# Roy as PG



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Not an original idea, but I thought Canzano's article today did a good job of arguing for a Roy/Rudy backcourt -- which would really leave the issue as who is the *backup *PG of the future? Maybe he has been surfing our forums for some good story ideas :raised_ey

Link



> Roy is versatile, smart and capable. And when the Blazers reeled off their 13-game winning streak, it was ignited after Roy moved to the point. In his first nine games of that streak, Roy averaged 24.2 points, 7.0 assists and 5.8 rebounds.





> Why not let him specialize as the point guard?
> 
> Roy is big. And strong. And the game moves only as fast as he'll allow it to move, which is not only the mark of a great player, but also of a guy who understands what it is to run the point. You could also make a case that the injuries and abuse Roy suffered this season might not come as frequently in the future, or at least with such severity, if he were guarded by the other team's point guard instead of a typically bigger perimeter player.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I prefer to see Roy at SF.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Roy is an average player when he's tired, not in the middle of things.
He has not displayed the energy to play against box-and-1 for 82 games,
let alone bring the ball up and get everyone involved, too.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

I would not be opposed to trying a Roy/Rudy backcourt at times but I don't think Roy has the speed/agility to keep up with a number of the PG's in the league. I could easily picture him getting abused by guys like Tony Parker, CP3, Deron Williams (of course, they abuse most everyone) but others as well. With Oden we should have a pretty good defensive force in the middle to help out should Roy get burned but that means that someone else is now open and if they are a relatively decent PG, they'll look for the pass.

Not dismissing the idea but also not subscribing to it either.

Gramps...


----------



## dpc (Dec 26, 2007)

It's_GO_Time said:


> I prefer to see Roy at SF.


I would think Roy is a little undersized for SF


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> I would not be opposed to trying a Roy/Rudy backcourt at times but I don't think Roy has the speed/agility to keep up with a number of the PG's in the league. I could easily picture him getting abused by guys like Tony Parker, CP3, Deron Williams (of course, they abuse most everyone) but others as well. With Oden we should have a pretty good defensive force in the middle to help out should Roy get burned but that means that someone else is now open and if they are a relatively decent PG, they'll look for the pass.
> 
> Not dismissing the idea but also not subscribing to it either.
> 
> Gramps...


While I agree I've recently been thinking about what it takes to defend those PGs, and perimeter players in general. And while guys like Battier, Artest, and Bowen aren't that speedy/agile I think when asked to take those defensive assignments they do as well as anyone on them by using their height/length advantage. While Roy has sort of a shorter wingspan than most guys his size, he's more athletic than any of the Battier, Artest, Bowen group.

There was another thread recently debating whether or not there were really many good defensive PGs anymore, or if defending PGs was now something that was best done by more of a SG/SF mold of a player. Interesting thought when thinking about Roy as the full time PG.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

I think this could work, but only if you have another combo guard who can handle both PG and SG and a good PG general who can be the backup. Sort of the 3 guard rotation we had with TP, Drexler, and Ainge or something like that.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

Obviously I think with Brandon at PG we need SG & SF who can help in transition and on defense, and can hit open shots and handle the ball decent, but I like the thought of a big line up a lot.

So let's go get that defensively sound SG/SF (marion in pheonix would defend Parker) who can hit open shots and get out on the break...(Andre Iguodala might be had for cheap this summer)

I also love the thought of a very different second unit than the first to change tempos once the other team gets used to what you're doing. Versatility is a key in basketball and then you play to the greatest differential in your strength vs the other teams weakness, which can change on any given night, depending on matchups and who's hot. A real important thing either way is to have bigs you can go to that are reliable at scoring in the post and setting picks when one or both of your styles aren't working, I'd say we do in Aldridge and Oden, who should also both be able to defend well in transition.

Sergio and Rudy off the bench for twenty minutes a night (with Brandon for some of them at SF taking a break while still on the floor in some ways) would be fantastic for an aggressive change of pace, whether Nate allows them to do that and designs plays where motion is set for them is a different story.

this is what the backcourt rotation could look like:

30 minutes (first and last ten for sure)
Brandon Roy
?
Martell Webster

8 minutes (1 to 2, 3 to 4)
Sergio Rodriguez
Rudy Fernandez
Brandon Roy

10 minutes
Sergio Rodriguez
Rudy Fernandez
James Jones

Brandon - 38 a night
Martell and ? - 30 a night
Sergio and Rudy - 20 a night
James Jones - 10 a night

obviously things would change depending on who's hot, how rudy adjust, and who the other player is. Brandon integrating when he comes back in at SF would be good for him to gradually get back in the flow of the game, get to run the break a little, and when things weren't working in the half court he could take over.

To do it, looking for player ?:
trade Jack and the pick to move up in the draft. (#10?)
draft Kevin Love

trade Outlaw, Love, and Blake in a S&T for someone good.
That package should fetch someone nice in a sign n trade.
(Iggy, Deng, Eric Gordon)


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

In reality, both Roy and Rudy are combo guards. Either one can bring the ball up and either one can run the offense. So, why not have them both in the backcourt interchangably carrying that duty? It would create mismatches and solid ball movement. A rotation of Roy, Rudy and Blake at the guard spots (with Sergio coming in as he develops) should cover the team's needs. 

I've always wanted Roy at the PG spot. Roy is a better PG than anyone Portland will be able to get in the next few years. Rudy can help spell him of some of the duties (help bring ball up, switch roles at times). Hopefully it happens next year.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Reep said:


> In reality, both Roy and Rudy are combo guards. Either one can bring the ball up and either one can run the offense. So, why not have them both in the backcourt interchangably carrying that duty?


Who defends the PG position? Roy is an excellent player, but he doesn't defend that well and a quick PG will give him huge problems. I may be wrong, since I've only watched a few games, but Fernandez doesn't look any better. In fact he looks worse.

I think that lineup can work at times, but I don't want to see that for 30+ minutes per night.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

With a Roy/Rudy back court, my question is who runs the fast break?

From my memory of the season, even during the 13 game winning streak, I rarely if ever remember Roy pushing the ball from the backcourt and running the fast break.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Canzano said:


> You could also make a case that the injuries and abuse Roy suffered this season might not come as frequently in the future, or at least with such severity, if he were guarded by the other team's point guard instead of a typically bigger perimeter player.


This argument holds no water. The NBA has a decent history of shooting guards trying to play the point and getting hurt because of it. Penny Hardaway and Shaun Livingston immediately come to mind. But there's always a team or two that plays extended minutes with two point guards and I've never once heard of the guy playing the 2 spot getting hurt because of it.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It's_GO_Time said:


> I prefer to see Roy at SF.


Wow man I thought the Blazers really struggled with Roy at SF this year. He was just not quite big enough to deal with most small forwards defensivly this year. In fact, I would go so far as to say there were a few games lost this year when Nate switched Roy to the SF position during the closing minutes of basketball games becasue he was not big enough to guard his man, when Martell had been doing a good job guarding the same player all game long. Talented yes. Big enough for SF in the NBA? No.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Wow man I thought the Blazers really struggled with Roy at SF this year. He was just not quite big enough to deal with most small forwards defensivly this year. In fact, I would go so far as to say there were a few games lost this year when Nate switched Roy to the SF position during the closing minutes of basketball games becasue he was not big enough to guard his man, when Martell had been doing a good job guarding the same player all game long. Talented yes. Big enough for SF in the NBA? No.


So I'm guessing you didn't like that whole Blake, Jack Roy starting line up.

The only reason I like him at the SF (oppose to PG) is because I don't think he can effciently run a fast break.

I don't remeber specifically Roy playing terrible defense at the SF position, but I'll take your word on that . . . I do remember that at times Nate would use Roy to guard the opposing teams best perimeter player in the closing minutes and I thought it worked well.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Fork said:


> Who defends the PG position? Roy is an excellent player, but he doesn't defend that well and a quick PG will give him huge problems. I may be wrong, since I've only watched a few games, but Fernandez doesn't look any better. In fact he looks worse.


What PG in his right mind is going to drive past Roy straight into LMA and Oden? And what PG is going to want to guard Roy straight up? It's like the Outlaw at PF argument -- he's smaller than most PF's, but quicker than them too.

It's worth experimenting to see if Roy can start/finish at PG (and maybe play fewer minutes at PG during the 2nd and 3rd quarters), especially since he already plays PG in the final 6 minutes anyway.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

BlazerCaravan said:


> What PG in his right mind is going to drive past Roy straight into LMA and Oden? And what PG is going to want to guard Roy straight up? It's like the Outlaw at PF argument -- he's smaller than most PF's, but quicker than them too.
> 
> It's worth experimenting to see if Roy can start/finish at PG (and maybe play fewer minutes at PG during the 2nd and 3rd quarters), especially since he already plays PG in the final 6 minutes anyway.


like I already said, Roy should start and finish the game at point, while we set the tone in a methodic and precise style of pounding the other teams inside. During the middle of the games we unleash hell with Sergio and Rudy, wear the other teams out, and Roy gets minutes at SF during this stretch to have another ballhandler on the floor, provide an outside threat, and get back into the flow of the game while getting to play a little different/more passive. He could even fill it leading the break. The couple times Sergio got time with Roy this year they played well together and Roy truly got time at the wing. He could use the rest in the middle of the game when he didn't have to dribble around on high screens constantly too, so that he could close out games at his best. He already scores the most at the beginning and end of games anyways (as most stars do).

What we need to compliment him is an elite defender, who can hit open shots, and get out on the break at the 2/3 position.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Well I am coming around to liking Roy at the PG spot, but it depends on a couple of things. 
1) Rudy must come over and be as good as advertised. Also, there are two knocks on Rudy, his defense and his ball handling. Those must not be too big of issues or the experiment will fail.
2) This will mean that Outlaw and Webster must be exchanges for another SF, one that is a good defender, but more importantly has very good handles. I think that a point forward would be very important because Roy is going to need help, at least over the next few seasons.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

It's_GO_Time said:


> I prefer to see Roy at SF.


Your joking... right?

I would LOVE to put Roy at the PG position full time. Blake backup, roster looks great.

Roy\Blake
Rudy\Jack
Outlaw\Webster\Jones
LMA\Frye\McBob
Oden\Joel\Raef

I really REALLY like that roster.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I'd rather see Roy start at the 3 and Rudy at the 2, then Roy swing over to the 2 when Rudy is out of the game, and then like this year, in crucial times Roy go to the 1 and Rudy at the 2.

That would be perfect, imo.



> Your joking... right?
> 
> I would LOVE to put Roy at the PG position full time. Blake backup, roster looks great.
> 
> ...


From what i've seen this year, Outlaw will not be an effective starter as the 5th option. He doesn't contribute without scoring and doesn't score without iso-ing with stops the offensive rhythm. He won't get many iso's playing with the first unit. He is very effective off the bench, even effective at end-game because he is a clutch shooter. I think his role is good.

Of course, if he improves this off-season with playing within' the offense, and contributing without scoring (blocking, assisting, off. rebounds, help defense and so on) then everything changes, as he would be a perfect fit, as he continues to develop his jumper.



> Roy is an average player when he's tired, not in the middle of things.
> He has not displayed the energy to play against box-and-1 for 82 games,
> let alone bring the ball up and get everyone involved, too.


Thats what i think also. He is already our playmaker... he doesn't really need to dribble it up, call the plays and defend the PG on top of that.

I remember a Miami fan (NewAgeBaller maybe?) talking to us about this situation. He said that this is what Miami was thinking about Dwayne Wade also. Put him at the PG position so he has the ball more and that they can put more scorers at the 2 and 3. Just like what you guys are saying for Roy. 

He said they tried it, and it didn't work out. Now Dwayne is a SG (very similary to Roy) and still the playmaker, but he isn't as tired by the 4th Qtr and stuff.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Roy is not a SF. He is not lengthy enough. Sure, there are a lot of SF's in the league that are 6'6", but they have a bigger wingspan than 6'8". They usually have a wingspan of 6'11" or so. Roy would always be undersized. Why take him out of his game by making the game harder on him.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I say we put off this problem for a while. For now, Roy is our SG and Rudy is our 6th man. As somebody pointed out, the history of big PGs since Magic is not good. Penny was great, and they got to the finals with him at PG, but his career was very short. Shaun Livinston's career was even shorter (MAYBE it'll re-start - we'll see). Steve Smith, like Penny, quickly moved over to SG. Same with Jalen Rose. Now, maybe Roy can be PG like Ron Harper was PG on the Bulls/Lakers, but that's a kind of PG who doesn't dominate the ball at all. (Incidentally - who did bring up the ball when Harper and Jordan were the backcourt?)

Anyway, Rudy can be sixth man until he proves himself. And maybe after, a la Ginobili.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

GOD said:


> Roy is not a SF. He is not lengthy enough. Sure, there are a lot of SF's in the league that are 6'6", but they have a bigger wingspan than 6'8". They usually have a wingspan of 6'11" or so. Roy would always be undersized. Why take him out of his game by making the game harder on him.


Funny because that last line is what I have to say about putting Roy at the PG position. I think it makes the game harder on him.

And I'm not saying Blazers shouldn't run the offense through Roy. But I don't think I'm way off here . . . Nate seems more inclined to have Roy play the SF than PG position.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

It's_GO_Time said:


> Funny because that last line is what I have to say about putting Roy at the PG position. I think it makes the game harder on him.
> 
> And I'm not saying Blazers shouldn't run the offense through Roy. But I don't think I'm way off here . . . Nate seems more inclined to have Roy play the SF than PG position.


I just don't think it will end up helping. I am not so sure if Roy would be good at PG, but I really think that SF is a bad move. Just think about how defenders get to Roy, it's the bigger defenders that tend to harass him. He does very well against normal or smaller sized defenders. At SF, he willl be swimming upstream every night. Then, on the defensive end Roy would become a liability. Against certain teams or in certain situations Roy can play SF, but on a regular basis I think he would get worn down and his positives would be negated.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

GOD said:


> I just don't think it will end up helping. I am not so sure if Roy would be good at PG, but I really think that SF is a bad move. Just think about how defenders get to Roy, it's the bigger defenders that tend to harass him. He does very well against normal or smaller sized defenders. At SF, he willl be swimming upstream every night. Then, on the defensive end Roy would become a liability. Against certain teams or in certain situations Roy can play SF, but on a regular basis I think he would get worn down and his positives would be negated.


I sort of tuned out at the end of the year (stop with the bandwagon chants) . . . is that what happened to Roy when he started at SF with Webster being out?

I think this whole question can be delayed for a year as meru pointed out . . . Rudy should be fine with coming off the bench next year. 

I do think Roy is capable of playing PG. The reason I'm taking my postion is at the end of the year, the games I went to, I noticed a concentrated effort of the Blazers pushing the ball upcourt and finding Aldridge on the fast break. It was mainly Blake pushing the ball running the fast break with Roy on the wing or trailing. I kept trying to watch if Roy would lead the fast break but never saw him do it. I could be wrong on all this . . .as I stated I kind of tuned out at the end of the year.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

I understand the concerns at SF but i remember vs. Dallas when Jack started at the 2 and Roy at the 3 and we beat them and it was a really good game. Gave me hope of switching Jack out for Rudy and Frye for Oden for our starting line-up next year.

IDK, i think having Roy struggle a little bit more vs. defenders is worth it to be able to play Rudy and Roy together (if Rudy pans out). It would only be while they are both together, remember that when Rudy would go to the Bench (lets say 15 minutes a game) Roy would slide back to the 2, and at crucial times, Roy would play point (so lets say 5 minutes).. so taht is 20 minutes NOT at the 3 spot. Then lets say 10 minutes break for Roy a game, and that leaves around 18 minutes he'd have to play at the 3.

I think the risk would be worth it if Rudy and Roy are dominating, imo. We would just have to try it out and see, just like we should try out Roy playing PG and see how he does, imo.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> I understand the concerns at SF but i remember vs. Dallas when Jack started at the 2 and Roy at the 3 and we beat them and it was a really good game. Gave me hope of switching Jack out for Rudy and Frye for Oden for our starting line-up next year.
> 
> IDK, i think having Roy struggle a little bit more vs. defenders is worth it to be able to play Rudy and Roy together (if Rudy pans out). It would only be while they are both together, remember that when Rudy would go to the Bench (lets say 15 minutes a game) Roy would slide back to the 2, and at crucial times, Roy would play point (so lets say 5 minutes).. so taht is 20 minutes NOT at the 3 spot. Then lets say 10 minutes break for Roy a game, and that leaves around 18 minutes he'd have to play at the 3.
> 
> I think the risk would be worth it if Rudy and Roy are dominating, imo. We would just have to try it out and see, just like we should try out Roy playing PG and see how he does, imo.


Dallas was a unique match up that is not the norm, they started with a Kidd/Terry/Howard 123 line up, Howard is on the small side for a SF (he's the same height as BRoy, he does have a much greater wingspan that allows him to play SF more effectively) and that's why that particular matchup (that you have used as an example before) is not one I would rely on to make an accurate prediction for Roy's future at the 3.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Roy at SF is a absolutley terrible idea. He simply isnt a SF, and sucked at SF. 

I agree that Roy is going to be a better PG than anyone we could get realistically. In the end, I am starting to also think Roy/Rudy will end up as the starters. The only downside to having Roy at PG is his inability to run the break, but the only PG right now who can really run the break is Jose(Who is such a bad defender, he isnt worth getting). I know he cant lock down speedy PG's like Parker and Ellis, but no one can. Think of how easily we can iso Roy against those guys and post them up all night. 

I still think we need to make a run at Hinrich, who is also essentially a combo guard and hence could play SG when Roy played PG, but is also a good PG defender.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think some of you are missing the point about Roy playing PG.....The fact is that Roy plays best when he has the ball in his hands, where he can create for himself or create for others, which he does very well....I would label Roy as a "Point Forward" type of player (although at the SG spot)...

I agree, you don't want Roy playing the TRADITIONAL PG role the whole time, but I maintain that a shooting\scoring PG...a guy like Ben Gordon or Monta Ellis for instance...would be a very nice fit next to Roy...someone who can play off Roy, who doesn't need to dribble dribble dribble to create for himself, but can allow Roy to create and then benefit (score) from his decision making....Rudy BTW has shown himself in euroleague as a more than capable catch and shoot...and slasher\finsiher....

Rudy also has a good handle from reports, but I agree with the comments that 1) he will likely be coming off the bench this year (for sure at the start), but will see a fair bit of minutes and some time in the back court with Roy 2) That Roy guarding other PG full time is not in POR best interest or in Roy's...

So then a question is can Rudy guard PG? Well...defense is not his strongsuit...but he does have a slender build making him more suitable to guarding PG...so maybe he can eventually, that will be something to watch...but what I see happening is POR going zone with both of them in the game....because with Aldridge\Oden & Pryzbilla\Frye...finishing in the paint will not be easy for most PG's IMO....

That is why a guy like Harris or Calderon interest POR so much...but for different reasons...Calderon has shown himself capable of shooting over the pick and roll...and Harris has shown himself to be very adept at driving to the rim...but either could play off of Roy, but still share the ball handling (PG duties) some...

I think we will definitely see a Roy\Rudy backcourt at times in games, it just won't likely be THE starting guard tandem IMO...at least not to start...but if Rudy showed himself capable, then why not?


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

with Greg Oden, I don't think we're going to have any problems with Roy running the fast break. I think anyone could run a fast break with GO in the middle, even Jarrett "Fast Break Killer" Jack.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

There is all this talk about how Roy can't guard the quick PGs that he would face, but then the solutions offered are getting someone like Ellis or Calderon as PG. Does anyone really believe that Ellis or Calderon could guard Chris Paul or Tony Parker as well as Roy? Really? Roy is not going to lock down Paul, but I think he has a better shot than Calderon or Ellis.

The only PG I see mentioned that would be a better defender than Roy is Harris, and he has other liabilities--including the fact that he is likely unavailable.

If people are really concerned about having a PG who can guard quick PGs, then pay the price and draft Westbrook and try to develop him as quick as possible. I don't see any other answer.

Personally, I think Roy could do fine guarding most PGs and could get some extra help guarding Paul and Parker.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually in every game this year when the point guards had trouble stopping a player, who did they put on them? Roy. Who would finally do the job needed all game on them? Roy. 

Just remember, the best players in this league can hardly get guarded 1 on 1. Even the best defenders know where to funnel to their help, and are made to look good by a couple of 7 footers looking to send it back.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I agree 100% with Kmurph, and 110% with Reep. In fact, I think Calderon would be twice as bad a defender trying to guard the likes of Parker/Ellis/Paul than Roy. 

Overall, our three best defenders for the fast little PG's of the West are going to be Oden, Aldridge and Joel. Its great to hope and stop these guys from penetrating, but most of the time it just doesnt happen. Thats when your big men come into play. Look at Dallas. Paul abused them, but that also had only 1 player on their team get over a block a game in that series. We are going to have two very intimidating bigs(Oden & Pryz) along with a great help defender/weakside shotblocker(LMA).

Also note that perhaps the best D on Parker was played by Diaw(Which really isnt saying much since he still got abused).


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I thought our 'small ball' lineup with Roy at SF stunk. If you are going small ball, you need to utilize some speedsters, not our slow it down offense.

I agree with meru. I don't like Roy at SF or at PG. Roy is a very good SG. He should play SG, next to a quality PG. Rudy will have to earn minutes from the 6th man spot. Of course there are times when they can share the back court, but there will be plenty of times when they shouldn't.

I also agree with Kmurph. I would not use Roy as a 'traditional' PG. But in the half-court, he is great at creating with the ball in his hands. That's great to have at the end of games, or out of time outs when you need a score. In those situations, Roy makes Nate look good.

I also worry about Roy's durability. I hope that Rudy pans out and Nate can cut Roy's minutes a little, and save him for the 'end-game.' I also think with Aldridge improving and Oden coming in, Roy won't have to carry so much of the load. A decent PG would also help take some pressure off Roy and keep him healthy for the playoffs. :banana:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I agree 100% with Kmurph, and 110% with Reep.


:thinking2:

So you completely agree with Kmurph . . . but not as much as you agree with Reep.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Its not that Roy would neccesarily play the SF position, but that he would guard it.

He can play SG on offense and let Rudy play in the 3 spot (which on our offense usually waits for Roy to create and open 3 for them).

Having Roy dribble it up every play, which will make teams (for sure) press him will not only tire him out by end game (which is where we need him) but will also tire him out by the time of the playoffs. Its not a good option, imo.

Roy is our playmaker, like i said earlier, that doesn't mean he should defend the other teams PG, Dribble it up, and call the plays every time. People like Kobe and McGrady have lots of PG skills also, but making them full time PG would not only tire them out, but it wouldn't use them to the best of their abilities as a playmaker, which is what Roy is.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

ebott said:


> This argument holds no water. The NBA has a decent history of shooting guards trying to play the point and getting hurt because of it. Penny Hardaway and Shaun Livingston immediately come to mind. But there's always a team or two that plays extended minutes with two point guards and I've never once heard of the guy playing the 2 spot getting hurt because of it.


Um, Canzano makes that point as well. 



> The Blazers asked Roy to do too much this season. He responded beautifully, and the temptation will be to count on Roy to do the same next season. But *if that demand continues, it's not only going to inhibit his growth, but also threaten to wear him down, and out*.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Having Roy dribble it up every play, which will make teams (for sure) press him will not only tire him out by end game (which is where we need him) but will also tire him out by the time of the playoffs. Its not a good option, imo.


geez that Brandon sure is a wimp. It's amazing he's able to summon the energy to get out of bed each morning.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, how has similarly sized Jason Kidd thrived in the league for the last 15 years? It's not that big a deal. Canzano had one of his broken clock moments which curiously came with no accompanying outrageous gossipy crap maybe because this is so obvious it's impossible to spin it. Roy and Blake largely switched off the point responsibilities last season, but BR was the primary playmaker with the game on the line. He played a lot of point in college and has continued to excel at that role in the pros. I've little worries about him continuing to improve as he matures/grows stronger and see no reason he shouldn't be able to handle the primary PG duties the 15-20 minutes a night he and Rudy would be teamed in a 3 guard rotation with Blake. Adding Rudy and Greg to whats already in place should make this team deadly on both ends of the court. Brandon will be playing on a team with so many weapons I highly doubt teams are going to be able to press him effectively or double anyone with success. 

Lastly... of the guards in the draft, I doubt anyone short of Rose and Mayo would be able to carve out more then 10 minutes on this roster. If they draft another point, that guy is likely to be clapping for at least a year. Thats not because there isn't some talent coming out, it's more how stacked I see the roster as. 

it's great days to be a Blazer fan

STOMP


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

For those who are worrying about Roy running the fast break at PG with Rudy in the game, let us not forget that one of Rudy's specialties is running the fast break. He is not that great of a ball handler, but he is good enough and his passing, especially long passes are near perfect. Rudy may have trouble sharing the PG duties in half court, but in open court he can take care of getting the ball to the right spot.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Here's a thought: leave Roy at his best position, which happens to be SG.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Here's a thought: leave Roy at his best position, which happens to be SG.


I thought his best position was "In The Air, Having Jooked His Defender Out Of His Shoes".


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Roy had trouble guarding PGs IN SUMMER LEAGUE.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Roy is not a freaking point guard. He can play the position sparingly, but starting him as a PG is just asking for disaster.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> geez that Brandon sure is a wimp. It's amazing he's able to summon the energy to get out of bed each morning.[/sarcasm]
> 
> Seriously, how has similarly sized Jason Kidd thrived in the league for the last 15 years? It's not that big a deal. Canzano had one of his broken clock moments which curiously came with no accompanying outrageous gossipy crap maybe because this is so obvious it's impossible to spin it. Roy and Blake largely switched off the point responsibilities last season, but BR was the primary playmaker with the game on the line. He played a lot of point in college and has continued to excel at that role in the pros. I've little worries about him continuing to improve as he matures/grows stronger and see no reason he shouldn't be able to handle the primary PG duties the 15-20 minutes a night he and Rudy would be teamed in a 3 guard rotation with Blake. Adding Rudy and Greg to whats already in place should make this team deadly on both ends of the court. Brandon will be playing on a team with so many weapons I highly doubt teams are going to be able to press him effectively or double anyone with success.
> 
> ...


One of Roys biggest weaknesses is his endurance. Some 4th quarters he is just flat out of gas, and then he is really just an average player.

Whata waste to have him spend so much extra energy bringing the ball up vs. a press every play.

And don't compare Jason Kidd. Different players have different levels of being in shape.

Again, Roy is our playmaker, and he is our PG in certain situations like the end of each half. To ask him to bring it up and calla play and defend a PG every play is rediculous. That is not what he does best, and certainly not using him to his max potential. He should be spending energy on being a playmaker and be fresh as possible for the 4th QTR.



> Roy is not a freaking point guard. He can play the position sparingly, but starting him as a PG is just asking for disaster.


Yep. Just because somebody has point guard skills everybody wants him to turn to a full time PG, lol...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Roy is not a freaking point guard. He can play the position sparingly, but starting him as a PG is just asking for disaster.


Disaster??? if I was more the nah nah nah type of poster, I might be saving this quote in my sig. Based largely on quotes from Nate, KP, and BR himself, I'm expecting a Rudy-Roy starting back court to happen before the season is out. They could go down as one of the great back court combos in Blazer history.

STOMP


----------



## spuriousjones (Apr 24, 2004)

the most obvious answer is trade the 6th man (rudy, who will be forever behind roy) for a quality starting pointguard that lets roy play his best position: maximize talent.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^That is definitely an option.

IMO, though, i'd rather give him a whole season see how he plays in the NBA and see how he works with Roy before you do anything.

All signs are pointing to the fact that this kid is going to be special. I'd want to hold onto him. Worst case scenerio he guards the SFs in the NBA and plays SF on offense...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> And don't compare Jason Kidd. Different players have different levels of being in shape.


sorry, I think your point is just plain silly. When I was in my early 20's, I'd play full court hoops for hours on end daily with a fraction of the breaks that happen in the league. Unlike Roy, I didn't have a staff of professionals prepping me for this. I've multiple friends that run century races at altitude... I've one friend that wins those races. Having spent years in the back country of California's High Sierras working for the state Dept. of Fish and Game doing research that required intensive physical work, I absolutely know that you're completely underestimating what the body is capable of. Attached are a few pix from my summer adventures/work including one of my runner friend who wins those races and some other summer work fun including ripping up the mountaineer's trail on Whitney last summer (we did it in 4 hours).

Dribbling the ball upcourt and calling a play for 20 minutes a night (with breaks galore) is no big deal at all for a highly trained athlete. I'm not sure why guarding a PG is so daunting in your view, or even why (in a rotation with Blake and Rudy) that task would fall to BR. Not that he hasn't done so effectively and couldn't continue to do so even better as he matures/grows stronger, but he is the biggest of the 3 by a good margin. It would make more sense to me (and others posting here) for the team's best interests that Rudy and Blake would guard the smaller player on D.

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> When I was in my early 20's, I'd play full court hoops for hours on end daily with a fraction of the breaks that happen in the league. Unlike Roy, I didn't have a staff of professionals prepping me for this. I've multiple friends that run century races at altitude... I've one friend that wins those races. Having spent years in the back country of California's High Sierras working for the state Dept. of Fish and Game doing research that required intensive physical work, I absolutely know that you're completely underestimating what the body is capable of. Attached are a few pix from my summer adventures/work including one of my runner friend who wins those races and some other summer work fun including going up the mountaineer's trail on Whitney last summer (we did it in 4 hours).


nice, those are awesome pics.



> Dribbling the ball upcourt and calling a play for 20 minutes a night is no big deal at all for an athlete. I'm not sure why guarding a PG is so daunting in your view, or even why (in a rotation with Blake and Rudy) that task would fall to BR. Not that he hasn't done so effectively and couldn't continue to do so even better as he matures/grows stronger, but he is the biggest of the 3 by a good margin. It would make more sense to me for the team's best interests that Rudy and Blake would guard the smaller player on D.


I'm saying that Roy will get tired quickly, if he has to dribble the ball up per press every play. He will not be used to his full potential as a PG. We have other players that would run it better while Roy is playing SG. Roy already runs the point for about 5 minutes a game at crucial times.

I'm not speculating about Roys stamina here, I've seen him tired out in 4th quarters and DEFINITLEY by the end of the season, and he wasn't even a full-time PG which would make him even more tired. We need to try and keep Roy as fresh as possible if we are planning on advancing in the playoffs.

I think that Roy can definitley take on a little more of the PG role and play with Rudy a bit, but to suggest that we should make hima full time PG is rediculous. That isn't what he is.

Just because he has point guard skills doesn't mean that we should put him at the PG position and not utilize him as good as possible to his max potential which is in the teams best interest.

I do understand that by putting Roy at the PG position we can get a nicer line-up by taking out Blake at putting him as a backup PG and then puttin' Roy and Webster at the 2 and 3. But this isn't like NBA live, it doesn't really work like that.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

these kinds of debates always crop up when you have two extremely talented players at the same position. who doesn't remember arguing:
Anthony vs Stoudamire at PG
Rider vs Bonzi at SG
Bonzi vs Smith at SG
Bonzi vs Anderson at SG
Sheed vs Brian Grant at PF
Sheed vs Zach at PF
Zach vs Aldridge at PF
there are probably several others I can't even recall. 
now we've got Roy vs Fernandez at SG.
how did we resolve this problem in the past? well, the pattern is pretty clear. we played one of the two guys out of position for a season or two. one of the guy's value often dropped, although not always. then we traded one of them or one of them became a has-been. you see the pattern over and over and over again. 
is this the plan for Roy/Fernandez? probably. why? because it's a big risk for a GM to trade one of the two without first seeing which is better. it's not necessarily the best strategy for the team, but it's the best strategy for the GM's career. GMs are typically fired for making bad trades. they aren't usually fired for trades they should've made but didn't. 
so a year or two from now there'll be a clear "keeper" and likely a guy we clearly need to trade for an upgrade at a position of need. until then we'll debate playing Roy out of position at PG or SF, because both guys will merit huge minutes.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

We can argue all we want, but imo, its a pretty nice predicament to be in.

I wouldn't hesitate to trade Rudy along with like Outlaw, Jack, Webster, LaFrentz and our pick and future 1st to try and get the #1 pick. Depends what team lands the #1 and if they don't need a PG i think we have a shot. Very small shot of course, but a shot.

I just had my 2nd dream about Derrick Rose and have been day-dreaming all day of us randomly landing the #1 pick and how awesome Rose would be with Roy, Aldirdge and Oden... *sigh*

But i would hesitate to trade Rudy for a non-star older player (lets say like Calderon) before i see what he becomes and how he fits with Roy. But for like aRose? damn... i'd do it.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> I'm saying that Roy will get tired quickly, if he has to dribble the ball up per press every play.


teams don't press anyone every play even in the playoffs when they're selling out. And I'm sure if they try to press Portland with Roy at the point, there will be a flurry of dunks to entice them to stop. 



> He will not be used to his full potential as a PG. We have other players that would run it better while Roy is playing SG. Roy already runs the point for about 5 minutes a game at crucial times.


wrong! He split point duties with Blake this year. He'd still do so when teamed with Blake next year and only be the main point when paired with Rudy approx 15-20 minutes a game. Doing so is not a big deal at all.



> I'm not speculating about Roys stamina here, I've seen him tired out in 4th quarters and DEFINITLEY by the end of the season, and he wasn't even a full-time PG which would make him even more tired. We need to try and keep Roy as fresh as possible if we are planning on advancing in the playoffs.


I think his injuries (groin pull) had everything to do with him being worn out at the end of the season, and for the umpteenth time he's not going to be the full time point. You're arguing against a strawman here.


> I think that Roy can definitley take on a little more of the PG role and play with Rudy a bit, but to suggest that we should make hima  full time PG is rediculous. That isn't what he is.


...and again. btw, it's r*i*diculous


> Just because he has point guard skills doesn't mean that we should put him at the PG position and not utilize him as good as possible to his max potential which is in the teams best interest.


your opinion. Mine is with Nate, KP, and Brandon


> I do understand that by putting Roy at the PG position we can get a nicer line-up by taking out Blake at putting him as a backup PG and then puttin' Roy and Webster at the 2 and 3. But this isn't like NBA live, it doesn't really work like that.


I don't play video games, thats you. I do work out a ton and play lots of hoops though. With your objections to expanding Roy's PT at the point over endurance concerns and saying you think Rudy can play SF in the league, I don't think we're ever going to come close to agreeing until next season starts and settles matters. 

looking forward to it

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> don't think we're ever going to come close to agreeing until next season starts and settles matters.


Pretty much.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

mook said:


> these kinds of debates always crop up when you have two extremely talented players at the same position. who doesn't remember arguing:
> Anthony vs Stoudamire at PG
> Rider vs Bonzi at SG
> Bonzi vs Smith at SG
> ...


I think the big key here is that we don't really even know if we have a competition yet. We have an all star SG (god, it feels good to write that!) and a prospect coming in who is likely an NBA shooting guard. I think it starts with Rudy backing up Roy- if he's good enough to need more minutes, then we worry about playing someone out of position or we trade him. Either way, with a good GM, this is a nice problem to have. I'd like to think that Pritchard could have traded Zach or Sheed for a good return had he been in charge back then.

If Rudy shows talent, then he may be our way of filling our holes at SF or PG. He may also just become a great 6th man for a few years.

I think it's too early to tell, but since this is a forum, my early take is to keep Roy at his best position- SG- and to maneuver the rest of the pieces.

I would trade Rudy in a second for a Devin Harris type and would probably add a lot more to the deal to make it happen.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Let us not forget the great Jim Paxson/Clyde experiment. 

To make room for Clyde, Jim was moved to PG. In less than a year, he went from all-star SG to being traded for a scrub just to be rid of him. The move totally trashed his confidence and wrecked his career!

One would hope Roy isn't the mental wimp Paxson was....but I still believe SG is his best position.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I think it's too early to tell, but since this is a forum, my early take is to keep Roy at his best position- SG- and to maneuver the rest of the pieces.


I've waffled on what we should do with Roy. part of me says to just run him at SF. but another side of me agrees with you and says, "You don't play a franchise player out of position. It's the job of everyone else to fit in around Roy, Aldridge and Oden." 

today I'm more inclined to leave Roy at SG and have Rudy come off the bench. but that could change the first time I see Fernandez drop 30 points. 



> I would trade Rudy in a second for a Devin Harris type and would probably add a lot more to the deal to make it happen.


I think that's really selling Fernandez short. Rudy would likely be a top 5, maybe top 3 draft pick this year. would you trade Devin Harris for that quality of pick? I wouldn't. that high a pick nets you a chance at a franchise player, and Devin Harris isn't ever going to be a franchise player. Fernandez might be.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

mook said:


> I think that's really selling Fernandez short. Rudy would likely be a top 5, maybe top 3 draft pick this year. would you trade Devin Harris for that quality of pick? I wouldn't. that high a pick nets you a chance at a franchise player, and Devin Harris isn't ever going to be a franchise player. Fernandez might be.


I don't think so, espeically since the last few international prospects havn't been able to live up to the hype. PG is a position in which the Blazers are in dire need. I'd deal Rudy for Harris in a millisecond. You're trading an unproven SG for a proven PG.

Rudy would probably be a top 10 pick, but I highly doubt he'd be a top 5 pick. Saying Fernandez might be a franchise player while Harris will never be one is pretty ridiculous. What information makes you think Rudy has the ability to carry a franchise? Especially since franchise players at the SG position and incredibly rare.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> I don't think so, espeically since the last few internation prospects havn't been able to live up to the hype. PG is a position in which the Blazers are in dire need. I'd deal Rudy for Harris in a millisecond. You're trading an unproven SG for a proven PG.


Rudy's hype is based on his off the charts production, not potential like Bargnani.

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> Rudy's hype is based on his off the charts production, not potential like Bargnani.
> 
> STOMP


What about guys like Yi Jianlian? Who was destroying Chinese competition, like absolutely DESTROYING. (Yes, I realize that basketball in China is weaker than in Spain) Point is, it's hard to measure how well an international player will play in the NBA. I think it would be a good idea to trade unproven commodities for a proven player already in the NBA.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Everyone talks about how Roy is already SHARING PG duties with Blake. I say hogwash, Roy runs the offense after the half court line, but 95% of the time, Blake/Jack take the ball up the court and then deliver it to Roy. And on defense, Roy almost never guarded the opposing PG. Sure, there were instances where he did, especially when everyone else failed and Nate was looking for another option, but on a regular basis, Roy did not play PG. 

But...... that is not to say that he can't do it. But the idea of running Roy as THE PG for large stretches of the game must be approached in an experimental manner. Try Roy for extended periods of time at PG against differing types of opposing PG's and see if Roy succeeds. If he does, great, the Roy/Rudy conundrum is solved. If Roy struggles, then find an upgrade at PG via trade. 

THIS IS THE TIME TO EXPERIMENT. Roy, Aldridge and Oden are all young and looking at contending in a couple years. This gives us a window to experiment and see what works best. Because once we are a 60 win team, experimenting could reduce the likelihood of success. 

As far as trading Rudy now, before we even get to see him, that would crush me. I really do believe that we have a Star in Rudy and the Blazers would be wasting that by trading him now. He will be a rookie next year, and I doubt that rudy's trade value will plummet unless he sucks. It will not fail just because he only plays 15mpg in his first year. If he shows star potential in those 15 minutes than GM's will be clamoring to bring him over to their franchise. Every GM will understand that minutes were limited because he is behind Roy. All the player choices that were listed earlier (sheed v grant) (anthony v damon) and so on, all lowered value because they took place later on than rookie years. It is expected that rookies play limited minutes. This does not hurt their value. Limited minutes for a 3rd year pro does reduce value. But we should not have to worry about that for this coming season.

Bring in Rudy, experiment with Roy at PG and even SF (although I think this will fail) and see what works. Worst comes to worst, we realize they are both SG's and we deal the less one in the next offseason.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Roy sacrifices half his value when he plays PG, and I'd rank him behind Blake, Sergio and Petteri at that position. Like Jack, he walks and holds too much,and is a poor defender of PG's.

He's our best SG, one of the best in the league, so use him there. He'll never be a top ten PG. That puts Rudy where he belongs, on the bench behind Roy and Webster at SG.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Roy at PG makes about as much sense as moving Oden to PF and looking for a better center.

Let's address our weaknesses, not create more of them.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Roy at PG makes about as much sense as moving Oden to PF and looking for a better center.
> 
> Let's address our weaknesses, not create more of them.


Oooo...Good one! eace:


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Moving Roy to the point makes sense. He's basically been our PG for most of the season, the only thing Blake really did was bring the ball up the floor. Roy ran the offense this season.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Sonny-Canzano said:


> Moving Roy to the point makes sense. He's basically been our PG for most of the season, the only thing Blake really did was bring the ball up the floor. Roy ran the offense this season.


Where did you get this assumption? He only carried the offense during clutch situations.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Roy sacrifices half his value when he plays PG, and I'd rank him behind Blake, Sergio and Petteri at that position.


Easily the hardest I've laughed all day. Whether you were joking or serious, thank you!

btw, I'm sure someone will be bumping this thread down the line... 

STOMP


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

It's not an assumption. I'm not the only person to come to this conclusion either. Coach Byron Scott said the exact same thing about Roy saying "He starts at the two but he's really their PG." 

Billups is showing the benefits of having a big PG - he's absolutely abusing the smaller Jameer Nelson. At the least I would put Roy's baseline to baseline and lateral quickness on par with Chauncy Billups. 

Roy is our PG of the present and future. Putting up 27/7/7 playing the point is no joke. He needs the ball in his hands, he is more effective when we give Roy the ball. It only makes sense. He has the size of a SG but he's a PG through and through.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Yes Roy's best position now is SG, but that doesn't mean that he can't be as good of a PG as he is a SG even next season. Roy's only coming into his 3rd season. If he works on his ball handling a little bit more this offseason, then maybe it makes sense... I mean if we had both Clyde and MJ, you would try to find a way to play them together at the same time. Whether you go with a small lineup or try to get one of them to take over some PG duties. You wouldn't just relegate one of them to the bench or automatically trade one because they both play the same position. I think we see how Rudy does this year (assuming he comes over). If he is as advertised then there is an option to explore of using Roy at PG, which reduces the need to mortgage the future to acquire a top flight PG in the next year or so.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Where did you get this assumption (Roy being moved to PG)? He only carried the offense during clutch situations.


from the article this thread is based on??? Or maybe it was one of the dozens of articles that preceeded it? Heres a chronological smattering from 15 minutes of bumping around.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2002586040_umen27.html
_The Huskies have begun using Roy so much at the point-guard spot in practices and scrimmages that Roy said yesterday, "Point guard is turning into my primary position."_

http://dwb.thenewstribune.com/sports/sonics/story/6153639p-5385287c.html
_McMillan said Roy’s natural position is probably shooting guard. But the former Seattle SuperSonics player and coach is intrigued by Roy’s potential at the point, and he began working him there on the second day of training camp._

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2007/12/the_forgotten_piece_rudy_ferna.html
_"I would say I could be just a point guard if we bring somebody in, or if Martell (Webster) continues to develop to be a scoring two guard,'' Roy said._

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=teamreports-2008-nba-por&prov=sportsxchange&type=team_report
_Portland’s 13-game winning streak in December coincided with G Brandon Roy being moved to a de facto point guard role. With the ball in his hands, Roy became Portland’s leader in scoring and assists with 19.3 points and 5.9 assists per game_

sometimes I'd swear I'm following a different team.

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> from the article this thread is based on??? Or maybe it was one of the dozens of articles that preceeded it? Heres a chronological smattering from 15 minutes of bumping around.
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2002586040_umen27.html
> _The Huskies have begun using Roy so much at the point-guard spot in practices and scrimmages that Roy said yesterday, "Point guard is turning into my primary position."_
> ...


Who cares what the articles say, watching the games show that he's been playing the shooting guard for the vast majority of the season. And there's a reason he starts at SG...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Who cares what the articles say, watching the games show that he's been playing the shooting guard for the vast majority of the season. And there's a reason he starts at SG...


Yeah, good point. When his GM, coach, the NBA coach of the year, and Brandon himself says he plays PG... you know he's not because... well who cares why, you said it, thats all that matters.

Playing the point is defined by most NBA people as the guy who initiates the offense... the main playmaker. If the PG is (in your eyes) the 2nd shortest player in the lineup, then he'll be the SG next year as well as he's taller then both Blake and Rudy. 

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> Yeah, good point. When his GM, coach, the NBA coach of the year, and Brandon himself says he plays PG... you know he's not because... well who cares why, you said it, thats all that matters.
> 
> *Playing the point is defined by most NBA people as the guy who initiates the offense... the main playmaker.* If the PG is (in your eyes) the 2nd shortest player in the lineup, then he'll be the SG next year as well as he's taller then both Blake and Rudy.
> 
> STOMP


I can say I'm playing the point, but that doesn't mean I'm actually playing the position. I think McMillan, Roy, and KP refer to the fact that he plays the PG position at times. Btw, your little articles never say Roy is a PG. Roy says he COULD be a PG and McMillan acknowledges that fact that his natrual position is SG, but says Roy has the potential to be a point.

Maybe you havn't been watching the games, but it's pretty obvious that Blake runs the offense when both he and Roy are playing at the same time. The same thing goes for Jack. Roy plays the PG sparingly, and during crunch time.


----------



## drinking_rogue (May 4, 2008)

He's a second year player. He excelled at running the offense when he was given the opportunity this year. Why, exactly, can't he play PG next year?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> I can say I'm playing the point, but that doesn't mean I'm actually playing the position. I think McMillan, Roy, and KP refer to the fact that he plays the PG position at times. Btw, your little articles never say Roy is a PG. Roy says he COULD be a PG and McMillan acknowledges that fact that his natrual position is SG, but says Roy has the potential to be a point.


I take offense to that, my articles are HUGE!!! You really should reread this as your attempts to deny the obvious are silly.



> *Maybe you havn't been watching the games*, but it's pretty obvious that Blake runs the offense when both he and Roy are playing at the same time. The same thing goes for Jack. Roy plays the PG sparingly, and during crunch time.


Yeah, I have no idea what I'm watching for the 30+ years I've been a Blazer diehard... neither does Nate or KP apparently and Brandon is lying to himself. Everyone is stupid except for you... got it! 

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> I take offense to that, my articles are HUGE!!! You really should reread this as your attempts to deny the obvious are silly.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have no idea what I'm watching for the 30+ years I've been a Blazer diehard... neither does Nate or KP apparently and Brandon is lying to himself. Everyone is stupid except for you... got it!
> ...


Responding sarcasticly isn't helping your case. Criticizing me doesn't present you with any arguments. Whatever, I won't argue with you anymore, since you clearly have no intention of responding. It's getting obvious that you havn't been watching Brandon Roy. To say that he's been playing the bulk of this season as the point is...well...laughable.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think it's a matter of semantics. Roy has been playing a lot of PG if you consider the initiating of the offense once set being a PG. Roy has not been playing a lot of PG if you consider taking the ball over the half court line to be a PG role. Roy usually receives the ball just after the ball crosses half court and then it is up to Roy to direct the offense. Also, on D, Roy usually guards the opposing SG. 

If Rudy plays SG and Roy plays PG, Roy will have a similar role on offense, except he will also be the primary ball handler taking the ball up the court. Once in half court, his role will be very similar. On defense, Roy will have to be the primary PG defender and help on SG more because Rudy is not expected to be a good defender, at least not right off the bat.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Responding sarcasticly isn't helping your case.


how do you think the _if you were watching the games BS_ reads like? How should I respond? Telling you you're full of it and how watched most of every minute of every game this year? How I've been a Blazer diehard following them year round for 30+ years? Thats all true.

Since I'm siding with the GM, coach, other coaches, and player himself, it's odd that you act like you're arguing from a position of authority and I'm out to lunch... it's you that has to prove that everyone else is wrong yet all I'm reading are base insults


> I won't argue with you anymore


eace:

STOMP


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

STOMP said:


> *how do you think the if you were watching the games BS reads like?* Since I'm siding with the GM, coach, other coaches, and player himself, it's odd that you act like you're arguing from a position of authority.
> 
> eace:
> 
> STOMP


This sentence doesn't make any sense.

I suggest you read your articles again, since they don't actually support your argument. But, whatever, you're too stubborn anyways.

Ciao.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> This sentence doesn't make any sense.


try re-reading it without flames in your eyes. You can do it... I believe in you

hint hint... BS is an abbreviation

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

B-roy you are way off base...Stomp is right...

Stop focusing on positions, and focus on roles...

When Roy is in the game, he IS the primary playmaker...What makes Roy special IMO is his ability to not just create scoring opportunities for himself, but for others as well...

So why does POR need a "traditional" PG then? You WANT the ball in Roy's hands, b\c he can either score or create a defensive breakdown and has the ABILITY to find open teamates with his passing...THAT is why he should have the ball in his hands as often as possible on offense....

You are focused too much on the duties of what a traditional PG role is....instead of focusing on how Roy's role actually best suites the Blazers...and Roy has specifically said that he works best with the ball in his hands...So arguing like the players own words don't matter is pretty ridiculous....

That is why IMO, a scoring guard who has some basic PG handling (ie can bring the ball up the court w\o dribbling it off his leg) abilites would be a perfect compliment to Roy...and Rudy just may fit that position...

and sorry, but HIGH LEVEL performance in euroleague does matter more...guys like Darko & Bargnani were drafted based on talent rather than thier production...Rudy was the MVP in his league and go-to guy...there is no comparison IMO...Not saying he is destined to come in like Tony Parker or Pau Gasol (similiar players of impact in euroleague though)...but you certainly don't trade that away without seeing him vs NBA talent yourself...that would be stupid...

and production in the chinese basketball league...means VERY little in comparison to the euroleague...the level of competition is notoriously poor...


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

Kmurph said:


> and sorry, but HIGH LEVEL performance in *euroleague* does matter more...guys like Darko & Bargnani were drafted based on talent rather than thier production...Rudy was the *MVP* in his league and go-to guy...there is no comparison IMO...Not saying he is destined to come in like Tony Parker or Pau Gasol (similiar players of impact in *euroleague* though)...but you certainly don't trade that away without seeing him vs NBA talent yourself...that would be stupid...
> 
> and production in the chinese basketball league...means VERY little in comparison to the *euroleague*...the level of competition is notoriously poor...


I agree with the idea of having 2 combo guards with Roy making plays, but for the record Kmurph, Rudy does not play in euroleague and has never been MVP of any specific league. He's won MVP of numerous tournament competitions like ULEB and the Copa del Rey, and he's currently dominating the ACB league making it likely that he wins his first league MVP this season, but he hasn't yet. 
And as far as Euroleague goes he only had 1 year where DKV qualified, he played very well and earned the Euroleague rising star award (like a rookie of the year/most improved type award), but didn't dominate like he has so far this year in both the ACB league and ULEB cup.
Belinelli, Bargnani, and Darko were all drafted on potential, and your right that none of them played at Rudy's level in their own domestic leagues or in international competition like Euroleague. As for the chinese league, I have no idea what the competition level is like, but as far as a domestic league goes they aren't possibly on the same level as the Spanish ACB league.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> B-roy you are way off base...Stomp is right...
> 
> Stop focusing on positions, and focus on roles...
> 
> ...


Great points. Would rep you if I could.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Kmurph said:


> B-roy you are way off base...Stomp is right...
> 
> Stop focusing on positions, and focus on roles...
> 
> ...


Agree to disagree then. When I'm watching the games, Roy is creating opportunites for himself in the first 3 quarters, then has point duties during crunch time. Maybe that's not how you see it, but whatever. 

Same with Rudy. I'd rather trade hype for proven players. You don't, whatever.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Kmurph, being a playmaker, and a PG are different.

roy is a playmaker who creates offense for our players. That is what he does. But guarding the opposing teams PG, bringing the ball up and calling the plays are a job for a PG, which is not what Roy does.

You are trying to make it out that if we have a playmaker we don't need a PG, and that isn't true.

For example, teams like Miami and LA have Dwayne and Kobe, who are their playmakers, yet they have other PGs to do the PG duties, dribble it up and call the play, pass the ball to their playmaker and then go and screen away and let the playmaker go to work. That is what we do with Roy usually, or at least that is how he is most effective. We don't call Kobe or Wade the PG of the team, as moving them to PG to guard the PG and do the PG duties would tire them out and not use them to the best of their abilities.

Roy is best with the ball in his hands while making plays. That does not equal to being a PG.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

MrJayremmie said:


> Kmurph, being a playmaker, and a PG are different.
> 
> roy is a playmaker who creates offense for our players. That is what he does. But guarding the opposing teams PG, bringing the ball up and calling the plays are a job for a PG, which is not what Roy does.
> 
> You are trying to make it out that if we have a playmaker we don't need a PG, and that isn't true.


vs.


MrJayremmie said:


> Thats cool.
> 
> I think Roy could handle PG about 15 minutes a game, so we could probably try and run a big lineup for about 10 minutes a game which would be tight.
> 
> Only problem i have with your post is that you said Outlaw was a playmaker. He really isn't. He has the ability and would be SUCH a better player if he decided to set people up with his ability, but really all he does is take a dribble and shoot a mid-range jumpshot or eveyr once in a while try to get to the rim and get a foul.


:thinking2:


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

What are you talking about?

I think Roy CAN handle being pg 15 minutes a night. I do not think he could turn to a full time PG.

I was making the point that Roy being a playmaker doesn't make him a PG.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Zybot said:


> vs.
> :thinking2:


I don't think he is contradicting himself. In the first post, he is saying that we still need a PG and in the second post he says that Roy could be PG for 15mpg, that still leaves 33mpg where another PG is needed in his eyes. I am not saying I agree or disagree with him, just that his two posts don't contradict each-other.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^thanks. yea that is what i mean. It was probably my fault for not really being clear.

Anyway, i understand what you guys are saying.

Myself, i don't agree, and don't think we should move arguably our best player out of position. I think he could handle some to play with Rudy a bit, and don't even like him moving to SF at all, but i think it would be a mistake to move him over there and tire him out.

Its all opinion though. Speculation on both our parts. Whatever gives us the best chance to win i'm down with honestly.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> roy is a playmaker who creates offense for our players. That is what he does. But guarding the opposing teams PG, bringing the ball up and calling the plays are a job for a PG, which is not what Roy does.


You can't honestly be saying that bringing the ball up the court would be too taxing for Roy, could you? Seriously? It is not like he would be doing that ALL of the time anyway, nor is POR eliminating all of thier "other" PG (Blake, Sergio, Jack)

Actually, what I labeled Roy was a "Point Forward" but at the SG spot, he is the best player we have at initiating the offense IMO...opposing teams need to focus on him, he has the ability to breakdown his own defender, he draws double teams, but more importantly he has the ability to find his teammates at the right time, leading to easier baskets. A lot of good scorers can create for themselves but not well for their teammates, what makes Roy standout IMO is his ability to do both...That is why you want the ball in his hands as much as possible...

Personally I think the idea that he would be more taxed having to bring the ball up the court or having to defend PG is a pretty weak arguement....Yeah, the "Derek Fisher's" of the NBA are really going to tire him out :whofarted

and there are a LOT more of them than there are Chris Paul level talent.....

As for Deron Williams, Chirs Paul, Tony Parker...NO ONE PLAYER can guard them effectively, players like that demand schemes to try and "limit" them....and teams can play zone defense too you know...and Roy did guard some of these guys effectively (and they have to defend him as well remember).

I think a lot of Roy's tiring at times throughout the season was the demand on him to score, adding an Oden and Rudy (and continued improvement from Aldridge, Webster & Outlaw) should help reduce that workload...



> agree with the idea of having 2 combo guards with Roy making plays, but for the record Kmurph, Rudy does not play in euroleague and has never been MVP of any specific league. He's won MVP of numerous tournament competitions like ULEB and the Copa del Rey, and he's currently dominating the ACB league making it likely that he wins his first league MVP this season, but he hasn't yet.
> And as far as Euroleague goes he only had 1 year where DKV qualified, he played very well and earned the Euroleague rising star award (like a rookie of the year/most improved type award), but didn't dominate like he has so far this year in both the ACB league and ULEB cup.
> Belinelli, Bargnani, and Darko were all drafted on potential, and your right that none of them played at Rudy's level in their own domestic leagues or in international competition like Euroleague. As for the chinese league, I have no idea what the competition level is like, but as far as a domestic league goes they aren't possibly on the same level as the Spanish ACB league.


Well stated...I meant in europe, my bad...although I think it is very likely he gets the MVP award of his league this year. I am not saying the guy is the second coming, but I do think he will be an impact player for POR...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Myself, i don't agree, and don't think we should move arguably our best player out of position. I think he could handle some to play with Rudy a bit, and don't even like him moving to SF at all, but i think it would be a mistake to move him over there and tire him out.


I was looking at the standing reach measurements of starting Western conference SFs this morning on the draftexpress pre-draft link, and the least difference between Roy and one of them was 4.5" I'm sure there will continue to be occations that Brandon can match up there, but giving up that much size isn't something that I'd plan on being a staple.

STOMP


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

I don't pretend to know whether Roy can be a FT PG or not, but he doesn't have to be. I want the ball in his hands a lot in the 4th quarter and if Rudy and Roy are the two best backcourt players, then I want them on the floor at the same time to start the game and often in the 2nd half of games. I guess I was confused by Mr. J's comments, cause it seemed to me that Mr. J was saying that it was never a good idea to play Roy at PG, because he should not be calling plays or bringing the ball up the court. I agree that we don't need Roy to be the FT PG of this team -- but since he can probably play some PG and we have serviceable PG's right now, we don't need to sell the farm to bring in a big name PG right now. I will see how things unfold. I am excited for next year, seeing this team take shape and come together. I think we have a pretty flexible team right now. The team could go in a lot of different ways, and we may be best off by not making any huge moves until we see what we have at the beginning of next season.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

is anyone here advocating Roy as a full time PG? I've been arguing that he can play 15-20 minutes a night when teamed with Rudy and splitting that responsibility when teamed with Blake the other 15-20 minutes.

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> You can't honestly be saying that bringing the ball up the court would be too taxing for Roy, could you? Seriously? It is not like he would be doing that ALL of the time anyway, nor is POR eliminating all of thier "other" PG (Blake, Sergio, Jack)


Yea. So why not have roy play PG at crucial times, and then maybe like 10 minutes other than that playing with Rudy a game? play him for 15mpg at the point. I think that would work. IMO you will see his production go way down if we moved him to full time pg (which is speculation on my part).



> Actually, what I labeled Roy was a "Point Forward" but at the SG spot, he is the best player we have at initiating the offense IMO...opposing teams need to focus on him, he has the ability to breakdown his own defender, he draws double teams, but more importantly he has the ability to find his teammates at the right time, leading to easier baskets. A lot of good scorers can create for themselves but not well for their teammates, what makes Roy standout IMO is his ability to do both...That is why you want the ball in his hands as much as possible...


exactly. Roy is a playmaker...

And you don't thinkt that he will be pressed bringing it up? YOu don't think they will take advantage of it to tire him out by the 4th quarter?

Why would we have those responsibilities on Roy when somebody else can do it... can defend PGs, can bring it up, call the play, and then go from there like this year?



> I was looking at the standing reach measurements of starting Western conference SFs this morning on the draftexpress pre-draft link, and the least difference between Roy and one of them was 4.5" I'm sure there will continue to be occations that Brandon can match up there, but giving up that much size isn't something that I'd plan on being a staple.


me neither. I don't like Brandon having to play out of position. But trying to play him w/ Rudy, i think Brandon could play PG, but not that much, as it would take away from his strengths, so that leaves aroun 10 minutes a game where they play together that i think we should do kinda what Blake, Jack and Roy did. I know its a bad example, but from the fact of sometimes Nate put Blake, Jack and Roy in and had roy at the 3, i think that could work for like 10 minutes a game.

I think you keep Rudy in the game at all times while Roy is out of the game. And then play them together while Roy plays PG half the time, and then plays like SF or somethin' for 5-8 minutes would be what i'd say.

IDK what Nate would do, but he will try out stuff to see what works best, imo.

What i really like about Roy, is that he will be Pg and lower his stats, if it is in the best interest of the team to have him and Rudy start together, and maybe tire him out a bit more, but maybe the lineup would be a bit more effective. He would definitely go for it, as he cares about winning more than stats.

But i think it isn't in the team's best interest to put Roy at the point, as it will lower production. I think keeping him fresh and keeping him as our perimeter playmaker is working great... He is an all-star. IDK why you'd want to fix something that isn't broken.

But hey, if it gives us the best chance to win, i'm down. I'm sure Brandon would be also.

edit -



> is anyone here advocating Roy as a full time PG? I've been arguing that he can play 15-20 minutes a night when teamed with Rudy and splitting that responsibility when teamed with Blake the other 15-20 minutes.


!

Please don't tell me we have been arguing and have the same idea in mind... *sigh*

I think 15mpg at the point is fine personally.

But i think the point of this thread was goin' to full-time PG. Roy already plays PG like 5mpg this (last) year.



> I don't pretend to know whether Roy can be a FT PG or not, but he doesn't have to be. I want the ball in his hands a lot in the 4th quarter and if Rudy and Roy are the two best backcourt players, then I want them on the floor at the same time to start the game and often in the 2nd half of games.


I'm with you, i want the ball in his hands as much as possible. But idk if that means moving him to PG.



> I guess I was confused by Mr. J's comments, cause it seemed to me that Mr. J was saying that it was never a good idea to play Roy at PG


I probably phrased it incorrectly. I have a habit of not typing out what i'm thinking very well.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Another thing to counterbalance Roy playing more PG than this year, is to play him fewer minutes per game. So, if playing PG is more tiring, and he is playing 15mpg at PG, then giving him an extra 3 OR 4mpg on the bench could offset the extra energy spent as PG. So Roy would play around 33 or 34mpg. I think this might also be the answer to keeping him healthier all season.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Please don't tell me we have been arguing and have the same idea in mind... *sigh*


I've repeatedly stated 15-20 minutes a night as the primary point as part of a 3 guard rotation with Blake and Rudy... many times while responding to you. Heck looking back through the thread, you've got me in quotes saying exactly that.

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^Thats what i've been saying also, lol...

I'm totally down, and actually think it would help our team to play Roy at Pg for 15 minutes a game, to play Rudy and Roy together for those 15.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I'm not sure what's scarier, that I've managed to change my mind based on a John Canzano article or that he actually had an article that didn't mention strippers, "jailblazers", hummers, or "... person of interest in an ongoing investigation".

I do think that if the move is made to make Brandon a "full time" PG and Rudy ends up as our starting 2 it probably will be something that is introduced in degrees and also assumes that we probably won't see any major moves in the off-season at the PG position -- Blake would likely be retained with the thought in the back of KP's head that Roy is going to be sliding over and taking over.

*However*, if that does happen then I think it's absolutely imperative that this team consolidates some talent and gets a defensive small forward, with decent handles, and who is a clear upgrade over what we have in Martell or even Travis; somebody in the mold of Artest (minus the crazy gene). I have no idea exactly who that should be, but if we're going to be putting such a big burden on Roy he's going to need some relief in the form of other guys on the court who are capable of taking some heat.

Roy/Blake
Rudy
{Childress, Battier, Artest, Iguodala, Deng, etc.}/Jones
Aldridge/Frye
Oden/Przybilla


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> roy is a playmaker who creates offense for our players. That is what he does. But guarding the opposing teams PG, bringing the ball up and calling the plays are a job for a PG, which is not what Roy does.


My thoughts exactly.

I don't care how you label it. If Roy has to bring the ball up the court and defend the opposing point guard I'm against it. Mostly because I'm worried about his long term health. Roy's not exactly the sturdiest guy playing his natural position. I'm very worried that if Roy has to bring the ball up the court and defend opposing point guards that he'll end up with a long string of injuries and the string of championship runs we all think is imminent will never happen.

I'm not really worried about turnovers or the opposing team's point guard lighting us up or any of the other common fears associated with Roy playing the point. I just don't wanna see Roy's career cut short or significantly diminished because he's tired out by the grunt work that a more expendable player should be doing.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Not to be Captain Obvious, but...

If Rudy doesn't immediately emerge as our 2nd best guard - which is hardly guaranteed - doesn't that render all this a moot point?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> If Rudy doesn't immediately emerge as our 2nd best guard - *which is hardly guaranteed* - doesn't that render all this a moot point?


agreed and yes.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

For everyone who advocates ROY at PG, here's a parallel. Joe Johnson played PG backing up Nash for the Suns. He did a pretty decent job at it. When the Hawks acquired him, they intended to and initially played JJ at PG full-time. This didn't work out very well and they've since kept him at the PG position, though they obviously let him create and often let him run the offense. 

This is the same situation as it is with Roy. He's a creator and a playmaker. He simply isn't quick enough to check the likes of a Tony Parker or Chris Paul, and we need someone on the floor that can. 

Essentially, we don't need a true PG, although that would be very, very nice. As far as Rudy, I think he'll be the one playing SG when Roy is at the point. Think of Roy as how he rotated in between PG and SG when we had the 3-guard rotation of Drexler/Porter/Strickland.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

Just a sort of similar scenario but,

Most Heat fans used to want the same thing - Wade playing point - because our pointguard rotation, like yours, was very mediocre. Jason Williams, Chris Quinn, etc.. We even had to sign Smush Parker.. So anyway, we played Wade at point a lot and it was aight at times, but after a while we realised it wasn't really working. It tired him out too much bringing the ball up court against the press every possession, or trying to fight the box-and-1 later in the season. His TO's also rose a lot, and now not many Heat fans want to see Wade at point. Not on a common basis anyway - point guard is actually one of our biggest needs.

So anyway, I see Roy's ballhandling, vision, etc.. to be on a fairly similar/comparable level to Wade's and I don't really think it'd be a good idea in the long run for you guys. Maybe just situational but definately not over the course of a season, and Roy would probably rather play the 2 aswell.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Just a sort of similar scenario but,
> 
> Most Heat fans used to want the same thing - Wade playing point - because our pointguard rotation, like yours, was very mediocre. Jason Williams, Chris Quinn, etc.. We even had to sign Smush Parker.. So anyway, we played Wade at point a lot and it was aight at times, but after a while we realised it wasn't really working. It tired him out too much bringing the ball up court against the press every possession, or trying to fight the box-and-1 later in the season. His TO's also rose a lot, and now not many Heat fans want to see Wade at point. Not on a common basis anyway - point guard is actually one of our biggest needs.
> 
> So anyway, I see Roy's ballhandling, vision, etc.. to be on a fairly similar/comparable level to Wade's and I don't really think it'd be a good idea in the long run for you guys. Maybe just situational but definately not over the course of a season, and Roy would probably rather play the 2 aswell.


thanks for chiming in. definately an interesting comparison. if the heat would just send wade our way, i think it'll solve both of our teams dilemmas.

how 'bout it? raef, all of our 2nd round picks, wafer for wade. might even throw in mcbob. what say you?


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

BuckW4GM said:


> thanks for chiming in. definately an interesting comparison. if the heat would just send wade our way, i think it'll solve both of our teams dilemmas.
> 
> how 'bout it? raef, all of our 2nd round picks, wafer for wade. might even throw in mcbob. what say you?


Tempting but I'll make you a counter-offer:

Earl Barron (Orlando Summer League MVP) + Kasib Powell (D-League MVP) + Stephen Lasme (D-League Co-DPOY) + Blake Ahearn (D-League ROY) --> Brandon Roy.

Take it or leave it, but this is more than enough imo. Two MVP's in their respective leagues, a renowned defensive player and a certified up-and-coming star, just for Roy..

** And yes, all the players listed above are seriously on our roster.. **


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

On a more serious note, Roy and Dwyane on the same team would be more than enough firepower and playmaking. Once they gel that'd be real fun to watch..

And I love players like these two (and Paul for example). Guys who have an amazing offensive arsenal and athleticism, can penetrate at will, but also choose to find their teammates as much as they do. Lebron works here too, but I don't really like Lebron all that much..

Off-topic but how's McBob doing anyway? Did he end up playing for you guys?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Off-topic but how's McBob doing anyway? Did he end up playing for you guys?


Yep -- all of about three minutes.

Both McMillan and Pritchard have been clear that this is a make-or-break summer for him and that he's got a lot of things to work on. It's a little hard for us fans to say exactly what, as we've seen so little of him, but it sounds like pretty much everything the way management talks about him.

That said, I'm still intrigued with him. He's a bit of a 'tweener, which is almost certainly part of the problem, but the skill set he seems to have and the hustle he showed during last summer's workouts and the preseason suggest he might be a good second unit guy _if_ he can get it all together. His passing ability is pretty remarkable for his size.

My guess is that he didn't get more time because he's too slow to guard 3s, too small to guard 4s (not to mention behind at least Aldridge, Frye, Outlaw and LaFrentz), and doesn't have enough of a shot to keep the opposing defense honest. He plays with energy but if he can't find someone to guard and/or get a consistent jumper going, I suspect he's not long for either the Blazers or the league.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Just a sort of similar scenario but,
> 
> Most Heat fans used to want the same thing - Wade playing point - because our pointguard rotation, like yours, was very mediocre. Jason Williams, Chris Quinn, etc.. We even had to sign Smush Parker.. So anyway, we played Wade at point a lot and it was aight at times, but after a while we realised it wasn't really working. It tired him out too much bringing the ball up court against the press every possession, or trying to fight the box-and-1 later in the season. His TO's also rose a lot, and now not many Heat fans want to see Wade at point. Not on a common basis anyway - point guard is actually one of our biggest needs.
> 
> So anyway, I see Roy's ballhandling, vision, etc.. to be on a fairly similar/comparable level to Wade's and I don't really think it'd be a good idea in the long run for you guys. Maybe just situational but definately not over the course of a season, and Roy would probably rather play the 2 aswell.


Thats all well and good but it ignores a basic premise of this thread... that Rudy is supposed to be a stud of an offguard capable of scoring/finishing at a solid rate. Brandon would be reeling in the scoring portion of his game and being more of a distributer when paired with RF for approx. 15-20 minutes a game. His other minutes would be spent sharing the point with Blake as he's been doing. Portland wouldn't be heaping more expectations from an energy expenditure standpoint on BR, they'll have him switch how he spends his energy.

While I'd agree that Roy and Wade are comparable talents as SG/PGs, their situations are very different. The Blazers look to have more and better scoring options throughout their roster then Wade's Heat team did. Teams will have fits trying to deal with LA and Greg alone and from the looks of it Rudy may be their equal of a scorer from the perimeter... dude has also been a top assists guy in Spain as well. We are not expecting Rudy to be the 2nd coming of Smush Parker. So this scenario is actually not similar at all.

STOMP


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Tempting but I'll make you a counter-offer:
> 
> Earl Barron (Orlando Summer League MVP) + Kasib Powell (D-League MVP) + Stephen Lasme (D-League Co-DPOY) + Blake Ahearn (D-League ROY) --> Brandon Roy.
> 
> ...


damn! that's brutal. tanking much? 

as for the counter offer, only if you're willing to take our injury-proned, bust waiting to happen center, greg oden as well.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

truth is that there aren't a lot of examples of teams that used a 6'5 guy to guard the other team's point guard. Ron Harper often did it for the Bulls. Bruce Bowen and Shawn Marion often get put on a really hot point guard like Nash or Parker. but mostly these are defensive specialists who rely on other shorter guys to play point guard on offense. 

it's pretty unconventional to have a 6'5 guy being the shortest man in your starting lineup. it just gives up too much quickness. Baron Davis and Chauncy Billups, the two best "big" point guards in the league, are both 6'3. 

with Roy, titles like "point guard" are going to be meaningless. just like "small forward" was pretty meaningless for Scottie Pippen. but the fact is that we're going to need a 6'0 to 6'3 guard on the court for much of the game. maybe not key end-of-game situations, but in general.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> truth is that there aren't a lot of examples of teams that used a 6'5 guy to guard the other team's point guard. Ron Harper often did it for the Bulls. Bruce Bowen and Shawn Marion often get put on a really hot point guard like Nash or Parker. but mostly these are defensive specialists who rely on other shorter guys to play point guard on offense.
> 
> it's pretty unconventional to have a 6'5 guy being the shortest man in your starting lineup. it just gives up too much quickness. Baron Davis and Chauncy Billups, the two best "big" point guards in the league, are both 6'3.
> 
> with Roy, titles like "point guard" are going to be meaningless. just like "small forward" was pretty meaningless for Scottie Pippen. but the fact is that we're going to need a 6'0 to 6'3 guard on the court for much of the game. maybe not key end-of-game situations, but in general.


Why didn't the Celtics "need" this when they were starting 6'4 Ainge and 6'4 DJ in their last glory years? How about the Lakers when they were starting 6'5 Byron Scott and 6'9 Magic? Keep in mind that these two back courts were helping their respective franchises win championships when Zone D was illegal.

It may not be the norm to have large skilled guards, but it's not like it has to be a bad thing. I could list more examples of large back courts that have been successful if you like...

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

those are some really nice examples. of course, those teams were superseded by the Detroit Pistons and Isiah Thomas. 



STOMP said:


> I could list more examples of large back courts that have been successful if you like...
> 
> STOMP


please do. I hadn't thought of your other two examples. I'd be interested to see if you can come up with any more, particularly in the past 10 years. I couldn't, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. 

if you can come up with more examples, I could definitely be persuaded.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> please do. I hadn't thought of your other two examples. I'd be interested to see if you can come up with any more, particularly in the past 10 years. I couldn't, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
> 
> if you can come up with more examples, I could definitely be persuaded.


Kidd-Carter, Payton-McMillan, Harper-Jordan... heck I thought the late 90's Blazer mix of DA, Bonzi, and PIP playing 1-3 was pretty deadly. I would have loved to have had a healthy Greg Anthony as well, but I was very comfortable with what Portland had going... except of course for the Damon part.

Also with this upcoming Blazer combo, neither Roy and Rudy are the bulkiest 6'5 guys. At well under 200 pounds, Rudy weighs about the same as most PGs and well under what most SGs come in at. I think weight is probably more an indicator on how best a player should match up defensively then how high the top of their head is. I don't think this is nearly as big a deal as some are making it to be.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

following up on the questions I bought up of how Fernandez physically projects on D, yet again I'm going to bring up a thread I started a couple years back comparing pre-draft measurements.

In it I compiled the numbers of guys who went on to carve out playing time in the league. Here are the averages of PGs and SGs with Rudy's 2005 pre-draft numbers set between them.

*PG*s av. height 6'1.5 - lbs 186.9 - wingspan 6'5.4
*Rudy* 6'4.75 - 172 lbs - 6'7.5
*SG*s 6'4.9 - 210 - 6'10.2

So compared to others who've gone on to at least earn at least a rotation level role in the league, Rudy is about the average height for a SG, lighter then most PGs, and has a wingspan right between the two. While I'd guess (hope) that he's put on some good weight since then, he weighed 36 pounds less then Brandon did at his pre-draft.

STOMP


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Stomp, are you suggesting that Rudy is really a PG? Just wondering before I debate you.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> Stomp, are you suggesting that Rudy is really a PG? Just wondering before I debate you.


Not to answer for STOMP, but it certainly seems possible to _me_ that both Roy and Fernandez could just be guards, like in the olden days. Whether or not it could work today remains to be seen but it seems worth experimenting with at least for stretches of games. Whether or not they could really effectively spend most of their time that way I'm less sure of.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Not to answer for STOMP, but it certainly seems possible to _me_ that both Roy and Fernandez could just be guards, like in the olden days. Whether or not it could work today remains to be seen but it seems worth experimenting with at least for stretches of games. Whether or not they could really effectively spend most of their time that way I'm less sure of.


I was actually just joking about debating Stomp, I actually think there is potential if not for Rudy turning into a PG, to at least be able to cover the position on and off along with Roy. 

Fernandez has a few things that bode well for him and a few drawbacks when it comes to him playing any PG. In his favor is his court vision and stellar court vision. Also, his great stroke and size will make it difficult for opposing PG's to guard him. However, the drawbacks are twofold. 1) his handles are suppose to be fairly weak, at least for a PG role. 2) his defense at this point in time is known to be average at best. But, defense has not been his focus from what I gather, and he is athletic, so I could see him becoming a good PG defender if he set his mind to it since he is light and not too big. But I think it could end up that he is not as athletic as we think, he is just so light that jumping high is easy. But his higher center of gravity could hinder his lateral movement. I really don't know, kind of taking out my behind right now. Thinking out loud.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> Stomp, are you suggesting that Rudy is really a PG? Just wondering before I debate you.


nope, I'm suggesting that when Brandon and Rudy are teamed and the club is playing a strict man D, it makes more sense for RF to guard the guy who is closer to his size. Of the two, Brandon is clearly the bigger guy so it makes sense to me that he'd be the primary defender on the opponent's bigger guard. Does it make more sense to have Rudy guard someone who he is a bit taller and longer then and close to the same weight or players whose length and height are about the same but he's giving up 40 pounds to? I'm suggesting the latter likely would be the tougher matchup for him. Of course defenders often make multiple switches on a single possession.

...ahhh now I see you're just joking. Oh well :smile:

STOMP


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mook said:


> truth is that there aren't a lot of examples of teams that used a 6'5 guy to guard the other team's point guard. Ron Harper often did it for the Bulls. Bruce Bowen and Shawn Marion often get put on a really hot point guard like Nash or Parker. but mostly these are defensive specialists who rely on other shorter guys to play point guard on offense.
> 
> it's pretty unconventional to have a 6'5 guy being the shortest man in your starting lineup. it just gives up too much quickness. Baron Davis and Chauncy Billups, the two best "big" point guards in the league, are both 6'3.
> 
> with Roy, titles like "point guard" are going to be meaningless. just like "small forward" was pretty meaningless for Scottie Pippen. but the fact is that we're going to need a 6'0 to 6'3 guard on the court for much of the game. maybe not key end-of-game situations, but in general.


I think Kobe is a good example of this (ball handling and running the ofense). By many posters definition, Kobe should really be a point guard. He creates plays for himself and others off the dribble in the half court game. The team plays best with the ball in Kobe's hands.

But usally Kobe has Fisher or Farmar out there with him. Kobe plays best with a ball handling quicker guard out there with him. I personally think the same will be true with Roy.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Sonny-Canzano said:


> It's not an assumption. I'm not the only person to come to this conclusion either. Coach Byron Scott said the exact same thing about Roy saying "He starts at the two but he's really their PG."


That's true, and we're a friggin' lottery team AGAIN, so maybe that was a failed experiment?


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> That's true, and we're a friggin' lottery team AGAIN, so maybe that was a failed experiment?


Next year the team will be different. There will be Oden and probably Rudy. I think that by about mid-season if Rudy is doing well and worthy of being a starter then you have to experiment with having Roy play some PG. Now, to play :devil::mad2: (that's devil's advocate for the literate), I would be worried about Roy getting into foul trouble due to hand checking rules and guarding quicker guards -- however if you got a good team defensive scheme -- Roy just has to try to funnel the guards into the interior defenders and go for the rebounds.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

That's an interesting thought. Hypothetically speaking, how would we make a Roy/Wade backcourt work? They are so similar and they are most effective when they have the ball in their hands.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> Fernandez has a few things that bode well for him and a few drawbacks when it comes to him playing any PG. *In his favor is his court vision and stellar court vision*.



So is this a typo of sorts or is there somehow a difference between the two of which I'm currently unaware? Maybe "court vision" applies to a half-court situation and "stellar court vision" applies to the whole thing, such that some players might, relatively speaking, have better "stellar court vision" than they do "court vision?" I think and hope I'm reaching here but hey, there's the "learn something new every day" angle. :biggrin:

Aaaanyway, I _am_ really interested to see what Roy and Fernandez can do together. While Wade's certainly a better NBA player than Fernandez can be said to be at this point, it seems like, from a skill set perspective, Roy and Fernandez is a better combination than Roy and Wade. If Fernandez can really rise to the occasion, they could be dynamite on the floor together, whether it's as PG and SG or SG and SF.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> So is this a typo of sorts or is there somehow a difference between the two of which I'm currently unaware? Maybe "court vision" applies to a half-court situation and "stellar court vision" applies to the whole thing, such that some players might, relatively speaking, have better "stellar court vision" than they do "court vision?" I think and hope I'm reaching here but hey, there's the "learn something new every day" angle. :biggrin:
> 
> Aaaanyway, I _am_ really interested to see what Roy and Fernandez can do together. While Wade's certainly a better NBA player than Fernandez can be said to be at this point, it seems like, from a skill set perspective, Roy and Fernandez is a better combination than Roy and Wade. If Fernandez can really rise to the occasion, they could be dynamite on the floor together, whether it's as PG and SG or SG and SF.


One of those was suppose to be passing. Stellar passing and court vision. and court night vision. and court infrared vision. and of course stellar court smell. well, maybe not so much.






and stellar night court vision


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

STOMP said:


> Thats all well and good but it ignores a basic premise of this thread... that Rudy is supposed to be a stud of an offguard capable of scoring/finishing at a solid rate. Brandon would be reeling in the scoring portion of his game and being more of a distributer when paired with RF for approx. 15-20 minutes a game. His other minutes would be spent sharing the point with Blake as he's been doing. Portland wouldn't be heaping more expectations from an energy expenditure standpoint on BR, they'll have him switch how he spends his energy.
> 
> While I'd agree that Roy and Wade are comparable talents as SG/PGs, their situations are very different. The Blazers look to have more and better scoring options throughout their roster then Wade's Heat team did. Teams will have fits trying to deal with LA and Greg alone and from the looks of it Rudy may be their equal of a scorer from the perimeter... dude has also been a top assists guy in Spain as well. We are not expecting Rudy to be the 2nd coming of Smush Parker. So this scenario is actually not similar at all.
> 
> STOMP


Ok, fair enough. If Rudy's as good as you say (or can develop into that consistent 1-2 perimeter guy with Roy), then maybe I'm wrong.

I probably am underrating Rudy, like for example I never heard he was a consistently good passer. Anyway, we'll see how it plays out I guess.

Is this "Roy as PG" thing actually gona happen anytime soon, or even possibly, or is it just a suggestion by the board?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Ok, fair enough. If Rudy's as good as you say (or can develop into that consistent 1-2 perimeter guy with Roy), then maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> I probably am underrating Rudy, like for example I never heard he was a consistently good passer. Anyway, we'll see how it plays out I guess.


Rudy was the assist leader, or at least among the assist leader in the ACB league, even higher than Rubio, his star PG that is the projected #1 pick in next years draft by draftexpress.



> Is this "Roy as PG" thing actually gona happen anytime soon, or even possibly, or is it just a suggestion by the board?


This has been discussed publicly by GM Kevin Pritchard on several occasions. I don't recall Coach Nate ever broaching the subject, but if the GM has talked about it, I think that it is somewhat likely. 

I don't think that Roy + Rudy will be starting together soon, but if Rudy really is as ready to rock as some of the reports suggest, it is possible.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Ok, fair enough. If Rudy's as good as you say (or can develop into that consistent 1-2 perimeter guy with Roy), then maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> I probably am underrating Rudy, like for example I never heard he was a consistently good passer. Anyway, we'll see how it plays out I guess.
> 
> Is this "Roy as PG" thing actually gona happen anytime soon, or even possibly, or is it just a suggestion by the board?


Presuming Fernandez does, in fact, come over this season, I'm sure we'll see the two of them on the floor together quite a lot -- they're both going to be too good to not play them together at least some as Roy. Now whether that's at PG and SG or SG and SF we don't know yet, but Blazers management has been kicking around the idea of Roy starting at PG for awhile now and this last season he is said to have played PG. The trouble was that there really weren't any other SGs on the roster so it was always Jack or Blake playing "SG." With Fernandez being a true SG, I'm sure they'll experiment with it at least some.

The main trouble would be on the defensive side -- Roy's a decent defender of SGs and Fernandez is supposedly poor. Asking either one of them to stay in front of a Paul or Parker might be brutal. Otoh, a zone with Oden, Aldridge and Outlaw on the floor with them might make up for some of that.

The other problem that may come up is bringing the ball up the court against pressure. Hopefully they can share those duties and make it work but if not, they maybe be mostly out there together at the 2 and 3.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> This has been discussed publicly by GM Kevin Pritchard on several occasions. *I don't recall Coach Nate ever broaching the subject*....


Sure he has. He's maybe not talked about _starting_ Roy at PG, but actually I've been annoyed at how much McMillan's talked about Roy playing PG. From my perspective he still hasn't, and won't until there's a real SG next to him in the backcourt. 

I can see McMillan's perspective -- they've got their offensive sets and Roy's been in the PG role a bunch, but I still say they're just running the offense through the SG when they do that. I care more about the defensive match-up. For that matter, if they have Roy and Fernandez on the court together as guards with Fernandez defending the opposing PG, I'll still be inclined to say they're just running their sets through their SG, especially if he's being defended by the other team's SG, but meh... if it works, (or even if it doesn't) McMillan can call it what he wants.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Presuming Fernandez does, in fact, come over this season, I'm sure we'll see the two of them on the floor together quite a lot -- they're both going to be too good to not play them together at least some as Roy. Now whether that's at PG and SG or SG and SF we don't know yet, but Blazers management has been kicking around the idea of Roy starting at PG for awhile now and this last season he is said to have played PG. The trouble was that there really weren't any other SGs on the roster so it was always Jack or Blake playing "SG." With Fernandez being a true SG, I'm sure they'll experiment with it at least some.
> 
> The main trouble would be on the defensive side -- Roy's a decent defender of SGs and Fernandez is supposedly poor. Asking either one of them to stay in front of a Paul or Parker might be brutal. Otoh, a zone with Oden, Aldridge and Outlaw on the floor with them might make up for some of that.
> 
> The other problem that may come up is bringing the ball up the court against pressure. Hopefully they can share those duties and make it work but if not, they maybe be mostly out there together at the 2 and 3.


Ah k, I see. Yea the two problems would be PG defence and transition against the press, and like you said the defence might not be such a worry (unless its a real superstar like Paul) cause of your bigs. Transition would be dangerous though, and it could really tire out Roy trying to get past and around the press, and also run time off the clock.

But if you could find a way to get Roy + Rudy + Outlaw + Aldridge + Oden on the court at the same time, that'd definately be a great starting line-up.

Btw, how is Rudy's ballhandling? I've heard its somewhat poor, but I don't really know anything much about him so.. And does he look like a guy that could develop PG skills to be a combo?


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

GOD said:


> Rudy was the assist leader, or at least among the assist leader in the ACB league, even higher than Rubio, his star PG that is the projected #1 pick in next years draft by draftexpress.


Yea that show how much I know of Rudy. Well, I heard he was a "very talented passer" but "not all that consistent, atleast not compared to some better NBA talents (in regards to passing)" - whateva that means, soo...


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

NewAgeBaller said:


> Yea that show how much I know of Rudy. Well, I heard he was a "very talented passer" but "not all that consistent, atleast not compared to some better NBA talents (in regards to passing)" - whateva that means, soo...


I've seen some pretty amazing passes from him, though admittedly mostly either in highlight reels (where Joel Przybilla could be made to look like Chris Paul) or in incomplete game footage that has a similar issue, if not as extreme. That said, there's a lot of it so I'm ready to believe he's solid there.

What I've _not_ seen as much of is dribbling in traffic or pressure. Yes there are _some_ examples of that to be found, but enough fewer that I'm less ready to consider that a strength.

Still, if there's a PG hounding Roy, Roy may be able to dump it to Fernandez who should be able to bring it up against most SGs, I'd think. And then, when it's really a problem, bring in a true PG for one of them or slide Roy to SF (taking out whomever's been there or swap him for... yadda yadda).

Another thing that stands out from the highlight reels are the circus shots. There are so dang many of them that honestly I think he's got some combination of Ginobili and Bryant in him. Admittedly it's not with NBA rules or against NBA players, but he _is_ playing in what's supposed to be the best league that's not the NBA and on some level a circus shot is a circus shot. Of course, he doesn't seem to be the defender that Ginobili is (much less Bryant) but he may get better and even if he doesn't, having instant offense, even if off the bench, would be a great thing for this team.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

GOD said:


> and stellar night court vision



Very nice!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Kidd-Carter, Payton-McMillan, Harper-Jordan... heck I thought the late 90's Blazer mix of DA, Bonzi, and PIP playing 1-3 was pretty deadly. I would have loved to have had a healthy Greg Anthony as well, but I was very comfortable with what Portland had going... except of course for the Damon part.


interesting examples. even though they were around 6'5, McMillan and Harper were really used as defensive specialists. their job description was containing guards, big or small. that's not a role I think anyone envisions for Rudy or Roy. 

Kidd-Carter is a good recent example, although I consider it a pretty disappointing example. in the 3.5 years of the Kidd/Carter/Richardson experiment, New Jersey was basically a .500 team despite fielding two All-Stars and a near-All-Star (Richardson), and playing in a pretty crappy division. and Kidd was one of the best defenders ever at the PG position. 



> Also with this upcoming Blazer combo, neither Roy and Rudy are the bulkiest 6'5 guys. At well under 200 pounds, Rudy weighs about the same as most PGs and well under what most SGs come in at. I think weight is probably more an indicator on how best a player should match up defensively then how high the top of their head is. I don't think this is nearly as big a deal as some are making it to be.
> 
> STOMP


that's a pretty good point, and it could work. I dunno. 

after watching Chris Paul tear it up this year, it's pretty clear to me that we're going to have to go through the Hornets to win a championship. the idea of guarding him with a Rip Hamilton-type guy like Fernandez doesn't exactly excite me.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

The more i watch the Nash's, Paul's and Parkers, the more i want a defensive stopper on the perimeter, be it the PG and Roy and Rudy play the 2 and 3, or be it a SF and Roy and Rudy play 1 and 2.

I think that would be really important in the playoffs.

I was high on Westbrook, then i didn't really care, but now i think that I would really like to have him. Probably a top 5 on my draft board. I would still trade anything outside our big 3 (including Outlaw, Rudy, Webster, 1st, future first) and take on big contracts to get Rose though.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> The more i watch the Nash's, Paul's and Parkers, the more i want a defensive stopper on the perimeter, be it the PG and Roy and Rudy play the 2 and 3, or be it a SF and Roy and Rudy play 1 and 2.


I think this is the real key. whether we go for guy 6'1 or 6'8, 160 or 220 pounds, a starting lineup featuring both Roy and Rudy will have to also have a guy who absolutely relishes the idea of guarding Chris Paul, because neither Roy nor Rudy will come close to doing it competently.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

MrJayremmie said:


> The more i watch the Nash's, Paul's and Parkers, the more i want a defensive stopper on the perimeter, be it the PG and Roy and Rudy play the 2 and 3, or be it a SF and Roy and Rudy play 1 and 2.
> 
> I think that would be really important in the playoffs.
> 
> I was high on Westbrook, then i didn't really care, but now i think that I would really like to have him. Probably a top 5 on my draft board. I would still trade anything outside our big 3 (including Outlaw, Rudy, Webster, 1st, future first) and take on big contracts to get Rose though.




Nobody in the league can guard top flight PG's. Why in the world would you want to try and find someone that sorta can when you should be looking to find someone that can take advantage of them. Roy is perfect for that because he can post all of them up and destroy them the same way they will destroy him. The only difference is we will have Aldridge and Oden waiting for them at the rim, and they will have jack **** for an answer to Roy


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Roy shouldn't be guarding PGs like Parker and Paul imo in the first place.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Roy shouldn't be guarding PGs like Parker and Paul imo in the first place.


should those guys be guarding him?

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^that would be nice, but usually PGs don't guard SGs.

Like San Antonio for example, will have Bowen guard Roy, not Parker.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

so Parker is going to be guarding who exactly? 

STOMP


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^that would be nice, but usually PGs don't guard SGs.
> 
> Like San Antonio for example, will have Bowen guard Roy, not Parker.


So by playing a bigger line up we can force other teams to adjust to us. Force teams to double in the block leaving someone open for a cut, wide open jumper or lob pass. It would be almost like watching real basketball


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> so Parker is going to be guarding who exactly?


The Point guard? Unless the PG is their best offensive player and then Bowen guards him.

In the New Orleans series, when Bowen is guarding Paul, Parker is guarding Mo Peterson i think?



> So by playing a bigger line up we can force other teams to adjust to us.


Err, yea... thats the point...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm not sure why we are going round and round. If Brandon is in at PG, Fernandez at SG, Webster/Outaw at the 3, who is a Paul/Parker going to guard? How isn't that at least as big a physically daunting mismatch as trying to contain those guys on the other end? I'm recalling a mid-season BR quote relishing this situation...

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

What are you trying to argue here?

Parker would guard Rudy, and Bowen would guard Roy... in the 10-15 minutes that Roy would play PG.

Obviously Parker would be giving up like 4 inches to Rudy. When did i say he wasn't? all i said is i don't think Roy should have to be chasing around the PGs on defense.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Obviously Parker would be giving up like 4 inches to Rudy. When did i say he wasn't? all i said is i don't think Roy should have to be chasing around the PGs on defense.


If Rudy is smaller then Roy (he is), and is already being guarded by Parker, why wouldn't he in turn be the primary defender on Parker? Of course switches will happen on D so defenders have to guard lots of different guys, but generally I'd rather have the talented bigger player then the smaller talented player. Bigger players tend to wear out smaller players more then vice versa... for this reason I especially like the cumulative effect of having a bigger team. 

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> If Rudy is smaller then Roy (he is), and is already being guarded by Parker, why wouldn't he in turn be the primary defender on Parker?


Dude, that is what i'm saying. I don't think Roy should have to guard those PGs.



MrJayremmie said:


> Roy shouldn't be guarding PGs like Parker and Paul imo in the first place.


Roy would have an adv. on the PGs when they are guarding him, which is pretty much the only reason i like the big line-up.. that and that we can get Rudy and Roy play together.


----------

