Frankly, I can only remember Game 4 where he kind of took over. Can't remember much else. Anyhoo, I'm having a quasi-debate with BP who claims that Roy should be cut......yesterday. That Roy will flat-out hurt this team if the Blazers keep him. Period. I'm of the school of thought that, if (OK, big if) Oden can provide some decent minutes, Roy could actually help this team. Perhaps, even help the team make a run in the playoffs. Now, if Roy can accept his role as a shooter, I could see him becoming kind of a Smitty (circa: 2000ish) player. But, (and this is my key point) it would simply have to be as more of a spot-up kind of a player, certainly not the give-me-the-ball-and-get-out-the-way same ol'. What say you, guys? Would Roy hurt this team (for one "experimental" season) under said conditions I've described?
2 questions to answer. Will he accept his new offensive limitations? Can the rest of the roster cover for him being a liability on defense?
Nope, not having a backup PF and inconsistent 3 point shooting did. This year a current phrase during Blazers games will be "zone defense" With Rudy and Roy gone, Batum and Wes are the best 3 point shooters we have. Yikes! In fact im wondering if Crawford is more important then a backup PF at this point.
Roy didn't hurt us as much as Dirk shooting about 15 FT a game did. I don't know if it would have made a difference, but there were times that Roy hurt us in the series. Games 1 and 2 were a disaster, and the media circus after Game 2 was a distraction for sure. But he was a huge part of helping us win Game 3, and the only reason we won Game 4. I think we can all agree on these things. But where it gets interesting is Game 5. Did Brandon's 4th quarter in Game 4 have an impact on LA's psyche? Neither of them played well in Game 5. But you can also argue that it wasn't Roy's Game 4 theatrics that set LA back, but the fact that Dallas was wearing him out by throwing big bodies at him. Tyson Chandler did a good job of defending him, and even when LA scored he had to work so hard for it. I don't know the answer - it's all speculation. Some have said that LA went back to "defer to Brandon mode" after Game 4. Or was he just dog tired?
Aside from his brilliant game, he can't run, jump, defend, drive... Yeah, I'd say he's more of a liability than not.
Where is Denny? Anyone else notice that 'be "zone' is duplicated at the end of the first line in Brock's post?
You've obviously overlooked my Smitty reference. That said, I'll overlook the fact that you're under the weather right now. Rest up! You need it.
You don't think, should he accept the role, he could be used as a shooting asset - particularly, if this team gets to the playoffs? My thinking (again) is that, should (repeat, "should") Oden be fit to play, this team could make some noise. How would we be worse than last season - a team that gave Dallas everything they could handle in the playoffs? Roy may very well be a shell of himself. But, used correctly, I think he could help us. It's so unfortunate that we won't know of Oden's potential until early next year. For that reason, I can see the hesitations regarding Roy. They're legit.
your acid is awesome and i want to put 10 hits in my eyeballs please noʎ uo sʞɔıɹʇ ƃuıʎɐןd ǝɹɐ sǝʎǝ ɹnoʎ
I totally agree, but do you really want to say "if used correctly I think he could help us" about a guy with an $82 million contract? It's tough. I love B-Roy, and if his knees were right he's worth every bit of that money. But it takes up almost 1/4 of our cap space, and if the production isn't on that level than how can we compete? It sucks. Not many guys are a shell of themselves at 27.
My response to that is, the only real way it hurts us is, if the Blazers aren't able to attract/bring in a quality player to replace Roy. Isn't the team over the cap even without Roy's salary? Then, who cares? It's Paul's money and has nothing to do with what's transpiring on the basketball floor.
If the question is "Going forward can we get a better backup SG than Roy", the answer is of course we can.
You don't think that Bradon's contract has an effect on our roster for the next couple of years? It's not just Paul Allen's money. It's cap room flexibility, being able to sign our current players to extensions, etc. I agree that even w/o Roy we aren't going to sign any marquee FAs, but there's more to it than that.
money is no object, until it is im waiting for PA to cheap out before i believe the "rumors" of his tight purse strings
