http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4612132 Could the Blazers swoop in this summer if we moved some of our bigger salaries along with Blake and Outlaw for expiring's? IMO Rondo would be a near ideal fit for this roster and would vault us to Championship contender status. Does anyone know (I'm looking at you Storyteller2) if it's even mathematically possible to make a move for Rondo? Obviously it would have to not that involve the Celtics seeing as Ainge hates us. Just curious about the board's thoughts on this.
Rhondo is a younger version of Miller on offense, but a much better defender. He's not a 3pt threat at all, which is what Portland needs in the starting lineup. FWIW
I think the Blazers should quit frackin around and just realize Roy is the PG and move on. Roy and Rudy start. Play them together for about 20 games and see if it works. If it doesn't work, start working on trades.
Roy, Oden and the whole thing with some anonymous Eastern conference GM constantly ripping on Oden and the Blazers in the media. To me it's clearly Ainge. A number of articles especially early last year and the year before there was an anonymous Eastern Conference GM that clearly hate Portland. I've always assumed it was Ainge since KP jobbed him out of Roy and I know most Celtic fans felt entitled to Oden. Simmons for instance went from loving GO to calling him old looking once Portland won the lottery even though Boston tanked to get the #1 pick.
I think that's a great idea. I would love to see a Roy Rudy back court. Roy would have to dribble it up or you would have to trust Rudy to do so. Roy in the past says he doesn't want to dribble the ball up the court. Rudy it's clear can guard PG's ok (Lawson). Although I didn't notice if Rudy was on Brooks last night or not. Anyone else find it odd as an aside, that our big men are in such constant foul trouble? Is that purely perimeter D sucking, or the refs, or maybe both? I feel like it's our perimeter defense hence my interest in Rondo and other defensive PG's.
I think you missed the boat on Kirk Hinrich, and didn't have the money to offer Ben Gordon the contract he got in Detroit. Look at your lineup. You have Roy taking 2x the number of 3s this season over last. You have Oden, LMA, and Joel who aren't 3pt threats. You really need 2 other 3pt threats out there with Roy, Oden/Joel and LMA. I don't think you need a traditional passing/scoring PG. You're fine with Roy handling the ball like a point-SG. What you need is a 3pt threat who can be your #2 or #3 option on most nights, and who can be a solid defensive PG. Being the defensive PG is where Blake fails, and being the 3pt threat is where Miler fails.
Exactly. Blazer fans have been talking about this for a couple seasons now. Many Blazer fans have been pining for a (prime) Greg Anthony. Why? I think because that player was; a veteran who had been through playoff battles; a good 3 pt shooter; a great defender; a guy who knew his role.
I wonder what it would've taken to get Chauncey last season, and if we had to pieces that Detroit wanted. He would've been great for our young team. Hinrich would've been nice as well.. a lot better than Blake. Oh well..
Outlaw and Blake expire anyways, so you don't need to move them. But we won't have any capspace with Roy and LA's extension kicking him, so it will need to be a trade.
He stays in Boston, IMO. But I still don't know why the Celts are dragging their feet on this. The way he's developed this should have been taken care of this summer. He's at least worth the $65m deal that LMA got.
FWIW, I think Ben Gordon was THE guy for the Blazers. The performance by Outlaw in game 1 is the norm for Gordon. He's small and quick enough to guard the quick PGs, and you have to stay at home on him on defense, which would really spread the floor for everyone else. If he's not double teamed, he'll make you pay. The guy scores a point every 2 minutes for his career, basically. He also puts up lots of double digit scoring quarters. Hinrich is a much better defender, but way less of a scoring threat. He'll get his points over time just fine, much like Blake. Given a choice of the two for the Blazers, I'd go with Gordon. If you want to look for other guys who might fit the bill, I suggest looking at 3pt shooting % in the league leaders from last season.
Hmm, Rudy's D looked decent vs. Lawson. Can anyone comment on his PG D on Saturday? I didn't notice it and I'm hoping he wasn't on Brooks... Interesting to note #11 in the league last year to comment on what Denny said: 11 R. Fernandez, POR
I have my reservations about Gordon, though the guy can score with the best of them in the league. I'd rather have a guy who can handle the ball a bit better as Roy's backcourt mate. OTOH, our offense doesn't really allow our PG to create things for others, so maybe Gordon would have fit. Who knows.. but we all realize at least "Blakey" is awful right now.
Whoops, I had sorted by attempts here. His percentage is great considering the incredible amount of attempts. I also like Rudy as a secondary play maker and someone who can get the ball to Oden down low.
^^This. Whomever plays alongside Brandon clearly needs to be able to do a few things. 1. Hit an outside shot 2. Be a good enough on ball defender to cut off dribble penetration and 3. be willing to defer primary playmaking duties to our shooting guard. Is this ideal? Probably not, but as long as Brandon is the HMFIC of the offense and doesn't want to add playing off the ball to his resume' then basically what we're looking for is a shooting guard in a point guard's body ... sort of like Blake with defense or Bayless with an outside shot. Conley, Augustin, Chalmers, Hinrich, even Ben Gordon ... none of them is an A+ in each of the three areas, but each seems strong enough overall to qualify.
That makes Bayless sound like an ideal back court mate if he could knock down the three at around 40%...
I would give anything for Rondo. I'd give anyone outside of Roy, Aldridge, Oden (I suppose) and Batum for him. Rudy, Webster, Outlaw, Bayless, Miller, Przybilla, Blake, 1sts, cash, w/e. But alas, its not enough.
