I actually disagree. He might not be a pass-first PG - but he will, in my opinion, be their best player when you actually factor defense.
westbrook is a good guard and could be the pip for durant but i'm not sure durant is the next mj like alot of people have annointed him. they have a good core there and could be good but we are already good. there have been many teams before that have great potential but never put it together. i also question bennetts ability to sign these guys to max contracts. as for the draft, i'm not worried about thabeet at all. blair, from pitt, is 6-8 and he pushed thabeet around and had some really good games against the guy. as for blake, he is probably going to be a decent 4 but doesn't solve their problems at C. he gets by with hustle and quickness at the college level and that doesn't always translate to the NBA where the players are bigger and stronger than college.
Bucher is wrong about everything. Roy is better than Durant and will probably be for the rest of his career. If Durant was so great, his team would have more than 21 wins. And YES, Roy is in the conversation with Paul, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Howard. Anyone who watches Roy on a regular basis knows that he one of the best players in the league. Roy will receive votes for MVP this spring. Durant won't. Not one. As for needing a PG, Phil Jackson won 9 championships in LA and Chicago without an excellent PG. Blake is better than any PG who played for his teams. And Blake is definitely better than Avery Johnson was. And he's at least as good as Kenny Smith was. Therefore, out of the last 19 champions, Blake is better than the PGs that won 12 of those championships. Ric needs to fucking learn the game before posting.
This is a post I posted on O-Live in December of last season. It says it all: Portland finishes 06/07 season 32-50 Seattle finishes 06/07 season 31-51 Portland wins lotto and drafts Oden Seattle wins the silver and drafts Durant Portland trades top scorer Zach Randolph Seattle trades top scorer Ray Allen Portland's Oden has surgery and is out for the season Seattle's Durant is at 100% Portland= 21-13, first place Seattle= 9-24, last place Truth. That fucking says it all. We both traded our best players and drafted top rookies. The Sonics got worse. We got better and our rookie didn't even play. Durant has made ZERO impact on the Sonics/Thunder franchise. Zero. They would be just as crappy without him. In fact, doesn't the Thunder have a better record without Durant this season? They went on a big run when Durant wasn't playing.
Bucher just makes shit up and presents it like it's a well known fact. The last great PG to win an NBA title was Isiah Thomas in 1990. John Stockton = 0 titles Jason Kidd = 0 titles Steve Nash = 0 titles Gary Payton won a title, but he was, by then, a shadow of the player he once was. Having a great PG is nice, but hardly a requirement to winning a title. Conversely, being a Hall of Fame caliber PG is no guarantee you'll ever win a ring (see: John Stockton, Jason Kidd and Steve Nash). Remember, dominant big men, defense and rebounding win titles. These aren't facets of the game where PGs excel. Having a great PG doesn't hurt, but is is simply not a prerequisite to winning an NBA title. Anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't know shit about NBA basketball (see: Ric Bucher). BNM
You're wrong. Derek Fisher in the 2000-01 season: 11.5 ppg, 4.4 apg, 39% from three point line. Derek Fisher in the 2001-02 season: 11.2 ppg, 2.6 apg, 41% from the three point line. Ron Harper in the 1995-96 season: 7.4 ppg, 2.6 apg, 27% from the three point line. Ron Harper in the 1996-97 season: 6.3 ppg, 2.5 apg, 36% from the three point line. Ron Harper in the 1997-98 season: 9.3 ppg, 2.9 apg, 19% from the three point line. Ron Harper in the 1999-00 season: 7.0 ppg, 3.4 apg, 31% from the three point line. Ron Harper in the 2000-01 season: 6.5 ppg, 2.4 apg, 26% from the three point line. Steve Blake in the 2008-09 season: 11.2 ppg, 5.0 apg, 43% from three three point line. Sorry. Learn the game, then post.
To be totally fair, Harper was at the end of his career. Before he suffered knee injuries he was awesome.
True, but neither are, at this point first ballot Hall of Fame PGs. Parker is a shoot first PG who has career averages of 16.6 PPG and 5.6 APG. He has yet to make a single 1st, 2nd or 3rd all NBA team. Billups is very good all around all-around player, but his career numbers are 15.1 and 5.6. He was 2nd team all NBA once and 3rd team all NBA another time. Good, but certainly not a lock to make the Hall of Fame. Neither one of them has a ring if not paired with great rebounders/interior defenders. Tim Duncan won a titel with Avery Johnson at PG. How many rings would Tony Parker win without Tim Duncan? Neither player, at this point, can be considered a top 3 PG of their generation. BNM
Get back to me when OKC has some muscle up front and a bench with some scoring punch. Green and Krstic? Yeah, there's a couple of guys who can keep Oden, Aldridge, and Joel off the boards. And Portland can bring guys like Rudy, Outlaw, Webster, and Bayless off the bench who, on any given night, can drop 20 points on the opponent. OKC?
Since neither Blake, Harper nor Fisher were "stats" guys, it's weird that this is your proof. Truth is that Harper and Fisher were vastly better defenders than Blake. It's not even close. Given that that's really the role they were supposed to play (and the role Blake should play here but doesn't) it's hard to argue Blake is better. In a "holy crap I can't believe they left me so wide open" three point contest, I might pick Blake over Fisher (but then Fisher has hit a lot more game-winning shots, so I'd trust him more in pressure situations.) I'd definitely pick him over Harper in that situation. But Blake just isn't as good an overall role player as those two because he just doesn't defend that well.
That's all well and good, but I think the point here is that you don't need a GREAT PG to win an NBA title. A solid role player will do. Was John Paxson a great defender? Steve Kerr? No, they were guys who, when left alone, could knock down an open 3-pointer. They knew their role and played it well within the limits of their ability. Sounds a lot like Steve Blake to me. I'm not saying Blake will be the starting PG on a championship team (at the NBA level - he's already won championships in high school and college), just that he's in the same class as several other guys that have won titles at that position over the last 15 years (Fisher, Harper, Kenny Smith, Avery Johnson, Paxson, Kerr, etc.). BNM
Harper, yes. I don't agree Fisher was a much better defender than Blake. I think Fisher was overrated as a defender because he hustled and flopped, so seemed to be "active." He may have been active, but he wasn't very effective. But Fisher had Shaq behind him and while Shaq was no DPOY type of shot-blocker, he was an intimidating defensive presence to would-be slashers. I'd prefer Blake to that Fisher (the current Fisher is even worse). Harper I thought was a great complement to that Bulls team because he was a lock-down defender. He'd be a great veteran presence to have on this team, but he worked for the Bulls because Pippen (and Jordan too, at times) handled the point guard duties. Roy can do that to some extent, but not to the same extent Pippen could. Blake, while not a lock-down defender, has some distribution ability and can nail open shots. He's quite upgradable, but I think he's at least as good for this Portland team as Harper or Fisher would be, if not better.
That's debatable. They're certainly not better point guards though (or weren't at the time - Fisher has gotten better at it). Fact is, the triangle doesn't require a traditional PG, which (of course) makes Bucher's claim all the more ridiculous.
