WHY did we sign Miller?

[Sedatedfork]

Careful, T. Someone may ending up swapping your body with Jessica's. Same posture.

Oh snap!

 

[Sedatedfork]

To be fair though -- Andre hasn't fit this team that well. Is that Andre's fault? Is that the coach's fault? Is it Roy's fault? I don't know. Don't pile on tlong. I think we all hope that Andre does more of what he did last night (score to put the pressure on the opponent). If Roy was in the game, we probably never see Andre be that aggressive. Here's to hoping the team figures it out.

 

[Ed O]

To be fair though -- Andre hasn't fit this team that well. Is that Andre's fault? Is that the coach's fault? Is it Roy's fault? I don't know. Don't pile on tlong. I think we all hope that Andre does more of what he did last night (score to put the pressure on the opponent). If Roy was in the game, we probably never see Andre be that aggressive. Here's to hoping the team figures it out.

Do you say he hasn't fit that well because Nate refused to let him start for some time, or because, since he's started, he hasn't fit well?

Nate has made a series of stupid decisions this whole year, from saying Oden wouldn't be a focal point on offense to refusing to start Miller without Blake there, too.

The team has, at some level, overachieved in spite of injuries but has also overachieved in spite of Nate's peculiarly slow ability to make obviously correct decisions.

Ed O.

 

[ABM]

The team has, at some level, overachieved in spite of injuries but has also overachieved in spite of Nate's peculiarly slow ability to make obviously correct decisions.

Ed O.

You might be overlooking the psychological factor of Nate perhaps trying to protect Oden's (immature) and Blake's (potentially begrudging) mental frames of mind.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Do you say he hasn't fit that well because Nate refused to let him start for some time, or because, since he's started, he hasn't fit well?

A little of both. By not starting Miller and then only starting him in a 3 guard line up, Andre had rough start to the season. Then after starting, I think he was still struggling to find his role. Andre has had some good moments -- getting Oden the ball in good position and some very good assists, and nice lob passes. I think that even after starting in the Miller-Roy-Webster-LMA-Howard lineup, there are some times that he and Roy do not mesh well. Roy has a weakness that he really needs to work on -- moving without the ball. This is Roy's team and if Andre and he can't work together it will be difficult for the team to progress. I also want to see Miller more in the 4th quarter (I hadn't caught the last 3 or 4 games before last night because I was in Costa Rica and they don't have comcast ) so I am not sure if Nate has started playing him more in the 4th or not. Nate needs to trust Andre Miller more and he needs to decide on a team philosophy and explain it to the team, Roy needs to improve his play off the ball, and in the 4th quarter the team needs to figure out what they want to be. Do they want to rely on Roy almost exclusively? Do they want to keep the defense guessing? I think a consolidation trade would help, as this is a difficult team to coach with so many options. So maybe KP deserves some blame too. Hmm, maybe Canzano, Quick, the fans, Sam Adams and uhh Denny Crane are at fault too.. That about covers it!

 

[Nikolokolus]

All the winning? Really? Has the guy ever won a playoff series? He may have, but I don't recall it. Miller can't keep his man in front of him and he turns it over too much for my taste. The fact of the matter is that he was playing poorly before January. He played great last night, but I don't think it's a coincidence that his opponents were primarily the ancient Jason Kidd, and the midget otherwise known as J.J. Barrea.

How many playoff series has Roy won in his 4 years in the league? Miller's been at this for 11 but it's an equally (in)valid comparison. The bottom line is that teams win playoff series, not individual players -- unless those individual players are of the transcendent variety (The Lebrons, Kobes, Duncans of the game) and while Dre' has always been a very good player in his career he's never quite had the overwhelming talent to carry a team on his back. And I'd hardly call that a shortcoming, it's just a reality.

As for the rest of your assessment of his abilities I can only assume you've never actually watched him play until he became a Trailblazer (no biggie, I know lots of Blazers fans who don't watch other teams play) but the truth is that Miller since being inserted into the starting lineup has made this a better team: Roy had the best stretch of his career statistically, the team has mostly been on a .650+ winning pace, and surprise, surprise Miller's performance picked up when Nate stopped trying to shoehorn him into a Steve Blake, off-the-ball, spot up shooter role and let him have the reins a little bit.

As for the whole Kidd and Barea guarding him thing, you make it sound like guards go off on them on a nightly basis which is totally bogus. Secondly, the Mavs best defender Marion took him late in the game and Dre' still went off. Lastly, the Mavs are one of the best defensive teams in the league.

 

[tlongII]

How many playoff series has Roy won in his 4 years in the league? Miller's been at this for 11 but it's an equally (in)valid comparison. The bottom line is that teams win playoff series, not individual players -- unless those individual players are of the transcendent variety (The Lebrons, Kobes, Duncans of the game) and while Dre' has always been a very good player in his career he's never quite had the overwhelming talent to carry a team on his back. And I'd hardly call that a shortcoming, it's just a reality.

As for the rest of your assessment of his abilities I can only assume you've never actually watched him play until he became a Trailblazer (no biggie, I know lots of Blazers fans who don't watch other teams play) but the truth is that Miller since being inserted into the starting lineup has made this a better team: Roy had the best stretch of his career statistically, the team has mostly been on a .650+ winning pace, and surprise, surprise Miller's performance picked up when Nate stopped trying to shoehorn him into a Steve Blake, off-the-ball, spot up shooter role and let him have the reins a little bit.

As for the whole Kidd and Barea guarding him thing, you make it sound like guards go off on them on a nightly basis which is totally bogus. Secondly, the Mavs best defender Marion took him late in the game and Dre' still went off. Lastly, the Mavs are one of the best defensive teams in the league.

Actually I watch a great deal of NBA basketball. You know League Pass and all that. Again I have to point out that Miller was playing poorly until January. I don't see how you can argue against that point. I know many posters wish to blame McMillan for the poor player performance, but I think the player shoulders the greater burden of responsibility. Lastly, the Mavs are NOT a good defensive team. They played well defensively earlier in the season, but not now. Their last 3 opponents have all shot well over 50% and their coach is even calling them "soft" now.

 

[Nate4Prez]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...t=AhHAZjgzKL5XspMG0eHK2mq8vLYF?urn=nba,216670

 

[HOWIE]

I think it's great to see Miller post up a nice game like this with Roy out. It is going to do one of two things come this trade deadline, either Miller's stock is going to be up that he get's traded for a better piece of the puzzle (basically a better player than before) or Blake and other pieces are moved to net Portland that bigman they really need. I'd wager the second is most likely. I guess the third option is to ride it out, hopefully make the playoffs and if we don't, hope we somehow end up with John Wall in the lottery. This season could really go either way at the moment, but I think we add another big body we make the playoffs, sot hat would mean moving players some here wouldn't want to see moved.......Rudy, Outlaw, Webster, or Mr. Blake at the very least.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Actually I watch a great deal of NBA basketball. You know League Pass and all that. Again I have to point out that Miller was playing poorly until January. I don't see how you can argue against that point. I know many posters wish to blame McMillan for the poor player performance, but I think the player shoulders the greater burden of responsibility. Lastly, the Mavs are NOT a good defensive team. They played well defensively earlier in the season, but not now. Their last 3 opponents have all shot well over 50% and their coach is even calling them "soft" now.

I guess I didn't realize the Mavs had fallen off so much defensively in the past few weeks, but even still they are 11th in team defensive rating, which is by no means horrible.

I'm not saying Miller played great before January; he was well off his career marks for shooting percentage and efficiency, but despite his 'lackluster' start to the season he still managed to post PER in the 14-15 range which isn't great, but certainly isn't terrible either.

You say you watch a lot of hoops; if that's true then I'm not really sure what it is you dislike so much about Miller's game. Last season, it was Miller that pretty much fueled the Sixers turning their season around and getting them into the playoffs after Cheeks got fired and he was easily their best player in the series with Orlando, helping push it to six games.

It's true that he's lost a step defensively, and he's as ground bound now as he ever was, but there's so many other little things that he does on the court that I'm frankly a little baffled that you can't seem to give the guy his due.

 

[Public Defender]

Actually I watch a great deal of NBA basketball. You know League Pass and all that. Again I have to point out that Miller was playing poorly until January. I don't see how you can argue against that point. I know many posters wish to blame McMillan for the poor player performance...

Miller has a reputation for starting slow. He's had a very, very good January.

I'd like to see us re-visit this question at the end of February. I think lots of us had our doubts about Miller during 2009. I think many of us are pleased to see how he's started 2010. But the Blazers right now could be lottery-bound if they can't keep up with the rest of the West, or they could land HCA in the first round, if they put it all together. Miller is a big part of which way it goes. Let's see what happens, eh?

I think it's too early to condemn Miller - and really, looks pretty foolish in light of last night's offensive explosion. But I also think we have to wait to see how he does for the rest of the winter before we get too giddy about Andre, as well.

 

[oldmangrouch]

You might be overlooking the psychological factor of Nate perhaps trying to protect Oden's (immature) and Blake's (potentially begrudging) mental frames of mind.

Dear player: here is a tissue to dry your tears, a cookie to make you feel better, and your VERY generous paycheck. Now STFU and act like a professional!

 

[Boob-No-More]

All the winning? Really? Has the guy ever won a playoff series?

Basketball is a team sport. How many play-off series did Michael Jordan win before the Bulls added Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant? Zero. In fact Jordan only won a single play-off game (1-9) before the Bulls added Pippen and Grant.

By "all the winning" I was referring specifically to the to the Blazers 21-12 record with Miller starting, compared to 7-9 when he doesn't start, and the fact the Blazers are currently winning games with a severely depleted roster and a very tough schedule. In fact, since you didn't quote my post and tied to change the subject, here's exactly what I wrote:

"Seriously, go back and look at the schedule the Blazers played this month, and with all the injuries they've had, tell me how many games the Blazers would have won without Andre Miller. A lot less than they did."

I don't care about how many play-off series Andre Miller won playing elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the point I was making. He is helping this team win games right now, games they would not have won without him, and that's all I care about.

The fact of the matter is that he was playing poorly before January.

The fact is he was playing "poorly" (he still had a PER over 6 points higher than Blake who was starting in front of him) when his coach was jerking him around, starting a significantly worse player in front of him and forcing him to play out of position. His play began to improve, and has continued to do so, the instant he was placed in his natural role - starting PG.

He played great last night, but I don't think it's a coincidence that his opponents were primarily the ancient Jason Kidd, and the midget otherwise known as J.J. Barrea.

Barea usually kills the Blazers. It was nice to see that trend reversed last night. How many other PGs have scored 52 against Dallas - EVER? How many did it in their building? How many did it while shooting > 0.700 from the field?

In spite of the slow start where he was being jerked around by his coach, Miller's PER is now up to 17.3. He hasn't had just one good game. He's been playing well for a month and a half - since he became the Blazers starting PG. And it's not just about his individual stats. The Blazers win more with him starting than they did with Blake starting (in spite of missing key players that were healthy when Blake was starting, and a tougher schedule), Roy has played better with Miller starting than with Blake. Ditto for Martell. Miller is an above average stating PG. His individual production is better than any PG we've had in almost a decade and a half, he makes his teammates better, and he's helping the Blazers win games with an injury depleted roster and a tough schedule.

I'm still baffled by what you dislike about that. Would you prefer we bench Miller and go back to Blake starting? You criticized Miller's defense and turnovers, but Blake is no better defensively and turns the ball over at practically the same rate (14.9 TOV% vs. 15.2 TOV%) in spite of a much lower assist rate (21% vs. 29.4%) and his inability to create easy scoring opportunities for himself or his teammates.

Would you prefer to start the wildly inconsistent Bayless at PG? If you do, we lose more games and probably miss the play-offs. I love Bayless as instant offense off the bench, or starting at SG with Roy out, but he's not ready to be our starting PG. As long as he continues to get decent minutes (he averaged almost 24 MPG for January), he can continue to improve without costing the team wins. Eventually, I do see him taking over from Miller as the starting PG, but I don't see that happening for another year to year and a half. In the meantime, I think he should get 20+ MPG backing up both positions.

In spite of your dislike for him, Andre Miller is helping this team win games, he's the best PG we have on our roster, the best one we've had in well over a decade, and an above average starting NBA PG. He's not an all-star, or a Hall-of-Famer, but I never said he was (and don't recall anyone else saying it either).

BNM

 

[tlongII]

Basketball is a team sport. How many play-off series did Michael Jordan win before the Bulls added Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant? Zero. In fact Jordan only won a single play-off game (1-9) before the Bulls added Pippen and Grant.

By "all the winning" I was referring specifically to the to the Blazers 21-12 record with Miller starting, compared to 7-9 when he doesn't start, and the fact the Blazers are currently winning games with a severely depleted roster and a very tough schedule. In fact, since you didn't quote my post and tied to change the subject, here's exactly what I wrote:

"Seriously, go back and look at the schedule the Blazers played this month, and with all the injuries they've had, tell me how many games the Blazers would have won without Andre Miller. A lot less than they did."

I don't care about how many play-off series Andre Miller won playing elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the point I was making. He is helping this team win games right now, games they would not have won without him, and that's all I care about.



The fact is he was playing "poorly" (he still had a PER over 6 points higher than Blake who was starting in front of him) when his coach was jerking him around, starting a significantly worse player in front of him and forcing him to play out of position. His play began to improve, and has continued to do so, the instant he was placed in his natural role - starting PG.



Barea usually kills the Blazers. It was nice to see that trend reversed last night. How many other PGs have scored 52 against Dallas - EVER? How many did it in their building? How many did it while shooting > 0.700 from the field?

In spite of the slow start where he was being jerked around by his coach, Miller's PER is now up to 17.3. He hasn't had just one good game. He's been playing well for a month and a half - since he became the Blazers starting PG. And it's not just about his individual stats. The Blazers win more with him starting than they did with Blake starting (in spite of missing key players that were healthy when Blake was starting, and a tougher schedule), Roy has played better with Miller starting than with Blake. Ditto for Martell. Miller is an above average stating PG. His individual production is better than any PG we've had in almost a decade and a half, he makes his teammates better, and he's helping the Blazers win games with an injury depleted roster and a tough schedule.

I'm still baffled by what you dislike about that. Would you prefer we bench Miller and go back to Blake starting? You criticized Miller's defense and turnovers, but Blake is no better defensively and turns the ball over at practically the same rate (14.9 TOV% vs. 15.2 TOV%) in spite of a much lower assist rate (21% vs. 29.4%) and his inability to create easy scoring opportunities for himself or his teammates.

Would you prefer to start the wildly inconsistent Bayless at PG? If you do, we lose more games and probably miss the play-offs. I love Bayless as instant offense off the bench, or starting at SG with Roy out, but he's not ready to be our starting PG. As long as he continues to get decent minutes (he averaged almost 24 MPG for January), he can continue to improve without costing the team wins. Eventually, I do see him taking over from Miller as the starting PG, but I don't see that happening for another year to year and a half. In the meantime, I think he should get 20+ MPG backing up both positions.

In spite of your dislike for him, Andre Miller is helping this team win games, he's the best PG we have on our roster, the best one we've had in well over a decade, and an above average starting NBA PG. He's not an all-star, or a Hall-of-Famer, but I never said he was (and don't recall anyone else saying it either).

BNM

Talk about changing the subject. Sheesh. Where have I been arguing Blake versus Miller? Blake has sucked this year. I know that. I'm just saying Miller isn't who I want at PG for this team. PG is a tremendously over-rated position anyway.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Talk about changing the subject. Sheesh. Where have I been arguing Blake versus Miller? Blake has sucked this year. I know that. I'm just saying Miller isn't who I want at PG for this team. PG is a tremendously over-rated position anyway.

He isn't who you want, fine. Who do you want? And an overrated position? What does that even mean? Are you saying it's overrated to have a guy who initiates offense and sets up teammates? I'd like to point back to my earlier comment about you 'officially' being disqualified from rendering basketball related opinions.

 

[Tince]

Some people would rather look for imperfections in an improved situation and point out the negatives instead suggest solutions. It seems to be the American way for a vocal minority of people we deal with on a daily basis.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I'd like to see us re-visit this question at the end of February. I think lots of us had our doubts about Miller during 2009. I think many of us are pleased to see how he's started 2010. But the Blazers right now could be lottery-bound if they can't keep up with the rest of the West...

Actually, the Blazers would already be lottery bound if not for the way Andre Miller has played over the last month. Put Steve Blake and his 8.3 PER (which is what it was when he was starting) back in the starting line-up over the last month and a half and the Blazers are no better than the 11th seed right now.

Andre Miller's play during January has kept this team in the play-off picture in spite of all the injuries and a very tough schedule. Two more losses over the last month and the Blazers are the 11th seed. Obviously, the Blazers would not have won last night without Miller (which would have dropped them to the 8th seed - half a game from being the 11th seed). Miller was also a key contributor to several close wins during January. The Detroit and Philadelphia games come immediately to mind.

BNM

 

[Public Defender]

Actually, the Blazers would already be lottery bound if not for the way Andre Miller has played over the last month. Put Steve Blake and his 8.3 PER (which is what it was when he was starting) back in the starting line-up over the last month and a half and the Blazers are no better than the 11th seed right now.

Andre Miller's play during January has kept this team in the play-off picture in spite of all the injuries and a very tough schedule. Two more losses over the last month and the Blazers are the 11th seed. Obviously, the Blazers would not have won last night without Miller (which would have dropped them to the 8th seed - half a game from being the 11th seed). Miller was also a key contributor to several close wins during January. The Detroit and Philadelphia games come immediately to mind.

BNM

Lottery-bound, right now? Sorry, I thought there were still lots of games left to play, and no one had secured a playoff spot yet. Let me check... OK, the Blazers are 28-21, which means they've played 49 games - yup, I was right, there are still 33 games left to play.

All I'm saying is that the Blazers are either going to make the postseason or not based on how Andre Miller and the rest of the team play over those 33 games. Those will matter far more than the 16 games the Blazers played in January (more than twice as much, if my math is right...).

As for "what if Andre Miller hadn't been playing?" - I'm reluctant to entertain those hypotheticals. I would imagine that the Blazers might have lost some games, but who knows? This team has done amazing things with important players sitting out.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Talk about changing the subject. Sheesh. Where have I been arguing Blake versus Miller? Blake has sucked this year. I know that. I'm just saying Miller isn't who I want at PG for this team. PG is a tremendously over-rated position anyway.

You once again did not answer a single question I asked. I've answered yours repeatedly, but in case you missed it, I'll say it again. We signed Andre Miller because he was a significant upgrade at starting PG and he helps us win games - as proven by his play since our coach has actually decided to use him as our starting PG. He makes the team better than they would be right now without him. Isn't that reason enough for signing him?

So, if we can't have Miller, then who do you want as our starting PG? When I look at our roster, I don't see anyone better for the job.

I'd also prefer to have Dwight Howard over Juwan Howard as our current starting center, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the contributions Juwan has made. It's called reality, and the reality is Andre Miller is far better than any other alternative we currently have. He has helped the team win games in spite of a depleted roster and a tough schedule. He has elevated his own play and that of his teammates (Roy and Webster have played significantly better with Miller starting at PG than they did with Blake starting). What more do you want from any player, PG or otherwise?

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

All I'm saying is that the Blazers are either going to make the postseason or not based on how Andre Miller and the rest of the team play over those 33 games.

And you can say the same thing about at least nine other teams in the West - whether or not they make the play-offs will depend on how "insert name" and the rest of the team play over the next 33 games.

Seriously, the race for the bottom three or four play-off spots in the West is going to be extremely close. Right now a game and a half separates the 6th seed from the 11th. I suspect the race for the bottom seeds will come down to the last day of the regular season and I suspect the separation between between making the play-offs and not will come down to a single game, perhaps seen a tie breaker situation. In such a tight race, EVERY game is important. A loss in January counts just as much as a loss in April.

As for "what if Andre Miller hadn't been playing?" - I'm reluctant to entertain those hypotheticals. I would imagine that the Blazers might have lost some games, but who knows? This team has done amazing things with important players sitting out.

And Andre Miller has been a huge part of that "amazing things with important players sitting out", hasn't he? At they very least, there is no way in hell the Blazers win last night in Dallas without him. And that game alone could be the difference between making the play-offs and being in the lottery. Of course if the Blazers play like crap, or go on a tear, over the rest of the season, that one game won't really matter. However, I think the odds of either extreme are pretty slim, I suspect they will continue to play right around 0.550 ball - as will many of the six teams they are battling or three play-off spots. And that's why winning the games they won in January, led by Andre Miller and with so many key players out, are so important. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that in my previous post.

BNM

 

[drexlersdad]

semi-hilarious

 

[tlongII]

You once again did not answer a single question I asked. I've answered yours repeatedly, but in case you missed it, I'll say it again. We signed Andre Miller because he was a significant upgrade at starting PG and he helps us win games - as proven by his play since our coach has actually decided to use him as our starting PG. He makes the team better than they would be right now without him. Isn't that reason enough for signing him?

So, if we can't have Miller, then who do you want as our starting PG? When I look at our roster, I don't see anyone better for the job.

I'd also prefer to have Dwight Howard over Juwan Howard as our current starting center, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the contributions Juwan has made. It's called reality, and the reality is Andre Miller is far better than any other alternative we currently have. He has helped the team win games in spite of a depleted roster and a tough schedule. He has elevated his own play and that of his teammates (Roy and Webster have played significantly better with Miller starting at PG than they did with Blake starting). What more do you want from any player, PG or otherwise?

BNM

The offseason shouldn't have been about signing a point guard. Our biggest need is backup power forward. I've already said this. My opinion is that we'd be in better shape had we not low-balled Millsap.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The offseason shouldn't have been about signing a point guard. Our biggest need is backup power forward. I've already said this. My opinion is that we'd be in better shape had we not low-balled Millsap.

Low balled Millsap???? They offered him a front loaded contract that would have paid him $11.9 million this season. Utah elected to match and will be paying another $11.9 million of luxury tax this year due to the salary of their back-up power forward. That's almost $24 million for a guy who doesn't even start and averages 10.9 PPG and 6.1 RPG. I hardly call that a low ball offer.

I'm a HUGE Millsap fan,and wanted the Blazers to draft him back in 2006, but his scoring and rebounding are down considerably this season. His total rebounding percentage, is a very unimpressive 13.8%, by far the lowest of his career and barely better than LaMarcus Aldridge's 13.7.

And at the time we made the offer, we had a healthy Geg Oden, and healthy Joel Przybilla and LaMarcus Aldridge. The contract the Blazers offered Millsap was extremely high for a player who would not have been starting and expected to only play 15 - 20 MPG.

And based on the way Blake played as a starter (8.3 PER), I'd say starting PG was in bigger need of an upgrade than back-up power forward.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

The thread is an impressive edifice in commemoration of stubbornness.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The thread is an impressive edifice in commemoration of stubbornness.

And also a classic example of the "epic fail" - starting a thread with:

"The dude is not that good. I didn't understand the signing at the time, and I still don't. I don't get it."

And then watching him go off for 52 points in leading his undermanned team to an overtime road victory against a first place team 12 hours later.

BNM

 

[tlongII]

Low balled Millsap???? They offered him a front loaded contract that would have paid him $11.9 million this season. Utah elected to match and will be paying another $11.9 million of luxury tax this year due to the salary of their back-up power forward. That's almost $24 million for a guy who doesn't even start and averages 10.9 PPG and 6.1 RPG. I hardly call that a low ball offer.

I'm a HUGE Millsap fan,and wanted the Blazers to draft him back in 2006, but his scoring and rebounding are down considerably this season. His total rebounding percentage, is a very unimpressive 13.8%, by far the lowest of his career and barely better than LaMarcus Aldridge's 13.7.

And at the time we made the offer, we had a healthy Geg Oden, and healthy Joel Przybilla and LaMarcus Aldridge. The contract the Blazers offered Millsap was extremely high for a player who would not have been starting and expected to only play 15 - 20 MPG.

And based on the way Blake played as a starter (8.3 PER), I'd say starting PG was in bigger need of an upgrade than back-up power forward.

BNM

We had more cap room to make a better offer to Millsap. The fact that Utah matched pretty much proves we low-balled. It we offered the max we were allowed do you think Utah would have matched? I don't. Blake has played poorly, but if he just shot at the same clip that he did last season we would be fine. The point guard position is not that important when you have a player like B-Roy.

 

[tlongII]

And also a classic example of the "epic fail" - starting a thread with:

"The dude is not that good. I didn't understand the signing at the time, and I still don't. I don't get it."

And then watching him go off for 52 points in leading his undermanned team to an overtime road victory against a first place team 12 hours later.

BNM

Don't forget that tremendous 2 point game he had the night before!

 

[Boob-No-More]

We had more cap room to make a better offer to Millsap. The fact that Utah matched pretty much proves we low-balled. It we offered the max we were allowed do you think Utah would have matched? I don't. Blake has played poorly, but if he just shot at the same clip that he did last season we would be fine. The point guard position is not that important when you have a player like B-Roy.

We got Miller, a starter, for much less ($14 million guaranteed) than we offered Millsap ($32 million guaranteed) - a back-up.

And, quite frankly, Miller has outplayed Millsap this year and he's been a HUGE upgrade over Blake.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Don't forget that tremendous 2 point game he had the night before!

So, he's averaged 28 points over those two games.

Please also don't forget the 18.8 PTS, 4.0 REB and 6.7 AST he averaged for the month on 0.500 FG%.

I've asked you several times to find a better month for a Blazer PG over the last decade and you haven't. You say the "dude just isn't that good", but you can't name another current or recent Blazer PG who is better. You say he's not your choice for starting PG, but when asked, fail to tell us who is. When confronted with overwhelming evidence that Miller actually is "that good", you simply ignore it and change the subject.

Face it, this thread is even more laughable than those usually started by Mixum and Kingspeed. You simply won't admit that you are wrong about Andre Miller. He's the best PG the Blazers have had in nearly a decade and a half, an above average starting PG, a huge upgrade over Steve Blake, is helping the team win, is making his teammates better, and a huge bargain at his current salary of less than $7 million.

But way to stick to your guns.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

Nope. It was only 1 game after all.

Don't forget that tremendous 2 point game he had the night before!

Fail.

Also, Miller's season PER is sitting at a nifty 17.3. Not star level, but solidly above average for a starter. So we can dispense with "one game" arguments. It's nice to finally have an upper-half starting point guard.