SB Nation User Blog: wingzeta

Small Ball is Killing the Blazers

wingzeta — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:33:59 -0000

Okay, we all know that with the acquisition of Andre Miller we now have four guards that deserve playing time. I knew we would have some three guard line ups. When I predicted before the season that we would see Miller and Blake on the floor at the same time with Roy, no one believed it. I just can't believe we are seeing it this much. Miller, Rudy, Roy, same thing. It is costing us games. It cost us this game against the Hawks. We can't have a small line up against a long athletic team like them. They are a good team, but we made them look great, by having them play against smaller defenders. It also allowed them to dominate the boards, and have bigger guys on Roy most of the night, which really hurt his game.

We need a center in the game. One of our advantages in the league is the fact that we have two quality centers. One of them should be on the floor almost all the time. I'm fine with trying smaller line-ups. Like I said, I knew we would, with the four quality guards we have, but I think we have to get serious in a tight game where defense is just as important as offense, and our centers have not fouled out. This just seems very obvious.

The team is having some chemistry issues right now, but I believe we still could have won every game so far, in spite of those growing pains, if we were playing a balanced unit that can play defense against the other team's best group. We've now lost to Denver and Atlanta due to too much small ball. I'd like to see small ball, only if the other team goes there first for the next few games. The team looks like crap right now, but they should still be able to win these games if they don't throw the defense out the window for the whole fourth quarter with a small lineup.

Denver vs. Portland 10/29/09 Issues with Rotations

wingzeta — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0000

First off, this is not about Blake/Miller, neither guy had a big effect on the game positive or negative. But I theorize that some other rotation issues did impact the point guard position in general.

The obvious reasons for the loss:

1. The Blazers shot terribly

2. The Nuggets, despite fewer rebounds, seem to get a quick hand on the ball more than the Blazers, disrupting shots around the basket

3. Foul shooting

4. Anthony playing great.

5. Foul trouble for our Centers

The last one we can partly chock up to the superior aggressiveness of the Nuggets, but mostly to the usual NBA refs we all wanted back so bad, deciding they would remove our size advantage from the competition to favor the Nuggets. Allowing the clock to run down to 1.9 seconds, when Roy obviously fouled Anthony at 4 seconds was also extremely convenient, forcing a prayer shot. As was discussed in the thread about a certain former NBA ref's tell-all book, you have to be at least 10 points better than the other team to beat them and the officials. We let it stay too close

Now for what I saw as a big problem for us. Rudy was the hot hand. That's good right? Well yes and no. Because he was the hot hand, we had to stick with him, but we also need to stick with our other SG Roy at the end of games obviously, and we still need either Miller or Blake in if we want steady ball handling at such a crucial time. That meant we were playing "small ball" for most of the fourth quarter, and even though Rudy was shooting the lights out, we had no defensive answer for Anthony, who was doing it at the other end, because Roy (small at SF) had to defend him, and expend extra energy doing it. The moment they took Ty Lawson out of the game, we needed to put Martel or Outlaw in for Rudy, because we just lost the only serious matchup advantage we had with the small line up. Or look at it this way, if we put in Webster or Outlaw, Carmelo has to guard them, and either Billups or Carter has to take Roy. Then we have an advantageous matchup again.

The reason why Rudy rather than Outlaw or Webster having the hot hand makes it hard on our point guards is; because in a three guard line-up, They've got a bigger player on Roy, and in this case we don't have a true center in the game, there are less passes available than usual, and a lane where they have a big size advantage. LMA is locked up by a bigger player, and taken out of the game too. With one of our small forwards matching size for size, we could have opened it up more, even without a true center, and had a better chance of contesting Anthony's shots, and having Roy shut down one of their guards. It seems counter-intuitve to say that sticking with Rudy who was amazing cost us the game, outside the obvious factors I mentioned above, but I think it did, because for every basket he scored, Anthony scored one taking advantage of his matchup with Roy, and he got to the free throw line at a greater rate.

Our lack of post scoring was also exposed once again. It was our greatest off season need, and we didn't fill it. It's really a shame we didn't get Milsap or David Lee. As much as I like Howard, he is a shooter, which we already have a'plenty. Oden won't become a post threat overnight as many had hoped, so we are back to last year's issue of needing a banger PF. A lot of fans didn't seem to get the urgency that some of us felt to get a good back-up PF, but it may start to dawn on them if they realize Oden's issues are not only that he didn't get the ball enough, and LMA is still not a post player.

Conclusion: we might have tried harder to establish either Outlaw or Webster, especially when we are playing against a team who's best player is a small forward. I love it when Rudy has the hot hand, but hope it comes in the first three quarters rather than at the point in the game where there is no way we are going to sit Roy, and the other team is not going to sit their best guys, since I still don't think the Rudy/Roy back court has been proven yet, and "small ball" can kill us in this type of situation. If Rudy at SG and Roy at PG is our best fourth quarter back court, then once again, we really needed to find that post scorer this summer, and not have taken Miller, but that's water under the bridge now. In the more general sense, we need to be as aggressive or more aggressive than the other team, because even with all the things that went wrong, I see no reason we should have lost to that team if we had played as hard as they did. I hope the guys have some Playoff flashbacks, to when they just weren't hard nosed enough to play with the big boys, and the angst they feel doubles their determination to show what they can do the rest of the year..

Artest Cannot Stop Roy!

wingzeta — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:49:29 -0000

A common sentiment being floated on many BE threads is that the Lakers have now Blazer proofed themselves by adding Artest, or that they along with every other team in the West have improved dramatically.

First, the Lakers have patched the hole left by the loss of Ariza to free agency with Artest. Ariza was a good defender, and a much more dynamic offensive player than Artest. He is also much younger. The Lakers did not want to lose him, and they have not improved by replacing him with Artest. They simply stopped the bleeding for a shorter term with an older, but good and tough veteran.

Second, when was the last time Artest was a Roy stopper? It was back during the regular season. After the last time the Blazers played Houston, Roy said he had figured out something about Artest's defense, and Artest has not been a problem for him since. Din't Roy score 42pts in one playoff game with Artest and Battier on him, and average 26.7pts for the series? It was Lamarcus and Outlaw that had problems scoring against Scola and Battier respectively that was an issue all series. As long as LA doesn't get them for mid level exceptions too, we still have a good shot.

I just want to blow up this Artest myth, because I'm seeing it repeated as if it were gospel.

Question. Is It Possible to Use Our Cap Space to...

wingzeta — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:24:09 -0000

Give another team cap relief, say by taking a soon to expire contract (soon meaning next two years) of a less desirable player with a too big contract, along with as many first round picks, cash, goodies etc that his team will give us to take him away and give them our cap room? We could sign and trade Frye or Ruffin if need be. I'm no expert on this that's why I posted in the form of a question.

The idea is to forget free agents, and get some high future draft picks. I don't have much interest in overpaying old players with our cap space, when we have a very good team now, but it would be a great asset to be able to reload with good draft picks as we lose some of our talent to free agency over the years, and we could end up back below the cap if we replace departing players with rookies. As long as we have vets like Roy and LA, we can roll with a few rookies as we did last year. Those picks will also have trade value for us if we want. They would be like savings bonds, holding our cap value for the future, when we actually need it. If it works out, we could be a lottery team with a winning record. That would be a real "pritchslap" to the NBA. I'd love to hear ideas of how this could work, if it's even technically possible.

Trading Blake for Hinrich is Stupid

wingzeta — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:03:09 -0000

Why would you trade a guy you already have, who fits great with the Blazers, for a guy who is practically the same player, at twice the salary? Kirk's numbers when he was a starter were about the same as Blake's this year. This was Blake first year as a full time starter, because while Hinrich went to an awful Bulls team and got to start right out of college, Blake was stuck behind star Gilbert Arenas at the start of his career. Blake will surpass Hinrich's numbers easily when the Blazers gat an inside game, just like he dropped 11 dimes on Kirks Jayhawks, and got the amazing defender Kirk to foul out with only 5 assists, when they met in the Final Four. Blake went on to win the NCAA Championship, while Kirk's coach Roy Williams cried like a baby on National TV. The next year, the Jayhawks made it to the finals, and got trounced by Freshman Carmello Anthony.

All the knocks on Blake are BS, from people who don't know the game. I've even heard a few people say we don't have an inside game because of him, or we don't ever get fast breaks because of him. Unfortunately one of the problems with Portland basketball fans is their lack of knowlege about the college game. It's an NBA town. Their are no other pro sports, and no major college programs in the area. Well, maybe you think Hinrich is so great because you watched his team destroy the Ducks in the Elite Eight, and stopped watching before seeing the Jayhawks destroyed by Blake's Terps in the Final Four. Anyhow, The Terps were THE running team of college basketball, and THE tough inside team as well. They went to the Final Four two years in a row, and they had something the Blazers don't. Big guys who cut to the hoop, and could catch the ball and finish. They also had lots of guys who got out on the break and ran the floor. Notice how when Lamarcus started running the floor toward the end of the season we started blowing out teams like the Spurs, Lakers and Nuggets. Blake is a great long passer as we've seen, when he has someone to pass to, but he smartly pulls up for a half court set rather than turn it over, when no one flashes to the basket. When Oden learns to catch the ball and convert, Blake will average 8 assists at least.

Then people say Blake can't play defense. It's called a pick guys. Most teams run it like every play, because it works, like almost every play. You have a big guy slide up behind, and stand in the way of the little guy playing defense on the other little guy with the ball, and he runs into the big guy when the little guy with the ball cuts past him too close for the little defensive guy to get between them. On teams, who play better defense than the Blazers, one of the big guys in the middle of the defensive team steps out on the other side of the pick to deny penetration, and buy the moment his teammate needs to fight around the pick. The Blazers choose to play matador defense in the paint instead. All point guards including Hinrich, Chris Paul etc get screened off on picks. It's Basketball 101 guys. The rules make it an offensive game. Blake is actually a tenacious defender, but he doesn't get much help. He gets beaten sometimes just like Hinrich or any player. He has trouble stopping taller players from shooting over him, when he gets stuck with a mismatch, just like most players. To say Hinrich is a much better defender is a real exageration. I think it might be more acurate to say he plays on a team that plays better team defense, but most teams in the NBA play better team D than the Blazers.

Blake hasn't been given the chance to run a team for a few years the way Hinrich has, because he didn't go to a lottery team. If he gets the same chance Hinrich did with the Bulls, he will help his team win it all, somthing Hinrich failed to do in the NCAA, but Blake succedded with. A winner is a winner. Blazer fans don't know what they have with Steve Blake, let's hope KP does.