Ric Bucher's NBA Offseason Moves Most Likely to Backfire

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/..._medium=share&utm_campaign=web-des-art-top-19


Thinks the pick up of Steve Blake over Mo Williams will backfire on us. That he will not be good enough to be helpful.

 

key part of the thread... "Rick Bucher". That dude has talked trash about this franchise since he's been talking NBA

 

"Bleacher Report," lol...

 

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2014/0...at-ric-buchers-false-report-about-kyle-lowry/

 

Wow, I had a higher opinion of Ric Bucher than that. How can signing a vet min type of guy backfire? Why would we want to get from Blake what Mo gave us? If we did, we'd just keep Mo. Really, just senseless.

 

In this particular case? I don't know. I was never much of a fan of Mo Williams, but he did have a particular skillset off the bench (scoring off the dribble) that I'm not sure we have a capable replacement for. McCollum hopefully will fill some of the void, but that remains to be seen.

As for Steve Blake, when he left us he was a moderately competent, backup, point guard; the few times I've seen him play in the intervening years I'd say he's quite a bit less than that now. But how this rises to the level of a likely backfire all comes down to a matter of perspective. From a scoring standpoint, I have no doubt that Blake is utterly incapable of replicating Mo's production. From a "I'm not sure I can help, but I'll do my best not to harm" perspective I see it being pretty close to a wash, with Blake being a better fit than Mo, but still having about the same net impact on the team's bottom line in terms of production.

Who knows, maybe he'll have a renaissance of sorts?

 

How awesome is it that the only place Ric Bucher can write now is on Bleacher Report?

 

I guess if that doesnt work there's always BE

 

Steve blake isn't even the one that's replacing No Williams, it's CJ McCollum. No Williams was a scorer more than anything.

 

Wow.....extremely narrow view. It will be a pleasure to see this tool proven wrong.

 

Let's see. It's not really Blake for Mo, it's Kaman and Blake for Mo and Earl Watson...in my book, that was an upgrade. It's defensively an upgrade and offensively an upgrade. Blake can get 5 assists in 6 minutes on a court and if he shoots, takes smart shots. Kaman with Mo minutes would score more than Mo, defend better and hit the boards. Earl Watson never broke a sweat on the court. Two rotation players for a scoring, undersized guard that was defensively challenged? You decide

 

The Blazers didnt even want Mo back. Mo himself pretty much confirmed it

 

Even better we got a backup for LA and Rolo..not an easy thing to find

 

Just watch, Mo will score like crazy and Bucher will point to it and say, "See? He's averaging twice as many points-per-game as Blake, I was right!"

Conveniently ignoring, of course, that the fact Blake will make the players around him better, and actually involve the youngsters in the offense rather than making them idle spectators...

 

Ouch I forgot about that one but he's been to the Steve Nash school of pointguardism since then

 

This is what happens when someone who doesn't actually follow the team looks at a couple basic stats and thinks they now what they're talking about. Yes, Mo and Blake are both back up PGs. That's where the similarity ends. Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but that's not his role and not why we signed him.

Last year, Mo was our scoring off the bench. He averaged 9.7ppg. No one else off our bench average more than 5.3ppg (C.J. in 38 games). Last year, bench scoring was a HUGE problem, We NEEDED Mo to score. In that respect, Mo was a better fit for us last year than Blake would have been. The problem was, Mo is a streaky shooter. We all saw Good Mo vs. Bad Mo last season. Good Mo, kept us in games when our starters were resting, and when Good Mo was Really Good Mo, he also finished games with the starting unit, giving us additional 3-point shooting, a good FT shooter and an additional ballhandler. Unfortunately, we also got a healthy doese of Bad Mo who would come in and shoot us right out of a game, turning a double digit lead into a double digit deficit before the starters on the bench could even catch their breath. In Mo's defense, he really didn't have a lot of help on offense from the rest of our bench guys.

That has changed. Blake is not expected to replicate Good Mo's scoring, but he also won't shoot us out of a game, like Bad Mo would. As others have pointed out, Kaman will provide scoring off the bench. Kaman average more points (10.4 ppg) than Mo in far fewer minutes (18.9 MPG vs. 24.9 MPG) than Mo last season. Kaman has never averaged less than 10 ppg in his entire career. He will give us as much, or more, scoring than Mo did and will be much more efficient and consistent.

Blake was signed AFTER Kaman. Once we'd replaced Mo's scoring, management clearly wanted a back up PG that would involve his teammates and not kill the ball movement the way Mo did. In addition to Kaman, I think management is counting on other bench players to step up and increase their scoring this year. In terms of ppg, C.J. as our second best scorer off the bench last year, but he was a rookie that missed all of training camp preseason and the first half of the regular season. He was inconsistent and looked lost at times. Plus, it didn't help that Mo basically froze him out when they were on the court together.

Ultimately, I think management's goal was to not have to change the way the team plays when going to the bench. I think they want the same kind of ball movement, inside/outside, unselfish style of play that we get with the starters. That kind of consistent offensive flow will let Stotts mix and match line ups with ease and also provides consistency if we have injuries or foul trouble. Getting Kaman was the first key. He actually has a better low post game than anyone else on the roster, but he also has a great mid-range game similar to Aldridge. As he's shown in preseason, he's also a capable passer who can find the open 3-point shooters. He's versatile enough he can play with Aldridge or in place of him. That's huge when trying to develop a consistent style of play between the starters and bench.

Once they had Kaman, they needed a back up PG that would not kill the ball movement. Blake is MUCH better at that than Mo, and that's why the Blake signing is not going to backfire, in fact, for this season's bench, it's an upgrade. With half a season under his belt, an additional summer league, a full training camp and preseason, I think management expects a lot more from C.J. this season than last. Blake will do a much better job of setting C.J. up than Mo did. With Kaman and C.J. coming off the bench, the second unit can play a similar style to the starters with Aldridge and Lillard. Granted, C.J. is no Lillard, but his style is similar. He combines 3-point shooting with drives to the rim. C.J. is not a PG, though and that's why Blake is there. Blake will bring the ball up the court, initiate the offense and keep the ball moving. These are all things C.J. doesn't do well (at least, not yet). So, Blake is a perfect fit in this role, much better than Mo would have been.

Ultimately, I don't care what Rick Bucher thinks. He obviously doesn't follow the team close enough to understand the moves we made and how all the pieces fit together. Of course, he's right, Blake will not score as much as Mo did, but he's also wrong that this move will backfire. Blake's individual scoring will be less, but our bench scoring will be vastly improved and much more balanced than last season. That;s what matters, not individual stats. We no longer need to rely on Mo going 1-on-5, we now have multiple scoring options and a PG who will get them the ball.

BNM