If they sag off him, he'll shoot mid-range jumpers, not perimeter shots. If they double off him, he'll either nail mid-range jumpers or attack the hoop, forcing big men to rotate and drawing fouls or finding teammates (like the person the big man rotated away from--possibly...Oden?) with passes. It's not at all true that unless you're a good three-point shooter, defenses can ignore you. Defenses could ignore Rodriguez because he couldn't hit any sort of jumpers, nor was he a good finisher. Miller can hit mid-range jumpers and is a good finisher.
At the end of the game, we'll probably have PG/Roy/Rudy/LMA/Oden or PG/Roy/Rudy/TO/LMA in the game. If that PG is Miller, you have two slashers, one or two long-range shooters (depending on if TO is in), and one or two post options/pick setters. Swing the ball around, set picks on the high post, catch the defense lagging behind and either drive through the hole (if you're Miller/Roy -- they can't double both) or hit the spot up shooters. Miller's ability to drive makes up for his inability to spot up, especially at the end of the game when our long range heroes are typically TO or Rudy anyway.
Actually Blake hit a couple of game winners this year. Sure teams play for penetration. Do you really think Andre Miller will have the ball in his hands at the end of the game? Or will it be Roy? I know who I would place the ball to. They aren't named Miller. I believe the guy that plays nex to Roy, needs to be a scorer. Both inside and out. Because Roy handles the ball so much, they almost need to be like a shooting guard, able to create a shot in a moments notice when Roy gets into trouble and the play breaks down, or hitting the open shot. Sure putting pressure on the paint is important. But there is no reason why your guy who penetrates the paint cannot hit an open jumper. You can have your cake and eat it too. Too many people are just willing to take the hit just to try something other than Steve Blake there, because we know what he brings to the table. A jump shooter. If you trade for Miller, you trade one weakness for another it is that simple. We will gain in one way, lose in another. And still, nobody has told me that Miller will be an upgrade defensivly, which is more important than almost any of these aspects. Good perimeter defense=Our bigs getting to stay in the game and dominate.
Sixers have made it clear they are seeking a sign and trade with Miller. This opens the door to many teams possibly having a chance to get Miller . . . yet only a couple of teams seem remotely interested. There are a lot of teams in the NBA that could improve at the PG position and the only team outwardly expressing interest are the Knicks (which is a red flag by itself). I haven't studied Miller's game, but for a player who thinks he is worth 10 mil/yr, why aren't more teams (including his old team, as mentioned by soda) interested in upgrading at the PG position? Maybe Miller isn't much of an upgrade . . . especially for what he thinks he is worth.
So you want to get Andre Miller, a PG, who would probably start for the next two seasons, but not willing to trade your starting PG? What about Jay Bay?
People are too hung up on the possible conflicts of Roy and Miller being on the court at the same time. What should excite people is the definite benefit of having Roy or Miller on the court all the time. Imagine what a luxury it will be to have either running the show when the other team starts bringing in subs.
So what did Boston do with Rondo in end of game situations? What did SA do with Tony Parker during end ofgame situations? Neither of those 2 can hit the 3.
Could we do Blake/Webs for Miller since they have NO need for Outlaw? Still have our cap space for lopsided deal or another FA....
Why would they want Webster? He may never fully recover. He's not a horrible contract, but why sign up for several years of rehabbing a guy just to see if he'll ever be any good? If I'm Philly, I'd rather just see Miller walk.
That pretty much sums up my feelings when it comes to point guard play. Miller is never going to be able to do the stand in the corner thing that Blake does, but if his presence actually made the team a little less predictable and one dimensional in the way they run the high pick and roll is that really the worst thing in the world? Regardless, I still think it's highly unlikely he ends up in a Blazers uniform.
Why couldnt this have just been posted in the other Miller threads? I dont get the need for some people to start a new thread all the time.
Correct. And Blake made them pay by hitting 43% of his 3 point shots. Miller only made 15 3pt FGs all of last season. How can you say that "Blake couldn't keep them honest"? Blake certainly did keep them honest, and Roy had more openings to penetrate in part because of Blake's excellent perimeter shooting. If the opposition sagged, Blake made them pay by hitting 3s. If they didn't sag, Roy had more room to penetrate. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding "sagging" and Blake.
You know, they could just run Brandon/Rudy as the backcourt in that situation. Who says Miller has to be in the game. Roy penetrates with the ball, and they don't leave Rudy/Webster/Outlaw (or Batum) open on the outside.
Well you know they could just run Rudy and Roy in the back court, and go sans Miller all together too. It would just take an adjustment period where Roy and Rudy learned to play together better, how to share the load. (Maybe it might help this year if they actually played that lineup before the playoffs, so they can actually know what they are doing before it is a very meaningful series...unlike last year) Orlando showed last year what a size mismatch in the back court can do. Short, fast guards don't look so great when they have to defend a taller wing player who can put the ball on the floor. If those larger players run the floor, it is even more of a problem for the smaller guards. This goes back to the fact that right now the Blazers have no situation where they can manipulate a PG mismatch. It doesn't matter if you have a fast PG, tall PG, strong PG, it doesn't matter. Right now Portland basically throws a body out there and gets dominated by almost who ever shows up to play on the opposition. But what if instead we threw a 6'6" guard at them. Then at least part of the time, Portland has an advantage to exploit, instead of it being a one way exploitation, it is more of a battle. Then given the above scenario you also go into many games where the opposition has a coach that likes to "Match up". Mike Dunleavy. Avory Johnson. Even George Karl can get suckered into it. They match up with what you do. That gives you a certain amount of games where you are playing your preferred lineup, and they are playing one where they match up with you. That means you are dictating the tempo of the game, and you have a much higher chance to win.
There seems to be the widespread perception that we shot a lot of threes as an intentional tactic to benefit Roy. I call BS. We shot so many threes because our perimeter players largely stunk at feeding the post. That's why the team was so dependent on Trout - he and LMA were the only "big" men who could create their own shot!
Just out of curiousity, how many NBA players lately (That are not centers) have not fully recovered from a broken foot. I am sure there is someone out there but I can not think of one. Anyone know? Is this really an issue?
Normal recovery time from a "stress fracture" is supposed to be 6-8 weeks. Webster is pushing what, 10 months? Something funky is going on.
