Which blazer roster would you rather have????? Group A PG - Miller/Blake SG - Roy/Rudy/Bayless SF - Batum/Webster/Cunningham PF - La/Outlaw/Howard C- Oden/Pryz/Pendy OR... GROUP B PG - Miller/? SG - Roy/Wes/Rudy/Bayless SF - Batum/Cunningham/Wes? PF - LA/Camby (a bit mis leading since we have no idea about our centers) C - Oden/Pryz/Pendy Its not even close IMO. Group A running away. Infact its scary how ugly group B is. Looks like a team almost rebuilding.
I like how Group B, Camby as a backup PF is misleading, because we have no idea about our Cs. So ok, make him the starting C. That puts Pendergraph as the starting C in group A. So I agree, it's not even close. If we're relying on the health of our Cs for both, then it's B easily.
why do you put Dante at SF over Wes, when Dante hasn't played a minute of NBA SF in his life and Wes is the backup 2/3? Andre averaged 37 mpg his entire career until last year, when he averaged 30 b/c Nate wanted Blake and his 11 PER in the game more (and it was sub-10 for much of the season, including when he was the "starting PG"). There are 12 minutes of backup PG play available, and I think much of that will be taken up by a Batum/Roy/Wesley trio at the 1/2/3. I'd rather have Camby at the 5/4 than Outlaw at the 4. Why don't you include Babbitt at the backup 3/4? Sure, your roster A is probably better than roster B. But if you compare them both with the Blazers' actual roster, I'll take C.
So you're saying the Blazers should have baked the cake longer? Funny thing with trolls. They flip-flop just to try and stir things up. I see right through it.
I'll also add, I prefer the flexibility of Group B. I, as well as many, hated Nate's thought of having 2 5 man units, going 10 deep, etc. It's not the way most teams operate. But, in order to not do that, you need players who are flexible. There was a good post on Blazers Edge about this. Our bench just wasn't flexible enough to shorten our rotation truly. Outlaw seemed to be th eonly player off the bench who would rotate through 2 positions, SF or PF. Martell wasa straight 3. Rudy a 2. Blake a 1. Joel or Oden only a 5. Now, obviously, with health, Camby can easily backup both the 4 and 5 effectively. Bayless could backup the 1 and 2. Matthews the 2 and 3. Cunningham the 3 and 4. That flexibility allows for different lineups and combinations, and more fluidity, hopefully, to the subsitituions.
no im saying if oden and pryz stayed healthy... we had a better team last year. webster > babbit/wes/duante blake > ? wes is a 2 not a 3
It not even close? Really? That's the same starting five for both groups. As far as positional depth goes, not that you've got the depth chart right, but you've got the same C rotation with upgrades at backup PF and SG and downgrades at backup PG and SF. It's pretty even IMO, as far as a top 9 I'd say we're improved replacing Blake/Webster/Outlaw with Wes/Bayless/Camby.
well, I'd take Bayless over Blake. Matthews over Webster. And Camby over Outlaw. Top 3 players from the bench on each team.
blake is no doubt the best backup pg on roster. wes is a sg. camby is needed at center with our fragile duo. should oden ever recover... camby is better then outlaw. its a big SHOULD!
Wes is a SG. Same as Rudy. Rudy got 25 minutes a night. Yet Roy played more than 23. WOW. Fucking A. How the hell did that work.
Injuries. There were lots of nights where Roy played zero minutes. And Wes guards wings and points. Kind of like Batum does. Webster just guarded wings. Rudy doesn't really "guard" anyone.
If Oden recovers, Camby can back up both center and power forward. An Oden/Aldridge/Camby front court rotation is tremendous, if healthy. Wes Matthews is at least as good a player as Webster. The essential comparison comes down to Camby/Matthews versus Outlaw/Blake/Webster. I'd take Camby and Matthews, as both bring much more defense. Outlaw's offense is lost, but it wasn't terribly efficient scoring and Camby's rebounding more than makes up for it. I wouldn't mind Blake as a backup point, but I think the team is plenty deep in guards. No pure point guards outside of Miller, but with Roy handling the ball so much, they don't need a pure point guard for the minutes that Miller doesn't play.
If Oden starts this year I'll be surprised. Good thing 'KPee' traded spare parts for a good center in Camby so we're not all in a panic right now about the C spot.
you mean, if Greg is the starting C for one game you'd be surprised? Or if he plays in the first game of the season you'll be surprised? Oden should start as soon as he's the best C on the roster. That could be his first cleared game back. Or his 10th. But I'll be shocked and amazed if he doesn't start a majority of the games he plays in.
I'd take team B. I don't think that Blake or Outlaw were particularly helpful, and Webster never improved the way I'd hoped. Camby is better than any of the three of them, and Matthews probably is, too. Ed O.
You all know, of course, that everyone who would take team B is only "HCP-ing it", and that only those who would take team A are realists. At least, I think that's how I think MIXUM threads work...
Camby is old, but still a very good player. I'd rather have him than Blake and Outlaw - at least this season with the addition of Matthews. Matthews isn't going to be playing much PF like Outlaw did, but you've got Camby for that. Instead, you get Matthews' 3pt shooting, which is about as good as Blake's. I think Matthews is good enough to take all the minutes Webster would have gotten as well. Here's hoping this season is something of a mirror image of last season. Like: 1) Miller's already up to speed instead of taking a few months to get comfy. 2) Oden started out strong and got hurt. This year he starts out hurting a little (we hope) and could be in game shape for the playoffs, if not sooner. Last year the Blazers limped into the playoffs. 3) Same as #2, but for Joel.
