"...if not sooner." This, according to Jason Quick's "gut feeling" on this morning's MSP. I certainly hope he's right.
But will it make a difference? Andre Miller is one of the poorest shooters on the team. If it's not a layup, he apparently can't make it.
The only thing that will make a difference (as far as Miller being effective) is for Nate to get over his fascination with the iso offense and actually start employing some movement, back cuts and a more motion oriented offense ... it also wouldn't hurt to stop calling for half-court plays from the sideline 90% of the game and actually trust his 11 year veteran point guard to orchestrate things on his own. I thought Miller could work out here, because I figured Nate would actually trust him to play his tempo and his style of play, but now I see that he's possibly mentally incapable of relinquishing that control. My expectation: Miller will be moved on or right after the December 15th moratorium on trading players signed in free agency over the summer. Moved for whom or what kind of player I have no idea, but apparently it's going to be a short shooting guard who can play defense.
Miller starting is a good thing. He has a proven track record. Of course our Coach is too (hands on), but I think he'll be fired, so good news for us. and that means, if Blake goes to the bench, perhaps we'll trade him and have more Bayless. Win WIN! edit: my pipe-dream
Quick also went on to say that, although it's still a bit too early to tell, the Miller "experiment" may not be working out as planned (Miller "sulking"?)....and that this thing has a "potential" to blowup...ala 2001. Yes, he alluded to the 2001 team. Interesting.
Dave from this morning's blazersedge.com story... Couldn't agree more, that Andre needs to be freed, and a lot depends on Brandon allowing it to happen ...
He should have been starting from day 1 of training camp. Instead, he had Blake start 5 of the 7 games in preseason.
I hope he's starting by Sunday, personally, but will wait if that's what it takes. Looking at last season, we generally went to Aldridge more in the first quarter than any other quarter. Most see that watching the game, that a lot of times, we run plays for Aldridge to start us off. Aldridge took 5.4 shots per game in the first quarter lsat season. It dropped to 2.7 in the second(a large part of which is probably due to him being on the bench, 4.8 in the 3rd, and then down to 2.4 in the 4th. So with our "main" starting unit, in the 1st and 3rd quarters, we put a lot of focus on Aldridge. If that's the case, and he doesn't tend to kick out super often to an open shooter, then I think it makes more sense to start Miller, who could get Aldridge and Oden easier looks potentially early on, easier than Blake normally would. I know Nate likes the idea of the second unit running. That's great. I think most just flat don't like the idea of two seperate units. But to humor him, though you don't have Miller leading the way, I think a second unit with Blake, Rudy and Outlaw can still get up and down the floor pretty good. We can still attack with that lineup, and the added bonus would be the shooting that could very quickly make a game get out of hand. I think playing strictly up tempo with our second unit is playing into what a lot of other second units do, having athletic, maybe slightly less skilled guys in the game. I think haveing a unit of Blake, Rudy and Outlaw all capable of hitting a good clip from 3 could blow a team out in a hurry. Could also allow mroe opportunity for Rudy to be a creator on the offensive end.
The idea that the team and the coach need to adjust to Miller and not the other way around makes me upset the Blazers even signed Miller. The Blazer don't need to start over, they needed to add a player who would fit in.
Generally when you bring in someone talented, there is going to be an adjustment period by everyone, not just the new guy, and not just the current guys, but everyone involved, including the coach.
You're right. He was signed as a free agent. My mistake. I'm trying to make a distinction between drafting college players and acquiring veterans. Pritchard seems to be better at the former.
Yes, but do you change the whole offensive scheme and go away from the success the Blazers had last year for Miller?
I don't think you have to change the entire scheme. But you can make adjustments to that scheme. We didn't run many plays for Oden, other than him posting up. Our offense was good last year, so to that end, do we not continue to try to add more and more, and adjust our lineup to getting easier shots for Oden? I think we should. Same way, if we add someone adept at running the pick and roll, and getting easy dunks and layups for big men, we should utilize that also. Not make a whole sale change to the offense, and go SSOL, but make adjustments to fine tune the team a bit mroe. Instead of just running a simple pick and pop with Aldridge to start every game, we can try him rolling with Miller. Instead of just posting him up, and allowing him to isolate 1 on 1, we can run a screen with him and Oden. I'm not calling for wholesale changes, but you adjust when you improve on your talent base.
The biggest part of our offense was that Roy was the one with the ball in his hands - because he is a superb decision maker and a matchup problem. Once you get the hands out of his hands - it is a major change. The question is - are we marginalizing Roy's biggest advantage for the sake of integrating a 33 y/o PG?
Intersting ideas. I've seen a concentrated effort on trying to get Oden invovled in several different ways, but I see what youa re talking about. I still wonder if this board overvalues Miller . . . and maybe even Oden. I think it just comes down to what fans want. Fans are excited about Miller and Oden and want them to be a bigger part of the offense (and blame Nate that they aren't). I'm more of blame the players, if they have had their opportunties. Blazers play SA next. It will be intersting to see if SA has adjusted for Jefferson's game or if they are still basically the same SA team with Jefferson making the adjustments.
