WHY did we sign Miller?

[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.

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!

Yes, OMG. Agreed.

Oden was just fine last year... there was no reason to make him take a step back in terms of his role offensively. This became clear ... what, within the first week or so of the regular season?

And Blake's mental frame is barely relevant to me. He was one of the worst starters in the NBA early this year and should have been coming off the bench the whole season.

Nate's poor decision-making--for whatever reason--cost this team wins early in the year and (IMO) delayed Miller's integration with the rest of the club. That is entirely on Nate, not on Oden or Blake for psychological weaknesses Nate might have perceived.

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

And his PER has risen from 14.7 to 17.3 since he became the starting PG. He is playing well above average. If he's not a top 10 PG, he's close.

Roy and Webster also saw significant improvement in their performance once Miller became the starter. Heck, even Blake is playing much better in his back-up role than he did as a starter (PER up from 8.3 to 11.0).

BNM

 

[tlongII]

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

Obviously you're not grasping what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that we have another point guard that is playing better than Miller. I'm arguing that he doesn't make us a much better team.

 

[RoyToy]

Obviously you're not grasping what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that we have another point guard that is playing better than Miller. I'm arguing that he doesn't make us a much better team.

21-12 when Miller is the starting PG. 7-9 when he isn't.

Ok.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Oden was just fine last year... there was no reason to make him take a step back in terms of his role offensively. This became clear ... what, within the first week or so of the regular season?

Even sooner than that. He led the team in scoring during the preseason - to which Net responded by telling him not to worry about offense, just focus on rebounding and defense. It was clear from the start of training camp and all through the preseason Oden was a force to be reckoned with on BOTH ends of the court. But Nate would rather ignore Oden's offensive potential than figure out a way to integrate it into his one dimensional, predictable offense.

And Blake's mental frame is barely relevant to me. He was one of the worst starters in the NBA early this year and should have been coming off the bench the whole season.

He was one of very few players getting > 30 MPG with a PER below 10 - and since he is not known for his defensive prowess there was absolutely no reason he should have been starting and getting that many minutes. Rather than do the obvious and bench Blake, Nate concocted his 3-guard line-up that forced two of the three players to play out of position and guard much bigger, stronger players.

Nate's poor decision-making--for whatever reason--cost this team wins early in the year and (IMO) delayed Miller's integration with the rest of the club. That is entirely on Nate, not on Oden or Blake for psychological weaknesses Nate might have perceived.

Agreed 100%. Nate cost this team wins at a time when their schedule was much easier - and the team was healthy. Inexcusable.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Obviously you're not grasping what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that we have another point guard that is playing better than Miller. I'm arguing that he doesn't make us a much better team.

Seriously? I've said it several times: 21-12 when Miller starts, 7-9 when he doesn't. The team is winning games with him starting and playing big minutes in spite of Oden, Przybilla, Outlaw, now Roy, previously Batum and Rudy out - in spite of a very tough schedule.

Isn't winning games the objective? This team definitely wins more with Miller than without him. The evidence is irrefutable. If that doesn't meet your definition of "make us a much better team" what does?

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

This is a stupid argument. Of all the players we could be debating, Miller really isn't the one who deserves it. I would rather talk Aldridge, Webster, or Rudy.

 

[Boob-No-More]

This is a stupid argument. Of all the players we could be debating, Miller really isn't the one who deserves it. I would rather talk Aldridge, Webster, or Rudy.

Or perhaps a better thread would be:

WHY did Nate start Blake?

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

But Nate would rather ignore Oden's offensive potential than figure out a way to integrate it into his one dimensional, predictable offense.

This is my main concern with McMillan. I think, at root, all the problems people have with him (overplaying Blake, underplaying Miller, de-emphasizing Oden) comes down to McMillan only being comfortable with one style of play and not having much ability to weave different offensive talents into one coherent system. So, he does whatever he has to in order to maintain his system...even if it means punting on Oden's offensive potential or on Miller's superior talent or on Bayless' dynamic offensive talent.

If that's the case, I would want him replaced. That would mean that he's (unintentionally) placing artificial restrictions on the Trail Blazers, making them much less able to leverage player talent. I don't think most NBA head coaches have major effect on team performance, but I think the best teams need a coach who can find a way to leverage as much of his players' talent as he can.

McMillan seems like a good college coach: a guy who can "coach 'em up" and maybe keep them focused. Not a guy who can create systems to extract the most production possible from a bunch of pros.

 

[Natebishop3]

Or perhaps a better thread would be:

WHY did Nate start Blake?

BNM

We've already debated that ad nauseum. There was no reason for Blake to start over Miller. None.

Argument #1 - Roy plays better with Blake (false)

Argument #2 - Roy and Miller can't coexist (false)

Argument #3 - The team can't win without a three point shooter at pg (false)

I'm done talking about it. Nate is an idiot who clings to his favorites. It's already been well established.

I would rather talk about our backcourt's future and who should be dealt. I think Rudy is the prime candidate.

Or why is everyone so down on Aldridge? Is Martell for real? How high is Batum's ceiling? I'm done debating Miller. He's playing great. The team is doing better than expected. Let's talk about the future.

 

[Natebishop3]

This is my main concern with McMillan. I think, at root, all the problems people have with him (overplaying Blake, underplaying Miller, de-emphasizing Oden) comes down to McMillan only being comfortable with one style of play and not having much ability to weave different offensive talents into one coherent system. So, he does whatever he has to in order to maintain his system...even if it means punting on Oden's offensive potential or on Miller's superior talent or on Bayless' dynamic offensive talent.

If that's the case, I would want him replaced. That would mean that he's (unintentionally) placing artificial restrictions on the Trail Blazers, making them much less able to leverage player talent. I don't think most NBA head coaches have major effect on team performance, but I think the best teams need a coach who can find a way to leverage as much of his players' talent as he can.

McMillan seems like a good college coach: a guy who can "coach 'em up" and maybe keep them focused. Not a guy who can create systems to extract the most production possible from a bunch of pros.

Bingo! That basically sums up the reason why I want him gone.

 

[RoyToy]

In retrospect I'm fine with the way McMillan handled Oden. Instead of trying to force it at the beginning of the season McMillan made Oden prove he could handle a bigger role on offense. Once Oden started showing signs of improvement, Oden started getting more touches and his confidence was rising with every game. It was almost perfect.

If Greg didn't get hurt he could very well be averaging 15/10 right now, which is what he was averaging in his last 7 games before he went down to injury. The scary part is he only played over 30 minutes in one of those games, and that was 30:04.

If Oden stays healthy he'll be a beast, no doubt in my mind.

 

[tlongII]

Seriously? I've said it several times: 21-12 when Miller starts, 7-9 when he doesn't. The team is winning games with him starting and playing big minutes in spite of Oden, Przybilla, Outlaw, now Roy, previously Batum and Rudy out - in spite of a very tough schedule.

Isn't winning games the objective? This team definitely wins more with Miller than without him. The evidence is irrefutable. If that doesn't meet your definition of "make us a much better team" what does?

BNM

We were 52-30 last year without Miller. We're 28-21 this year with him. See, I can make dumb arguments too!

 

[Boob-No-More]

We were 52-30 last year without Miller. We're 28-21 this year with him. See, I can make dumb arguments too!

You proved that by starting this thread.

BNM

 

[THE HCP]

AHHHHH SNAP!

 

[Minstrel]

We were 52-30 last year without Miller. We're 28-21 this year with him.

Considering the players from that 52-win team lost to injuries, that argues even more strongly in Miller's favour.

See, I can make dumb arguments too!

Well, you certainly proved capable of undermining your own position.

 

[Natebishop3]

We were 52-30 last year without Miller. We're 28-21 this year with him. See, I can make dumb arguments too!

Tlong you are just being stubborn.

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

We were 52-30 last year without Miller. We're 28-21 this year with him. See, I can make dumb arguments too!

Wow.

Just like your analysis of Miller, and PG being an "overrated position," you're wrong. We were 54-28 last year. Not that that has anything to do with this year. The league changes.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Tlong you are just being stubborn.

Hell, he can't even get the number of wins correct. We were 54-28 last year.

 

[tlongII]

Yep 54 wins last year. Sorry about that.

 

[tlongII]

Wow.

Just like your analysis of Miller, and PG being an "overrated position," you're wrong. We were 54-28 last year. Not that that has anything to do with this year. The league changes.

It is an overrated position. Look at the championship teams over the past 20 years and tell me how many of them had great point guards. You win in the NBA by being good in the paint.

 

[Nikolokolus]

It is an overrated position. Look at the championship teams over the past 20 years and tell me how many of them had great point guards. You win in the NBA by being good in the paint.

And how is that guys in the paint get the ball?

 

[Natebishop3]

And how is that guys in the paint get the ball?

Rebounds of course!

 

[Nikolokolus]

I should have said "How do they get the ball, if they don't play in Phil Jackson's triangle?"

 

[tlongII]

If you can win multiple championships with Derek Fisher at point guard that in itself proves it's an overrated position.

 

[Minstrel]

It is an overrated position. Look at the championship teams over the past 20 years and tell me how many of them had great point guards. You win in the NBA by being good in the paint.

How many had great centers? The Bulls, Spurs and Celtics didn't, nor the most recent edition of the Lakers. Only the Rockets and the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. Does that mean having good or great centers is valueless? Of course not.

The argument "How many championship teams of the last X years had Y?" is a terrible way to evaluate the value of positions, because championship teams are a small sample size...a few amazing players dominate the that sample size, and it's random what position they happen to be.

In the '80s, you had great point guards (Magic/Thomas) taking home 7 of 10. In the '90s, you had great wings (Jordan/Pippen) taking a majority.

It's having the best talent that wins championships, not having talent at specific positions.

 

[tlongII]

How many had great centers? The Bulls, Spurs and Celtics didn't, nor the most recent edition of the Lakers. Only the Rockets and the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. Does that mean having good or great centers is valueless? Of course not.

The argument "How many championship teams of the last X years had Y?" is a terrible way to evaluate the value of positions, because championship teams are a small sample size...a few amazing players dominate the that sample size, and it's random what position they happen to be.

In the '80s, you had great point guards (Magic/Thomas) taking home 7 of 10. In the '90s, you had great wings (Jordan/Pippen) taking a majority.

It's having the best talent that wins championships, not having talent at specific positions.

Huh? The Spurs have Duncan, the Lakers have Gasol and Bynum.

 

[tlongII]

Plus the Celtics with KG and Perkins are a big team.

 

[tlongII]

The top 3 point guards over the past few years are pretty much universally recognized as D-Will, CP3, and Nash. How many championships have they won?

 

[oldmangrouch]

Rebounds of course!

There is a famous (infamous?) story about Oscar Robertson early in his career. The Big O played on the Royals with Jerry Lucas - a great rebounder who could also shoot. Lucas complained about Robertson ignoring him on offense. Oscar's response? "You want the ball, get it off the offensive glass."

Late in his career, Robertson wound up with the Bucks, and grudgingly learned to feed the ball to Kareem....and finally got a ring.