That seems like a strange rotation - basically saying that three different players might be the second unit's point guard at any given time. Nevermind about the value of "knowing your role." And I wonder: who'll guard the other team's point guard? It can't be Roy, because he's just not quick enough, and it'd wear him out needlessly. Ditto for Rudy (though if he gets tired, I'm less concerned, since he'll play fewer minutes). Armon Johnson? I haven't seen enough of him to really say, but it seems like depending on a rookie for anything more than spot-duty in the backcourt is sketchy, especially in the playoffs.
I thought in July that it was quite apparent that the Blazers felt that one of the areas they needed to improve at was at the back up SG. Wes was a guy they targeted and got. That meant that either Rudy or Bayless would be gone (unless Bayless could get all his minutes at the point and apparently Cho and Nate did not think that was in our best interest) So it came down to Rudy vs. Bayless for the remaining minutes. Rudy won. If the Roy/Wes/AJ back up PG scenario does not work , look for them to sign a vet PG when one comes available, and they almost always become available.
I like this. Only time will tell if it really works, but I think it will create some real mis-matches on offense and will give us a much better defensive team. If it works, I guess there is a possibility that if Armon continues to improve, he could replace Miller in the starting lineup and nothing else would have to change for a long time.
I'm kind of getting the feeling that this is one of those things that looks better on paper than it will on the court.
They are thinking AJ with 5 minutes a half. Lets say 4 minutes instead. (8 minutes a game until he gets more experience) So how many minutes for Miller? 30-32? That leave 8-10 minutes a game with with Rudy or Wes in the game with Roy. That could be OK. Edit: I see that being at the end of the 1st and 3rd Qtrs. (and mayby the last minute of close games)
Signing Matthews improved the team. I don't think any of our 'trades' have. However, I'm good with the Bayless trade. Of the guys who were 'odd men out', he had the most value. Plus I'm hoping that the pick is intended to be used in another trade that will in fact improve the team.
It's not the minutes distribution for any particular player I'm worried about, it's the idea of point guard by committee thing.
I'm not too concerned about this because Nate has a history of saying he's going to do something and then doing something different. barfo
I am not disagreeing with you. I have my concerns. But the "committee" part can easily be worked out in practice. Get the ball across half court and give the ball to Roy. If they do use this at the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters, Roy, Wes, and Rudy could all be in the game. (With Batum resting or in foul trouble) With all three you would think it would be a little. easier.
If Nate is going to continue to run the team based upon playing people out of position, this will probably be his last year as coach. I would have hoped he'd have learned this lesson before.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. I'm starting to think Nate gets his jollies telling the local media the exact opposite of what he's planning.
I don't know, I tend to think that Nate usually has a pretty straightforward rotation. Last year, with all the injuries, you could excuse some of the lineups the Blazers wound up with (any time Juwan Howard is either your backup or starting center, you're entering bizarro world). But to start out the season, and say basically "our point guard is one of three different people who will all be on the floor at the same time" takes "strange rotation" to a new level. I am not arguing against trading away Bayless, since I don't think he's developed into a dependable point guard (although the jury's out on whether he could've been a reliable combo guard in the right bench unit), but to come away with such an unsettled lineup after the trade seems pretty half-baked to me. Maybe there is a trade for a vet PG coming soon (as Pinwheel1 suggested). And Nik - if this is "better on paper than on the court" then I'm really worried, because I think it looks like ass on paper.
My only concern is when Miller is out if the other team does a full court press. We've at times in the past have had problems with that and that is something they'll have to work on playing against.
Off-hand I'd guess he thinks Dante Cunningham is a 3, after that I'm not sure. Miller is a pure 1, Rudy is a two, Matthews is 2 who can swing between a couple of positions defensively, Nic is a 3 who can guard 1-3 and some stretch 4s, LMA is a 4, Roy is a 2 who can play some 3, Camby is a 4-5 ... what am I missing?
some of you complain about nate playing guys out of position but that is exactly was bayless was doing. he isn't a point guard and will probably never be a point guard. out of him, rudy and wes i'd rather see him go as the other two are better all around players. and this is the back up pg role we are talking about, it's not like we don't have an actual pg on the roster.
