And that's the strength of his game, unless Nate is planning on letting both Rudy and Rubio roam around in a zone set on defense.
Wasn't Rubio was playing with a hand\wrist injury in the Olympics? I know it affected him for a fair amount of games with DKV Jovenut....like the one Jennings blasted him about (his 1st game back & playing with his wrist wrapped)....
Yes ...and that is CLEARLY why we shouldn't even think about pursuing a Chris Paul, Tony Parker or Steve Nash for that matter.... If the kid can play, then Nate will play him...It wasn't Segio's "style" that kept him held back by Nate, it was his lapses on defense, careless turnovers and inability to hit an outside shot\create his own offense....great passing\court vision is a very nice ability to have, but it doesn't do you much good if you can't bring anything else to the floor...and many nights Sergio couldn't do that....
Are you comparing Rubio to Paul, Parker, and Nash? How so, at least in terms of what they could do next season to help the Blazers. It isn't outside of the realm of possibility that these same things may be said about Rubio in 3 years.
For the freaking love. Tell me what (one-and-done Lottery Prospect X), in his one year in college, and his "one freaking tourney" (called March Madness) or overseas did that Ricky Rubio didn't accomplish in a) a more competitive league, b) against better players, c) who were around 8-10 years older than he, d) getting him selected for the Olympic team, backing up high-quality NBA PG Jose Calderon, e) while racking up accolades like Defensive Player of the Year, f) while also being compared by various scouts, analysts, GMs and executives to Magic Johnson, Drazen Petrovic and Pete Maravich for his court vision and leadership, g) putting up wins this year while recovering from a broken hand (iirc), h) holding his own in the Olympic Final against the ReDream Team guards at the ripe age of 17. Jerryd Bayless? Nope. LMA? Nope. Bogut? Bargnani? Tyrus? O'bryant? Sene? Sefalosha? Conley? Yi? Wright? Hawes? Thaddeus Young? Julian Wright? Westbrook? Love? Gallinari? Gordon? Randolph? You could maybe make a case that Durant, Beasley, Mayo, and Rose in the last 3 years have had a better resume. Oden didn't light the world afire at OSU, he was "projected" to be great. And the reason they have "better" resumes is, imo, stat-based. None of those guys accomplished a championship like 'Melo did. Rose was the only one to get to the Final Four. None of those guys are even mentioned as an average defender or team player. Not like, say, Rubio. Seems awfully xenophobic to me.
That's not even close to addressing the point I was making about Rubio impacting the team next season in terms of winning a championship. Nice rant, though. A bit odd coming from a guy who wants more experience on the team, but that's our board for ya. What in Rubio's Olympic performance tells you he improves the team next year? Also, the "xenophobic" blast is totally uncalled for since I was/is one of the posters most pro-Rudy after he was drafted, after the Olympics, and to this day.
How about this. 1) He's acknowledged as one of the best pick and roll guys in the world. Right now. At 18. We (as I'm sure you noticed) run a lot of pick-and-roll that doesn't end with the ball being passed to the roller. 2) He's acknowledge as the best defensive player in Spain, and perhaps the rest of the world. At 18. Sure, they play zone. We (as I'm sure you noticed) play a lot of zone defense. Is that enough?
I have to pull this out from your post because I honestly don't get it. It never entered my mind and I never posted about his nationality other than his Olympic stats; why did it enter your mind to the point you had to smear me with it? A serious response would be appreciated.
Does ANYONE think that Rubio's going to be the best possible fit as the starting PG for the Blazers next year? Seriously. Anyone? I want the Blazers to pull out all the stops to get him, but that's because of his net present value (meaning: future production and contributions), rather than because he'd be better than Blake or Bayless next year. PapaG appears to be painting Rubio with a wide negative brush because the general point is so obvious: 18 year-olds, no matter how good they are or great they might one day be, are almost never the best option to be PG for a championship-level team in the NBA. Ed O.
All that going for him, and he shot 20% in the Olympics with a 1.5/1 A/TO ratio. Perhaps he is overrated right now? Perhaps he choked in the Olympics. I'd think that one of the best pick and roll players in the world would be able to put up some nice stats with Pau Gasol.
As far as me wanting more "experience", I think you're misquoting me. I wanted better players. Since you can't draft Rubio in February... I believe I was saying that we needed to either get a good veteran (Butler, Wallace, even Carter) or let guys like Sergio and Bayless play. I'm pretty sure I said something like that all year. And iirc, I was pushing to make the Arenas+Washington's pick for Raef trade about, oh, November. I could be wrong on that. You disappointed me on this one, PapaG. To be fair, I'm not saying his 4/4/3 in the Olympics projects to anything. If that's your point, we have no disagreement. I'm saying that his body of work at 18 is so much better in my eyes than anyone else in this draft, and potentially the last 3 drafts, that since 2006 I would take him over everyone except Roy, Rose and Oden. Yes, I'm including Durant, Beasley, Mayo, and anyone else.
Posting about generally accepted points is a negative? Interesting perspective and not very objective.
What do you mean by overrated? That he isn't the 2nd-or-so best player in this draft? Or that he isn't better than Blake, Sergio or Bayless? I don't know what you mean by that.
This argument is poor in two ways. One, it equates an 18 year old kid to three NBA All-Star veterans. You know what they can do in the NBA because they have done it for years. RR is an unknown no matter what his upside is. If you went out and got CP3, it is highly likely the team would change to fit his game. Nate isn't going to change shit for a rookie, especially a rookie point guard who can't shoot. Two, we actually have no way of knowing whether or not it was the system or the player that made Sergio look so bad. I am actually hoping we find out next year. If Sergio goes to another team and kills it, then we know he was being held back here. If he goes to another team and gets the same results as here, then he just isn't an NBA player afterall.
Hell Brian, your "win now!" attitude has infected me this off-season. I guess I'm the torchbearer now! The feeling of disappointment is mutual.
Oh clearly I was, as referenced by the quote that I highlighted and the words that I typed? The point was, if the player is good enough, nate (or any coach) would adjust thier style for them....I have no idea if Rubio will be anywhere near as good as any of those three guys, but If people like Pritchard & his scouts believe he is worth trading up to get...then who are you or I to disagree with thier assessment? To say you shouldn't draft a guy because he doesn't fit your offense (as if this isn't a fluid thing anyway) is short sighted IMO... Talent trumps all...
Should people make "I don't care what people say, I like the Blazers!" threads here? It won't hurt anything, but it doesn't seem particularly interesting to me, given that so few people here would argue that the OP should not like the Blazers. This whole thread appears to be a red herring: claiming that people point to his Olympic stats as the reason that he'd be an upgrade at the PG spot in the 2009-2010 NBA season for the Blazers. If anyone has done that, then I'll join you in arguing against them. Because I have yet to see one of those people, your efforts to limit the discussion to JUST next year seems odd. Ed O.
I mean maybe he isn't one of the best pick and roll players in the world (lots of zone in Europe), and maybe he isn't the best defensive player in Spain, although that could be considered a contradiction anyhow I guess what I'm saying is that he has some obvious holes in his game. Will his positives negate the rest until if/when he becomes a complete player? Is he even a better fit than Bayless for what this team needs?
I guess I'm in the minority here. I want to "Win Now", very badly. I personally think that starting Rubio on Day One is better than starting Blake. Although I'd be more than ok if it was Bayless starting and Rubio backing him up. I'm also ok (and was last year) with accepting growing pains if we were really "letting the cake bake". But as I pointed out ad nauseum, imho playing Blake and Outlaw 60mpg is not "cake baking".
Umm... I don't really understand your point. Trading for Paul, Parker, and Nash would dramatically change the team next year and adjustments would be made. Trading for Rubio may actually set the team back if he starts, and that's without completely changing the offense.
