I have a question. What is the Blazers identity? Teams like the Pistons of a few years ago were a great D team. Boston is a great defensive team. The Lakers identity is the system Jackson brought (triangle). The old Suns were that run and gun team, like the Warriors (of the last couple years). What is Portland? When you think of Portland, what style of ball do they play? Are we trying to follow the mold of the Spurs? It kind of seems to me that we really aren't that good offensively, and while we have been better with Greg, I don't think we are a very good defensive team. We don't really run good pick and rolls like Utah. We barely have any movement in our offense, and it seems most of our plays are LMA post up (usually not near the basket) or a Roy iso on the top of the key. What do you guys think? And where do you think we are aiming to go? What do you think opposing teams/fans think of when they think of Blazers basketball (in its current state).
The Blazers are an efficient team, the don't turn the ball over control the flow of the game and make lots of passes to get open jump shots that they usually make. We are a jump shooting team so on nights that we struggle to make shots we'll have a tough time winning, Oden and the continuing development of LMA should help our low post game.
This team has not had all the pieces together long enough to even get their names right on the uni's! Let's wait till spring to answer this question.
I would say they are largely a finesse team that does a good job of sharing the ball, but has a serious toughness deficit outside of Brandon Roy. As for an "identity" I'd say they are still trying to form one aside from, "Brandon's team."
How much does Oden "when he's healthy" change the image of a soft defense for us? Further if Nate is a defensive coach why does he constantly take out Batum for a defense soft Outlaw? Why does Nate not also put in Bayless when PG's are taking Blake and Sergio with ease? If we are really this soft does it not make sense to use some of our defensive minded players? We don't need trades, we need to use the players with the skills our team lacks!
I disagree about trades, but it's more about the roster, and less about talent. Sure on paper Hinrich, Kidd, Nash and others are better than Blake, Sergio and Bayless, but it's what those players do with our current roster that IMO is what's needed. Let's say we make a trade for a veteran PG and a veteran SF. Let's also assume we are getting them because of financial troubles with the other team. I will use Wallace and Hinrich as my two players. Next summer we have Frye, Outlaw, Blake, Diogu all with contract issues. I would assume, along with players like Sergio, Webster and Bayless that those players would be part of any deal. To me it's seems better to trade for a player we want that on paper would help us, rather than having to renounce those players to sign a FA that is nothing more than equal those players.
