I hope this doesn't mean tonight's starters become permanent

[B-Roy]

I still think it's a terrible lineup. We just match up very well with San Antonio, since we both play slow grind it out games.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I still think it's a terrible lineup. We just match up very well with San Antonio, since we both play slow grind it out games.

I do think tonight's lineup is situational. But I think it was the perfect time to test Miller in the starting 5. If we need speed, we might start replacing Blake with Webster in the lineup, with Miller starting.

 

[Natebishop3]

10-1 blake is in the starting lineup again in the next game.... whatever that means.

 

[alex42083]

If we need speed, we might start replacing Blake with Webster in the lineup, with Miller starting.

I sure hope this means an eventual transition from Blake to Miller in the starting lineup. But with Blake playing a team-high 38 mins tonight, I don't know if Nate is ready to give 'Blakey' 15-20 mins a game.

 

[PHXBlazer1]

When I heard this was to be our starting lineup tonight I was furious. That lineup hadn't worked well so far and I couldn't fathom how McMillan could go with it. Well, we won tonight so my hat's off to Nate for the time being. I'm not a big fan of making tons of substitutions throughout the course of the game, as it could be a detriment to the team finding their flow. However, we are a very deep team, and if guys can truly buy into that concept and leave their egos in the locker room, this could end up working for us. Can't wait for the next game!!!

 

[SpanishFly]

I hope it means we are a lot more "flexible" and will use our depth and talent strength to dictate lineups depending upon what works best vs our opponents. Last nights starting lineui will not work nearly as well vs other teams, so be flexible and change when necessary.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Nate just said he's sticking with the lineup for the time being.

 

[andalusian]

Doesnt Minni start Flynn? As much as it hurts - I would rather have Blake in front of him trying to guard him than Miller, at this point in time.

 

[hasoos]

It is similar to the lineup that was an total disaster in pre-season and parts of some regular season games with one difference. Nate is playing a real center with it, and using Aldridge at PF instead of Outlaw. That provides some size to go with the smalls, so it helps out a lot.

But if you think about the rotation, the thing that actually allowed it to be pulled off last night, was Webster willing to go to the bench, and Bayless spirited play running the 2nd unit. Bayless played PG great IMO last night. He looked under control, he ran the offense, he penetrated the paint, he got to the line. The more times the 2nd unit gets to the line while they are in, the longer the starters can rest.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

It's crazy that Roy slides over to SF and Blake slides over to SG over Rudy?

Rudy is in a funk right now. He's put in the game in short spurts and can't find a rhythm.

A more prominent/defined role will do wonders for Rudy.

 

[hasoos]

It's crazy that Roy slides over to SF and Blake slides over to SG over Rudy?

Rudy is in a funk right now. He's put in the game in short spurts and can't find a rhythm.

A more prominent/defined role will do wonders for Rudy.

I agree he would be a better fit there. I wonder if this lineup is really just to make people happy on the team. Sometimes that can have a lot more to do with your players playing hard then them actually struggling.

 

[magnifier661]

I still think it's a terrible lineup. We just match up very well with San Antonio, since we both play slow grind it out games.

I think it's not that bad now that I see how it works. Before it was more "Tampering". Last night it was "This is it" therefor the team responded to it with open arms.

The reason this line-up works is the spacing on the floor. Also, all three players played the passing lanes much better and they worked off each other to help defend the perimeter. If you watch the game closely, watch how they were eying each other and communicating. It was like there was 3 of the same brain on the floor defensively. And their focus was making sure there was no penetration.

Now on the offensive end, you have two players (Roy and Miller) playing the wings and able to get the ball to Oden and Aldridge on the low block. It also forced Aldridge to either play inside, or he doesn't get the ball. That's so much better. The sooner Aldridge gets it that he needs to score in the paint 80% of the time, the sooner the success of our ball club. Oh and Roy playing the wing and off the ball for all but the 4th was totally perfect. Save his energy, give him the 4th quarter to shine. He scored the same amount of points cause he had so much reserved energy in the 4th (i.e. 12 4th quarter points)

Also, now you have Webster, Fernandez and Outlaw coming off the bench as our primary offensive weapons. Webster is the guy you need to put the pressure on defensively and Rudy and Outlaw are the guys supposed to create their own shot.

Look on it "outside the box". It actually makes a lot of sense if Roy plays a wing. It's makes total sense to have Webster come off the bench and give us a spark defensively on the second unit. But mainly, it gets our bigs involved more in the paint. Embrace it. The more it's implemented, the more we start winning games.

 

[andalusian]

The reason this line-up works is the spacing on the floor.

The spacing was created by having Miller handle the ball and Roy/Blake on the wings. It did not work when we had Roy or Blake handling it - because Miller is just not a long-range threat - so Atlanta, for example, could collapse on the middle. So, it seems that when Nate wanted Miller to run 90% of the sets - he knew what he was doing.

 

[magnifier661]

The spacing was created by having Miller handle the ball and Roy/Blake on the wings. It did not work when we had Roy or Blake handling it - because Miller is just not a long-range threat - so Atlanta, for example, could collapse on the middle. So, it seems that when Nate wanted Miller to run 90% of the sets - he knew what he was doing.

Great point and I agree. THe spacing was amazing last night. Watching it again, you can really see it working well.

 

[axs88]

Can't Webster or Rudy space the floor instead of Blake, please?

 

[andalusian]

Can't Webster or Rudy space the floor instead of Blake, please?

Yes. On offense.

I am still waiting to hear someone tell me who else can somewhat stay in front of quick point guards. It's not Rudy and it's not Webster.

 

[Ed O]

Yes. On offense.

I am still waiting to hear someone tell me who else can somewhat stay in front of quick point guards. It's not Rudy and it's not Webster.

It's not Blake, either. We might as well have Miller, as the PG, guard the opponents' PG.

Ed O.

 

[BBert]

Can't Webster or Rudy space the floor instead of Blake, please?

I agree with this. The three guard lineup worked but I'm not convinced it wouldn't have worked just at well with Webster or Rudy instead of Blake. My choice would be Rudy.

OTOH, I agree with Mag's post from top to bottom. So long as Miller is running the point with the first team and not being asked to shoot outside jumpers, I think it's worthwhile to consider what combinations of other players are going to work well for the second unit. It's going to take some more tinkering to determine where Blake fits best. I don't see why though that Blake couldn't do his thing with the second unit and let Rudy start.

 

[BBert]

Yes. On offense.

I am still waiting to hear someone tell me who else can somewhat stay in front of quick point guards. It's not Rudy and it's not Webster.

No one on our team can. Not even Bayless, really. Miller's one-on-one defense is worse than I'd expected. The key is as mags described, the three guard lineup playing joined-at-the-hip team defense. Its worth a try for a few games.

 

[andalusian]

It's not Blake, either. We might as well have Miller, as the PG, guard the opponents' PG.

From what I have seen so far, Miller works against the bigger, slower guys and Blake works better against the quicker guys.

 

[Boob-No-More]

It is similar to the lineup that was an total disaster in pre-season and parts of some regular season games with one difference. Nate is playing a real center with it, and using Aldridge at PF instead of Outlaw. That provides some size to go with the smalls, so it helps out a lot.

Bingo! If you're going to go with a three guard line-up you better have a big man behind them to protect the basket and control the boards.

BNM

 

[axs88]

I think Blake could do well in the backup backcourt with Rudy. Rudy can play like a (very) poor-man's Roy and create, and Blake can spot up.

 

[Denny Crane]

I remember posting in some thread during the pre-season that the Blazers should play 3 guards. The light bulb seems to have gone off over Nate's head and you're seeing the results.

A lot of teams play three guards, or they'll counter a team playing three guards with three guards. I've watched it for years with the Bulls, who used to play Duhon, Gordon, and Hinrich together for long stretches. The results for the Bulls were somewhat surprising, as they were near the top in team defense for several seasons while winning 47 and 49 games.

Kirk Hinrich guarded SFs a lot of the time, and Luol Deng often guarded guys like Kobe while the guards guarded forwards. Roy is bigger and can do it better; he's a better player at everything, period.

When I made my comment/suggestion, I was merely looking at the team roster and saw that this is best suited for the team's personnel. It's not unreasonable to play 1 guard and 3 forwards, too, but the Blazers don't have a problem guarding forwards, they get killed by quickish guard types. Three guards gives Nate the flexibility of choosing the defensive match ups against those types of teams.

Steve Blake isn't out there to play PG. He's there to play co-PG, or combo guard. His job is to be a 3pt threat, handle the ball some, and to defend guys that Miller can't or shouldn't. You can't have Outlaw or Webster guarding those guys, that's why they're not in the game instead of Blake. You also saw last night, the assist to basket ratio was huge - thanks to three PG types setting the tempo and using their ballhandling/passing skills.

Another thing about the 3 guard lineup is that you don't have to play it full time. If the opponent solves it, it's no biggie to sub in a real forward for one of the guards. Certainly the 2nd unit minutes aren't 3 guards much of the time.

Anyhow, you're seeing that Miller is still pretty good for his age. He's fine as a PG on offense, but needs some cover on defense. The offense is quite potent - imagine if Roy had a typical game last night!

As for Oden, it looks like Nate is pulling another trick out of Skiles' playbook. Skiles used to start Eddie Curry to get some offense at the beginning of games, then he played Tyson Chandler at the end of games (and Chandler came up with some massive game saving blocks). The point being, when you have two quality Cs (or near the same quality), it's good to find a substitution pattern so they know what's expected of them. At this point in his career, Oden is the starter and finisher; it looks like he's going to start and get the first 5-8 minutes of PT and then Joel is going to be in there. It looks to me like Oden also plays that Tyson Chandler defense role at the end of games.

I haven't seen enough of Nate to know him like you all do. As a newcomer to watching the Blazers (I've not missed a game this season), all I can do is point out that he's simply not stupid and that he's also not demonstrated he's a championship coach (like Phil Jackson). We'll see how it plays out by the end of the playoffs this season.

 

[andalusian]

Steve Blake isn't out there to play PG. He's there to play co-PG, or combo guard. His job is to be a 3pt threat, handle the ball some, and to defend guys that Miller can't or shouldn't. You can't have Outlaw or Webster guarding those guys, that's why they're not in the game instead of Blake.

I agree with pretty much anything you say - but I would like to point that if Batum was around for the start of this year - I would not have been surprised to see him do some of that. Travis and Webster are better offensive players than what we saw from Batum last year (who knows if it is still the case - he was supposed to take a big step up this summer) - but on defense, he is simply in a different league than them.

 

[mook]

This lineup looked great last night, but there are a few opponents it's going to really struggle with. I just don't see it doing well against Carmello or LeBron. We're just giving up too much size and power, and our bigs are going to pay for it with foul trouble.

I wonder if Nate will adjust the starting lineup to include Webster over Blake on the nights we face a really bruising SF. Nate doesn't generally change his lineup situationally, which in many ways is good. You want to settle on a rotation and force other teams to adjust to you. But in this case the smart play is to probably move Webster into the starting lineup.

Whatever. The important thing is that Nate seems to have bought into Miller dominating the PG position. Not just starting Miller. Not just giving him more minutes while Roy runs the show. But actually dominating the position to the extent that it's really going to be up to Roy to adjust to Miller, and not the other way around.

BTW--I really, really liked the way Blake looked last night. He was aggressively looking for his midrange shot, taking four midrange jumpers to his two trademark 3's. He's always been labeled as "a decent-to-good backup point guard." But I'm beginning to wonder if that's just the wrong label for him. He's always been paired with a more aggressive shooting guard, even going back to college with Juan Dixon. So as a "fit-in" kind of guy, he's always played PG. Maybe, though, he's a PG by circumstance more than by talent.

Even when he's been put in there with another PG, it's always been more of a "two PG lineup." Where he would trade off in setting up the offense with Jack or Telfair or whomever. When he plays next to Roy at PG, he neither looks for his shot nor really runs the offense. He gets the ball to Roy or somebody else and just camps at the three point line, passively waiting for the ball to eventually (or not) get to him.

Last night, he was given one marching order: let Miller do everything the PG does and aggressively play like a shooting guard. Instead of just "spacing the floor," actively go out there and create your own space on the floor, and plan on taking the shot without hesitation if it's there. Blake still didn't score a lot, but he just looked better out there. More confident.

He only put up 6 points, so I guess it seems weird that I'm gushing about it so much. But it was just the way he did it--by actively moving around the court and being an option when he wasn't just camped at the three point line.

 

[magnifier661]

I wonder if Nate will adjust the starting lineup to include Webster over Blake on the nights we face a really bruising SF.

I think he will. Webster looks like he's up for the challenge against those marquee players. Of course he can't stop them, but make it tough for them to score. Kinda like get them out of their comfort zone, or get under their skin.

It may be he starts the same line-up, then brings Webs in a little sooner than normal? Who knows.

The important thing is that Nate seems to have bought into Miller dominating the PG position. Not just starting Miller. Not just giving him more minutes while Roy runs the show. But actually dominating the position to the extent that it's really going to be up to Roy to adjust to Miller, and not the other way around.

I really believe having Miller be more of the playmaker for most the game, will free up Roy to take over the 4th quarter. Let Roy cruise for most the game and use all his energy to take us home in the 4th. That's why I thought Roy's performance last nice was a moot point. I think there was no urgency for Roy to dominate the game offensively.

BTW--I really, really liked the way Blake looked last night. He was aggressively looking for his midrange shot, taking four midrange jumpers to his two trademark 3's.

I think the whole "Blake vs. Miller" caused some uneasiness and confusion. Now that Nate is starting both, I think Miller and Blake aren't uneasy anymore. They feel comfortable in their new roles.

 

[TP3]

Nice to have a Blazer team with so much IQ on the floor at the same time...rare...and refreshing.