Hoopsworld on Andre Miller to Portland

He's 33. There is no 'long term fit' for Andre Miller.

 

I think Miller is by far our best option for a vet PG that is available. I hope it gets done. Miller would make the Blazers a lot better team because of his PG skills, defense, getting the ball to our bigs down low and even helping Bayless develop.

 

Now trade Miller and Speights for Chris Paul and bring Freeland over and set his stats to Paul Milsap's. See how Portland does then.

 

So where'd you send Travis and Blake to? Or did you cut them and they're still in the FA pool where no one's signed them yet?

 

Well, there you go. Reality strikes again!

I wouldn't mind Miller as well, while not necessarily the perfect PG, I think he is a definite upgrade for getting the whole team to perform better as a whole.

Gramps...

 

Of the guys who may be available I like Miller, Conley, and Sessions. I would be very happy at getting Mike Conley, he can shoot the ball now and he's very quick. He would do something extra for Greg Oden too. I'm all for sending them Travis, Sergio, and a pick for Mike. Maybe more.

 

...

 

And become a good defensive team.

Thanks for the article, it was a very good one.

 

More on Miller to Portland:

One possible destination for the best pump fake in basketball could be Portland. As a matter of fact, those two fit about as nicely Quincy Jones tutoring an artistic prodigy. The Trailblazers only flaw right now is their point guard, and they were the youngest team in this years post-season. They really could have used a calming floor general that knows when to defer, when to hold up, when to run, and when to briefly take over. Miller sets the tempo like a metronome. He did it in Philadelphia and he’d do it in Portland.

In the past nine seasons, you won’t find a more complete point guard who never really played for a contender. Throughout his career Miller has been remarkably consistent, coming into the league as a 23-year-old man, he’s never laced them up for less than 80 games in each season. If Miller doesn’t end up in Portland, nearly half the teams in the league looking to get to the next level should think about inking Andre Miller. For the short term, they won’t be sorry.

http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2...ller-be-wearing-a-blazers-jersey-next-season/

 

There is a difference between being a good 3-point shooting team, and being dependent on the 3 point shot.

Hollinger's 3rd point trumps the other 2 - can the team win when the trey isn't falling? For the Magic, the answer seems to be "yes". That doesn't make it a universal truth.

 

I don't think point 3 trumps the other two. I think Hollinger's main argument is that a three-pointer-heavy offense is actually a pretty efficient form of offense, in contradiction to the idea that it's gimmicky and unreliable. He points out that most of the best teams recently have shot a high number of three-pointers.

You obviously have to do other things well, no team wins a championship just by doing one thing well. Orlando had the best defense this season, so it's possible for them to win games even when they're not shooting well. But that goes for any style of offense...if you play great defense, you can win even if you're not scoring well out of the post or your mid-range shots aren't falling.

Portland rebounds extremely well and has a very efficient, three-point-heavy offense. I think the take-away from what Hollinger wrote is that Portland's heavy use of the three-pointer isn't really a concern. In my opinion, Portland's main problem is consistent defense. Their offense is perfectly good and championship-caliber, as is their rebounding. Their defense isn't. That's what has to change, not how they play offense.

 

I agree with your point about the defense needing to improve. OTOH, I think Houston did a pretty good job of disproving that we have a "championship-caliber" offense. Roy and LMA spent way too much time being forced to play 2-on-5. It was predictable that we would have trouble with low-post scoring against the Rockets, but they also snuffed out our 3-point specialists (Blake, Rudy, Outlaw) with disdainful ease.

 

Could it be that the statistics are coincidental rather causal? It may be that the teams that were successful not only took a large percentage of 3 point shots but also took more free throws then their opponents. I will have to check on this, but my feeling is that the team that goes to the line more wins a huge amount of the time.

This would mean that although 3 point shots won't cause you to fail, the real way to win is to attack the rim and create fouls. Which is the conventional wisdom.

 

Teams that take a lot of 3s and do it rather successfully require the other team to guard the perimeter and open the driving lanes to attack the rim. The two are not mutually exclusive...

 

I don't think that's true. Portland struggled a bit, but they were up against a tough defensive team. Outside of game 1, when they basically lost their poise, I'd say that they were extremely competitive with Houston. Had they played better defense, they could certainly have won that series. A "championship-caliber offense" doesn't mean they'll score 100 against anyone. It means that it's sufficient for Portland to beat any team. Of course, any offense will be insufficient if the defense is poor. I think Portland's offense is sufficient against any team in the league, but their defense isn't.

 

If anything, Houston is a prime example of what you say as well. Look at them. They do struggle some offensivly. But the facts are they are in every game because their defense is so good. It doesn't matter who they play, they are in the game because their defense gives them a chance. You look at teams that are superior offensivly, and often they are out of games because they can't stop the other team from scoring, and they often run up tempo offenses which are not comfortable in the half court. That usually doesn't work too well when it is the last 5 minutes of a playoff game, the game is getting stopped every so many seconds, teams are using every time out, teams are intentionally fouling to stop layups, and you need a shot from the half court offense in order to stay in the game. You are right on the money. The problem is we couldn't get stops consistently. They could.