right, maybe I should have said with a few more Blake free throws (Clipper Game) or a Hedo miss etc. I'm on your side on this one on the PG spot, but I do agree partially with Hank (*shutters*) about the developing part too.. but we need a starting caliber PG and Blake isnt that.
I would be MORE than happy to start Sergio at PG and let Bayless get good backup minutes. OR....start Sergio, let Blake play his destined role of "quality backup PG" and let Bayless play combo/situational PG/SG minutes. I would like to see a 2nd unit like this to see how it works out... PG: Blake SG: Bayless SF: Rudy PF: ?? C: whoever I would be fine with keeping current backcourt personnel, adjusting their roles and just concentrate on upgrading the backup PF position. This is assuming Sergio really puts some time/effort into improving his defense and shooting this summer....which I think he will, he did last year. Ship out TO, Frye, contracts, etc and picks to either grab a good vet PF in trade or trade up in draft to get one we actually want.
That is the worst idea since someone came up with the idea for American Idol. I agree with developing our talent, but Outlaw/Sergio have to go. We've "baked" long enough IMO lets add a veteran PLEASE!
I see no reason to battle with you over redundant posts. If you have something to add to the actual discussion about developing talent etc then I'll respond. I'm not getting into a pro/anti Nate argument with you.
The fact that he can disappear for entire parts of games. Classic Blake line: 40minutes 7points 5assists 2rebounds 2turnovers Thats good backup numbers, but he should be getting those stats in about 20 minutes though.
What are you looking for from a PG? Nate is half court oriented coach - who designs his offense to get open 3 pt shots. Blake is a good fit.
Ugh, Sergio stepping in as the starter next year is about as likely as Bayless. As for Sergio improving from one year to the next, it is true he came back and performed moderately better compared to his 2nd year, but his sophomore year was so atrocious that if he hadn't, there was a pretty good chance he'd be close to out of the league had repeated that perfomance. Instead he still shot under 40%, had a fairly mediocre A/TO ratio of 2.4, couldn't fight through picks, had trouble finishing at the rim (getting blocked almost 20% of the time), couldn't coexist with Brandon, couldn't run the pick and roll, and did nothing to suggest that he's all that close to making a leap toward being a starting quality point guard for this team. To top it all off he's already made it pretty clear that he wants a change of scenery. There is a slim chance Sergio sticks around as a backup (because he's probably got the least amount of trade value of any of our current 1s), but moving Chacho into the starting rotation just feels like a disaster waiting to happen.
one who can actually attack when needed. The 3 point line will have to be defended tighter with Webster, they cant just leave him like they do Batum. If we had a SF who could attack then Blake would be good in the role he is (kinda like swapping roles with the SF) but we cant have 2 who cant attack IMO.
And a year ago, no one in Denver thought he'd be walking through their door either - but he did. There are veteran PGs with play-off experience that could instantly increase the Blazers chances of making it deep into the play-offs and even to the finals. So yes, that would qualify the team as "championship contenders". I'm all for keeping Batum and Bayless and developing them - by having them learn from experienced, play-off tested veterans. Acquiring veteran help and developing Bayless/Batum are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Bring in Andre Miller to help the team win now, and tutor Bayless. Miller's game is much more similar to Jerryd's than Steve Blake's is. Miller is a penetrator who draws the defense to him and then either finds the open teammate or gets fouled. He's a much better role model for Jerryd Bayless than a spot-up jump shooter like Steve Blake. I'd love to see the Blazers get someone like Gerald Wallace as a starting SF. I'd give up both Webster and Outlaw (and Blake, Sergio and our pick and our trade exception) to get him. Again, he'd help the team get deeper in the play-offs instantly, and would be a good role player/tutor for Batum. Bringing in superior, veteran talent doesn't mean you have to give up on the young guys. With the right vets, it could actually accelerate the development of guys like Batum and Bayless - and it would improve the championship odds immediately. My ideal top 10: Andre Miller/Jerryd Bayless Brandon Roy/Rudy Fernandez Gerald Wallace/Nicolas Batum LaMarcus Aldridge/vet PF or wide body banger acquired through the draft Greg Oden/Joel Przybilla Anyone not listed is entirely expendable and could be used to help acquire Wallace and/or a back-up 4. The starting unit would be significantly improved at both ends of the court. The second unit, assuming a solid back-up 4, would have a good balance of scoring and defense, and the team would be one of the best rebouding teams in the league. Wallace is young enough (turns 27 in July) to be part of the teams long term "core". Miller is older, but keeps himself in great shape and rarely misses a game. He could start for a couple years until Bayless is ready to take over and then move to the back-up spot. This would get us into the championship window much sooner than standing pat, but it also would not jeopardize the teams' long term title prospects. The core (Roy/Aldridge/Oden/Wallace) would still be quite young, with promising youngsters Bayless and Batum on the bench. It would be a nice blend of experience and youth. BNM
People need to wake up. Stern has made his intentions clear. The players will be locked out in the summer of 2011. The 11-12 season will be canceled. When (if) the NBA returns, it will not be the same league. Stern's express goal is to emulate the NFL system. He wants a hard cap (no MLE, Bird rights, etc). He wants an end to guaranteed and/or long term deals. He wants large scale player turn-over every season. He is prepared to sacrifice the quality of the product in the name of "parity" and profitability. What does that have to do with this discussion? It means that any move not intended to make the Blazers contenders in the next 2 seasons is a waste of time.
Why does having a number of come-backs represent luck? Would losing a lot of games that the team lead big in the first half count as "bad luck?" I think the number of big come-backs represented the team's uneven play, not overperformance. Their focus was uneven, so they were particularly susceptible to runs...both good and bad. That meant falling behind in a lot of games but also playing well later and overcoming deficits they dug for themselves. They don't need a "bankable, repeatable" skill for making big come-backs. Just being more consistent, playing better the whole game and not digging big holes for themselves in the first place will remove the need for a lot of big come-backs. I don't agree with that at all. Last year, Portland won a lot of close games and were lucky with their point distribution. That was shown by their point differential not being consistent with their record. Their record was "too high" for their point differential. This year, Portland was consistently #2 in point differential in the West, behind only the Lakers. Their record was no mirage, they were legitimately excellent. I think perceptions are being skewed by their "poor" performance in the playoffs. They were clearly unprepared for playoff intensity and got bombed at home in game 1. Had that not happened, they'd have had a chance to win the series against a tough Houston team (a Houston team that won 2 of 4 games against LA without Yao). I think Portland underperformed in the playoffs, not overperformed during the season. I think Portland was a legitimate 54 win team, and they should see a lot of net improvement from Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Rudy and Bayless. I don't know if that'll push them up to 60 wins (every marginal win at this point is difficult), but I think they'll be somewhere in the 55-60 win range and a much tougher out in the playoffs. This is without moves from Pritchard. I do hope he makes a good, significant move (because he has resources to use, so he should maximize those), but without knowing what he'll do I can't factor that in.
Correction - they can't shoot the 3. Both, thoughout their career's, have shot very well from 2-point range. Both have the ability to create for themselves, and others. Both can penetrate and draw fouls. This ability is critical in the play-offs - and it also opens up the perimeter for our jumpshooters. In addition to ~ 17.5 PPG, Wallace has averaged about 7 REB, 3 AST and 2 STL over the last 3 seasons. And he gets to the line about 6 times per game. Miller, in addition to about 16 PPG and 7 APG, also contributes about 4 REB and 1.4 STL. He also gets to the line about 5 times per game. They are both excellent players - at both ends of the court. Wallace had a PER = 18.6 and WS = 9.2 this season. Miller was at PER = 18.7 and WS = 8.6. Those numbers were significantly higher than anyone on the Blazers this year not named Roy or Aldridge (in fact, they were very close to LaMarcus' numbers of PER = 19.1and WS = 8.9) Any coach, including Nate, would love to have them. BNM
do you really think your projected lineup of: Andre Miller Brandon Roy Gerald Wallace LMA Oden (aka the big disappointment) would be a good idea considering the offense our coach runs? Do you think Nate is capable of running a different style of offense? If you answer yes to either of those questions - you haven't been paying attention.
I'm talking team defense, not man defense. He is solid man to man. Go back and watch the games from this season. You will continually see teammates yelling at Bayless and point to where he is supposed to be. I like the kid, but seriously there were many times when guys had to tell him where to be.
I agree that developing them is important. So I think we should cut Steve Blake, trade Sergio and sign a better PG (Andre Miller).
I have to admit that Hank has a point here. That's a lineup with only one three point shooter (Roy), and really do we want to use Roy in that capacity? If you go with Miller, you need a SF who is a legit three point shooter. Ron Artest and Andre Miller make so much sense for this team. Batum could learn so much from Artest, and Bayless could learn so much from Miller.
The lucky (or unlucky bounce) I can't get out of my head are the last games of the season with houston losing and SA somehow pulling out a win. If a free throw is made or a desperation three missed . . . we play NO instead of Houston.
