Rodney Hood a Blazer

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
JDC said:
Dunc'd on guys thought price was too high for Hood.

Didn't make any recommendations on other guys to go after though and I think when you look around the league, still think he was the best option for what we wanted without having to give up our first.
Click to expand...
Two 2nds was probably a slight overpay given his non-bird status but other teams possibly could have been offering similar packages. Throwing in an additional 2nd was likely the only way to guarantee getting him.
 
HCP said:
Didn’t Hood get all upset when he got traded to Cleveland and wasn’t getting any playing time? Wonder how this will work out?
Click to expand...
yeah...because that Tristan Thompson JR Smith lockerroom was so inspirational!
 
Imagine if a Blazer refused to come into a game. Canzano and the Oregonian would make hay for the next 15 years, as with Sheed tossing a flimsy washcloth towel at Sabonis.
 
The Professional Fan said:
Maybe I didn’t hear that right. I text the program and asked where they got that info. They responded with “never said that”

I KNOW I heard them say “bye bye Moe” right after the comment about Hood. Their podcast will be up soon. I’m double checking that
Click to expand...
Listened to the podcast. I misunderstood. He said Hood was brought in to BE a starter, not that he was starting tonight. It was early, I was tired. Apologies!
 
Maybe I missed it in all of the quick responses in this thread, but something I think gets overlooked about Hood is that he can be a post-up guard, too. He gives you length that can help on defense, but as we saw from playing against him, he does have the ability to take defenders down to the block and score consistently. I think that's a nice luxury to have when an opponent is going on a run and you want to stop their momentum. If you are almost a totally perimeter team, opposing runs can snow ball. Having a guy who can get down low, milk some clock, make the other team play D and then score is big.

And he's not much of a downgrade from Stauskas on the perimeter, either. For what the Blazers gave up, it was a good move.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I think he’s just a scorer and has a scorer mentality, but really him being a really good 3 point threat is the reasons he’s on the court.
Click to expand...
He can hit the three (obviously). What I see is someone who is worse than CJ at ignoring the obvious pass that's right in front of him and 'getting his'. That's the demeanor I see. I also see him stealing balls from teammates, including jetting in and taking a rebound out of Dame's hands when Dame was close to a triple double. Dame just looked at him like 'WTF'.
 
PCmor7 said:
Maybe I missed it in all of the quick responses in this thread, but something I think gets overlooked about Hood is that he can be a post-up guard, too. He gives you length that can help on defense, but as we saw from playing against him, he does have the ability to take defenders down to the block and score consistently. I think that's a nice luxury to have when an opponent is going on a run and you want to stop their momentum. If you are almost a totally perimeter team, opposing runs can snow ball. Having a guy who can get down low, milk some clock, make the other team play D and then score is big.

And he's not much of a downgrade from Stauskas on the perimeter, either. For what the Blazers gave up, it was a good move.
Click to expand...
I do like his length, for sure. I have my fingers crossed he works out.
 
perkinsfor3 said:
Seen him play in Utah and Cleveland. He's what he is. A low efficiency ISO/pick & roll scorer with weak defense, low ball IQ and a very very mediocre graps of the concept of a team game. Also, overrates himsself a lot.

Granted, he's had a few good games in the years he's been in the league. Every now and then.

The only thing I like is that he's an expiring contract and at ~3.5M he doesn't cost much. Very low risk move. Role playing guys I'd very much prefer to get on the team all make way more. Bazemore, Courtney Lee (if he can find his 2015 self), or even a SJ or Prince (which would have cost us more than 2 2nds/Wade/Nik).

Also, I'm assuming a CJ for Love swap isn't a option. That probably would've meant the Hood deal would've been included in a bigger trade. I think getting Love would give us a way better chance to make a postseason run than our current position provides. Maybe the injury scares our front office away, which is something I could understand.

Something I'd like to add:

Rodney Hood is 6-8. He's playing like an undersized SG. To put things in perspective, here's how he ranks among guards (out of 122 qualifying players (minimum 20 mpg)):

PER 13.2 (64th)
TS% 0.542 (61st)
3PAr 0.335 (83rd)
TRB% 5.1 (102nd)
AST% 11.6 (92nd)
USG% 19.2 (63rd)
OWS 1.6 (42nd)
DWS -0.1 (121st)
WS 1.5 (74th)
WS/48 0.057 (81st)
OBPM 0.1 (62nd)
DBPM -2.8 (113th)
BPM -2.7 (98th)
VORP -0.2 (106th)

What I'm saying is... don't build your hopes on this guy. At the price he's a decent add, low risk, but to expect anything more than a few games of high score output is too much to ask. He's no 1:1 CJ replacement, he's no reliable second or even third option, he's not a reliable shooter. His effective shooting percentages and true shooting percentages have always been below league average. His defense has been among the worst in the league. His rebounding and playmaking is non existent.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.

:cheers:
 
jlprk said:
Imagine if a Blazer refused to come into a game. Canzano and the Oregonian would make hay for the next 15 years, as with Sheed tossing a flimsy washcloth towel at Sabonis.
Click to expand...
Didn't that happen before?
 
Feel like ET has to be on the move.

He and Rodney's skill sets really seem to take away from each other, at least offensively. ET is more of a play maker and Hood is more comfortable spotting up, but otherwise operate in very similar spots on the floor.
 
So if Moe or ET are not moved this is basically a trade for someone with less potential than Layman but also for someone that will most likely suck up all of Jakes minutes. Is that correct?

I actually like the trade for what we gave up under the condition that we actually needed Hood, and without clearing out ET or Hark we don’t.
 
LayneStaley said:
So if Moe or ET are not moved this is basically a trade for someone with less potential than Layman but also for someone that will most likely suck up all of Jakes minutes. Is that correct?

I actually like the trade for what we gave up under the condition that we actually needed Hood, and without clearing out ET or Hark we don’t.
Click to expand...

Unless they are hiding the fact Hark is out for the year (possible) this trade had 2 goals: get Olshey off the hook and give Stotts another excuse to bury Jake.
 
Hood will speak with the media in about 5 minutes.
 
LayneStaley said:
So if Moe or ET are not moved this is basically a trade for someone with less potential than Layman but also for someone that will most likely suck up all of Jakes minutes. Is that correct?

I actually like the trade for what we gave up under the condition that we actually needed Hood, and without clearing out ET or Hark we don’t.
Click to expand...
oldmangrouch said:
Unless they are hiding the fact Hark is out for the year (possible) this trade had 2 goals: get Olshey off the hook and give Stotts another excuse to bury Jake.
Click to expand...
What the move really was (if there isn't a follow up move) is a low key suppression of Layman's value so we can re-sign him for cheap this summer. I hate that shit but unfortunately it's a game some front office people play.
 
TBpup said:
It really sucks that media member after media member has said that it is most likely that Jake Layman will be the player who loses minutes.....when he has been the best forward the Blazers have had for a nice stretch now.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it for a minute. This is yet another example of why I have gone from Stotts supporter to Stotts critic. I don't know why he got down on Layman to begin with - but he refuses to change his mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top