Biggest concern, PG or SF

[Magnum]

I think everyone would agree we're not eager to "fix" the C, PF, or SG spots anytime soon.

If we were to upgrade either the PG or SF spot via a consolidating trade (2 for 1, 3 for 1, etc) or by using Raef's contract, which position would you prefer we address?

I'd much rather have a bona fide PG, but those are nearly impossible to acquire. Lots more SFs to be had on the market.

Quite eager to see if Granger signs an extension in the next 6 weeks.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Clearly agree. Our only true need is a PG. Trying to convert a SG to PG may work, but it usually doesn't. Given our overabundance of talent I like the idea of trading a couple of players for a veteran. As an example (JUST an example), perhaps a TJ Ford or someone like that.

 

[Reep]

SF.

I think Blake is sufficient, and Bayless may pass him up. Also, as you mentioned, there are no meaningful PGs available.

SF still needs a starter. I think it is likely that one of Webster, Outlaw or Rudy will end up there over a trade. But, if you could secure a solid real SF for that spot and thin the roster, that would be great.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

SF.

I think Blake is sufficient, and Bayless may pass him up. Also, as you mentioned, there are no meaningful PGs available.

SF still needs a starter. I think it is likely that one of Webster, Outlaw or Rudy will end up there over a trade. But, if you could secure a solid real SF for that spot and thin the roster, that would be great.

Reep, I respectfully disagree. SF is actually pretty darn solid. I think Webster is doing everything asked of him and he will eventually be THE SF we need.

 

[mook]

Clearly agree. Our only true need is a PG. Trying to convert a SG to PG may work, but it usually doesn't. Given our overabundance of talent I like the idea of trading a couple of players for a veteran. As an example (JUST an example), perhaps a TJ Ford or someone like that.

"Converting" doesn't usually work when you take a veteran shooting guard and stick him at the 1. That's not what we'll probably try doing, though. There's just a lot of natural "combo guard" in Bayless, Roy and even Rudy. Sticking any of those three at the 1 may prove to be a natural position for them. Between those three and Blake, we've got 4 decent solutions there and I think one is likely to work out. Especially if you have a lot of shot blockers (Oden, Aldridge, Frye, Przybilla, Outlaw) who can clean up mistakes on quicker guards.

Besides--how many dominating point guards are there? Williams, Paul, maybe Parker.

I'm much more concerned about SF. There are so many great scorers in this league at the 2/3, and we don't have anybody who specializes in containing them. Forcing guys like Bryant or James into a bad shooting night is often the surest way to beating their teams. When I look at Roy, Rudy, Outlaw and Webster, I see nothing there that makes me think we'll ever be more than average at containing them.

I don't know where or how we get a young Bruce Bowen-type, but I think that's got to be Pritchard's next big priority.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

"Converting" doesn't usually work when you take a veteran shooting guard and stick him at the 1. That's not what we'll probably try doing, though. There's just a lot of natural "combo guard" in Bayless, Roy and even Rudy. Sticking any of those three at the 1 may prove to be a natural position for them. Between those three and Blake, we've got 4 decent solutions there and I think one is likely to work out. Especially if you have a lot of shot blockers (Oden, Aldridge, Frye, Przybilla, Outlaw) who can clean up mistakes on quicker guards.

Besides--how many dominating point guards are there? Williams, Paul, maybe Parker.

I'm much more concerned about SF. There are so many great scorers in this league at the 2/3, and we don't have anybody who specializes in containing them. Forcing guys like Bryant or James into a bad shooting night is often the surest way to beating their teams. When I look at Roy, Rudy, Outlaw and Webster, I see nothing there that makes me think we'll ever be more than average at containing them.

I don't know where or how we get a young Bruce Bowen-type, but I think that's got to be Pritchard's next big priority.

MOOK, the reason why I'm not too concerned about SF is that on this team it's a complimentary position. We have our big 3 and they happen to play C, PF & SG. We neither need nor want all-stars at every position as that approach has failed miserably over the years. Our SF needs to play solid defense and hit a few open J's to keep defenses spread out. Webster does that for as and Outlaw as well to a certain extent. But we could use a good "QB" to run the show.

 

[Tortimer]

I actually think there is a good chance we already have our SF Webster, Outlaw, Batum or maybe even Rudy. I also think there is a good chance we have our PG Bayless, Roy or Rudy. Right now I would think there is a better chance we have both positions covered for the future but maybe not completely this year. If I had to choose one position right now I would say we will need a SF instead of PG. I just really think Bayless is going to be our PG/SG that will play great with Roy.

If this ends up to be true and we don't need a PG or SF I'm not sure what we will do in FA next year. We already have to many good players and signing a couple good backups will just cause a bigger log jam for PT.

 

[Reep]

Reep, I respectfully disagree. SF is actually pretty darn solid. I think Webster is doing everything asked of him and he will eventually be THE SF we need.

Most of this is really blind speculation. At PG, Blake is average, Bayless is completely unproven, but shows promise. At SF, Webster and Outlaw are on the verge, but can't seem to get over the hump after having several years to try. They are improving, but not there yet.

Right now I'd say I don't have a concern because it's too early. After the season starts and some step forward and others don't, then I'll be concerned. I just think Bayless has the mental edge for such a step over Webster (imprisoned by his own mind) and Outlaw (has taken a long time). In reality I don't have a clue, just speculation.

I actually think there is a good chance we already have our SF Webster, Outlaw, Batum or maybe even Rudy. I also think there is a good chance we have our PG Bayless, Roy or Rudy. Right now I would think there is a better chance we have both positions covered for the future but maybe not completely this year.

Agreed.

 

[THE HCP]

We are fine. BRoy is our PG! No matter who you bring in, the offense will run through BRoy. I think our team is fine how it is. Travis is actually our best SF. I don't care what anybody says, he is a SF, not a PF. He only comes off the bench because he is cool with it. Martell needs to start, mentally. Leave this team alone. Let them gel and grow together.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

HCP, I don't see Roy as a PG in any stretch of the imagination. He can't push the ball or drive the lane consistently. For a young and athletic team that needs to push the ball, we really don't have a PG (or SG) to do that effectively. And that's our missing link.

 

[e_blazer]

HCP, I don't see Roy as a PG in any stretch of the imagination. He can't push the ball or drive the lane consistently. For a young and athletic team that needs to push the ball, we really don't have a PG (or SG) to do that effectively. And that's our missing link.

The need for a pure PG depends on the style of play you're going for. Showtime...yeah, you need a pure PG to push the ball. MJ-era Bulls...not so much. I think it's a bit early to know how much the Blazers need to acquire a pure PG. If Bayless develops a decent handle, I could see him and Roy sharing the PG duties in the backcourt together. Bayless handles the breaks and penetration, and Roy runs the halfcourt.

I think SF is okay for now and I'm hoping either Webster or Outlaw will grow into the permanent starter role. If not, there's always Raef's ending contract to be used prior to the trade deadline.

 

[mook]

MOOK, the reason why I'm not too concerned about SF is that on this team it's a complimentary position. We have our big 3 and they happen to play C, PF & SG. We neither need nor want all-stars at every position as that approach has failed miserably over the years. Our SF needs to play solid defense and hit a few open J's to keep defenses spread out. Webster does that for as and Outlaw as well to a certain extent. But we could use a good "QB" to run the show.

Name five worse starting small forwards last year in the NBA than Webster. I can't. He has upside, and may become at least an average SF, but he's not there now. If I were Nate, I'd be all over both him and Outlaw to try to make an elite defender out of at least one of them. But if I'm Pritchard, I'm also looking around the league for other alternatives. Telfair was supposed to be a key component on this team until Pritchard found something a hell of a lot better. I'd like the same thing to happen at SF.

Blake is also in the bottom half of starting PG's, but at least there we have a pretty good chance that somebody else can supplant him. And I don't really think we need a high quality, pure PG:
- They are too hard to find, driving up their value.
- Championship teams more often than not don't have high quality pure PG's. Derek Fisher, Ron Harper, Chauncy Billups...there's a long history of defensive-minded points who can hit the 3. Especially on teams where you have an SG with great court awareness and passing (Bryant, Ginobili, Jordan, Wade).
- When I think about quality pass-first PG's paired with great big men, I think of Williams/Boozer, Stockton/Malone and Nash/Amare. All great tandems, but no championships. That's not to say it can't work, it's just that it hardly seems a very big requirement.
- Roy himself is on the record as saying he doesn't really want to play with a ball-dominating true PG. And he's right. Roy will get fewer touches as it is with Aldridge, Oden and Fernandez all getting shots. We really just need somebody to bring the ball up and get it to Roy as quickly as possible, much like the Lakers do with Kobe.

Bottom line is that quality pass-first point guards are rare and consequently expensive. Given the structure of our team, I just don't see one being worth the price.

Quality defensive-minded swing men who can hit a three are less expensive, and are an ingredient you find on almost every championship team. We don't have one currently. We can cross our fingers on Outlaw/Webster, but I'm not confident our solution will be found there.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

MOOK, I'm not interested in naming 10 or 15 worst starting SF's than Webster. Again, it's a complimentary position on this team and he fits the role pretty well. It's a matter of team chemistry and what roles we need from the various players. It's not a game of statistics, it's a game of basketball. Also, true PG's are around. It's also a complimentary position on this team. We have our horses in Roy, Aldridge & Oden. Now it's a matter of surrounding them with the right role players- not a team choked full of all stars.

 

[blazerboy30]

I say focus more on a strong starting SF.

I would like to see us get a SF that is a(n) (in order of preference):
1) elite defender
2) strong outside shooter
3) strong rebounder
4) good ball handler
5) good passer

I don't care too much about our small forward being able to go 1-on-1, or create their own shot. I would consider that skill a nice-to-have.

The reason I believe we should focus more on filling the above skills at the SF position really comes down to: Brandon Roy.

In Roy, we have an ALL-STAR who needs to run the offense, and have the ball in his hands. His strong-suit is definitely NOT playing off the ball.

If we go out and get a Williams/Paul type PG, we are essentially taking the ball out of our All-star's hands, and asking him to play in a way that is not his strength, and what got him to the All-star level.

I believe Bayless could be a perfect fit at PG. He can muscle up and play tough against the other elite PG's, he can run a fast-break and lead the open court, but he can defer to our all-star in the half-court and let the offense run through Roy.

Let's get that tough-as-nails, sharp-shooting SF!

 

[mook]

MOOK, I'm not interested in naming 10 or 15 worst starting SF's than Webster. Again, it's a complimentary position on this team and he fits the role pretty well. It's a matter of team chemistry and what roles we need from the various players. It's not a game of statistics, it's a game of basketball.

Hey, I only asked for 5, not 15. (I've asked this question in other Webster threads and never really saw anybody answer.)

Anyway, I understand about chemistry and that SF is a complimentary player on this team. I just don't think "complimentary" means we have to live with "one of the worst in the league."

I'm also not saying we can't live with Webster at SF (especially if he improves into an elite defender). Lots of great teams have had far worse holes than him. But the other positions are so good that when somebody asks about my biggest concern, Webster/Outlaw appears to be the biggest weakness.

On the team we had four years ago I might've considered SF our biggest strength (after Randolph). That's just how far this team has come.

 

[mook]

I say focus more on a strong starting SF.

I would like to see us get a SF that is a(n) (in order of preference):
1) elite defender
2) strong outside shooter
3) strong rebounder
4) good ball handler
5) good passer

I don't care too much about our small forward being able to go 1-on-1, or create their own shot. I would consider that skill a nice-to-have.

The reason I believe we should focus more on filling the above skills at the SF position really comes down to: Brandon Roy.

In Roy, we have an ALL-STAR who needs to run the offense, and have the ball in his hands. His strong-suit is definitely NOT playing off the ball.

If we go out and get a Williams/Paul type PG, we are essentially taking the ball out of our All-star's hands, and asking him to play in a way that is not his strength, and what got him to the All-star level.

I believe Bayless could be a perfect fit at PG. He can muscle up and play tough against the other elite PG's, he can run a fast-break and lead the open court, but he can defer to our all-star in the half-court and let the offense run through Roy.

Let's get that tough-as-nails, sharp-shooting SF!

Good post. I'd be happy with just 1) and 2). I might even live with just 1) if the guy had an adequate midrange shot.

 

[Reep]

I say focus more on a strong starting SF.

I would like to see us get a SF that is a(n) (in order of preference):
1) elite defender
2) strong outside shooter
3) strong rebounder
4) good ball handler
5) good passer

Both Webster and Outlaw have the bodies and capability of doing 1-3. I just wish one of them would put it all together and actually do 1-3 in games.

 

[Cake]

I agree with what a couple of you have said already. I think we have more of a need to upgrade at the SF spot than PG.

A top notch perimeter defender is, in my opinion, our biggest need. We have guys who can score and guys who can shoot, but nobody at that position who can lock down the best scorer on the other team night in and night out. Possibly Webster can develop into that type of player, but I think it's unlikely. Outlaw seems like he'll remain a scoring threat off the bench, but he'll never be a lockdown defender. Maybe Batum can get there, but I think he's years away from contributing at a high level on both ends of the floor.

I'd love to see a Luol Deng or Tashaun Prince type player on our team. Excellent defense, good scoring and rebounding.

I can live with steady production from Blake and Bayless at the point, with Roy taking some minutes here and there.

 

[Magnum]

LAC, SAC, NYK, NJN

Those teams all could have worse SFs than POR depending on how one classifies certain players. (VC as a SG)

Both webs and TO are WAY down the list of SFs

 

[1 Eye Jack]

I think we have our PG in Bayless, perfect compliment type player to Roy. I know everyone wants to see us become more of an up and down team but with Oden and LMA that would be foolish. Within 2 years we may have the 2 best big men in the NBA. I think our current core of guards (Bayless, Blake, Sergio and even Roy) are more than capable of pushing the ball up the court especially after Oden has swatted it back to half court.

The other thing to consider is there isn't many upgrades out there at PG. Maybe Hinrich?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Both Webster and Outlaw have the bodies and capability of doing 1-3. I just wish one of them would put it all together and actually do 1-3 in games.

I agree. So the question now is how well they can do 1-3.

 

[Reep]

I agree. So the question now is how well they can do 1-3.

We'll find out in about three weeks. My guess is 2-3 will be solid, but 1 will be lacking.

 

[Tortimer]

I think we have our PG in Bayless, perfect compliment type player to Roy. I know everyone wants to see us become more of an up and down team but with Oden and LMA that would be foolish. Within 2 years we may have the 2 best big men in the NBA. I think our current core of guards (Bayless, Blake, Sergio and even Roy) are more than capable of pushing the ball up the court especially after Oden has swatted it back to half court.

The other thing to consider is there isn't many upgrades out there at PG. Maybe Hinrich?

Welcome to S2 1 Eye Jack.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

We'll find out in about three weeks. My guess is 2-3 will be solid, but 1 will be lacking.

I think so too.

But I like Blake more that the general consensus from posters. He has good basketball IQ and he knows his role. I wish he was a little stronger and quicker, but he has some intagibles that makes him a decent PG at thsi level. . . and maybe on this team that is all you need????

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't think PG is a need for this team. I was tempted at the idea of getting a Kirk Hinrich, but with so many players capable of handling the duties, I'm not really concerned. At any point during a game you could see Bayless, Roy, Rudy, or Blake running the point. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with any of them.

Small forward is a little iffy though. Webster has his good nights, but he also can disappear for stretches. Outlaw was far more consistent than Webster, but he's streaky too. I would love for Batum to be the kind of SF we need. Defensive minded, rebounder, with a decent offensive game. Basically I would love to have a Shawn Marion type player. The athleticism is nice, but not necessarily the most important factor. I think a high basketball IQ would be really important.

 

[Reep]

I think so too.

But I like Blake more that the general consensus from posters. He has good basketball IQ and he knows his role. I wish he was a little stronger and quicker, but he has some intagibles that makes him a decent PG at thsi level. . . and maybe on this team that is all you need????

I never really liked Steve Kerr, John Paxson or Fish as point guards. But, but how many rings do they have? I think Blake is better than all three of them.

 

[Natebishop3]

I never really liked Steve Kerr, John Paxson or Fish as point guards. But, but how many rings do they have? I think Blake is better than all three of them.

Fisher continually proved me wrong. I hated that guy when he was playing for the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. He's a really good player though. I think he's slipped in the last couple years a lot, but he was a key factor in those championship teams.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Fisher continually proved me wrong. I hated that guy when he was playing for the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. He's a really good player though. I think he's slipped in the last couple years a lot, but he was a key factor in those championship teams.

It's those kind of players mentioned above that I think have the intangibles. They have a feel for the flow of the game, they know when to get certain players involved, when to step aside, when to push the action and when to step up and make shot.

They aren't the best athletes or best players on the court, but they understand how to get the the team going.

 

[Magnum]

For those advocating a "we're already set" strategy, who is the starter at PG and SF? The fact that there isn't a clear answer is a big problem imo as it will inevitably lead to lineup changes, distractions, and 2nd guessing of Nate both by fans and potentially in the locker room. Such a situation is more likely if we get off to a slow start, but it's a distinct possibility.

Role players, guys who aren't stars but clearcut starters are useful. I don't see us having any of those yet (Bowen, Battier, etc).

 

[Minstrel]

Small forward is the far bigger concern for me.

I don't think Portland needs a "pure" point guard. With a future guard rotation of Roy, Bayless and Fernandez, you'll always have two good passers with court awareness in the backcourt. Roy will guide the team most of the time, but both guards will be able to create for others.

At small forward, we currently have two options: a below-average player in Webster and a slightly above-average player in Outlaw who derives most of his value from taking the ball and going one-on-one. So, neither makes a good fit as a starter for a championship-caliber team.

I'd like an average to above average player. Defense is at the top of the ideal skillset of this player, for me, but after that, some package of passing, outside shooting and rebounding would be great.

Josh Childress is the ideal player who could be available for Portland. With luck, Atlanta can be induced to deal his rights to Portland for some combination of LaFrentz, Webster, Outlaw.