One thing that really stood out last night (and throughout the series) was the Blazers lack of a speedy ball handler and on-ball-defender. Jason Terry and J.J. Barea drove into the lane at will, setting up easy shots for themselves or dishing to open guys near the basket. The Blazers most comparable player is Patty Mills, but Mills lacks the creativity and court vision to serve as a playmaker and doesn't have very good defensive instincts (though Terry and Barea aren't great defenders either). Mills can generate some shots for himself, but isn't very good at converting drives to the hoop into assists or creating ball pressure or generating steals.   

But there is someone in this draft the Blazers can get who can fill that role: Washington's Isaiah Thomas. Thomas is short, but he's lightning quick and is an excellent scorer and facilitator in the paint.  He's also a very good, very underrated defender. I think NBA GMs consistently overvalue height at the PG position.  In the post-hand check era -- and with the NBA's bigger 3 point radius and rules against camping in the paint defensively -- tiny lightning bug point guards are a major weapon.  They have much more space to work with and they reak havoc on defenses, as we saw this series.  The Blazers need a guy like that, a guy who can come off the bench and repeatedly get around defenders into the key to get create easy buckets for himself and his teammates.  Thomas is that kind of a player.  He's mature and experienced (22 years old), extremely confident, and already a better scorer, passer, and defender than Patty Mills. 

Best of all, I suspect Thomas can be acquired with a mid to late second round pick, so it's hard to see what the Blazers have to lose by taking a gamble on a guy like that.  He's not THE missing piece, but I think he would fill a niche that is really lacking right now.     

Poll

The Blazers should take a gamble on Isaiah Thomas, at least if he's still available in the second round.

61%

Yes

66 votes

38%

No

41 votes

107 votes | Poll has closed

At the end of a long post yesterday about Brandon Roy, Henry Abbott at TrueHoop wrote something very interesting, something that echoes my own thoughts over the last few days:

Coming soon: Some hard decisions about whether or not it makes sense to keep starting Roy, as he copes with these knee issues. Other than Roy, the Blazers' starting unit is very speedy. It might be an idea to set them free, while bringing in Roy like a designated hitter.

We all know that the Blazers under Nate McMillan play at a very slow pace. This season, true to form, the Blazers have the second slowest pace of any team in the NBA. It's hard not to notice, though, that with the exception of Brandon Roy, the Blazers' current active roster is stacked with the kind of players that would make fast-paced coaches like Mike D'Antoni and Alvin Gentry salivate.

Andre Miller is one of the very best open court point guards in the league, the master of the long outlet pass and the alley-oop lob. LaMarcus Aldridge may well be the best open court big man in the NBA, a 6'11'' player who runs like a gazelle and finishes effortlessly on fastbreaks. Nicolas Batum is likewise at his best when gliding down the court in transition. Camby, though not as skilled a finisher as Nic or LaMarcus, is also quite comfort in transition situations, particularly when trailing a play and looking for tip-ins off of misses. He's also a good outlet passer.

Moreover, as they demonstrated in the Detroit game on Tuesday, all four of the Blazers' primary bench contributors -- Rudy Fernandez, Wesley Matthews, Armon Johnson, and Dante Cunningham -- appear to be more comfortable in open court than in half court sets. Both Johnson and Fernandez have noticeably better court vision in transition situations and seem to make much better decisions in open court than they do in half-court sets. Dante Cunningham and Wes Matthews, like Aldrdige and Batum, run the court well and are excellent fast break finishers. 

In the current rotation, particularly without Oden or Przybilla, Roy really is the odd man out. So what to do about that? 

Though it may be a little unorthodox, I think there's a strong argument for having Roy -- at least in his current state -- come off the bench. If you think about it, Roy's skills as a scorer are the least necessary when he's playing alongside Aldridge, Miller, and Batum, all of whom can score. At the beginning of games, Roy expends a lot of energy running up and down the court while Miller does most of the ball-handling and Aldridge and Batum do a lot of the scoring. He's also forced to expend a lot of energy on defense guarding one of the other team's starting wings. Meanwhile, the Blazer second unit, while filled with energy guys, is devoid of anyone who can consistently create his own shot or function as a playmaker in half court sets. 

If Roy came off the bench, he could fill that void. He could concentrate his efforts and focus his energy on scoring, not having to worry about getting everyone else involved first. And he could log a good portion of his minutes while the other team's most dangerous scorers are resting, thus easing his defensive burden. 

This isn't entirely unprecedented. Manu Ginobili basically played this role for San Antonio during several of their championship runs, despite being a much more talented player than the various shooting guards the Spurs started ahead of him. Ginobili would come off the bench but also finish games, which is what I envision Brandon doing. 

If and when Greg Oden gets healthy, he too could come off the bench and play at a slower pace as Roy's pick and roll partner while the more nimble Marcus Camby continues to start. In Roy's place, either Rudy Fernandez or Wes Matthews could start and play a more traditional off-ball game while Miller runs the offense. During the stretches when Roy is on the bench, the team could play at a much faster pace, looking to run whenever possible. When Roy comes in, the pace can slow and the team can play a more half-court oriented game.

I'm not suggesting that this should be the permanent arrangement, but it would be an interesting experiment, particularly while Roy is less than 100% and Oden and/or Przybilla are just coming back from injury and trying to work their way into game shape. Obviously a major obstacle to such a plan is Brandon's ego. He'd have to embrace the role for it to work and that's a lot to ask of a franchise player. But if Brandon's minutes are going to be limited, at his own request, then even he has to wonder whether there might be a more efficient way to space them out over the course of a game. Coming off the bench might well be the best way to utilized Roy's skills without limiting his teammates.

Poll

Should Roy (at least in his current state of health) come off the bench?

75%

Yes, it would be a more effective use of his talents.

298 votes

24%

No, if Roy's playing, he should start.

98 votes

396 votes | Poll has closed

There's no question that last night's loss to the Lakers was difficult to watch, but in reading the comments here and elsewhere (at Dwight Jaynes's site especially), I think many fans are seriously over-reacting to it.  Let's not lose sight of the fact that this was a road game against the red-hot (and rested) defending champions on the second night of a back-to-back.  On top of that, the Blazers still have no depth in the front-court (without Greg or Joel), and the Laker front-court duo of Gasol and Odom is absolutely destroying the league right now.  Both are playing the best ball of their careers and shooting the ball at unsustainable levels.   

So the fact that this was a blowout should surprise no one.  

But let's take stock of where the team is at this point.  First, the good news.  The Blazer starting unit is looking strong.  Going into last night's game, all five Blazer starters had a PER above 18.  That was not true of any other team in the league.  LaMarcus Aldridge and Nic Batum, in particular, have played some of the best basketball of their careers over the first few games of this season.  They've both had off games too, but overall their performance has been solid and they've both shown a promising expansion in their skill sets, with Nic showing more offensive versatility and LaMarcus showing some added aggression and physicality on both ends of the floor.  Andre Miller and Marcus Camby are both contributing and do not appear to have suffered any drop off in their skills.  

Brandon Roy is the primary source of concern in the starting lineup.  His PER, while comfortably above league average, is actually the lowest of the Blazer starters.  His game has been more perimeter oriented and his shot is just not falling at a high percentage.  What I sense from Roy is a hesitance.  I just don't think he fully trusts his body to do many of the things he's done in the past.  It reminds me of the way he played last season when he was trying to come back from that nagging hamstring injury and was clearly concerned about re-aggravating it.  I think that as the season wears on, though, he'll loosen up and find his groove again.  He may not ever be as athletic as he was a few years ago, but he's a crafty player and will adjust.  He'll find a way to be efficient and effective offensively.

My primary concern at this point is not Roy, but the Blazer bench.  The depth we once had just isn't there anymore.  At this point, the primary bench contributors are Wesley Matthews, Dante Cunningham, and Rudy Fernandez (when healthy).  Of those players, Rudy strikes me as the only one really capable of providing an offensive boost, and he is notoriously inconsistent.  I think Wesley Matthews has the skills to be a quality rotation player in the NBA, but he is in over his head at this point and being asked to do too much.  He tries very hard, but he is not a playmaker.  He does not strike me as someone who is capable of consistently generating his own shot or creating shots for others.  Put another way, he is not great at improvising offensively.  When forced to do so, he makes bad decisions, taking low percentage shots or making bad passes.  

Indeed, there's really no bench player at the moment who is capable of generating his own shot consistently or functioning as a half-court playmaker.  Armon Johnson is a good ball handler and has shown decent playmaking skills in transition situations, but I've yet to see him create good shots for himself or others in the half-court set.  To the contrary, he tends to be turnover prone in the half-court. 

What the Blazers need is someone on the bench who can function as a playmaker, someone who -- like Miller -- can make good interior passes to cutting bigs and wings for easy baskets.  This will be particularly important once Greg Oden returns to the lineup.  Virtually all of the Blazer bigs and wings (with the exception of Joel) are excellent finishers around the rim and more than capable of converting on alley-oops.  Most of the Blazers' easy buckets this season have come on alley-oop feeds, mostly from Andre Miller (though a surprising number from Camby as well).

If Armon continues to struggle in half-court sets, it might be time to give Patty Mills a little run and see if he can do it better.  In the Summer League, Patty made a number of good interior passes in half-court sets.   

I also think Luke Babbitt needs to see more minutes.  I realize he's raw and likely a defensive liability at this point, but he has the potential to provide some much needed offense and shooting on the second unit.  And he needs the experience.  I'd like to see him given some real game minutes and the encouragement to look to score.  The Blazers do not really have a true stretch big (i.e. a 4 or 5 who is a three point threat). If Babbitt can become that guy, it will open up lots of room on the offensive end for guys like Matthews or Armon to slash to the hoop.  

Overall, though, the Blazers aren't in bad shape.  If Roy starts to play a little more like Roy, the Blazer starting unit will be among the very best in the league.  We've already seen this unit's ability to kick into a higher gear in crunch time situations.  The key to the Blazers success this year will be finding a way to maximize the contributions of the bench players and prevent the dropoff that occurs when the starters sit (and thereby allow the starts to rest more).  Our bench is young and untested.  If they can find their roles, get comfortable with them, and start playing with some confidence, this team will be very good.

One of the most difficult awards to predict each year is the Most Improved Player award.  But inevitably, every year, there are a handful of players around the league who make a sudden and dramatic leap forward in the quality of their play.  Often, these are players who have always had potential, but in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th seasons, suddenly figure things out and hit a different gear.  Recent examples include last year's winner, Aaron Brooks, and the winner the year before that, Danny Granger.   Sometimes the award goes to someone who finds himself on a new team or in new system that is better suited to his talents, and he flourishes.  A recent example is Hedu Turkoglu in 2007-2008.  Channing Frye was a good example last year, even though he didn't win the award.  And sometimes it's just a case of finally getting playing time (the classic example is Jermaine O'Neal after Portland traded him to the Pacers). 

One of the reasons I bring this up is that there are an unusually large number of current and former Blazers who fit the profile of players poised to potentially make a dramatic leap forward this season.  That doesn't mean they will, of course, but it means we shouldn't be shocked if they do and if we end up seeing their names in the conversation for most improved player.  

Among the current roster, I think the most obvious candidates are Nic Batum and Greg Oden.  If either player can put together a full season playing at or above the level they played last year when healthy, they should both be in the running.  If either shows significant improvement over last season, which is entirely possible, he may well be the front runner for the award. 

Jerryd Bayless also fits the profile.  If he can become a more consistent perimeter shooter while incrementally improving the other aspects of his game, his name may well be in the conversation.  As a second year player, Wesley Matthews is also a possibility.  Finally, though this will be his fifth season, LaMarcus Aldridge has all the tools to put up numbers far more impressive than he's put up to date.  If something finally "clicks," he may be able to kick his game up a gear.   

Among former Blazers, both Martell Webster and Travis Outlaw find themselves in new systems where they will likely get more playing time and be counted on to do new things.  As both are still young and have room to improve, both fit the profile of an MIP candidate.  So too will Rudy Fernandez if he is traded -- as he is expected to be -- prior to the start of the season.  If Fernandez is traded to Chicago, for instance, he might even get a chance to start and benefit from playing off of Derrick Rose. 

In surveying the rest of the league, the following players strike me as other potential MIP candidates (though there are many): Stephen Curry (GSW), Paul Millsap (Utah, now a starter), Russel Westbrook and Jeff Green (OKC, playing on team USA), Robin Lopez (PHX), and Jrue Holiday (PHI, probably a starter). 

What are you predictions?  Who will win the MIP award in 2010-11?      

Poll

Which Blazer, current or former, is most likely to have a breakout season and win the Most Improved Player Award?

18%

Nic Batum

98 votes

61%

Greg Oden

326 votes

5%

Jerryd Bayless

30 votes

1%

LaMarcus Aldridge

10 votes

1%

Wesley Matthews

9 votes

6%

Martell Webster (Minnesota)

33 votes

2%

Travis Outlaw (New Jersey)

11 votes

3%

Rudy Fernandez (team to be determined)

17 votes

534 votes | Poll has closed

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Blazers need a starting point guard who is a better "fit" alongside Brandon Roy.  "Fit" is generally short hand for "a guy who shoots better."  I find this whole line of reasoning annoying, not because it isn't true in some hypothetical sense, but because it leads fans to undervalue the things Andre Miller does well and to covet players who are inferior to Miller. 

Consider this: Basketballvalue.com keeps track of the adjusted plus/minus of every 5 man lineup in the NBA.  In other words, these are not just raw plus/minus numbers, but numbers adjusted to reflect the quality of the opposing players as well.  It allows for a number of interesting comparisons.  For instance, among the 11 Blazer lineups who played more than 50 minutes together last year, the lineup with the best adjusted plus/minus was this one:

Miller-Roy-Webster-Aldridge-Przybilla  (Adj. +/- 17.67; Off. rat. 113.99, Def. rat. 93.71)

The worst of those 11 lineups was this one:

Blake-Roy-Webster-Aldridge-Przybilla (Adj. +/- -17.91; Off. rat. 95.14, Def. rat. 105.98)

As you'll notice, the only difference between these lineups is the person playing point guard.  Yet despite the supposedly better fit Blake provides, the lineup with Miller was WAY better. 

I realize that this one comparison isn't definitive proof that the Blazers are better off with Miller at point guard than, say, Mo Williams.  But I think it at least provides grounds for caution.  Basketball is indeed a game of chemistry and the way players fit together matters, but you don't want to let such considerations blind you to other factors, such as the overall talent of the players in question.  Miller may not be the perfect fit alongside Roy, but he is a very good player, and he makes up for his lack of outside shooting by being really good at other things, such as passing, rebounding, and drawing fouls.   If we replace him with a shooter, there's no guarantee that the tradeoff will work out in our favor. 

If someone like Chris Paul suddenly becomes available for a reasonable price (which I find unlikely), I'm all for making that trade.  But it is not at all clear to me that a lot of the other names that are often bandied about (Devon Harris or Mo Williams, for example) offer an upgrade over what we have in Miller.   

Poll

What (realistically acquirable) point guard (other than CP3) would be an upgrade over Andre Miller?

1%

Mo Williams

3 votes

31%

Devon Harris

54 votes

5%

Jose Calderon

10 votes

12%

Kirk Hinrich

21 votes

4%

More than one of the above

7 votes

44%

None of the above

75 votes

170 votes | Poll has closed

It seems to be an accepted tenet of conventional wisdom among Blazer fans that what we really need to do is make that one big consolidating trade for a star point guard (*cough* CP3 *cough*) and we'll finally have all the pieces together to win a championship.  As much as I understand where this sentiment is coming from, it's not healthy. 

Don't get me wrong, if by some miracle Chris Paul suddenly becomes acquirable for a price that doesn't gut our roster, we should absolutely pull the trigger.  But that's not a plan.  It's unlikely that New Orleans will be willing to trade Paul this year, and even if they do, there will be plenty of other bidders, and they will be offering a lot.  Moreover, as we've seen with Cleveland's example, putting all your eggs in the basket of a soon-to-be free agent superstar is dangerous.  We could mortgage our future to acquire Paul only to see him leave to join his buddies in South Beach or some other bigger market.  

But beyond that, outside of Paul, the universe of potentially acquirable upgrades at point guard is exceedingly small.  In fact, there may not be ANY other potentially acquirable point guards out their who represent a clear improvement over current personnel.  Williams, Nash, Rondo, Westbrook, Billups; these guys aren't going anywhere.  And beyond that, you get into a group of guys who are not clearly better than the perennially underrated Andre Miller (who finished 10th among point guards in PER last year and carried an injury decimated team on his back to 50 wins).  A number of people mention Tony Parker, but Parker's game is very similar to Miller's.  He's a slasher, not a perimeter shooter.  He's also got a game based on speed and quickness, which tends to diminish with age.  And finally, he only has one year left on his contract, meaning he'd potentially be an expensive one year rental. 

The Blazers have a solid roster at this point from top to bottom.  If the perfect consolidating trade comes along, I absolutely think the Blazers should pull the trigger, but such trades are rare.  They require a perfect combination of circumstances and you can't count on those circumstances presenting themselves.  So, for now, Blazer fans shoud be thankful they have a point guard as talented and durable as Andre Miller and stop worrying about whether he is the perfect fit for some hypothetical ideal championship formula.  The guy is still better than the majority of starting point guards around the league.  Let's see what this team can do when healthy.      

As I watched the Thunder defense repeatedly swarm the Blazers last night and completely throw them off their game (holding them to just 77 points and forcing 22 turnovers), I kept thinking to myself there's no reason the Blazers can't play this style of defense.  The Thunder don't have a shot-blocking center of the Oden/Przybilla mold.  All they have are a bunch of young, long-armed guys who play aggressively.  In other words, they have exactly the same kind of personnel that the Blazers currently have. 

Oklahoma City has the 3rd best defense in the league as of this morning, with a stellar 99.9 defensive efficiency rating.  They're doing that with a rotation that includes no veterans and no one--other than perhaps Thabo Sefolosha--who has any kind of reputation as a defender.  What they do have are guys at every position who have long arms and lots of youthful energy.  They swarm the ball, contest shots, disrupt passing lanes, and aggressively go after the ball.  But if you look up and down the Thunder lineup, and then compare it to the current Portland lineup, it's hard to see where Oklahoma City has the advantage in terms of individual defensive skills.  Sefolosha is their best wing defender, but Batum is taller, longer, at least as savvy.  Durant is tall for a wing but was a genuine liability on defense in his first two years in the league (he's made much more of an effort this year).  And while Jeff Green is real athlete, I don't think he has any more inherent defensive skill than LaMarcus Aldridge (who is taller) or even Dante Cunningham.  Nenad Krstic is nothing special at center.  The only position where I think the Thunder have a defensive skill advantage is at the point.  But Westbrook, while quick and pesky, isn't a huge guy (he's only 6'3'').  Miller, Blake, and Bayless are all big enough to do much of what Westbrook does defensivley. 

So why is that the Thunder have the 3rd best defense in the league and the Blazers have the 18th?  The answer does not appear to be skill, and it's certainly not experience.  The obvious answer is that Oklahoma City has a better defensive scheme, one that is more suited to their personnel, and they're executing it well.  

I hope the Blazer coaching staff watches the video from last night's game over and over again, because I think the key to salvaging the Blazers' season may be emulate the defensive strategy Oklahoma City is using.  While the Blazers no longer have a big, shot-blocking center, they do have an abundance of young, long, athletic wings and forwards.  If you gave Scotty Brooks Batum, Webster, Roy, Fernandez, Aldridge, Cunningham, Pendergraph (and soon Outlaw), I'm pretty certain that--before long--he would have them playing team defense as good or better than the Thunder are playing right now.   

And that's not because he's necessarily any better a coach than Nate.  It's because his defensive strategy is more suited to the kind of talent Portland currently has.  When you're blessed with big post defenders like Oden and Przybilla, you tailor your strategy to fit their talents.  But when all you've got is a bunch of young lanky guys, you've got to approach things differently.  The Thunder have figured that out.  The Blazers still haven't. 

Last night, for instance, the lineups featuring Dante Cunningham were far more effective than those with Juwan Howard.  Cunningham had 14 points and 6 rebounds in 21 minutes and was one of the few Blazers with a positive plus/minus.  Yet he sat for the final 10+ minutes of the game as the Thunder steadily pulled away.  I understand that Cunningham is a rookie and that Nate prefers to play Aldridge at the four (as opposed to the five).  But Cunningham is contributing a lot more lately--both offensively and defensively--than Juwan Howard.  Even if he's not starting, Cunningham should probably be getting more minutes than Howard, with Aldridge playing more minutes at the five.  That kind of a lineup (with Cunningham at the four) closely resembles the Thunder starting lineup, and Cunningham would bring the same kind of energy to the floor that Jeff Green does for the Thunder. 

Unless the Blazers manage to land a legit center before the trading deadline, it's time to stop playing as if we have one.  It's time to adjust the strategy to the talent we have.  The Thunder demonstrate that a team full of young lanky guys can defend as well as anyone and can compete with the best in the West.  The Blazers can still salvage the rest of the season if they look at what Oklahoma City is doing and try to emulate it.  They have nothing that we don't have, at least when it comes to defensive skills.  Their success shows that we have no excuse for playing bad team defense. 

Poll

Should the Blazers try to emulate the Thunder's defensive strategy?

93%

Yes.

144 votes

6%

No.

10 votes

154 votes | Poll has closed

Going into this season, the plan for the Blazer front court was relatively clear. Oden and Przybilla would platoon the center position, taking up virtually all the available center minutes between them, and LaMarcus Aldridge would play the vast majority of the available minutes at power forward. It wasn't clear who would fill the 10 or so additional power forward minutes, at least long term, but the rest of the front court rotation was set.

With the injuries to Oden and Przybilla, the front court rotation will obviously look quite different for at least the remainder of this season. Reports suggest that Blazer management will be making a decision very soon on whether to seek additional front court help via a pre-deadline trade. With that in mind, I think it's worth re-examining some of the assumptions underlying the way the Blazers have structured the team.

In particular, I think it's worth re-examining the assumption that what the Blazers really need is an Oden/Przybilla clone, a defensive-minded big who can block shots and rebound.  But as valuable as guys like Oden and Przybilla are defensively and on the glass, the reality is that on offense, they make life much more difficult for guys like Brandon Roy, Andre Miller, and Jerryd Bayless. Because neither of them is a threat to hit even a mid-range shot, their defenders can afford to cheat back and clog the lane, making it much more difficult for Blazer guards to penetrate. I don't think it's a coincidence that the play of the entire Blazer backcourt has improved dramatically since Oden and Przybilla went down with injury. The guys who have assumed their front court minutes -- Lamarcus, Juwan, Jeff, and Dante -- can all hit a mid-range jump shot and therefore create more space on offense. Indeed, according to BasketballValue.com the most effective 5 man lineup for the Blazers this season has been Miller-Bayless-Webster-Aldridge-Howard (no Roy, interestingly enough).

And this phenomenon isn't confined to this season. Last year, some of the Blazers' most potent lineups were ones that featured Aldridge at the five and Travis Outlaw at the four, with both Oden and Przybilla on the bench. And it's not hard to see why. Outlaw and Aldridge each demand defensive attention on the perimeter and therefore create a lot of space for the offense to operate in.

As Kevin Pelton pointed out yesterday at Basketball Prospectus, the hottest team in the NBA right now, the Charlotte Bobcats, began their current streak when they lost center Tyson Chandler.  In Chandler's place, Charlotte has started the more offensively capable Nazr Mohammed (who can at least hit a midrange shot).  Moreover, for significant stretches of the game, Charlotte now plays Boris Diaw at the five, a guy who can hit 3-pointers. That lineup really stretches the defense and has dramatically improved Charlotte's offense.

The same phenomenon plays out with the Lakers.  Andrew Bynum is a talented center, but the Lakers play much better when Gasol and Odom man the front court.  Indeed, Bynum has only sixth best plus/minus on that team and actually has a negative adjusted plus/minus. 

And look at the Phoenix Suns. Their most effective lineups are those that feature Channing Frye at the five. Frye has, by far, the highest plus/minus of anyone on that team.

The Houston Rockets are similar. Their most effective lineups are the ones that feature the 3-point shooting David Anderson at center instead of the defensively solid, but offensively limited, Chuck Hayes. Anderson has the highest plus/minus of any Rocket.

For the Toronto Raptors, the sharp-shooting Andrea Bargnani has the highest plus/minus of any of their core players and, though a liability on defense, lineups featuring Bargnani in the front court have had offensive efficiency ratings through the roof this season. 

What these numbers suggest is that manning both front court positions with guys who can shoot is often a really effective strategy, even when it means putting a guy out there (Frye, Anderson, Bargnani) who doesn't contribute much on the boards or on the defensive end.  In other words, the boost in offensive effeciency often more than makes up for any defensive drop off. 

None of this is to suggest that there isn't an important role on good teams for guys like Oden and Przybilla. There definitely is. In many situations, and against many teams, the defense and rebounding that guys like that provide will more than compensate for the congestion they create on offense. On the other hand, stats like the ones above do suggest that it valuable to have at least the option of putting two genuine stretch bigs on the floor simultaneously.

Even assuming everyone is healthy, the only Blazer lineup the comes close to this is one where Outlaw plays the four and Aldridge plays the five.  But Outlaw is an undersized four, at best, and he may well not be on the team next year given his contract status.  Plus, he's injured now.  Given all that, I wonder if the potential move that makes the most sense at the moment is to try to acquire a genuine stretch big, a guy who can play either the four or five and hit threes.  

If the Blazers could add a player of the Antawn Jamison/Mehmet Okur variety -- someone who could play alongside Aldridge for stretches -- it could really open things up offensively.  I think such a player could conceivably help the team more, even this year, than a Brendan Haywood or Marcus Camby type rent-a-center.

I think that if the Blazers do make a trade, ideally it should be for a stretch big who can contribute beyond this season.  What I'd like to see next year is an Aldridge/Oden starting frontcourt with a stretch big coming off the bench who can both backup Aldridge and play some stretches of the game alongside him, thereby putting two stretch bigs on the floor at once. At the same time, I'd like to see Aldridge work on extending his range to the three point line and Oden work on developing a foul line range shot. If all of those things happen, I think it could make the Blazer offense considerably more potent than it is now. The congestion factor would be greatly reduced and guys like Roy, Miller, and Bayless would be the primary beneficiaries.

So is such a trade possible in the next month?  Potentially. Clearly the most talented stretch big who is known to be available is Antawn Jamison of the Wizards. At first blush, though, he doesn't seem like the best fit for Portland. He's 33 years old and still has a few years left on his hefty contract. And he really only plays power forward. On the other hand, as the Blazers saw first hand this week, Jamison is still really good, and he isn't overly reliant on quickness or athleticism. Barring injury, he's likely got at least three more productive seasons left in the tank.  With the Blazers' current injury-depleted roster, Jamison would likely start, with Aldridge at the five.  Longer term, Jamison could reprise his sixth man role from his Dallas days, backing up Aldridge and playing stretches alongside him with Aldridge sliding over to the five.

So what's the downside? Well, first, to get Jamison the Blazers would likely have to package Blake and Outlaw's expiring contracts with some young talent, most likely Rudy Fernandez.  Because I think we'll eventually have to part with Rudy anyway, that's not a deal-breaker from my perspective, but I'm sure others will disagree. Second, Jamison is expensive. That's a lot of money to invest in a guy who you have slated to be a bench player. On the hand, as long as Jamison stays healthy, he's good enough that he should remain tradable. So if it's just not working out or the Blazers want to free up cap space to pay someone else, he could probably be moved without too much difficulty.

Another potential target would be Mehmet Okur of the Jazz.  Utah is anxious to cut salary and could potentially be amenable to a trade that brings them under the luxury tax threshold.  Such a trade would likely have to involve a third team (most likely Memphis) and would require, at minimum, the same trade pieces (Blake, Outlaw, Fernandez).  Okur is not as talented as Jamison, but he's a legitimate center and a decent defender/rebounder.  His contract is also a little more reasonable ($9 million instead of $11 million).  I think, given the Wizards situation, however, Jamison would be much easier to acquire than Okur.  

There are, of course, other options.  I am by no means wedded to either of these ideas. I do think, though, that Blazers should focus on building a more versatile front court. I don't think that having someone of the Oden/Przybilla mold on the court at all times is a strategy that makes all that much sense given the rest of our personnel.  Roy, Miller, and Bayless are all slashers and they need to be given as much room as possible to do what they do best. 

Poll

If the Blazers trade for another frontcourt player, what kind of player should they acquire?

28%

A defensive center of the Oden/Przybilla variety.

93 votes

34%

A stretch big who can space the defense.

111 votes

37%

Neither. Stand pat.

120 votes

324 votes | Poll has closed

It's been perplexing to watch Jerryd Bayless' play over the last few games.  The aggressiveness and swagger from a few weeks ago is gone.  Over the last three games, Bayless has looked tentative on offense.  The guy who was dying to get the ball in his hands now looks like he wants to pass it as soon as he touches it.  The confident decision maker who was driving into the lane and dishing assists has been replaced by the guy we saw this year in Summer League, a guy who is forcing things and looks increasingly frustrated on the court.  I'm not sure quite what's happened to Bayless, but he has clearly lost his mojo.  His confidence is rattled and he's playing tight. 

For Bayless' (and the team's) sake, though, I hope he snaps out of it soon.  The current stretch of games is the best opportunity Bayless has ever had to demonstrate his worth.  In a few days, Steve Blake will return to the team and that will cut into Bayless' minutes (he only played 23 last night, without Blake in the lineup).  And in a few weeks, both Nic Batum and Rudy Fernandez will return.  At that point, Bayless could very easily find himself as the 5th guard on a team that no longer feels the need to play a three-guard lineup.  He could be relegated to spot duty or worse. 

This is a pivotal moment in Bayless' career.  I think the Blazer front office likes him and is rooting for him to succeed.  If he plays well over the next few weeks, I think they will reward him by trading either Steve Blake or Andre Miller and giving Bayless the opportunity to be the team's #2 point guard (with a chance at becoming #1 over time).  If he continues to play the way he has in the last few games, however, I think Blazer management will be very reluctant to pull the trigger on such a trade and Bayless could very well find himself again racking up DNPs.  

There's also the issue of Patty Mills.  Mills has a very similar skill set to Bayless and gives the coaching staff another option if they don't like what they're seeing from Bayless.  If Bayless continues to look tentative and turnover-prone out there, he could find Mills taking some of his minutes as early as tonight. 

If there's a silver-lining to Bayless' recent struggles, though, it's that he has undoubtedly been humbled by the experience.  Gone is the sense (which we could all tell was there) that he deserves to play ahead of guys like Miller and Blake.  Playing every night has given Bayless a better sense of how hard it is to consistently produce in the NBA, where teams scout you and adjust their strategies to deny your strengths.  There is no one more determined and driven than Bayless and he will undoubtedly respond by working his butt off to correct the weaknesses in his game. 

I just hope he can get a little of his swagger back before his window of opportunity closes. 

Poll

Prediction: What will the Blazers' point guard situation look like after the trade deadline?

18%

Blake/Bayless (Miller traded)

50 votes

34%

Miller/Bayless (Blake traded)

94 votes

4%

Miller/Blake (Bayless traded)

11 votes

36%

Miller/Blake (Bayless benched)

100 votes

6%

Something else (Mills, Hinrich, etc.)

19 votes

274 votes | Poll has closed

After the Blazers improbable win last night in San Antonio, Nate McMillan was asked about Jerryd Bayless' career night. Here's what he said:

"We knew what [Bayless] was capable of doing if given the opportunity. He’s playing off the ball and we need him to score. He’s showing that he’s capable of scoring. Once again he showed it tonight. At the start of the game we realized Brandon wouldn’t be able to go and I told him he had to step in at that spot. I told him to have fun with it. We gave it to him, moved him around, and he delivered. I’m more happy to see him come along defensively, to see him playing off the ball. His game has definitely picked up."

When asked whether he had given Bayless the green light to shoot, Nate said:

"He had the green light. He’s playing off of Miller and Blake and we’re running similar sets that we run for Brandon where we try and move him around and get him that ball and let him spread the floor. I thought tonight he did a nice job of not only scoring, but when he made the defense commit he gave up the ball."

Now maybe I'm reading too much into this, but in the course of answering two questions, Nate seems to go out of his way (twice) to emphasize that Bayless was playing "off the ball," the implication being (at least as I read it), that Bayless was playing off-guard, not point guard.

But here's the thing. That's not really true. Bayless had the ball in his hands the majority of the time he was on the court last night. He brought the ball up the court at least as many times as Miller or Blake, and in the fourth quarter, Bayless (like Brandon usually does) took the ball up the court on most possessions. Furthermore, the vast majority of Bayless' scoring was off the dribble. He scored primarly with penetration and pull up jumpers. He was only assisted on four of his field goals last night, and all four were perimeter shots on kickouts.

And Bayless wasn't just scoring. He had seven assists (and ZERO turnovers). In short, Bayless was playing the role of scoring point guard last night, not off-guard. If you doubt this, try to imagine Rudy Fernandez playing the role Bayless played last night. Even Brandon lacks the ball-handling chops to do much of what Bayless was doing last night. When was the last time you saw Brandon dribble into the paint, dribble back out again, and then circle back around for another try? That's something the Steve Nashes and Tony Parkers of the world do, not the Brandon Roys and Dwyane Wades.

While I don't want to read too much into Nate's comments, I get the sense that he feels somewhat defensive about Bayless' recent success. Here's a guy who has languished on the Portland bench for the last year and a half. Suddenly he gets thrust into the lineup and he's lighting the world on fire. For the coach, the obvious question is why weren't you playing this guy before? Nate's implied answer to that criticism is that Bayless is an off-guard and that the Blazers had (until recently) two other quality off-guards on the active roster, Roy and Rudy Fernandez. But if Jerryd continues to play the way he's been playing, this defense just isn't going to hold up. Neither Miller nor Blake (the "true" point guards in McMillan's eyes) are doing anything on the court that Bayless isn't doing just as well. And we've seen in recent games that Bayless and Roy are more than capable of co-existing together in the backcourt. They've actually looked pretty darn good together.

So there's only so long that Nate can continue to play the "Jerryd's not a point guard" card and expect to get away with it. When Rudy and Roy are both healthy, it's going to be a moment of truth for Nate. He's going to have to acknowledge that Bayless is indeed a point guard and play him at that position. My hope is that, by that point, either Andre Miller or Steve Blake will have been traded, thereby forcing Nate's hand.

There will undoubtedly be bumps in the road ahead for Bayless. He won't always be as good as he was last night. But he's shown enough lately to convince me that he has the chops to be a point guard in the NBA. And given that he'd be paired with an off-guard (Roy) who likes to handle the ball himself, Bayless may end up being an ideal fit for Portland. I was hesitant to believe it before, but now I'm a believer. Bayless and Roy are the future backcourt for the Portland Trailblazers.

Poll

Is Bayless the Blazers' long term solution at point guard?

95%

Yes. A Roy/Bayless backcourt is ideal.

1130 votes

4%

No. A Roy/Bayless backcourt won't work.

53 votes

1183 votes | Poll has closed

Over at NBA.com, there's a feature that allows you to look at a team's plus/minus numbers with various combinations of players on the court.  I wanted to see what 3 player combinations have been the most effective (at least in terms of plus/minus) for the Blazers this season.  The result was very depressing.  Here are the twelve most effective 3-man combinations that have played at least 40 minutes together this season.  The number in parentheses is the plus/minus per minute.  See if you notice a trend:

1) Outlaw/Webster/Roy (+.566)

2) Miller/Outlaw/Oden (+536)

3) Outlaw/Roy/Oden (+513)

4) Outlaw/Webster/Oden (+.501)

5) Webster/Aldridge/Fernandez (+.495)

6) Miller/Webster/Oden (+.396)

7) Outlaw/Blake/Roy (+.372)

8) Miller/Blake/Oden (+.335)

9) Miller/Outlaw/Webster (+.333)

10) Miller/Blake/Roy (+.299)

11) Miller/Przybilla/Bayless (+.294)

12) Miller/Blake/Aldridge (+.291)

As you've probably noticed by now, the thing most of these combinations have in common is that they can't currently be recreated due to injury.  In fact, the first 9 all include one or more players that are currently not on the active roster.   For what it's worth, the player appearing most frequently in these twelve combinations is Andre Miller (7 out of 12). Second is Travis Outlaw (6 out of 12).  Oden and Webster are each in 5 out of 12, Roy and Blake are each in 4 out of 12.  Aldridge is in 2 and Fernandez, Bayless, and Przybilla are only in 1 each.  Make of that what you will.   

Whoever's playing with the set of Trailblazer voodoo dolls really needs to find something else to play with. Today came news of another significant injury.  Rudy Fernandez had back surgery and will be out 4-6 weeks recuperating.  Fernandez is the fourth major rotation player to succumb to serious injury so far this season.  The Blazers have only nine active players on the roster and one of them (LaMarcus Aldridge) was sidelined just recently with swelling in his knee.  Almost overnight, the conversation has shifted from whether the Blazers are a championship contender to whether they can even make the playoffs.  John Hollinger's computer projections currently have the Blazers finishing 9th, one spot out of the playoffs.

Needless to say, the season isn't going quite the way most of us envisioned it would. That said, there really is a silver lining here if you squint hard enough.  

Going into the season, the pressing question was how Nate McMillan was going to find enough minutes for everyone. And let's face it, there was no way he was going to be able to. There just aren't enough minutes in a game to get 11 or 12 guys meaningful minutes. And that's not just a problem from a team chemistry, keeping everyone happy perspective. Many of the players on the Blazer roster are assets of unknown value. Until a player gets meaningful minutes in real game situations, it's really hard to know what you've got. Had everyone stayed healthy, odds are that Jerryd Bayless and Dante Cunningham would have seen little, if any, playing time this year, particularly before the trading deadline in February, when the Blazers will have big decisions to make. 

In light of the injuries to Travis Outlaw and Rudy Fernandez, however, both Bayless and Cunningham appear poised to get significant minutes over the next month or two. And when Jeff Pendergraph joins the active roster (likely next month), he's likely to see playing time as well. Thus, we figure to get a real good look over the middle part of this season at some guys we otherwise would have had a very hard time evaluating. In the long run, that's good for the franchise. It's much better to make personnel decisions from a position of knowledge. It makes the Jermaine O'Neal scenario less likely (where a team doesn't realize it has a perennial all-star on its roster and trades him for scrubs). By the time Rudy Fernandez rejoins the rotation, we should have a much better sense of where Jerryd Bayless fits--if at all--in the team's future plans. Given that we currently have three point guards on the roster, one of whom has an expiring contract and the other of whom is a potentially valuable trade asset, that's an important thing to know. 

Indeed, if you look at the players who are currently injured, they are all guys for whom we have a pretty good sense of what they bring to the table. We know what Outlaw brings. He's been on the team for years. With respect to Batum, Oden, and Fernandez, we may not yet know what their ceilings are as players, but they all played significant minutes last year and we have a pretty good sense of what they can do. 

The same is not true of the guys who are healthy (or are likely to be soon).  Among that group, we have two rookies (Cunningham, Pendergraph) and a second year player who got very little meaningful playing time as a rookie (Bayless). We also have a guy (Martell Webster) who missed all of last season with a foot injury and another guy (Andre Miller) who is new to the team. If we're going to be running a skeleton crew, these aren't bad guys to have on it. These are the guys whose futures are most up in the air, whose value is most difficult to determine. These guys are the question marks. And despite all the injuries, the fact remains that we have more guys on our roster than we can afford to keep long term and that, at some point, and probably sooner rather than later, we're going to need to package some of them up and make a move.

Among the ten players currently on (or soon to be on) the active roster, we can be pretty certain that Roy and Aldridge will be Blazers for years to come. But with respect to everyone else, the next few months will essentially be an extended audition. They're all going to get the chance to prove themselves and to prove that they deserve a spot on the roster long term. If nothing else, the next few months should be clarifying. And at least that's something.

If you look at the current league leaders in PER at the point guard position, here are some numbers that stand out:

3rd -- Sergio Rodriguez (22.97)

9th -- Jerryd Bayless (18.95)

30th -- Andre Miller (14.81)

60th -- Steve Blake (9.98)

 

Yet here's what the current Blazer depth chart at point guard looks like:

1) Steve Blake (starter)

2) Andre Miller (backup)

3) Jerryd Bayless (3rd string)

4) Sergio Rodriguez (given away to Sacramento during off-season)

 

Just saying . . .

Poll

When/if Rudy Fernandez returns to the lineup, what should the Blazers do with their point guard rotation?

0%

Keep as is.

0 votes

11%

Start Miller, but no trades.

12 votes

54%

Trade Blake. Start Miller. Bayless as backup.

58 votes

6%

Trade Miller. Start Blake. Bayless as backup.

7 votes

0%

Trade Bayless. Start Blake. Miller as Backup.

0 votes

2%

Trade Bayless. Start Miller. Blake as backup.

3 votes

17%

Make Bayless a starter.

19 votes

6%

Get Sergio back (just kidding).

7 votes

106 votes | Poll has closed

Let me preface this post by making clear that I'm not actually in favor of making any trades at the moment.  But as John Hollinger noted yesterday, "I can't imagine the Blazers will stand pat with this group if they continue to underperform."

So for the sake of discussion, let's consider what options the Blazers might have on the trade market.  Here's my idea (which is probably way more complex than it needs to be).  It's a four team deal involving Portland, Houston, Toronto, and Orlando:

PORTLAND gets: Shane Battier (SF), Jose Calderon (PG), Chuck Hayes (C).
PORTLAND trades: Joel Przybilla (C), Steve Blake (G), Travis Outlaw (F), Jerryd Bayless (G), Jeff Pendergraph (PF)
Rationale: Portland gets a starting SF (Battier) who is one of the best wing defenders in the league and has a high basketball IQ.  We get a slight upgrade at PG (Calderon over Blake).  Calderon's a bad defender, but probably not much worse than Blake and he does everything on offense better than Blake.   At back up center, we essentially swap Przybilla for Hayes.  Hayes is not a shot-blocker like Pryz, but he's an excellent position defender and is slightly better on offense (better hands).  As for the other pieces, we lose Outlaw (who we'll lose at the end of the season anyway), as well as Bayless and Pendergraph (the latter of which hasn't played at all and the former only getting spot playing time).  In terms of the rotation, we would essentially be swapping 2 significant rotation players for 3.  

TORONTO gets: Joel Przybilla (C), Steve Blake (PG)
TORONTO trades: Jose Calderon (PG), R. Nesterovic (C), and its 2010 1st round pick (top 5 protected)
Rationale: Toronto upgrades on defense by getting a real center; gets out of Calderon's contract without losing much at the PG. Pick is top 5 protected in case the experiment crashes and they tank.

HOUSTON gets: Marcin Gortat (C), Travis Outlaw (F), and Toronto's 2010 1st round pick (top 5 protected)
HOUSTON trades: Chuck Hayes (C), Shane Battier (SF)
Rationale: Houston gets upgrade at center; saves some money with Outlaw's expiring contract and likely gets a high 2010 pick. They're not going win it this year anyway.

ORLANDO gets: Jerryd Bayless (G), Jeff Pendergraph (PF), R. Nestorvic (C)
ORLANDO trades: Marcin Gortat (C)
Rationale: Orlando gets two promising young players (Bayless, Pendergraph) in exchange for downgrading at the backup center position and saving some money.

I'm pretty sure this trade works from a salary cap standpoint (though Gortat's BYC status may complicate things), but it can't happen until after Dec. 15, when recently signed free agents like Gortat can be traded.  Also, while you might not think this is such a great trade for the Blazers (fair enough), understand that I'm trying to be realistic here. I'm trying to propose a trade that other parties might actually be interested in (i.e, not Blake/Outlaw for Chris Paul). 

Okay, feel free to bash away or propose something different. 

Poll

Will the Blazers make a move prior to the trading deadline?

28%

Yes, a major one.

37 votes

49%

Yes, a minor one.

65 votes

22%

No, they'll hold firm.

29 votes

131 votes | Poll has closed

The debate among the Blazer media (and here at BE) over the last few days has focused on how to adjust the team's offensive strategy to account for the emergence of Greg Oden as an offensive threat and the acquisition of Andre Miller, a true point guard who is used to running the offense and controlling the ball. Last season, the Blazer starting lineup included three guys -- Joel Przybilla, Nic Batum, and Steve Blake -- who really didn't look to score and did not need the ball in their hands. The offense, by necessity, ran through Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge. It was, for the most part, a two man game. And the Blazers did remarkably well given how one-dimensional they were (at least until the playoffs).

This year, two of the offensive pieces the Blazer faithful have long coveted have finally materialized. We now have a center who is a genuine low post scoring threat and a true point guard who is one of the very best distributors in the NBA. And yet, for reasons that I don't really understand, the coaching staff seems fixated on trying to recreate the offensive strategy from last year.

But that's just not going to happen. Steve Blake and Joel Przybilla had career years last year that they are not likely to replicate. Nic Batum and Travis Outlaw are injured. And more importantly, the Blazers have two very important new offensive weapons, a new starting center (Oden) and a veteran point guard (Miller) who has play-making skills that far surpass anyone else on the team.

It is almost axiomatic that good teams adjust their strategy to fit their personnel. But the Blazers seem determined to adjust their personnel to fit their strategy. That's never a good idea.

Brandon Roy is one best all around players in the league. He does everything pretty well (at least on offense). The last two years, because of the personnel, the team needed Brandon to be both the primary scorer and, for much of the game, the primary ball-handler and play-maker. And he ably filled that role. He had to. He was the best option. But that doesn't necessarily mean that this is the best use of Roy's talents. There are plenty of power forwards in this league who, due to a shortage of big men on their teams, have been forced to play center for long stretches and have done pretty well. Chris Bosh is a good example. But that doesn't mean that Bosh wouldn't be better off playing power forward alongside a true center, like Greg Oden. Just because he's good enough to play center doesn't mean that playing him as one is the best way to utilize his talents.

Similarly, just because Brandon Roy has done a solid job shouldering playmaking duties in the past does not mean that he (and the team) would not be better if he played a more traditional off-guard role, at least when he's paired with a player (Miller) who is a better play-maker and distributor than he is. As I noted yesterday, Andre Miller is one of the best distributors in the league. Last year, on Philadelphia, he racked up an astounding number of "super" assists, i.e., assists that lead to dunks or lay-ups for his teammates. And he did so for a team that played at a relatively slow pace, like Portland (Philadelphia had the 9th slowest pace in the league).

I realize it's difficult for players to leave their comfort zones, especially when they've experienced as much success as Brandon Roy already has, but someone needs to sit Roy down and explain to him that, ultimately, he'll be able to score much more easily with the help of a premiere passer than he could ever hope to on his own. If Brandon would just use the same effort in his movement without the ball as he does when he's got the ball in his hands, the sky is the limit. It is much harder to defend off-ball movement than it is to defend a guy dribbling the ball, no matter how skilled that player is. You can move faster, turn easier, and make better use of picks when you don't have to worry about dribbling. And someone as skilled as Brandon is at finishing at the rim, even in heavy traffic, is a passer's dream, a recipe for racking up ungodly assist numbers.

From the moment he arrived in Portland, the knock on Andre Miller has been that his inability to hit threes makes him a liability when he plays alongside Roy. Unlike with Blake, Roy can't drive into traffic and dish the ball to Miller for an open three. But this strikes me as having everything backwards. The reason Roy had to drive so much to the hoop last season was because no one else on the team could, especially Steve Blake. But Miller is aggressive and quite adept at penetrating and driving to the hoop. When he and Roy are in the game together, Miller should generally be the one penetrating and dishing to Roy, not vice versa.

I realize that the Blazers' Hypothetical Perfect Point Guard (HPPG) would be someone who, in addition to being an elite distributor, is also an assassin from long range and a defensive stopper, but get in line. In the meantime, we have a guy who is one of the better passers in the entire league and an excellent dribble-penetrator. Rather than lament that he is not also a great shooter, maybe we should be trying to figure out how best to use this new weapon. If you look up and down the Blazer roster, you see a bunch of tall, skilled finishers. As I noted yesterday, literally everyone on the team--with the exception of Blake--is capable of dunking an alley-oop pass. That's pretty remarkable. And, among the starters, everyone but Greg Oden is capable of knocking down an open three, and everyone, including the bigs, shoots reasonably well from the foul line. This, too, is a passer's dream, a recipe for a hyper efficient offense.

With all due respect to Steve Blake, there is no question in my mind that Andre Miller should be starting every game and playing at least 30-35 minutes. You want continuity on offense? You want consistency? Well then take the guy who has consistently been one of the best floor generals in the league and let him run your offense. Let him make life easier for everyone else on the court, including your star. It may take a few games, but after a while, everything will start clicking. The other players on the court will learn what kind of passes Miller is capable of making and what kinds of off-ball movement and cuts are most likely to result in a pass and an easy bucket. Before long, Miller will be able to read their body language and know, even before they move, when they're going to cut to the hoop (unlike what happened tonight, when Bayless started to cut and then stopped, hanging Miller out to dry on a perfect lead pass).

I'm obviously not an NBA coach, so take what I have to say with a fistful of salt, but I get the feeling that Nate and his coaching staff are making things much more complicated than they need to be. In the NBA there are very few guys, even among those who officially play the point guard position, who have the court vision and passing skills necessary to run an offense. As a result, most teams have to rely on more complicated offensive strategies and find other ways to make due. But when you have the luxury of having a guy like Andre Miller on your team, it makes life much easier. You can give that guy the ball and let him use his gift, let him read the defense and distribute the ball to his teammates. It requires trust and a willingness to delegate much of the decision-making and play-calling to your point guard, but the payoff can be huge. It's the key to achieving a truly efficient and cohesive offense.

Given the amount of experimenting that has gone on this year (and the team's current level of play), I really don't see how it would hurt the Blazers to at least give this option a try. What have we got to lose? Let Miller be Miller. Put him in the starting lineup, stop calling all the plays from the sidelines, and let's see how our offense looks under the direction of a true point guard. There's no question that adopting this strategy would force Roy to adjust his game, but Roy is, by far, the player on the team most capable of adjusting his game. Given his abundant talent, there's no reason he can't expand his repertoire to include all the moves necessary to be an elite off-the-ball scorer. He can still be the #1 scoring option without having the ball in his hands all the time. And with the right substitution patterns, Roy can use the time Miller is off the court to be extra aggressive offensively and be the play-maker. At the end of the day, the result will be a better, more complete Brandon Roy and a better, more complete team. 

In basketball, not all assists are created equal. There are assists and then there are assists. It's the difference between passing the ball to the open guy five feet away from you on the perimeter and threading a perfect alley-oop pass over multiple defenders in traffic. Needless to say, the latter takes a lot more skill than the former and results in a much higher percentage shot. Indeed, there's such a big difference that basketball statistic gurus have long lobbied for the creation of new box score stat to reflect so-called "super assists", i.e., assists that involve feeding a player close to the hoop for an easy bucket.

Luckily, the folks at 82games.com keep track of this information, breaking assists down into four groups -- 3pt, jump, close, and dunk -- based on the kind of field goal they result in. For the purposes of determining which point guards produce the most easy buckets for their teams, let's focus on the latter two categories. In 2008-2009, Chris Paul racked up an incredible 163 dunk assists. Close behind him, at 154, was current Blazer backup point guard Andre Miller. No one else was even close. Only three other point guards had over 100 (Steve Nash with 127; Chauncey Billups and Deron Williams each with 110).

When you look at "dunk" and "close" assists combined (what I'm calling "super assists"), Miller recorded 301 last season. That was fourth best in NBA, behind only Nash, Paul, and D. Williams (Nash had 375, Paul 345, and Williams 303). Again, no one else was close.

When you look at those numbers, you can't help but wonder whether the Blazer coaching staff is making proper use of Miller's talents. He's now playing for a team that's as young, tall, and athletic as anyone else in the league. Literally everyone in the Blazer rotation -- with the exception of Steve Blake -- is more than capable of completing the business end of an alley-oop. On paper at least, the combination of Miller and Portland's young, athletic roster should result in obscene numbers of super assists. But that hasn't happened, at least so far.

So what's the problem? Well, for starters, relegating Miller to the backup role probably hasn't helped. It has reduced his overall minutes as well as reducing the number of minutes he's playing alongside the most obvious beneficiaries of his passing abilities (Aldridge, Oden, Webster, and Roy). More importantly, though, Portland's slow tempo, unwillingness to push the ball in transition, and general lack of off-the-ball movement on offense has reduced the opportunities for the kind of passing Andre Miller excels at. Opportunities for super assists don't just materialize on their own. It takes players cutting to the basket, either in fast break situations or as a result of effective pick-and-roll and other off-the-ball movement that generates momentary defensive confusion.

It remains a mystery to me that a team as young and athletic as Portland routinely finishes toward the bottom of the league in transition scoring. LaMarcus Aldridge may well be the most talented transition scorer at his position in the league. On the rare occasions where he gets out ahead on a fast break, he's remarkably graceful, covering huge distances with his long strides and finishing with ease. Why the Blazers don't try to take more advantage of these skills baffles me. 

On the other end of the spectrum, there is Steve Blake, who when he finds himself in a 3-on-1 fast break situation, all too often telegraphs a pass right at the lone defender, who promptly shuttles it back down the court for a score on the other end. On second thought, I guess it's not such a mystery why the Blazers get so few transition buckets.

Look, I don't mean to pick on Blake. He's a good player who plays hard and does a lot of intangible things that don't show up in the box score. But with Andre Miller, the Blazers finally have the kind of top-notch distributor they have long coveted, a guy who is among the very best in the league at producing easy buckets for his teammates. Given the amount of lineup shuffling and experimenting that has gone on so far this season, I'm surprised that the Blazers haven't tried the most obvious option: turning the keys to the offense over to the one proven point guard on the team and seeing what he can do with it. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out, but at least we'll know. I think it's time to let Miller be Miller and see where that takes us. In time, even Roy may come to appreciate the benefits of being on the receiving end of a super assist.

Poll

Should Andre Miller be given the chance to start (in a non-three guard lineup) and to run the team offensively?

90%

Yes. Let Miller be Miller.

270 votes

4%

No. He should stick to running the second unit.

14 votes

4%

No. He should be traded as soon as he's eligible (Dec. 15).

13 votes

0%

No. He should start, but alongside Blake in the three-guard lineup.

1 votes

298 votes | Poll has closed

Before you scoff at the (overly provocative) headline, bear with me for a minute.  Because he was a #1 draft pick and plays for a big market team, Derrick Rose has been the recipient of a lot of hype.  And some of it deserved.  He's got a lot of potential as a player.  But I've been watching Chicago play a lot this year (and last), and I'm not convinced that if Jerryd Bayless were to take over the starting PG spot for the Bulls, he wouldn't contribute every bit as much to that team as Derrick Rose does.  They are highly comparable players.  The only real difference between them may be playing time.

Let's start with the obvious.  Bayless and Rose are very similar physically.  Bayless is 6'3'', 200 pounds; Rose is 6'3'', 190 pounds.  They both have similar weakness as PGs.  Neither has establish himself as a consistent perimeter shooter.  Indeed, Bayless' career 28% from 3-point range is superior to Rose's awful 20%, and there's reason to believe Bayless' percentage will improve with more consistent playing time (Bayless is reportedly a good shooter in practice and was good in college).  Neither Rose nor Bayless has demonstrated good court vision or distribution skills.  This has been a constant criticism of Bayless (he's a shooting guard trapped in a PG's body, etc.), but Rose isn't much better.  To quote Hollinger:

[Rose] doesn't see the floor well, ranking only 42nd among point guards in assist ratio, and when he drives, it's usually to score rather than to pass. He also had a near-comic reluctance to throw alley-oop passes despite the long, athletic finishers in his frontcourt

Despite his limited playing time this year and last, Bayless' assist per 40 minutes numbers are comparable to Rose's and would likely improve if he got sustained minutes atPG, as Rose has.  Rose's best skill, by far, is driving aggressively to the rim, something he did a lot of his rookie year.  This is also Bayless' best skill.  Indeed, there's reason to believe Bayless may actually be better at it than Rose.  Bayless is fearless and quite adept at drawing contact and getting to the foul line.  Rose, on the other hand, is not particularly good at drawing fouls.  As Hollinger notes, Rose's "free-throw rate ...was well below the league average for point guards and shockingly miniscule given how often he drove to the basket." 

As for defense, Rose got very poor defensive marks as a rookie, and from what I've seen of him this year, he's not much better.  Bayless has a high foul rate, but he seems to be better than Rose at staying in front of his man and may actually grow into a decent defensive PG.

If Rose has anything over Bayless, it's a little more finess around the hoop and a more proven mid-range game.  But I see no reason to believe that, with comparable playing time, Bayless can't match Rose in these areas relatively quickly. 

My point in drawing these comparisons is not to suggest that Bayless is or will be a star in the NBA or that Derrick Rose isn't or won't be.  Rather, I think that differences in playing time and market-size have led to a situation where two players of comparable current skill-level and potential (Rose and Bayless) have wildly divergent perceived values.  Rose has been over-hyped and Bayless under-hyped.  The jury is still out on both of them, but it would not surprise me at all if, when all is said and done, Bayless turns out to be the better of the two.  At the very least, I expect that they will have comparable NBA careers.   

Poll

If Jerryd Bayless had spent his rookie season as Chicago's starting PG, would he have posted similar numbers to Derrick Rose?

25%

Yes.

117 votes

40%

No way. Not even close.

187 votes

34%

Maybe in the same ballpark, but not as good.

159 votes

463 votes | Poll has closed

When Brandon Bass signed with the Orlando Magic as a free agent this summer, he was expecting to get more minutes than he had in Dallas.  In retrospect, that wasn't a very good call.  While Bass got some playing time early in the season, during Rashard Lewis' suspension, he's been riding the pine since Lewis' return.  With both Lewis and Ryan Anderson ahead of him in the rotation, Bass has racked up two straight DNPs (and he only got Bayless-like minutes in the few games before that).  The problem is that Bass doesn't really fit Stan Van Gundy's 4-gunner strategy.  Both Lewis and Anderson can hit threes and spread the floor.  Bass is a decent shooter, but he doesn't have that kind of range.

Still, it's crazy for an established power forward of Bass' skill level to be rotting away on the bench.  That's why I'm absolutely confident that, barring injury to either Lewis or Anderson, Bass will be traded as soon as he's eligible, which is December 15.  As that date approaches, Orlando's front office will receive inquiries and trade offers from a number of teams, and I'm pretty confident the Blazers will be one of them (the Blazers tried to sign Bass during the off-season).  It will be a bidding war and I suspect that Orlando will quickly pull the trigger on the best offer they receive. 

So what exactly are they looking for?  Orlando has two needs.  The most obvious is temporary help at PG in light of Jameer Nelson's injury.  The intensity of this need will depend on how Nelson's recovery progresses over the next few weeks.  Their other need is for an upgrade at backup SF (currently Matt Barnes).  Ideally, Orlando would like a good wing defender who can hit threes. 

So what do the Blazers have to offer?  Well, two weeks ago, this would have been an easy question.  With both Jameer Nelson and Travis Outlaw healthy, I think both Orlando and Portland would have readily agreed to a Bass for Outlaw swap.  Outlaw can play SF and would fit with Orlando's system.  Bass would be a good value in exchange for Outlaw's expiring contract.  But an injured Outlaw is of little use to Orlando.  

With Nelson's injury, however, Steve Blake may be exactly what Orlando's looking for.  Blake is the perfect stop-gap at PG.  He's an experienced starting PG who can hit threes and whose contract is expiring.  His salary also exactly matches Bass's.  While I think Orlando would readily agree to a Blake for Bass swap, I think the Blazers would be hesitant.  For whatever reason, McMillan is very high on Blake and seems to consider him integral to his rotation.  Roy is also very attached to Blake.  Personally, I think a Blake for Bass trade would be healthy for the Blazers in the long run.  It would give us a much needed post-scoring threat and would force Roy to learn how to play with Miller (who is better than Blake).  But, alas, I'm not running the show here.

The other obvious trade chip is Bayless.  Though Bayless has not yet proven himself to be an outside shooter, Orlando might be willing to gamble on his upside.  It would likely depend on what other offers they were getting for Bass.  From a Blazer perspective, trading Bass for Bayless would obviously help in the near term given how little Bayless is being utilized.  I'm not sure I'd make that move, though.  I'm still of the opinion that Bayless will be a very good NBA player if given the chance.  I'd rather clear room to move him into our rotation.

And finally, there's always the option of offering Andre Miller for Bass (to make it work, Orlando would need to use its trade exception or throw in someone else), though I think that's not such a good trade for either team.  Miller doesn't fit as well with Orlando's style and his contract is larger and longer-term (though he would be good at feeding Dwight Howard).  And from the Blazers persective, I'm still not ready to give up on the Miller experiment.  Moreover, if we're going to trade him, we may be able to get someone better than Bass.

Poll

If you were KP, what would you offer Orlando in exchange for Brandon Bass?

13%

Nothing. Don't want him.

26 votes

46%

I'd offer Blake.

87 votes

9%

I'd offer Bayless.

17 votes

19%

I'd offer Miller.

36 votes

10%

I'd offer any of the three.

20 votes

186 votes | Poll has closed

Going into the season, the Blazers were thought to be so deep at the 3 position that Nate McMillan would struggle to find enough playing time for everyone.  Now, just three weeks into the season, the Blazers' captain and All-Star shooting guard, Brandon Roy, is stuck playing small forward, indefinitely.   Last night's game against Atlanta was the first that the Blazers have played without both Travis Outlaw and Nic Batum.  During the game, Brandon Roy played 38 minutes, all of them at the small forward position.  The only true small forward still on the active roster, Martell Webster, played just 11 minutes, essentially serving as Roy's backup.

What became clear to me watching the game last night was how much the loss of Outlaw limits the Blazers' rotation options.  Outlaw was really the only guy on the team who could readily switch between the small forward and power forward positions, which allowed the Blazers to play a variety of lineups.  Without him, McMillan is more of less forced to use a more traditional substitution pattern.  Like Joel Przybilla has been doing with Oden, Juwan Howard will now platoon the power forward position with LaMarcus Aldridge, playing virtually all of the minutes when Aldridge is not in the game.  And unless/until Martell Webster's play improves, it appears that he will play a similar role vis-a-vis Roy, coming in to play small forward when Roy is resting. 

That leaves Steve Blake, Andre Miller, Rudy Fernadez to fill the vast majority of minutes at the guard spots (all pulling down roughly equal minutes), with Jerryd Bayless getting a few spot minutes here and there.  If there are going to be any significant shakeups in the Blazer lineup in the next month or so, I suspect it will be in the way McMillan rotates through his guards.

Last night, McMillan started with Blake and Miller.  Then, as he's been doing lately, he brought Miller out around the time he took Oden out, with 4 or 5 minutes left in the first quarter.  I think this is a good strategy.  It minimizes the amount of time that neither Miller nor Roy (our two best dripple-penetrators) are on the court and it increases the minutes that Miller and Oden are on the court together. 

When Miller leaves, Rudy Fernandez comes in and plays the 2-spot, with Blake moving to the 1.  If Bayless gets any minutes, it's unusually in relief of Blake (and alongside Fernandez). 

It may well be that this is the most effective way to rotate through our guards, but what I'd really like to see Nate try is swapping Blake and Fernandez's roles.  Of the four non-Roy guards, Blake is our best combo guard (he is best able to switch between the 1 and 2).  It may make more sense, therefore, to start Fernandez at the 2 and bring Blake off the bench.  His minutes wouldn't necessarily be any different, but he could play more of his time at point and, if paired with Bayless for part of the time, could free up Bayless to do what he does best, which is attack the basket.     

I also think Blake's veteran presence would help steady the ship during the stretches in the early 2nd and 4th quarters where some of the starters are sitting and the team seems to lag and let other teams catch up.  Most of all, though, I'd like to see what a starting (and ending) lineup that features Roy, Ferndandez, and Miller is capable of.  Though Blake is a steady hand who contributes to the team in many ways (including many ways that don't show up in the box score), Rudy has a higher ceiling as a player and I have a hunch that he might respond well to being elevated to a starting role.  Given the injury situation, I think it's at least worth testing that hypothesis.