul 26, 2007 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions

all-star teams

I agree with your point about the college game; I'm not a big fan myself. But here's the issue that all-star teams have--and this gets to my point about the value of a Steve Blake: they don't have enough role players. Sure, the USA team coaches will select a token rebounder or defender or two. But you always have mainly a bunch of gunners on there, and there's only one ball. That's an important reason (along with the relative lack of time together and unfamiliarity with international rules & officiating) that our national team keeps losing to European squads. Talent-wise it's no contest. But successful teams have a balance of guys who need the ball and guys who don't.

The great Celtics teams had guys like Cedric Maxwell, and the Lakers had their Kurt Rambises. Jordan's Bulls had Bill Cartwright and Steve Kerr. There's a reason for that, and that's the fundamental thing Bob Whitsitt didn't understand (aside from the "character issue.") He actually believed if you get 5 guys together who scored 20 ppg with their previous teams, you've got a 100 ppg team.

With Aldridge, Roy, and (eventually) Oden, the Blazers will have plenty of big-time scorers. What they're going to need is a bunch of complementary players around them. At small forward, they won't need or even WANT a flashy guy--a Josh Howard would be ideal. It's about balance. A Steve Blake can, in his own way, be as vital to success as a Roy or Aldridge. Sure, it would be nice luxury to have a point guard who could break down the defense with his penetration, ala Nash, Parker, or Baron Davis. But you don't need that; there's more than one way to win.

OK, sorry I went on & on. It's late at night. :-)

by hurryup09 on Jul 27, 2007 2:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Speaking of having a shot

This brings us back around to Dave's question about why the Blazers don't seem to find a satisfactory answer at the point.
Well, because they had a shot at Deron Williams and blew it!!!

by hugs on Jul 26, 2007 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Great points...

All around, it seems like there are varying views on the Steve Blake signing. No one is really saying that it's a bad one- we just disagree on how it will impact our Championship run(s)...

I can't say that I'm a huge Steve Blake fan, but I know that he'll be a positive influence in the locker room, and he'll be a steady point guard. I think the BJ Armstrong assessment is a good one for Blake, but I hardly think we're building a team in the model of the 90s Chicago Bulls. For one, we don't have a Jordan. And we have 2 potentially dominant big-men, which Chicago never had (although Rodman should be considered a dominant player in certain categories). Individually, Paxson, Kerr and Armstrong all struggled defensively, but they never lost a game for their team- ever, and I think Blake is similar in this way. Ron Harper saw most of the crunch-time action, and I think Brandon Roy will fill a similar roll in taking over the point during certain situations.

Another great point that was brought up is the Blazers propensity to gamble on late-round point guards and tag them as our "Franchise PG." Telfair, then Jack, then Sergio, now Koponnen? And the worst of it is that Petteri is 19 years old. Yes, Tony Parker came into the league around that age, but he also had the most dominant player in the NBA at the time catching his passes (Duncan). The Blazers don't have this. I don't see Petteri having a major impact until he's at least 22 or 23.

The biggest question, then, is how can the Blazers parlay 4 average prospects into "the missing link." I think Jack has some trade value, and Sergio would definitely intrigue some GMs, but a Jack + Sergio + Green combo does not net you a Chris Paul or Deron Williams. Maybe if you add Raef's expiring contract next year, you might move into second-tier PG territory (Mo Williams maybe? Andre Miller?) but this likely means we're receiving a bad contract with it.

Honestly, I think it may be better to keep 1 or 2 of them, and then go after a perimeter-oriented shooting guard. In this instance, Blake, Jack or Sergio would start next to Roy, but then the new shooting guard (much like Stackhouse does for the Mavericks) would sub in for them, and Roy would cover the PG duties...

by Champs2009 on Jul 26, 2007 10:56 AM PDT reply actions

Like Fernandez?

A shooting guard like Rudy Fernandez maybe?

by danielfarrell on Jul 26, 2007 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah...

I was going to mention that we can't forget that Rudy Fernandez will (likely) improve our backcourt next season and add a new element to the rotation. From what I've seen, which is one game on television and every highlight tape I can find on YouTube, Fernandez looks like he's the lethal scorer that could compliment Roy's pass-first, make-everyone-else-better mentality.

Blake, Jack, Sergio or Green could theoretically start (a la Brent Barry or Michael Finley in San Antonio) but it wouldn't surprise me if Roy saw a lot of minutes with Rudy.

Again, the only problem that remains is team speed. Aldridge and Oden are both fast for their position, but the rest of our guys aren't fast for their position. Sergio is probably the fastest PG with the ball...

by Champs2009 on Jul 26, 2007 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions

Who is 'us'?

- Sam

by Samuelson on Jul 26, 2007 11:07 AM PDT reply actions

Sergio and Jack are not the future

of this franchise - it's Roy, Aldridge, and Oden. Those guys need the ball in the right place at the right time to help their development and Blake will do that. And if Jack wants to start, he's going to have to earn it with his play. That has always been Nate's philosophy. If Jack steps up and earns the starting role, all the talk about his developmental minutes is moot.

You could think of Blake, Sergio, and Jack as stopgaps and trade assets until 2009. If one of them emerges as a star, that's great. If not, we'll have the money to make a serious run at Deron Williams or Chris Paul. If we don't want another max contract on the books, we have the pieces to trade for a young up and comer or a solid starter. If we fall back into the lottery this year, next year's point guard class is going to be the best ever. There are lots of options and after the next two years we won't be asking these kind of questions anymore.

In my mind, I couldn't agree and yet disagree more with Dave on this one. The development of the bigs and Roy is key. The development of Jack and Sergio not so much...

by Blazerholic on Jul 26, 2007 12:04 PM PDT reply actions

Next year's the best ever???

Hmmm... That's a bold statement to call next year's draft class the "best PG Draft Class of All-Time..."

I'm sure you'd hear comments from 1979 (Magic Johnson who single-handedly might make that the best draft class) or 1996 (the year of Iverson, Nash, Marbury and Derek Fisher).

by Champs2009 on Jul 26, 2007 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorry, should've clarified that as deepest

instead of best. There's at least 10-12 guys that may go top 20 and OJ Mayo is the front-runner for #1 at this time...

by Blazerholic on Jul 26, 2007 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions

The Blazers draft Mayo and I become an Oklahoma

Sonics fan.

by timg56 on Jul 27, 2007 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Blake is a great pg

for us. PDXborn's post hit it right on the head. Blake can put up numbers, it's just that now he will have a running mate in Roy. Last year, I believe he averaged in the neighborhood of 8.5ppg and 6.5apg. Those are great numbers from a point guard because it signals two things. 1) He can easily defer to a more offensively gifted player (AI, this year Roy, LMA) and not gripe about it. 2) He can still find his shot when he needs to. His 3-pt pct. was pretty good last year (sorry, too lazy to look up th exact percentage) and that shows that he knows when to take shots. I thikn this will benefit JJ just fine. He is going into what, his senior year of college, experience wise? That means that he shoud be knocking on the door of breaking out. Blake can deal with JJ starting, and he can teach Jack about deferring and looking for your own shot more. If JJ averages, say 14ppg and 6 apg, and Blake goes 8.5ppg and 6.5apg this year, then that is a fantastic combo from PGs. The league is going back to the days of a pass first PG. Just because the Spurs have Parker scoring in bundles doesn't signify that we need the same. I truly think that a pass first pg is more valuable. Hell, I hate to say it, but Jason Williams (despite the ill-timed 3-balls) learned to temper his shooting when he was playing with Shaq (read: Oden) and Wade (read: Roy). Blake has all the tools and the attitude to be a vital piece for this team, and not just for the next two years. He wants to be here, has championship experience, is a proven veteran PG who Nate and KP love. These all point to tell us that he not only fits the culture, but that he is THE example of the kind of player KP is looking to bring in when the FA class rolls around in two years.

Hate the game, not the player.

by Rodendridge on Jul 26, 2007 1:05 PM PDT reply actions

Blake's bottom line

Blake is steady. Two years ago he was 2nd
or 3rd in assist to TO % in the NBA. He also had several games when he took over in the 4th quarter
or hit clutch shots to keep us in games. Obviously
our team two years ago was the NBA's worst.
I watched several Nuggets games on League Pass beyond the Nuggets-Blazers and was impressed with how well Blake blends. He can knock down the open 3, he doesn't hold or dribble too much, is a
underrated passer and plays above average D.
He gets beat sometimes, misses shots and
commits some TO's, but he's STEADY. That's what you need when you have three young potential All
Star players. Plus, he killed us in two of the
Blazer-Nugget games.
Roy should be initiating the offense
3 to 1 for Blake or any of the PG's anyway.
He has the best combination of size, smarts,
ball handling and shooting/scoring ability.
Our PG's need to focus on moving the ball,
moving themselves, keeping opponents in front
and knocking down open shots. There will be
plenty of open shots with Roy creating, LMA and
GO wheeling, and the Blazers dealing losses to
our rivals.

It's GO time !

by walkoff41 on Jul 26, 2007 1:30 PM PDT reply actions

Huh?

I don't understand why so many are of the opinion Blake is not a good defender. I have a lot of respect for the contributors on this forum and in no way consider myself an expert. Having said that, I do consider Nate an expert (All-NBA Defensive Second Team in 1994 and 1995 at the PG position) and he seems to disagree with the detractors.

"He's a big guard that can defend the ball," said McMillan. "He can pick up the ball full court."
http://www.nba.com/blazers/news/Blake_Blazes_a_Trail_Back_to_R-232627-1218.html

Quick: He was valued by coach Nate McMillan because he ran the offense without looking to score, and provided solid defense, often being assigned to guard top perimeter scorers such as Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson.
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1184381719211500.xml&coll=7

Coming from Nate who's a little stingy with the praise, that's a decent recommendation. Nate seems to have a high opinion of Blake's defensive skills; why all the hate on Steve's defense?

"I'm a buffet of goodness."

by TP43 on Jul 26, 2007 1:44 PM PDT reply actions

The hate...

Isn't so much directed towards Steve Blake's Defense as it is a response to those who consider Blake an excellent or top-notch defender.

Before Blake signed and people were "making the case for Blake," there were comments like "Blake is a great, active defender" and "Blake guarded Kobe Bryant..." Yeah, sure, Blake guarded Kobe Bryant, but there's about 32 other guys in the league that guard him too. Doing so doesn't make you a great defender. Kobe still scored pretty much at will, and he may very well have been coasting because the Blazers were so bad 2 years ago.

I think it's safe to say that Blake is an active defender (like Dave said) who tries hard, but he's no Gary Payton. If he stays in front of his man, he'll be an upgrade over Jack who prefers matador defense and Sergio who doesn't really know what defense is...

by Champs2009 on Jul 26, 2007 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Blake the defender

If memory serves me correct (and there are NO guarantees), Blaze was one of the few PGs we've had in Portland that will apply pressure on teh entry pass. That alone rachets up the Blazer D a couple of levels.

by antediluvian on Jul 26, 2007 3:26 PM PDT reply actions

Blaze the Trail Point Guard?

That would be awesome.

by pualo on Jul 26, 2007 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Blake, draft, free agency, and SF

BLAKE: A lot of takes in this post suggest that Blake is a nice pick up for the Blazers because of all the PGs currently on the roster, he is easily the most complete PG we have in terms of skill, leadership, mixed with a tad bit of athletic ability. For those doubters who believe we need a more athletic PG on the roster than what we currently have to win the championship, there is definitely hope on the horizon with the 2008 draft.

DRAFT: Rose, Mayo, Collison, Gordon, Bayless are all projected to come out early in next year's draft and would bring the athletic ability to the PG position, although, these players will need time to adjust and develop to the NBA game. The Blazers will have a lottery pick and will have enough trade pieces to move up in the draft. With the draft, there are no guarantees, but with coach Mac and Steve Blake to help develop and push incoming PGs, a positive team environment, and a possible devestating tandem down low to alleviate pressure, this is as good as an environment as any to develop one of these PGs. I would have loved for the Blazers to have traded up in this year's draft to grab Crittenton (maybe Jack to the Clippers for their pick) because he also has the atheltic ability and drive to be a playmaking PG in the league. I think he is eventually going to be a helluva playa for the Lakers.

JACK's days are probably numbered in a Blazer uniform. The organization obviously has more confidence in Blake to run the show and JJ does not really specialize or excel in any particular category to separate himself from the pack. Sergio will be an excellent ballhandler and distributor, Green plays tenacious defense (yet to be seen if this transfers to the NBA's best), and Petteri should be a real good shooter. Jack has worked his butt off and deserves a chance to start somewhere in the NBA. With decent trade value, I think the Blazers will help make that happen for him.

FREE AGENCY: I don't see much hope on the horizon in terms of grabbing a really good to great PG in free agency. The list looks good right now with the possibility of Deron and Chris P becoming free agents, but this is unlikely to happen. Both the Jazz and the Hornets realize these guys are that good and that important to their franchises and will severe ties with other players on the roster before they let these guys leave. Gilbert won't fit on the Blazers, particularly with his rocky relationship with Coach Mac. The draft and to a lesser extent, a trade is more likely to give us the PG we want.

SMALL FORWARDS: A bit off subject, but there's been a lot of talk in other posts about addressing the SF position. I personally don't see a need to devote a lot of resources to upgrade this position. I would rather see the Blazers look to find that potential stud PG first. In the playoffs, I've observed that players that SFs like Ginoboli and Marion can have off nights, yet their teams still win games. It's rare to see a team win in the playoffs when their respective PG has an off night. PGs are that important to a team's success in the playoffs simply because they handle the ball so much and a lot of the team's momentum is based on how the PG runs the team.

by VegasNed on Jul 26, 2007 7:07 PM PDT reply actions

I don't get the interest in

Jarvis Crittenden or in drafting a 19 - 20 year old PG in 08 with all of a year's experience in college.

Just what exactly does Crittenden bring us that is better than Jarrett Jack? The pre-draft reviews seemed to condense down to this - he's big (6-5) and athletic. But his BB skills and IQ suck. He's not a particularly good shooter, he doesn't know how to hit a cutting wing, he over dribbles and his most frequent decision is to drive into the defense for a contested shot.

As for drafting another PG, particularly one barely out of HS - I don't see the logic in that either. Others here have pointed out that we can't keep going after our PG of the future. At some point you have to let the guys you've drafted play. We already have 4 youg points right now. And the last thing the Blazers need is a guy like OJ Mayo, who will want to dominate the ball and is all about OJ.

by timg56 on Jul 27, 2007 6:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Young PGs

It is difficult to determine how good young PGs will eventually become...with Javaris, he is not only big and athletic...he also has good basketball instincts and apparently has a strong drive to be a good bball player from what I've read on the internet (don't confuse him with a player like Telfair). From what I've seen, his IQ and BB skills don't suck at all,...but he does definitely overdribble and makes a lot of questionable decisions with the ball. He is still very raw and if he were on the Blazer roster right now, he would struggle for minutes at the PG position.

At age 19, he has only played one year at PG. Prior to that, JC was a shooting guard...and from the way he put up shots at G Tech, I'm sure quite a gunner. In that one year, he showed that while he needs a lot of refinement, this guy has the instincts, skills, and talent to do well in about 3-4 years...right when the Blazers will be coming into their prime. But we digress,...JC won't be a Blazer anytime soon.

I guess it's the Whitsitt in me that cannot just settle to be happy to have 4 young good but not great pgs who have limited opportunity to develop their game, considering the Blazers most likely will have a two possibly three pg rotation every game (Blake and Jack and a bit of Sergio). If we keep what we have, how is Sergio, Petteri, or T Green going to develop?

At some point, you have to settle on a starting PG (Blake), bring in one player to develop that clearly has nice potential (2008 lottery pick), and keep a third young PG that brings skills to compliment the other two. And personally, I would rather have two potential rising stars (ego in check of course) behind Blake than four potentially OK players behind Blake that can't find playing time. KP doesn't need to make this happen this year and maybe not even next year but eventually, once we start growing out of our rebuilding stage, we will have to make stronger commitments to fewer players.

by VegasNed on Jul 27, 2007 8:01 AM PDT reply actions