# Blake to start, Miller to come off the bench



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

From MB's blog.



> "I've talked to Andre about that," said McMillan, and clearly this was addressed at the team's meeting with Miller in Las Vegas. "I think starting is overrated. You try to get a starting unit that works, and a bench unit that works.
> 
> "Our starting unit last year won 54 games. We're not going to mess with that starting unit," McMillan continued. "I anticipate that we'll start out the same way, with Brandon and Steve as our guards, and then bring Andre and Rudy as the guards off our bench. Bringing them in with Martell or Travis in that second unit, as more of a running unit, would be a good combination."


From the same blog.



> Nate has wanted Miller for a long time, and perhaps no one was happier about Miller's signing than McMillan. But, McMillan is also a big fan of the starting unit that helped his team overachieve last season, and he's made it very clear that he thinks Steve Blake and Brandon Roy are very effective together.
> 
> This is the reason the team never seriously entertained deals that would have sent Blake packing. As I mentioned, while in Las Vegas, I had a former NBA general manager tell me that he considers Blake "the most underrated point guard in the NBA," and claimed to have the numbers to prove it.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

the only things i disagree with there are that the blazers overachieved last year and the idea that there is one "starting unit" and one "second unit".

blake starting makes a lot of sense to me since he's the much better fit with roy and will space the floor better for the post games of aldridge and oden. i'd assume miller will still play 28-30 minutes per game regardless of who steps on the court first.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

So does this mean Bayless gets another year of no playing time?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Yes


----------



## Tyreke (Jul 14, 2009)

It's not a bad idea to continue with the starting unit that has worked so well. You also have a pretty nice second unit there. Good luck!


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

great move, gives even more of a spark off the bench, i know Rudy and Batum loves to run and gun, same style in which Miller played in Philly


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

chairman5 said:


> great move, gives even more of a spark off the bench, i know Rudy and Batum loves to run and gun, same style in which Miller played in Philly


batum starts.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

really? i thought Outlaw was still their starter, i guess they got too much offense if he did start


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't think anything is written in stone. I'd like to see Webster starting if he comes back from his injury.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

It's a good idea to let Blake start at the least the beginning of the season. That way the starting line-up has some continuity to it, and Miller can find his nitch with the team without being forced in their right away. That way there is no excuses about having a different starting unit if the Blazers get off to a slow start. This move probably disrupts the chemistry as little as possible. When Miller is familiar enough with everything, then you can think about what to do with Steve Blake if a trade scenerio comes up, and if not, then you have 2 pretty good point guards.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I think that is Nate's logic too, but I'd like to see them battle it out in TC and decide then which one will start during the reg season. Nate does think though that Miller will be better coming off the bench and be more of a running team with the second unit. At the end of the game though I'm sure the best five will be out there regardless.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

that is frigging stupid. Blake never will be a starter and Miller is...or well is supposed to be. Hit the ground running boys. Learn this.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Tom said:


> that is frigging stupid. Blake never will be a starter and Miller is...or well is supposed to be. Hit the ground running boys. Learn this.


if blake will never be a starter, what happened last season(or the few years before)? how has he started 60% of the nba games he has played in?

the idea of "starter" isn't really all that relevant. if blake is best used next to roy, and andre miller and roy's games don't necessarily do a good job of meshing(with both guys being most effective with the ball in their hands), it makes sense that blake would start each half so that he plays the majority of his minutes alongside roy. starting doesn't mean that miller still won't play more minutes, it just makes sense for the guys to get most minutes alongside the guys they fit best with on the court.

the spurs seem to do alright with manu off the bench. and the mavs with terry. and the lakers with odom. and denver with jr smith. and the heat with beasley. and the sixers with lou williams(playing behind willie green). and portland last year with batum starting over outlaw/rudy.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

This is PG...Your man has to start IMO.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Tom said:


> This is PG...Your man has to start IMO.


roy is the primary ball handler on offense anyway, so i don't see why position matters.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

What is the use of having Miller if he doesn't have the ball in his hands.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Tom said:


> What is the use of having Miller if he doesn't have the ball in his hands.


that's why i question the blazers bringing him in.

obviously, miller is going to have the ball in his hands some. he'll lessen the load off of roy. but i'd still have to think that roy is still going to be the guy with his hands running the offense more often than not. which is why it would make sense to have blake play with roy as much as possible(since blake is better off the ball than miller) and have miller come off the bench making it more likely that he's on the court when roy is resting.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

This was a bad business decsion if you are right and I think you are. He isn't from a winning organization either so you don't even have that in your favor.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

Miller ran the Sixers, they are probably the least talented team to make the playoffs


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Tom said:


> This was a bad business decsion if you are right and I think you are. He isn't from a winning organization either so you don't even have that in your favor.


i think the blazers are still going to get miller 28-30 minutes per game with blake taking the remainder of the minutes regardless of who starts. i just think it makes perfect sense to try to make sure blake is paired on the court with roy during his minutes to make them most effective and to have miller be able to control the ball more in more of the minutes he is on the court. that way they can maximize the effectiveness of their players as much as possible.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

While Blake is the better 3 point shooter, Miller has a mid range jumper that can create space and help Roy the same as Blake. Roy also could benefit from Miller driving to the basket and kicking it out to him for a easy basket. I don't think it's so clear cut which would be the better PG to play with Roy. I guess the real question is would Blake do as well on the second unit as Miller. Whoever starts as I said before when it's crunch time it'll be the five best on the floor. Heck we might even see Blake and Miller on the floor at the same time.


----------



## AriGold23 (Jul 19, 2002)

rocketeer I think you got it right. It's not that the Blazers think Blake is better than Miller, it's actually the opposite. They don't trust Blake's handling ability as much as Miller's, but they know Blake is the better spot-up shooter so he is a better fit in the lineup with Roy and Aldridge and the rest of the starters. With the 2nd unit, he will be asked to be more of a ball-handler which he is not as adept at as Miller is. So rather than wasting Blake and playing him in a situation where he won't be as successful, they will play him with Roy so he doesn't become a useless bum for the team. Miller is obviously the better player, and will get the more minutes, but to ensure that you get the most out of Blake's ability you have to put him out there with the starting unit.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Miller will help them if they face a team like Denver or Utah.... Physical PG's like Billups & Williams would destroy Blake.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Starting Blake is not going to last. Starting is not overrated, there's a reason why they are typically paid more.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HKF said:


> Starting Blake is not going to last. Starting is not overrated, there's a reason why they are typically paid more.


starting is definitely overrated. playing more minutes isn't though. the lakers(odom), nuggets(jr smith), spurs(manu), blazers(started batum over rudy/outlaw), mavs(terry), jazz(kirilenko), cavs(started ben wallace most of the season), heat(beasley), and sixers(started willie green over lou williams) all started a worse player to bring a better guy off the bench. that is 9 of the 16 playoff teams and there are a couple more like the jazz(millsap behind boozer in addition to kirilenko already mentioned) and the hornets(rasual butler over posey) where it's debatable.

so it appears obvious that the majority of nba playoff teams think starting is overrated as long as they can get the better players the most minutes.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

HKF said:


> Starting Blake is not going to last. Starting is not overrated, there's a reason why they are typically paid more.


Ya, we start getting of to slow starts like we did last year quite a bit and we'll see Miller starting.


----------

