NY Times: Too Soon for Roy's Return?

[Shooter]

Please. Rolling? We're 28-24. Not exactly rolling. We just lost to the fucking Pacers a few days ago. We've been great teams with Roy too. In fact, Roy has NEVER lost to the Lakers at home in his entire career. The last time we ran the offense through Roy for a whole season, we were 54-28 and the 4th seed in the West. We only lost because everyone but Blake and Joel had never been in the playoffs and Outlaw laid a big egg, especially in the critical game 6. Our best game of the series was Game 2 in which Roy scored over 40 and Artest called him the best player he's ever played against. Last year, Roy was hurt for the playoffs.

Aldridge would probably be scoring a few more points than he is now if Roy was playing but the improvement to his overall game has nothing to do with the absence of Roy and everything to do with his offseason regimen and a decision to take to the hoop more. He can still do that when Roy comes back. Save for a couple games, we have been horrible in close games, something we were TERRIFIC at a couple seasons ago when we slowed the game down at the end and put the ball in Roy's hands.

Stop the Roy bashing. It's ridiculous.

Nobody's bashing Roy--we're talking about what's better for the team. "Roy-ball" is based on Roy's preference for a half-court game where he can isolate on his man and either take it to the rim or put up a jump shot. The offense always slows down when he's on the court, and other guys stop moving. Since Roy has been out, this team is running more, passing better, and getting everyone involved. As someone else has already pointed out, Aldridge doesn't need to dominate the ball to be effective--but Roy does.

As for our record with Roy, yes, it was pretty good. But in that offense, Aldridge was reduced to a jump shooter, which meant he wasn't hitting as high a percentage of his shots, and he wasn't rebounding as well. He also wasn't drawing fouls like he is now. A lot of the games we won with Roy in the lineup were won because he made great plays in the fourth quarter--not because our offense was working particularly smoothly. I like the cohesiveness of our offense right now, and the fact that EVERYONE is involved.

As for our 28-24 record, it's due mainly to the abundance of injuries we've had--not to the style of basketball we're playing. Once we get Camby back, the record will improve.

 

[mook]

Do we or do we not have a better record this season when Roy doesn't play?

I was thrilled when Roy got benched. That said, I'm pretty eager to see him come back and I don't put much stock in our early season record of playing with Roy going forward.

- Roy was in shock/denial at his diminished athleticism. He was trying to do way too much.
- The same was true for Nate and how he was using him.
- The rest of the team was still trying too hard to work around him.

Everybody has had two months to develop new patterns and figure out how to play without Roy's athleticism. The question is if he can provide more incremental productivity than Matthews and Batum do once they pass around 34 mpg. It's pretty darned hard to argue he can't, especially when you take into account the increased likelihood of injuries those two guys face by playing so many minutes.

Roy still has a decent jumper. He's still crafty. He's still a great passer for a shooting guard. He's not a one-on-one player anymore, but that was only part of his game. He's always been effective coming off curls.

I think we'll look back and see three different teams once the season is over:
1. Roy lead with Aldridge as a second banana, which was slow and sucked.
2. Aldridge as Option One and Option Two, which had a ridiculously shallow bench and was inconsistent, but still a damned sight better than #1.
3. Aldridge lead with Roy as a second banana.

As we enter the #3 phase, I'm getting more optimistic about the playoffs. Not just making them, but pulling off an upset.

 

[gatorpops]

I was thrilled when Roy got benched. That said, I'm pretty eager to see him come back and I don't put much stock in our early season record of playing with Roy going forward.

- Roy was in shock/denial at his diminished athleticism. He was trying to do way too much.
- The same was true for Nate and how he was using him.
- The rest of the team was still trying too hard to work around him.

Everybody has had two months to develop new patterns and figure out how to play without Roy's athleticism. The question is if he can provide more incremental productivity than Matthews and Batum do once they pass around 34 mpg. It's pretty darned hard to argue he can't, especially when you take into account the increased likelihood of injuries those two guys face by playing so many minutes.

Roy still has a decent jumper. He's still crafty. He's still a great passer for a shooting guard. He's not a one-on-one player anymore, but that was only part of his game. He's always been effective coming off curls.

I think we'll look back and see three different teams once the season is over:
1. Roy lead with Aldridge as a second banana, which was slow and sucked.
2. Aldridge as Option One and Option Two, which had a ridiculously shallow bench and was inconsistent, but still a damned sight better than #1.
3. Aldridge lead with Roy as a second banana.

As we enter the #3 phase, I'm getting more optimistic about the playoffs. Not just making them, but pulling off an upset.

I totally agree!

 

[e_blazer]

Just in case some of you didn't see it, Nate says he doesn't plan on playing Brandon this weekend.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/27449748

 

[Kaydow]

Just in case some of you didn't see it, Nate says he doesn't plan on playing Brandon this weekend.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/27449748

I was sort of expecting this. It was pretty shocking that the plan was for him to practice once or twice after sitting out for 2 months (and surgery 3 weeks ago) and waltz back into the line-up. He can't be anywhere near game shape, and who knows how his knees are going to respond after a couple of practices.

Is this going to end up taking on a life of it's own? Another "what was Brandon thinking?" fiasco. It does appear that checking with the team before making a public declaration of his return timeline would have been a good idea. But spare me the "once again he put himself above the team" arguments.

 

[blazerboy30]

Ok if you want to believe the team is that much better with Roy off the court have at it. But it seems to me if they were winning at such a great clip, they would be more than 4 games above .500. They were near .500 when Roy went out, and they are barely above it now.

This just doesn't even make sense. The winning percentage since Roy went down is what it is. If you want to try to ignore that or argue it, that seems pretty silly.

There have been several stretches in there, where they lost enough games that they were teetering on going on under .500. The team is following pattern, and the last road trip verifies that pattern. The team plays well at home and stinks on the road. They jump a few games above .500, and then they drop it on the next road trip. They come home, rest, refocus, and get a few more wins. They hit the road, stink it up, maybe eek out a win, and head home.

Are you arguing that the 0.615% winning percentage since Roy went down isn't correct? I don't get it. The record is what it is, with and without Roy. A healthy Roy would certainly help this team, but the way Roy was playing, he was not helping the team. He was an absolute liability on defense.

 

[Shooter]

Just in case some of you didn't see it, Nate says he doesn't plan on playing Brandon this weekend.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/27449748

Good to hear. If there's a chance that the surgery will restore Roy to 99% of what he was, then we should take our time with him and make sure he's completely recovered before he gets back out there.

 

[Kaydow]

Good to hear. If there's a chance that the surgery will restore Roy to 99% of what he was, then we should take our time with him and make sure he's completely recovered before he gets back out there.

I've heard of the power of positive thinking, but . . .

 

[Shooter]

I've heard of the power of positive thinking, but . . .

Yeah, I'm probably being too optimistic. However, Roy says he's feeling great, and he looked spry in the video I saw of him. I guess I'm still hoping for a medical miracle.

 

[maxiep]

Yeah, I'm probably being too optimistic. However, Roy says he's feeling great, and he looked spry in the video I saw of him. I guess I'm still hoping for a medical miracle.

There's nothing wrong with being optimistic if you're a fan. Sports are supposed to be fun. What's the point of rooting for a team if you can't be optimistic?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

For those who point at the Blazers winning percentage with and without Roy to show that he hurts the team:

The Blazers have a better winning percentage when Camby doesn't play. Should we hold him out too? Is this team (7-4) better when Camby doesn't play?

This winning percentage is not an indication if a player helps or hurts a team.

 

[PapaG]

For those who point at the Blazers winning percentage with and without Roy to show that he hurts the team:

The Blazers have a better winning percentage when Camby doesn't play. Should we hold him out too? Is this team (7-4) better when Camby doesn't play?

This winning percentage is not an indication if a player helps or hurts a team.

Certainly not over a short period of time, and also since the Blazers have played 6 more home games than road games since Roy went out after the 12/15 game (16 home games/10 road games).

 

[e_blazer]

IMHO, the difference in winning percentage has very little to do with Roy as a player. It has to do with a team whose franchise player was suddenly not able to do the things he had been doing before and having a whole lot of confusion as a result. Once the team decided to put him on the shelf, the team was able to develop a new identity. Assuming Roy can come back and fit in with that identity, and I think he can, then there's no doubt that the team will be better for having him back.

 

[andalusian]

IMHO, the difference in winning percentage has very little to do with Roy as a player. It has to do with a team whose franchise player was suddenly not able to do the things he had been doing before and having a whole lot of confusion as a result. Once the team decided to put him on the shelf, the team was able to develop a new identity. Assuming Roy can come back and fit in with that identity, and I think he can, then there's no doubt that the team will be better for having him back.

Wrepped

 

[maxiep]

IMHO, the difference in winning percentage has very little to do with Roy as a player. It has to do with a team whose franchise player was suddenly not able to do the things he had been doing before and having a whole lot of confusion as a result. Once the team decided to put him on the shelf, the team was able to develop a new identity. Assuming Roy can come back and fit in with that identity, and I think he can, then there's no doubt that the team will be better for having him back.

Exactly right. Repped.

 

[jlprk]

Good to hear. If there's a chance that the surgery will restore Roy to 99% of what he was, then we should take our time with him and make sure he's completely recovered before he gets back out there.

Anyone can misplace a decimal point. It can happen to anyone.

Did you mean 9.9% or .99%?