BLAKE MUST GO....

[PapaG]

If the best thing you can say about Blake is that Miller is also shitty then it isn't really high praise.

Both are not getting it done for sure. Point guard remains a big concern for the team as a whole.

I never game him high praise. I said that he and Miller both playing like crap, yet there seems to be some sort of insanity here causing people to only focus on "BLANKY".

 

[mook]

I'm not talking about PER. I'm talking about the statistical comparisons that lead to comparisons to Courtney Lee. Also, if we want to focus on PER, Miller's PER so far this season is lower than Blake's from last season. The Blazers could have basically had the same production thus far from the PG spot w/out completing wrecking the offense.

How? By magically teleporting last year's version of Blake into our current starting lineup? Sure.

Or are you saying Blake's PER has plummeted because it's Miller's fault?

Miller isn't standing behind Blake and shaking his arms every time Blake takes a three. Blake is missing all those wide open three pointers on his own. If Miller weren't here, he'd likely be shooting just as badly. And as a result his PER would be just as bad.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

How? By magically teleporting last year's version of Blake into our current starting lineup? Sure.

Or are you saying Blake's PER has plummeted because it's Miller's fault?

Miller isn't standing behind Blake and shaking his arms every time Blake takes a three. Blake is missing all those wide open three pointers on his own. If Miller weren't here, he'd likely be shooting just as badly. And as a result his PER would be just as bad.

Lets not use logic now, please

 

[PapaG]

How? By magically teleporting last year's version of Blake into our current starting lineup? Sure.

Or are you saying Blake's PER has plummeted because it's Miller's fault?

Miller isn't standing behind Blake and shaking his arms every time Blake takes a three. Blake is missing all those wide open three pointers on his own. If Miller weren't here, he'd likely be shooting just as badly. And as a result his PER would be just as bad.

So, exactly how has Miller upgraded the offense this season? The stats say he hasn't, but that doesn't seem to matter.

 

[andalusian]

Miller isn't standing behind Blake and shaking his arms every time Blake takes a three. Blake is missing all those wide open three pointers on his own. If Miller weren't here, he'd likely be shooting just as badly. And as a result his PER would be just as bad.

Maybe, maybe not. Blake is getting his shots later in the possession this year than last year, based on shot-clock stats from 82games. The same is true for Roy. This can lead to a big difference in shooting percentage.

This is not a lab-test - so there is no certain way of testing it - but I do not think that Blake's shots are exactly as they were last year. The stats show it to be different. Is this the difference in his percentage? I do not know - but I am also not sure that he would have had the same slump if Miller was not here.

 

[DaRizzle]

Heres my two cents...

Blake DOES NOT have to go as this thread claims. There have been PG's of far less caliber that were part of a championship team. Take last years Derek Fisher...he had one of the worst playoffs in the history of the NBA, but of course non Lakers fans (and even some clueless Lakers fans) only remember those 2 3's he hit in game 5 of the finals. Steve Blake IS better than Fisher and Fisher is our starter! Yes Blake is down from last year and even his career averages but its way too early in the season to base him off of this years sample size. His minutes are also in flux so you know that cant help.

PG is not your teams strong point. If your team is gonna win something big its gonna be with the C, PF, and SG positions. Thats 3 high quality positions you have...Teams have won championships with less.

 

[hasoos]

It's real simple. Ask yourself this question: Do you see the Blazers winning a championship with Steve Blake as a member of the starting lineup. If the answer is no, then what the fuck are we doing? If the answer is yes, then yous see no problem, and the status quo is good for you. I know what the answer to that question is in my head. How about you folks?

 

[PapaG]

It's real simple. Ask yourself this question: Do you see the Blazers winning a championship with Steve Blake as a member of the starting lineup. If the answer is no, then what the fuck are we doing? If the answer is yes, then yous see no problem, and the status quo is good for you. I know what the answer to that question is in my head. How about you folks?

What if I don't see the Blazers winning a championship with 33 year-old Andre Miller in the starting line-up, or with 28 year-old Steve Blake in the starting line-up?

 

[DaRizzle]

Jason "White Chocolate" Williams is a NBA Champion...think about that

Now reevaluate Blake

 

[DaRizzle]

What if I don't see the Blazers winning a championship with 33 year-old Andre Miller in the starting line-up, or with 28 year-old Steve Blake in the starting line-up?

Then you ask your self who is underperforming...Oden, Joel, LA, or Roy.

 

[hasoos]

What if I don't see the Blazers winning a championship with 33 year-old Andre Miller in the starting line-up, or with 28 year-old Steve Blake in the starting line-up?

Well that definitly is an option as well. Let's put it this way. When we traded for Andre Miller, I knew what we were getting, and I knew there were holes in his game.

If I was running the show, I would have made Roy the PG a long time ago, and given him Rudy at SG to work with. SF by committee at this point. That is a back court I can see winning a championship.

 

[LittleAlex]

Heres my two cents...

Blake DOES NOT have to go as this thread claims. There have been PG's of far less caliber that were part of a championship team. Take last years Derek Fisher...he had one of the worst playoffs in the history of the NBA, but of course non Lakers fans (and even some clueless Lakers fans) only remember those 2 3's he hit in game 5 of the finals. Steve Blake IS better than Fisher and Fisher is our starter! Yes Blake is down from last year and even his career averages but its way too early in the season to base him off of this years sample size. His minutes are also in flux so you know that cant help.

PG is not your teams strong point. If your team is gonna win something big its gonna be with the C, PF, and SG positions. Thats 3 high quality positions you have...Teams have won championships with less.

Isn't it in your best interest for Portland to suck?

In all fairness Fisher did have a horrible series. However, Fisher has a track record of getting it done when it counts just has he did last year.

Blake has no such history in the playoffs.

Also the Lakers play a system that doesn't really utilize the point guard position the same way as most teams do.

Teams like Portland.

In this case Fisher < Blake. Jackson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate.

 

[PapaG]

Well that definitly is an option as well. Let's put it this way. When we traded for Andre Miller, I knew what we were getting, and I knew there were holes in his game.

If I was running the show, I would have made Roy the PG a long time ago, and given him Rudy at SG to work with. SF by committee at this point. That is a back court I can see winning a championship.

I was long against that, but at this point, it's starting to make sense to me. I was worried then about who would guard opposing PGs. Neither Miller nor BLANKY is doing the job now, so Nate may as well try and go big.

That said, I think it does dull the impact that Rudy has when he comes in off of the bench.

 

[LittleAlex]

Well that definitly is an option as well. Let's put it this way. When we traded for Andre Miller, I knew what we were getting, and I knew there were holes in his game.

If I was running the show, I would have made Roy the PG a long time ago, and given him Rudy at SG to work with. SF by committee at this point. That is a back court I can see winning a championship.

If I were in charge the starting unit would be:
Roy
Rudy
<small forward who can handle the ball and create>
LMA
Oden

Who was the point and who was the 2 would depend on the possession. Further, with a small forward who can handle the ball you have a third player who can initiate offense.

I would not have signed Miller.
I would not have resigned Blake.

I would have done my best to get the small forward above. It doesn't have to be an all-star, but they do need skills that our current crop of uninjured small forwards completely lack.

They are out there ready to be had.

 

[hasoos]

I was long against that, but at this point, it's starting to make sense to me. I was worried then about who would guard opposing PGs. Neither Miller nor BLANKY is doing the job now, so Nate may as well try and go big.

That said, I think it does dull the impact that Rudy has when he comes in off of the bench.

When you are running a defense that switches everything on the perimeter, I don't really see much of a downside to it. Portland runs the same defense now Seattle did when Nate was there. They switch everything, so you don't have to chase little guys through screens. Then when you consider the damage Orlando did against teams in the playoffs with the big perimeter players, it kind of starts to make sense.

 

[PapaG]

When you are running a defense that switches everything on the perimeter, I don't really see much of a downside to it. Portland runs the same defense now Seattle did when Nate was there. They switch everything, so you don't have to chase little guys through screens. Then when you consider the damage Orlando did against teams in the playoffs with the big perimeter players, it kind of starts to make sense.

If Outlaw was still available, I'd be advocating inserting Rudy/Webster into the line-up. The problem for me is that w/out Outlaw, Rudy's ability to create for himself and others is needed with that unit. I know everybody hates the guy, but losing Outlaw takes some of these options away from Nate.

 

[hasoos]

If Outlaw was still available, I'd be advocating inserting Rudy/Webster into the line-up. The problem for me is that w/out Outlaw, Rudy's ability to create for himself and others is needed with that unit. I know everybody hates the guy, but losing Outlaw takes some of these options away from Nate.

That is where I think we are missing out on the ability of one of our other younger players. Too long now people have been asking to mold Bayless into a PG, when he is not. But the guy can score, and score a lot quick. I would use him like Detroit used the Vinny "The Microwave" Johnson back in the bad boy days. I also would not platoon sub like Nate does. In fact, I would go so far to have a star player on the floor at all times unless the Blazers had put the game totally out of reach.

 

[PapaG]

That is where I think we are missing out on the ability of one of our other younger players. Too long now people have been asking to mold Bayless into a PG, when he is not. But the guy can score, and score a lot quick. I would use him like Detroit used the Vinny "The Microwave" Johnson back in the bad boy days. I also would not platoon sub like Nate does. In fact, I would go so far to have a star player on the floor at all times unless the Blazers had put the game totally out of reach.

I'm guessing we'll be seeing more of Bayless in a "Microwave" role as the season progresses. That's a great "role" model for Bayless to be shaped into. He's basically unguardable when he wants to be.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm not talking about PER. I'm talking about the statistical comparisons that lead to comparisons to Courtney Lee. Also, if we want to focus on PER, Miller's PER so far this season is lower than Blake's from last season. The Blazers could have basically had the same production thus far from the PG spot w/out completing wrecking the offense.

Except that Blake isn't playing like Blake of last year. He's playing much worse. If you expect Blake to return to form, why wouldn't you expect the same of Miller?

Miller has been superior to Blake both historically and this season. There's not much argument for Blake being an equal or better player.

 

[PapaG]

Except that Blake isn't playing like Blake of last year. He's playing much worse. If you expect Blake to return to form, why wouldn't you expect the same of Miller?

Miller has been superior to Blake both historically and this season. There's not much argument for Blake being an equal or better player.

There's a decent argument to be made for Blake being better for this team as a starting PG. That has no bearing on who would win a game of 1 on 1.

 

[Minstrel]

There's a decent argument to be made for Blake being better for this team as a starting PG. That has no bearing on who would win a game of 1 on 1.

Well, I'm talking about the better player in team basketball, since Miller's greatest strength through his career has been his passing. I have no idea how good Miller is in one-on-one tourneys.

I think there's a decent argument to be made that Blake is better for exactly the system that the Blazers used last year. I think, though, that the resolution should be to configure the offense to run differently to better use the different mix of personnel that they have now. It's not about "building around Miller" but rather about the duty of a coach to consistently make adjustments for changing personnel.

Miller isn't the only change. Oden's role is going to slowly expand, Batum and Outlaw are gone (Batum since the start of the season) and Webster is available. Things can never remain exactly the same, all of life is transitory.

 

[DaRizzle]

Isn't it in your best interest for Portland to suck?

In all fairness Fisher did have a horrible series. However, Fisher has a track record of getting it done when it counts just has he did last year.

Blake has no such history in the playoffs.

Also the Lakers play a system that doesn't really utilize the point guard position the same way as most teams do.

Teams like Portland.

In this case Fisher < Blake. Jackson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nate.

Well I dont care if POR sucks or not, just as they dont bounce the Lakers out of the playoffs

In all fairness Fisher did have a horrible series. However, Fisher has a track record of getting it done when it counts just has he did last year.

The Lakers won 4 playoff series last year IN SPITE of Fisher...I appreciate his career of work for the Lakers but 2 hail mary 3's dont cover up how bad he was...it wass quite amazing how bad he was.

You're right about the PG position being far less significant in the triangle offense but its not like POR recent rise to respectability is from supirior play from the PG position. As far as people saying last year Blake had a career year...yeah that true but if you look at his career progression that was the third year he was getting starter minutes (DEN, POR, POR) and every year he improved...odds are he improves this year or at least levels off at last years production if he was still getting starter minutes and didnt have to look behind (or ahead) of his shoulder

 

[RoyToy]

Fisher still brings decent defense to the table. Blake, eh....

I could live with Blake if he was a better defender. He's just not, though. And he has a knack for really choking.

 

[DaRizzle]

Fisher still brings decent defense to the table. Blake, eh....

ROFL ROFL ROFL
Please dear god tell me you are kidding. He can play halfway decent team defense....as in when he get burned EVERY time he at least makes them drive towards Bynum and Pau.

I know Fisher is trying as hard as he can but he just cant keep up with todays PG's. All he is good for on D is taking a charge every 2 to 3 games.


See Aaron Brooks just got his career high off him a few nights ago?

 

[PapaG]

Fisher still brings decent defense to the table. Blake, eh....

I could live with Blake if he was a better defender. He's just not, though. And he has a knack for really choking.

Fisher's Drtg is 1 point higher than Blake's right now.

Plus, Fisher's career high in PER is 14.8. Last year, as the PG for the NBA champion, he had a PER of 12.1, with an Ortg of 117 (1 point lower than Blake), and a Drtg of 108), the same as Blake. Blake has a PER of 14.4, for the sake of comparison.

DaRizzle, since I don't visit Laker boards, are Laker fans starting thread after thread about how much of a disaster Fisher is on the team?

 

[DaRizzle]

Fisher's Drtg is 1 point higher than Blake's right now.

Plus, Fisher's career high in PER is 14.8. Last year, as the PG for the NBA champion, he had a PER of 12.1, with an Ortg of 117 (1 point lower than Blake), and a Drtg of 108), the same as Blake.

DaRizzle, since I don't visit Laker boards, are Laker fans starting thread after thread about how much of a disaster Fisher is on the team?

No, but some (as in people who have no influence)are thinking about moving him to the bench to reduce his minutes. He has been great the last two years for the first half of the season and then burns out. The Lakers have invested so much in other players that its accepted that not every position is gonna be top caliber talent....just most of them

 

[RoyToy]

Fisher's Drtg is 1 point higher than Blake's right now.

Plus, Fisher's career high in PER is 14.8. Last year, as the PG for the NBA champion, he had a PER of 12.1, with an Ortg of 117 (1 point lower than Blake), and a Drtg of 108), the same as Blake. Blake has a PER of 14.4, for the sake of comparison.

DaRizzle, since I don't visit Laker boards, are Laker fans starting thread after thread about how much of a disaster Fisher is on the team?

Derek Fisher is a much better man to man defender. That formula that takes all kinds of things into consideration which can directly effect one's defensive rating.

It's a stat to look at, but not a be all, end all stat.

 

[B-Roy]

Derek Fisher is a much better man to man defender. That formula that takes all kinds of things into consideration which can directly effect one's defensive rating.

It's a stat to look at, but not a be all, end all stat.

And you are basing this off of? From what DaRizzle said, it seems like Fisher has the same problems Blake does.

 

[PapaG]

Derek Fisher is a much better man to man defender. That formula that takes all kinds of things into consideration which can directly effect one's defensive rating.

It's a stat to look at, but not a be all, end all stat.

Based on what? Aaron Brooks crushing Fisher in the playoffs last year, and Aaron Brooks crushing Fisher this year?

Brooks played much better against Fisher than he did Blake in the playoffs last season. Blazer fans don't want to admit it, but once again, the actual statistics don't lie.

 

[RoyToy]

Based on what? Aaron Brooks crushing Fisher in the playoffs last year, and Aaron Brooks crushing Fisher this year?

Brooks played much better against Fisher than he did Blake in the playoffs last season. Blazer fans don't want to admit it, but once again, the actual statistics don't lie.

Not really. FG% was pretty much the same. Sorry.

I never said Fisher was a great man to man defender, I said he was better than Blake. Big difference. The example you provided was not only wrong, it's hardly a big enough sample size.