I owe Blake an apology

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Nikolokolus

Nikolokolus

There's always next year
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
30,704
Likes
6,198
Points
113
I was pretty brutal in my comments regarding him following the first couple of games, but if somebody would have told me Blake would put up 51% on field goals, 46% on threes, 1 turnover a game to 6.4 assists, 4 rebounds and a 'decent' 11.5 points a game I would have given them that look where you wrinkle your nose, raise one eyebrow and turn the corners of your mouth down a little.

Yes that brutal 3 a couple of games ago really hurt, but overall I think you have to say Steve has steadily improved his play since game 1.

(You can debate whether or not he's the long term answer at the point, but for now I think we can reserve that argument for another day)

Kudos to Steve :cheers:
 
Steve is a perfect player for the saying 'stats are misleading'.

Sure, on most teams (including ours) he'd fit in great as a backup vet. On a lot of teams he'd even be a decent fit within the starting offense.

But the way Portland is set up, Blake's skill-set fits in terribly. We have a ball dominating guard in Roy, and a scoring big in Aldridge, with another big who can't create their own shot yet (Oden).

Surrounded by those players and how they play, the ideal point guard on this team would be someone who's strengths are explosive drives to the basket, and good finishing skills. Blake is limited in how effectively he can run an offense by his physical limits. He's not athletic enough or smart or quick enough to do the type of moves that would make our other players blossom.

How many more dunks would Oden/Aldridge get if we had an effective, penetrating point guard that could draw in the d when he drives and then could dish off for dunks? Hopefully Bayless can develop into that guy in a few years.

His only real strength is the ability to shoot open 3's- not exactly a rare talent. The only reason he has a good a/t ratio is his lack of creativity and quickness that result in the kind of daring drives and hard takes that can result in turnovers. He dribbles down the court, hands it off to Brandon or LMA, and goes to the corner, reappearing to either shoot an open 3 or reset the 'offense' if anyone gets in trouble.

All I know is that I absolutely cringe when he has the ball with the shot clock winding down, and seeing him try and do some weird-looking turnaround he doesn't have the athleticism for, or a bricked floater.

Blake's weaknesses- being nervous at the end of games (except in toronto), slowness, lack of ability to create, drive, or dish- really holds us back. He's a good backup, but I'd bet anyone at least $100 that he's not going to be our starting point when we're challenging for titles.

I realize we have no alternatives, but that doesn't mean you have to defend him. He's a decent stopgap, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Nikolokolus said:
I was pretty brutal in my comments regarding him following the first couple of games, but if somebody would have told me Blake would put up 51% on field goals, 46% on threes, 1 turnover a game to 6.4 assists, 4 rebounds and a 'decent' 11.5 points a game I would have given them that look where you wrinkle your nose, raise one eyebrow and turn the corners of your mouth down a little.

Yes that brutal 3 a couple of games ago really hurt, but overall I think you have to say Steve has steadily improved his play since game 1.

(You can debate whether or not he's the long term answer at the point, but for now I think we can reserve that argument for another day)

Kudos to Steve :cheers:
Click to expand...

+1 I agree. :cheers:
 
I say that none of our losses have been because of Blake. He's kind of a neutral guy. He gives some and he takes some. I don't understand why he is a scapegoat for our losses. He does what he's asked and that's it. That three he took wasn't that bad of a shot either. Sure he could've waited for the others to get in position to rebound...but he was open and surprised the defense so it was a good shot that takes balls to shoot. Unfortunately he bricked it. If he had made it, we would've been all over his nuts.
 
Blake deserves some credit here. No, he's not the best PG in the world, not top 10, maybe not top 15, but I do appreciate his competitiveness and his desire and the way he works his ass off every game. He's not the most gifted or talented player but he's playing his best ball of his career right now.

He's the best PG option we've got, and I'm very interested to see what KP does with our PG situation this summer. If he becomes the backup then that would just mean the end of Sergio and Jerryd as well.
 
We need him to step it up big time for game 6, if we have any chance of winning in Houston.
 
I hope we see this group on the floor more...Oden, LA, Travis, Roy and Rudy...it's unguardable and works every time I've seen it used. Which is rarely. That is the group we need to close out the game.
 
Blake is having a great series. Far more steady and effective than Brooks.
 
yea he's been more steady but i have to agree with freshtown on this one. sometimes the play he doesn't make should be a turnover. he's almost too cautious with the ball and that can force some really ugly things. overall he's rebounded (aside from the infamous three) and has played ok. i'm still waiting for the rudy, roy, to, la, go lineup.
 
i just hope we run that robot ragged in game 6....

when we run,we win.
 
I can't say the same for an apology. I have not been at all happy with his decisions and defense. In game 5 he had two driving layins that were a sure 4 points and he passed it both times and they were so bad they were turnovers. He does not know when to stay home on defense and consistently gets burned.
 
Freshtown said:
Steve is a perfect player for the saying 'stats are misleading'.

Sure, on most teams (including ours) he'd fit in great as a backup vet. On a lot of teams he'd even be a decent fit within the starting offense.

But the way Portland is set up, Blake's skill-set fits in terribly. We have a ball dominating guard in Roy, and a scoring big in Aldridge, with another big who can't create their own shot yet (Oden).

Surrounded by those players and how they play, the ideal point guard on this team would be someone who's strengths are explosive drives to the basket, and good finishing skills. Blake is limited in how effectively he can run an offense by his physical limits. He's not athletic enough or smart or quick enough to do the type of moves that would make our other players blossom.

How many more dunks would Oden/Aldridge get if we had an effective, penetrating point guard that could draw in the d when he drives and then could dish off for dunks? Hopefully Bayless can develop into that guy in a few years.

His only real strength is the ability to shoot open 3's- not exactly a rare talent. The only reason he has a good a/t ratio is his lack of creativity and quickness that result in the kind of daring drives and hard takes that can result in turnovers. He dribbles down the court, hands it off to Brandon or LMA, and goes to the corner, reappearing to either shoot an open 3 or reset the 'offense' if anyone gets in trouble.

All I know is that I absolutely cringe when he has the ball with the shot clock winding down, and seeing him try and do some weird-looking turnaround he doesn't have the athleticism for, or a bricked floater.

Blake's weaknesses- being nervous at the end of games (except in toronto), slowness, lack of ability to create, drive, or dish- really holds us back. He's a good backup, but I'd bet anyone at least $100 that he's not going to be our starting point when we're challenging for titles.

I realize we have no alternatives, but that doesn't mean you have to defend him. He's a decent stopgap, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, we need someone with a little more prowess at the PG position. I mean take away Steve (anyone can stand in the corner) and we look exactly the same, he doesn't improve one aspect of the team significantly. All he does is stretch the floor.

With that said, our weaknesses are pushing the tempo (at all, even average on misses), feeding our bigs, running effective sets, perimeter defense and off-ball movement. So if you can find a PG who can stretch the floor AND help with any of those things it's all a bonus!

Steve is just plain meaningless out there, and that's maybe why Nate presently likes him, a guy who's not developing that he doesn't have to worry about out there. But I'd rather have a smart vet who isn't afraid to make a tight pass, push the tempo, or feed the bigs out there.

Or (if someone who doesn't contribute as a PG) a scoring threat then. There is not 1 thing Blake does that Rudy cannot do better!
 
I owe HCP's wife an apology. I couldnt make it over to her house last night.
 
Blake had his best game of the playoffs in the last game. If he plays like that in Houston then Portland would be thrilled. All we can really ask of Blake is to neutralize Brooks. Even better if Blake can sucker him into a shooting contest. Every possession that Yao doesn't touch the ball is a Portland victory.

I do think this series is a bad one for Blake, since Portland should be pushing the pace and that really is Blake's forte. To be fair, it isn't Roy's either.
 
KingSpeed said:
Blake is having a great series. Far more steady and effective than Brooks.
Click to expand...

Blake is NOT having a great series, but he has certainly played a good deal better as the series went on, and best of all in the last game (that layup where he lulled Yao to sleep then drove right past him was EPIC). So I also would have to retract some of the things I've said about him. I no longer hope that he gets a concussion. (God, I feel like such a brownnoser.)
 
shamelessblazer said:
There is not 1 thing Blake does that Rudy cannot do better!
Click to expand...

Speak English?

No, that's still not fair: Rudy's ball-handling is shockingly suspect, so Blake's got that on him, and Blake's a better defender.

I have often wished the transporter in The Fly really existed, and that it could be used to combine NBA players. I would combine (the best features) of Sergio (creativity, penetrating, passing) and Blake (shooting, defense) and I would be more than content with the resulting Stergio Blakez as our PG.

(Or would it be better to combine Sergio and Bayless? Yes, I think so. Blake can be our backup.)
 
I actually agree with a lot of what people are saying about Blake. He's a limited role player who takes no chances and does nothing really well except hit three pointers.

It's not ideal. But really, is that so bad in our current situation? He's not a Chauncy Billups, who wins you games. But at least he's not a Damon Stoudamire, who wins you games and loses you even more games.

He's a Derek Fisher, with worse defense. Fisher won several rings mostly by just not fucking up.

He's a lot like Przybilla. He does what he does pretty much every night, and if you want to win you better get good production out of some combination of Roy/Aldridge/Outlaw/Oden/Fernandez. If you don't, you won't win.

I just wish Blake could defend a little better.

Anyway, I hope next year Bayless can compete for that starting job, because a little more driving and dunking out of the PG spot would be fantastic, along with better defense. For now, though, I'll live with "solid but unspectacular" offense and below average defense.
 
Just as a caveat, though--I'd like to see Blake get fewer minutes tonight and see Fernandez get more, with Roy at PG on offense. It's not an ideal lineup either, but it's better.
 
I also bashed Blakie pretty hard. I don't think the stats (especially from games 1-4) show how much he hurt us (or didn't help us, depending on your particular bias--mine's that he hurts).

He started getting really aggressive in the 3rd quarter of G3, and for most of the past two games. That Blake helps the team out. The non-fast-breakin', non-penetrating, shoot-3's-out-of-rhythm, don't-set-up-anything-other-than-a-handoff-to-LMA-or Roy offense that he runs doesn't help us out.

Aggressive Blake I can live with...not perfect, but doable. Taking Rudy's minutes to keep Blake in longer? Don't think so. Non-chance-taking Blake? I'd rather have Sergio.
 
What is up with Blake's head? He' got that line that runs over the top of his dome from ear to ear.

What is that? Is that his hair line?
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Speak English?

No, that's still not fair: Rudy's ball-handling is shockingly suspect, so Blake's got that on him, and Blake's a better defender.

I have often wished the transporter in The Fly really existed, and that it could be used to combine NBA players. I would combine (the best features) of Sergio (creativity, penetrating, passing) and Blake (shooting, defense) and I would be more than content with the resulting Stergio Blakez as our PG.

(Or would it be better to combine Sergio and Bayless? Yes, I think so. Blake can be our backup.)
Click to expand...


I definatly agree. I have been calling for Sergio to start for a long time. He worked on his shot and defense in the off season and actually improved a little. Still think he helps this team more than Blake does without a jump shot. We are not getting much inside except when Roy slashes. Nobody finds open bigs and slashers like Sergio and, although he would get blocked a lot by Yao, he might at leaset get a foul or 2 called when he penetrates.
 
Blake is the best we have right now, and now is not the time to continue to "search" for a clear cut starter at the PG position. The one thing you have to hand to Blake is he is competitive, and has good effort. Sometimes that effort does not get you what you want, but he never quits. Yes, he is not the "optimal" pg, but that is life, and you know what, life isn't "optimal" either unless you are very lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top