Rumor: Blazers interested in Rubio?

[THE HCP]

Damn I miss 'Dre! Some of the best court vision ever!

 

[Boob-No-More]

But he wasn't injury prone, and he most certainly wasn't overpaid. He just didn't fit alongside Brandon Roy.

Only because Nate was either too stubborn, too stupid, or both (my vote), to come up with an offense that involved player movement and ball movement.

BNM

 

[blue9]

But he wasn't injury prone, and he most certainly wasn't overpaid. He just didn't fit alongside Brandon Roy.

Actually, it was Roy who didn't fit with 'Dre. Roy, being a SG, should have learned how to play with a PG but instead insisted on dominating the ball rather than developing his game.

 

[Boob-No-More]

That's a bit of a sore point.

Ramos was Puerto Rican, not Spanish.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Actually, it was Roy who didn't fit with 'Dre. Roy, being a SG, should have learned how to play with a PG but instead insisted on dominating the ball rather than developing his game.

The ironic thing was Roy actually wanted someone to take some of the load off him to save all the wear and tear on his body - someone to handle the ball more and initiate the offense. Nate's ISO heavy offense put way too much burden on Roy and his failing knees to create scoring opportunities for himself and everyone else.

If Roy and Nate would have let him, Andre could have made things easier for Roy. Instead, Nate just kept right on running the Roy ISO. Didn't matter who we were playing, what defense they were running, who else was on the team. I remember a regular season game against Phoenix when the national announcers were baffled by the fact that the Blazers ran the Roy ISO on six consecutive possession - when Phoenix was playing a zone defense. My daughter was in the 8th grade at the time and she commented that even her 8th grade CYO girls team knew you don't run an ISO against a zone. Hell, Nate stuck to the Roy ISO even when Roy was injured and couldn't play. He'd just plug Bayless, or Jamal Crawford, or whoever else was available and had a pulse into the Roy ISO role - and was flabbergasted when it didn't work.

BNM

 

[blue9]

The ironic thing was Roy actually wanted someone to take some of the load off him to save all the wear and tear on his body - someone to handle the ball more and initiate the offense. Nate's ISO heavy offense put way too much burden on Roy and his failing knees to create scoring opportunities for himself and everyone else.

If Roy and Nate would have let him, Andre could have made things easier for Roy. Instead, Nate just kept right on running the Roy ISO. Didn't matter who we were playing, what defense they were running, who else was on the team. I remember a regular season game against Phoenix when the national announcers were baffled by the fact that the Blazers ran the Roy ISO on six consecutive possession - when Phoenix was playing a zone defense. My daughter was in the 8th grade at the time and she commented that even her 8th grade CYO girls team knew you don't run an ISO against a zone. Hell, Nate stuck to the Roy ISO even when Roy was injured and couldn't play. He'd just plug Bayless, or Jamal Crawford, or whoever else was available and had a pulse into the Roy ISO role - and was flabbergasted when it didn't work.

BNM

Nate was a terrible, terrible coach.

 

[jlprk]

McMillan should never have let Juan "The Mahn" Dixon go. He was Roy, Jr.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Nate was a terrible, terrible coach.

Yup, he got pwned by Alvin Gentry. 'Nuff said...

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

McMillan should never have let Juan "The Mahn" Dixon go. He was Roy, Jr.

Yeah, than we could have suffered through years of the Juan-on-5 ISO instead of the Roy ISO.

But, maybe that would have been a good thing. It would have gotten Nate fired about 2.5 seasons sooner.

BNM

 

[BigGameDamian]

Damn I miss 'Dre! Some of the best court vision ever!

And if I can say again, Not many people wanted Dre for some similar reasons they don't want Rubio.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Only because Nate was either too stubborn, too stupid, or both (my vote), to come up with an offense that involved player movement and ball movement.

BNM

Nate built the most efficient offense in the league out of Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and a bunch of scrubs. It's not his fault Brandon Roy's knees gave out on him. In fact, if Roy retires a few months earlier, we don't trade Miller, and Nate gets to try his luck building an offense around LaMarcus, Miller, Camby, Rudy, and Mills. Instead, he gets an overweight Felton to replace Miller, and is forced at the last possible minute to replace Brandon in the offense with an undersized, overrated chucker who was much better suited to playing the 6th man role.

 

[e_blazer]

Andre Miller couldn't shoot from distance, but he could score. The guy was uncanny at getting his shot off against interior defenders. Throughout most of his career, he averaged 13-17 PPG. Rubio, on the other hand, simply can't put the ball in the basket...10 PPG.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[jlprk]

Yeah, than we could have suffered through years of the Juan-on-5 ISO instead of the Roy ISO.

That post was a home rahn!

 

[Boob-No-More]

Nate built the most efficient offense in the league out of Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, and a bunch of scrubs. It's not his fault Brandon Roy's knees gave out on him. In fact, if Roy retires a few months earlier, we don't trade Miller, and Nate gets to try his luck building an offense around LaMarcus, Miller, Camby, Rudy, and Mills. Instead, he gets an overweight Felton to replace Miller, and is forced at the last possible minute to replace Brandon in the offense with an undersized, overrated chucker who was much better suited to playing the 6th man role.

Roy's decline wasn't nearly as abrupt as you state. He played 78 games in 2008-09, 65 games in 2009-10 and 47 games in 2010-11, before he retired (for the first time) prior to the 2011-12 season. Nate had plenty of time to design an offense that wasn't 100% dependent on Brandon Roy.

And, it wasn't just Roy's injuries that caused the offense to become more and more stagnant and less and less effective. It's much easier for a team to implement a defensive game plan aimed at stopping 1 player than 5. After that 54-win 2008-09 season, when the Blazers did indeed have the top ranked ORtg in the league (not sure if that's really the be-all-end-all stat for determining offensive efficiency, but it's the only team offensive stat I can find where the Blazers led the league under Nate), other teams figured out very quickly the key to stopping the Blazers was denying Roy easy opportunities at the rim. They just packed the paint and smothered Roy when he would drive the lane. Bringing an extra big man over to deny Roy at the rim was all it took to make the Blazers offense much less efficient. The team's ORtg dropped to 11th in the league in 2009-10 and 12th in 2010-11.

If Nate's offense was so damn efficient, why did it fail so miserably in the playoffs? Again, such a simplistic offense, that is so reliant on a single player, is very easy to stop, if you have time to prepare. Michael Jordan was way, way better than Roy in his brief prime, but even Jordan didn't win a title until the Bulls adopted the triangle offense that got his teammates involved and made it much harder for opposing defenses to simply key on stopping the Jordan ISO. Nate was a simplistic, inflexible coach. He road Brandon Roy's coattails for one 54-win season. He didn't' win a single division title, or a single playoff series while coaching the Blazers. His ineptitude was never more evident than in the post season, where he was so painfully, obviously out-coached by Rick Adelman, Alvin Gentry and Rick Carlisle.

It's fitting that Nate's ONLY post season moment of glory as a Blazers' coach was also 100% courtesy of Brandon Roy. That 23-point comeback win over Dallas was Roy catching lightning in a bottle one last time - not something you can depend on, and certainly not something you can design an offense around - but that's EXACTLY what Nate did. He went into the 2011-12 training camp thinking the old Brandon Roy was back, and even though we made MANY roster changes, Nate was still planning on featuring the Roy ISO as the backbone of the Trail Blazers offense for the 2011-12 season. That was IMMEDIATELY clear when he tried to force Jamal Crawford into the Brandon Roy role. Give Roy's history of injuries and the team's declining offensive efficiency, that wasn't bad luck, that was piss poor planning and stubbornness to the point of being delusional.

BNM

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Ramos was Puerto Rican, not Spanish.

BNM

D'oh again. I got him mixed up with Fernando Martin, who also died because of a car crash. Albeit after he left Portland.

Waitaminute - so did Drazen Petrovic. Spooky...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Interesting, that the "Brain trust" doesn't want him at PG, where he literately has played the last three or so years..... Sure he can't get out of his own way in the trap defense, but that's more team coaching than anything.

I think what's interesting about this rumor is that the Blazers want Damian playing the 2 alongside a more traditional PG. I share the same thinking myself and I personally have a lot of faith in Frazier, based on his performance in SL, to be able to play this role.

I like the idea of Rubio in the backcourt with Dame. It enables Dame to play Tue same role he always has, but instead of Nico running the offense we would have a far better ball handler and creator doing so, plus guys who can finish. Rubio at 6'5" is a decent defender too so we don't end up with a height issue in the backcourt.

Not to worry: Lillard can play off the ball next year when we get Ben Simmons.

 

[MarAzul]

He just didn't fit alongside Brandon Roy.

But then, nobody else did either.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Give Roy's history of injuries and the team's declining offensive efficiency, that wasn't bad luck, that was piss poor planning and stubbornness to the point of being delusional.

BNM

What, you're saying that having after-action strategy sessions with Canzano didn't work?

I also realized that the Blazers coach has done some deep thinking this offseason, and was bothered by the assertion that he was outcoached.
I told McMillan that I was impressed how he used Andre Miller to exploit the Suns in Game 1. And gave Gentry considerable credit for his decision in Game 2 to put Grant Hill on Miller. The trouble I had, mostly, with McMillan in the season-ending series is that he failed to counter-adjust.
He had Nicolas Batum on the much shorter Steve Nash, but the Blazers didn't commit to using Batum to post up Nash. McMillan said, "I thought about doing that during the game, but we hadn't done that all season." And he's right. But it was the only real mismatch short-handed Portland had, and the Blazers didn't attempt to exploit it.
Phoenix smothered Lamarcus Aldridge, and locked up Miller with Hill. Game over. Granted, the Blazers were injury plagued, including being without a healthy Roy. So Gentry had it easier. Still, I felt he had the better series.
More than 5 months later, McMillan wanted to know why.
Pride is what's buried much deeper in all of this. Because I spent about 10 minutes in McMillan's office, some of it with him at the grease board diagramming plays and with me jotting down notes. And by the end of our discussion, what I realized more than anything is that McMillan badly wants to win, and understand himself, and get better.
Similarly, that session with McMillan on Wednesday was gold -- him diagramming the Suns-Blazers series while muttering, "(Steve) Nash is so (bleeping) smart."

 

[Harry's Raincoat]

IF Rubio was a gift, using mostly cap space to acquire him, I'd be on board. Not a huge fan of his, but realize that the combo of Lillard, McCollum and Rubio would be a very nice 3-some at Guard.

 

[Blazer4ever]

IF Rubio was a gift, using mostly cap space to acquire him, I'd be on board. Not a huge fan of his, but realize that the combo of Lillard, McCollum and Rubio would be a very nice 3-some at Guard.

But what if Frazier can play this same role of making smart decisions, running the offense, etc, the same role that Batum often had as a point-forward and that we wouldn't be getting from any of our current SFs, the same role Rubio would have but for much less money and without having to give back anything in trade?
I've been on the Frazier bandwagon since SL and I think he could play a big role for us. He could play with McCollum or with Dame at the 2. We could have these 3 as the main rotation in the backcourt. Otherwise we'd be somewhat stuck if one of Dame or McCollum sits, without enough playmaking or decision making. Dame and CJ together would make a good backcourt but I think Frazier is our best option behind them, because even just Dame with any of the other swingmen might not be enough in this area.

 

[tlongII]

But what if Frazier can play this same role of making smart decisions, running the offense, etc, the same role that Batum often had as a point-forward and that we wouldn't be getting from any of our current SFs, the same role Rubio would have but for much less money and without having to give back anything in trade?
I've been on the Frazier bandwagon since SL and I think he could play a big role for us. He could play with McCollum or with Dame at the 2. We could have these 3 as the main rotation in the backcourt. Otherwise we'd be somewhat stuck if one of Dame or McCollum sits, without enough playmaking or decision making. Dame and CJ together would make a good backcourt but I think Frazier is our best option behind them, because even just Dame with any of the other swingmen might not be enough in this area.

That's way too small of a backcourt.

 

[dviss1]

Sound like a spot on description of our prime three point taker.

Is there anything else you can harp on or is this all you can say? You sound like a broken record...

 

[Natebishop3]

Sound like a spot on description of our prime three point taker.

Let's drop you on your shooting hand, screw up your fingers, and then see how you shoot.

 

[dviss1]

Jesus! I didn't know how much this dude is getting paid...

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/minnesota_timberwolves/

How about no...

 

[BlazerWookee]

But then, nobody else did either.

Steve Blake, Wes Matthews, Nic Batum, Joel Przybilla, and LaMarcus Aldridge all seemed to fit ok. With healthy knees on Brandon, that team could have developed into something REALLY good.

 

[dviss1]

Let's drop you on your shooting hand, screw up your fingers, and then see how you shoot.

The whining about this imaginary A/M stat is annoying....

 

[BigGameDamian]

But what if Frazier can play this same role of making smart decisions, running the offense, etc, the same role that Batum often had as a point-forward and that we wouldn't be getting from any of our current SFs, the same role Rubio would have but for much less money and without having to give back anything in trade?
I've been on the Frazier bandwagon since SL and I think he could play a big role for us. He could play with McCollum or with Dame at the 2. We could have these 3 as the main rotation in the backcourt. Otherwise we'd be somewhat stuck if one of Dame or McCollum sits, without enough playmaking or decision making. Dame and CJ together would make a good backcourt but I think Frazier is our best option behind them, because even just Dame with any of the other swingmen might not be enough in this area.

Jerryd Bayless was the summer league MVP and then he got the Nick name Jerryd Playless.

 

[Harry's Raincoat]

But what if Frazier can play this same role of making smart decisions, running the offense, etc, the same role that Batum often had as a point-forward and that we wouldn't be getting from any of our current SFs, the same role Rubio would have but for much less money and without having to give back anything in trade?
I've been on the Frazier bandwagon since SL and I think he could play a big role for us. He could play with McCollum or with Dame at the 2. We could have these 3 as the main rotation in the backcourt. Otherwise we'd be somewhat stuck if one of Dame or McCollum sits, without enough playmaking or decision making. Dame and CJ together would make a good backcourt but I think Frazier is our best option behind them, because even just Dame with any of the other swingmen might not be enough in this area.

Lillard is 6-3. McCollum is 6-3.
Frazier is 6-0.

Rubio is 6-5. Big difference!! And he has more talent than Frazier does.

 

[Reep]

If taking on his salary still left you with enough cap space in a year or two from now to get a max player under the new cap, then I would consider it. Would be nice to get Levine as a sweetener.

I don't especially like Rubio's game, but given all the athletic dunk monsters on the roster right now, he might help us get more for our money out of them.