At every opportunity, people on this board will dog on Steve Blake. However, Blake is comparable to Steve Kerr, who started for a 70 win team (I'm pretty sure he was the starter, along side Jordan. Correct me if I'm wrong). 3-ball: Kerr was better, but Blake is very good defense: Blake is definitely better. Kerr was a decent team defender, a terrible man defender. My Verdict: They're about the same. If Blake every got a "shooter's mentality", he'd be better.
They're completely different. Blake is a distributor who learned to shoot the three. Kerr was a shooting guard who only played the point because Pip and MJ ran the offense. Other than they're both, blond, white, pale and 6'3", their games are not at all similar.
Steve Kerr used to eat at Mother's downtown. I have no clue what Blake's favorite restaurant is. But I agree that Kerr was playing less of a PG in Chicago than Blake is for us.
They are both really nothing but role players. One is a shooting guard though, so it's not really fair to compare them.
This reminds me of when Jerry Sloan was asked what would've happened if he'd played Michael Jordan when he (Sloan) was in his prime. He said (I paraphrase): "I would've eaten him alive! Of course, he would've been 12 years old."
OK, I checked several websites. One listed him as a PG, two said he was an SG, four merely listed him as a "guard", the last of which is probably most accurate. My memory is a bit hazy, did MJ bring the ball up the floor?
Regardless of the similarities, what it seems you are going for is saying we are fine with Blake, because he plays similar to Kerr, who started at PG for the Bulls, a 70 win team. Well, that's all fine and good. Unfortunately, what made that possible, we don't have. Jordan and Pippen aren't on our team.
