B-Roy unhappy? (MERGED)

[Rastapopoulos]

Plus, he hasn't been an All-Star playing out of position.

Wrong again.

 

[PapaG]

How's Miller supposed to create shots for others when you seemingly don't want the ball in his hands to create those shots. He was brought in to help the team. Not to do 1 thing and 1 thing only. He can help us by creating shots for others. He can also help us by getting easy baskets when they may be needed. And by getting to the free throw line. All of those things help a basketball team, and they are, and will, help our team.
I don't see panick at all on KPs part. My belief is he was planning to attempt to sign and trade for Miller, while signing another player as well, but those signing options fell through, so he went with a simple signing of Miller straight up.

I never said that. I said that Roy should be playing SG alongside Miller, not SF.

 

[PapaG]

Wrong again.

17.7 ppg and 5.6 rpg from the PF spot. I guess that's an All-Star these days.

Still have yet to see the Magic win a title.

 

[RR7]

And we haven't won one with Roy at SG. What's your point?

 

[PapaG]

And we haven't won one with Roy at SG. What's your point?

That playing him out of position with Steve Blake at SG isn't going to win a title?

 

[RR7]

How do you know playing him at SG is? You think Lewis as PF doesn't work because they haven't won a title. We haven't won a playoff series with Roy at SG. By that same logic, that will also fail, since it hasn't happened yet.

 

[PapaG]

How do you know playing him at SG is? You think Lewis as PF doesn't work because they haven't won a title. We haven't won a playoff series with Roy at SG. By that same logic, that will also fail, since it hasn't happened yet.

You're right. I give up.

Play Roy at PF for all I care. Hell, just trade his ass so you all can have somebody new to fawn over.

Since I can't predict the future, but I was able to see the results of what Rasta posted, clearly that means the Blazers will win a title with Roy at SF.

 

[mook]

I agree with this 100%. In addition to the "Roy out of position" issue, I just don't see what Blake brings that Webster does not.

Blake is a much superior ball handler and passer to Webster. He's a better help defender. Although both guys suck at defending small quick guys, Blake seems better suited to it in the three guard lineup, since he seems better at channeling players toward help. Blake is also a much better three point shooter historically, and even this year. He also seems much more mentally tough.

Don't get me wrong--I think Webster is the better player. He's vastly more athletic, long, capable of defending opposing SF's, finishing in traffic, etc.

But I just disagree that Webster does everything as well as Blake. It's just not so.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

LOUD NOISES!!

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Blake is a much superior ball handler and passer to Webster. He's a better help defender. Although both guys suck at defending small quick guys, Blake seems better suited to it in the three guard lineup, since he seems better at channeling players toward help. Blake is also a much better three point shooter historically, and even this year. He also seems much more mentally tough.

Don't get me wrong--I think Webster is the better player. He's vastly more athletic, long, capable of defending opposing SF's, finishing in traffic, etc.

But I just disagree that Webster does everything as well as Blake. It's just not so.

Agreed with everything except Webster being a better player. He SHOULD be a better player. He's a more unique physical specimen. But he's just not the basketball player Blake is.

(Which is not to say Blake is great.)

Here's the solution to the whole deal: Roy ISN'T playing out of position! Our star SG is still a shooting guard. BLAKE is playing out of position. He's clearly playing SF. But who cares, right? He's a scrub, and it's a way to get use out of him. It's Matt Bonner playing C. Sure, Roy will help out by guarding better SFs for him, but he'd have to do that on switches once in a while.

Problem solved.

 

[noknobs]

I highly doubt Roy is unhappy. If I hadn't come by this sensitive melodramatic message board I wouldn't even be aware that this was an issue at all. I haven't seen it. A single tweet from some dick-weed and everyone goes crazy...

Given how close Roy and McMillan are, and how Roy is basically the Medium between Nate and the team, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Roy is against this starting lineup or this new running philosophy. If he was, I don't think McMillan would do it. Roy can feel uncomfortable in it at first, but that's quite different from being upset or unhappy.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Hmm... I'm not sure that I buy that. You think Oden enjoys playing with him, after more than a year's worth of missed entry passes?

Even if players "like playing with him", it doesn't mean he's a good player. Blake only does one thing well at the NBA level: shoot three pointers. He doesn't create his own shot and he doesn't create for other players. He is not a particularly good defender and he doesn't create turnovers.

As a bench player behind Miller I think he becomes an asset for a contending-level team. As a starter he's an albatross.

Ed O.

Differnce of opinion, I don't buy that Blake is an albatross.

Raelly why would Nate play Blake or start Blake if he hurts the team? Blake has one more year on his contract, is not a high paid player and accepts a role off the bench . . . Nate has no reason to start Blake unless he thinks it helps the team.

My opinion is Blake does more than shoot three pointers. He knows the offense, spaces out well, hits some two point shots, keeps the ball moving. He knows the team, his teammates and how to play with them.

Starting or coming off the bench (really what is the difference when bench players often get more minutes than starters) . . . Blake helps the team and is an asset.

 

[Ed O]

Differnce of opinion, I don't buy that Blake is an albatross.

Raelly why would Nate play Blake or start Blake if he hurts the team? Blake has one more year on his contract, is not a high paid player and accepts a role off the bench . . . Nate has no reason to start Blake unless he thinks it helps the team.

He plays him because he's mistaken. He plays him because he's a "safe" play and because his natural tendency has been to play low-risk, low-reward basketball.

My opinion is Blake does more than shoot three pointers. He knows the offense, spaces out well, hits some two point shots, keeps the ball moving. He knows the team, his teammates and how to play with them.

Yeah... I don't see that. I don't think that he makes any of his teammates better at either end of the floor, with the possible exception of Roy offensively because he stays out of his way.

Starting or coming off the bench (really what is the difference when bench players often get more minutes than starters) . . . Blake helps the team and is an asset.

Starters guard other starters. Bench players play against bench players. Blake is better than many of the guys on NBA teams' benches but not as good as most of the starting PGs. That's why it matters whether he's starting or not.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Here's the solution to the whole deal: Roy ISN'T playing out of position! Our star SG is still a shooting guard. BLAKE is playing out of position. He's clearly playing SF. But who cares, right? He's a scrub, and it's a way to get use out of him. It's Matt Bonner playing C. Sure, Roy will help out by guarding better SFs for him, but he'd have to do that on switches once in a while.

Problem solved.

I know you're kidding, but it's more than semantics. Miller is guarding a 2, Roy is guarding a 3. Why? Because Blake is in the lineup.

Put Webster out there and suddenly you have all of the players defending their natural positions, instead of only three.

Ed O.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I know you're kidding, but it's more than semantics. Miller is guarding a 2, Roy is guarding a 3. Why? Because Blake is in the lineup.

Miller SHOULD be guarding a 2. He hasn't the footspeed to handle ones any more. Same with Jason Kidd. Meanwhile Miller is perfectly strong enough to handle 2s. He'll have problems with tall 2Gs who are good shooters, but we'll cross that bridge...

Put Webster out there and suddenly you have all of the players defending their natural positions, instead of only three.

Do you know who one of the best defensive centers in the league is? Answer: Chuck Hayes. How much does he give up to everyone he guards? More than Blake. And a lot of SFs count on getting past their man and aren't any good at posting up. Blake would be better at guarding them than Webster.

Remember Utah with Hornacek? They did okay.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Fuck. We gave Roy a huge fucking extension. If he ain't happy, he shoulda thought of that before signing on the dotted line. Has this been 3 years of fools' gold? Suck it up and tough it out, bitch.

 

[PapaG]

Fuck. We gave Roy a huge fucking extension. If he ain't happy, he shoulda thought of that before signing on the dotted line. Has this been 3 years of fools' gold? Suck it up and tough it out, bitch.

And there you have it.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Well what do posters think of Roy's body language . . . I didn't see any problems.

Roy did an interview after the game . . . anything revealing there?

I did catch a funny stare by Fernandez on the bench. He doesn't look happy, but it was just a quick glance of Fernandez and who knows what he was thinking about at that precise moment.

 

[Ed O]

Do you know who one of the best defensive centers in the league is? Answer: Chuck Hayes. How much does he give up to everyone he guards? More than Blake. And a lot of SFs count on getting past their man and aren't any good at posting up. Blake would be better at guarding them than Webster.

No way. A player who's 5 inches taller than Blake will be able to either post him up or shoot right over him. I don't think that pointing to ONE player that can guard much taller players is a good argument why Steve Blake, of all people, would be able to do it, too.

Remember Utah with Hornacek? They did okay.

Hornacek was a shooting guard, as you know, with Benoit and then Russell as the small forward at the 3 spot. He was about Blake's size, but he was never strong defensively and he was a MUCH better shooter than Blake so his offense made up for his defensive shortcomings...

Ed O.