No, I don't think the team is better without Roy, because he's still a legitimate NBA player. I think the team is better when Roy isn't featured and trying to play the way he used to, though. Right now, Roy should come off the bench, while he learns his new capabilities and works on adjusting how he plays. Once he's had time to adjust, the team can see how good he is and determine what his role should be. If he can reinvent himself as a shooter, he could play well off Aldridge (or Oden, if and when).
That's all well and good, but this team doesn't play that way when Roy is on the active roster. He is featured, and we have no idea if he'll ever adjust how he plays. Right now I would put the team ahead of Brandon Roy and his development. If Aldridge can keep up this pace and Matthews continues to put up good numbers, this team will make the playoffs... hell, they might even get to the second round. We just need Camby and Joel to be healthy.
Maybe. But i think his teammates have to look at themselves and play the same way with or without Roy. Rudy for example plays most of his minutes when Roy is on the bench. Why is he not attacking like he did tonight? LaMarcus was missing alot of easy shots at the rim when Roy was playing. Not Roy's fault. And Roy was missing a lot of easy shots too. (Not his knees fault) I just think part of the problem is when Camby or Joel are in the game with Miller, that is two guys you can cheap off of. But when you have three shooters in the game (Roy/Rudy along with Nic and Wes) then LMA has a lot more room to operate.
The million dollar question though is this: How do you get Brandon to accept that the limitations he's facing are likely chronic and that simple rest or monitoring his minutes isn't going to allow him to get back to the player he used to be and beyond getting him to face and accept this, how do you do it without alienating him, damaging his confidence further or turning him into a malcontent? He is after all probably going to be here for a good long while with that contract of his. There may not be a clean answer; a win-win resolution may not be possible, but if I were Nate and management, I'd be damned if I wouldn't do everything I could to get him to buy into a Manu Ginobli or Jamal Crawford type role -- assuming he can get enough back physically to sustain that type of play for 20 minutes a night, instead of 38.
The likely scenario (IMO) is that it will take a whole year for him to completely come to that conclusion. Hopefully it is not like when they wanted to move KiKI to the bench in favor of starting a young Jerome Kersey. Neither Drexler or KiKi would accept it. But it was clear to everyone else. Unfortunately in that scenario (like in most) it took a trade for KiKi to figure it out. He was fine coming off the bench in New York, but being demoted was not acceptable in Portland. Lets hope Brandon is smarter. But then again he could be another Grant Hill and get his health back. No one knows for sure.
I think had we played SA, Dallas and LA..... we would have been 0-3 and this question would not even be asked. Schedule is the reason.
I wasn't advocating putting Roy's development/adaption ahead of the team, thus the suggestion that he move to the bench. If what you're saying is that the team refuses to not feature him, what makes you think they simply will stop playing him? Any scenario that starts with the premise that the team caters exclusively to Roy is a dead-end from the start. The only place we can even have a discussion is if we start from the premise that the team will do whatever is best for the team. In that case, I think what I said is valid.
I partly agree with that, but even with the result in doubt against Minny and Golden State I found myself thinking that win or lose I'd much rather watch team oriented ball versus the isolation stuff we ran to death with Brandon in the past. We'll see what happens moving forward.
How does Roy make us better? He can't do what he used to be able to do. He doesn't cut or move like Rudy, Nic and Wes do. He can't do as much right now as he could before. That is painfully obvious. I don't know if he can adapt to a faster paced offense where he isn't the focal point. But if he can't, I don't want him to play.
Hey Nate, if I didn't answer your question directly I'll do it now. I think the starting lineup is better without a gimpy Roy and I think ball and player movement is better without him period, but does all of this ultimately add up to more wins and more success? I have no idea. (But at least it's easier to watch).
Ask fans in Minny and GS how that is working out. I get what you are saying. But if I had to chose between winning ugly or watching us lose fun games..............well losing is never fun for too long.
On the season, the Blazers are 5-1 without Roy. Aldridge has averaged 25/11 in those games. It's also nice to see Rudy finally play to his potential. Nate is coaching the team very well now, getting the best out of his players. I hope he will continue to do that when Roy returns.
They have a great fan base. I lived there. But if they actually won more , the place would go crazy. I am sure they would prefer to win.
Hope people are ready for when this team trades Andre because it sounds like it's going to happen by the trade deadline and by then Roy will be back in the starting lineup. That should put a halt to all of this. Just do yourself a favor and brace for it now so it doesn't send you into an uncontrollable rage when it happens.
It is inevitable that Miller and/or Joel will be gone at the trade deadline. They have no choice as their contracts are the best to move along with a young player or two.
