# McMillen is considering 3 guard offense



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Nate said that because Blake and Jack are playing so well together, he is thinking of starting both of them in the backcourt, and playing Brandon Roy at the 3. I think Jack would be a better defender of SGs anyway.


_"One interesting side effect from Brandon Roy being injured, which forces McMillan to use the two point guard lineup, is that the coach is finding that Blake and Jack are playing well together. Because of that, a new thought has entered McMillan's mind: Playing Brandon Roy at small forward while Blake and Jack are on the floor."_

I think that would let us put our best players on the court. Webster is so inconsistant and non-productive, Outlaw is a loose cannon, and Jones is a role player. We'd have three good ball handlers on the court with solid perimeter defense and Joel and LaMarcus inside. Off the bench we'd have

Rodriguez/Green
Webster
Outlaw
Frye
LaFrentz


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

make sense.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nate rearing his ugly head again. Paying Roy out of possition doesn't help the team


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

About time, I've always thought Jack would be a better SG than a PG. I think he can really shine at the 2.

MM, how is Roy playing SF playing out of position?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazed said:


> About time, I've always thought Jack would be a better SG than a PG. I think he can really shine at the 2.
> 
> MM, how is Roy playing SF playing out of position?


Oh, he's slightly undersized there, but less so than Jack is when playing the 2. I _might_ be inclined to think MM to be over-reacting, but we've never seen that from him before so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

That said, _I'm_ a bit concerned about Jack (or Blake) at the 2, but I like that McMillan's thinking along those lines. Offensively I think they'd be fine -- even good. It's at the defensive end where I'd be concerned and Nate's all about defense, so if he's confident enough to give it a try, go for it. My guess is that he pulls the plug on it sooner than most of us would want for him to, as most of us are more interested in offense than defense.

Finally, Yega, I think you're discounting Jones. He was a roleplayer for the Suns maybe, though I'd argue that he started an awful lot of games for a mere "roleplayer." On this team, though, I really think he'll be a great addition -- something like Ruben Patterson with a better attitude and three point range. And like Ruben, I expect we'll at least occasionally see Jones defending twos and fours -- well, maybe not fours given all the other options there, but maybe. He certainly did that for the Suns.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Sergio can actually get some playing time, and the second unit would be more balanced, but Roy would get abused by SF's on the defensive end. Maybe they could play more Zone?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

If the reason for playing both Blake and Jack at the same time because of Roy being injured, how does it follow that Roy would play the 3? If he wasn't injured and could play then they wouldn't have to play two PGs at the same time. At times I can see us doing that, but because of Roy being injured doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

I think this would be a smart move by Nate. Webster gives you nothing out there on the floor and Outlaw is so inconsistent.

We could run teams into the ground with those 3 out there, I LOVE IT!


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

BiggaAdams said:


> We could run teams into the ground with those 3 out there, I LOVE IT!


I would argue that 50% of the small forwards in the league can outrun Roy, Jack, and Blake. I think a lineup with Blake, Roy, Webster outruns this one by a ton as Webster can actually finish on the break. You can play Jack wherever you want but the fact remains for a SG or a PG, his shot is mediocre, his ball handling is mediocre (at best), and he's is absolutely wretched on the break (can't pass or dribble, and doesn't pull up ever, instead trys to draw a foul by wreckless initiating contact every time). You want to be a good running team? Trade Jack and Outlaw for a real SG or SF that can run the break and actually develop Sergio behind Blake to be our point of the future.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

steve blake could`nt guard a poster of the guy he`s sposed to be checking....sergio`s not much better but i`d definitly rather have him running the offense than blake...sergio can make something out of nothing


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

I've never liked 3 guard lineups. I love it when the SF can be a guard, but they need to have the size to play the position. 

Having Roy at the 2 is like having a second PG on the court too. I'm not so sure about this idea, but I'd need to see it to really judge it.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Roy is not Drexler, Blake is not Ainge, and Jarrett is not Porter. This comparison should put an immediate end to any further entertainment of this very bad idea.

Question: Why handicap Roy by playing him out of position when Travis, Darius, Martell and even Jones are all better players at the SF?

Question: Why handicap the team by playing Jarrett at all when Steve, Sergio and Brandon are all better PG's than him and Roy, Blake and Martell are all better SG's than him? Next year Peter and Rudy join us and they are both better than Jarrett at either position and Rudy is probably better than Roy at the SG.

Answer: To showcase Jarrett for a trade.


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

I get the feeling that many of you are going to be surprised by Webster this season. After Nate was hired, he said it would take 3-4 years for Martell to become an NBA player. That time frame is right now, and Martell is still one of the best shooters on this team. 

As for the three guard lineup, I think it works fine against another three guard lineup. Nate tends to match the other coach rather than try to dictate the matchup. My bet is that Outlaw, Webster or Jones will be the SF 90% of the time. The three guard will only be used in limited runs or if injuries force Nate's hand.

The more likely scenario is seeing Blake and Jack on the floor together while Roy is getting a rest. I bet Roy's minutes will be controlled this year, maybe capped at 32 a game with him playing most of the 4th quarter. So if he goes 10mins in the 4th that means he only plays 22 in the first three. That would be 7:20 a quarter which seems about right. That gives ample time for Roy to rest, and allows for more minutes to be used by the depth chart.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> Nate said that because Blake and Jack are playing so well together, he is thinking of starting both of them in the backcourt, and playing Brandon Roy at the 3. I think Jack would be a better defender of SGs anyway.


I think it's been proven that Blake is better at guarding shooting guards than Jack is. My guess is, if the 3-guard-lineup happens, Blake will handle the ball the most but would guard the other team's best player at 1 2 or 3. Tough for Blake, but we know he'll step up.

IMO Blake can only play PG on offense though. If Blake is at 2 or 3, no one is going to worry about him driving to the hoop. they'll just play off him unless he is going to shoot a 3. Jack can drive a bit and pull up a bit, not great but better than Blake. 

I do think that Roy is the best option we have at SF on offense right at this moment, but I'm hoping that James Jones somehow immediately becomes a Udoka+.... not likely I know, but if he becomes one of our better players that would sure make things a heck of a lot easier this season. 


Oh, and Miles somehow fits into all of this... I hate to say it, but he might be the best SF in our division... but as always we won't know what we're going to get from him until it happens.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

This would be better next year with a PG, Roy, and Rudy.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I like the idea of a 3 guard lineup. I liked it a lot more when we still had Oden this season. When we got Steve I said that I thought our best 5 players were Oden, Aldridge, Roy, Blake and Jack. I thought it made a lot of sense to start our 5 best guys. 

Assuming we're starting Przybilla in place of Oden I still think it makes sense. I'm not sure how much Roy and Jack will get abused. I've always thought that defensive ability has more to do with speed and effort than physical size.



yuyuza1 said:


> Sergio can actually get some playing time


I don't think that would really be the case. I think what you'd get is a second unit back court of Taureen Green and Webster.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

ebott said:


> I don't think that would really be the case. I think what you'd get is a second unit back court of Taureen Green and Webster.


:rant: ugh.


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> Roy is not Drexler, Blake is not Ainge, and Jarrett is not Porter. This comparison should put an immediate end to any further entertainment of this very bad idea.
> 
> Question: Why handicap Roy by playing him out of position when Travis, Darius, Martell and even Jones are all better players at the SF?
> 
> ...


 Kopponen is better than Jack?

This inept argument is nothing but a sign of your irrational hatred of a solid player who will be a Blazer for a long time.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

LameR said:


> This would be better next year with a PG, Roy, and Rudy.



I agree, we wouldn't be giving up as much size.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> steve blake could`nt guard a poster of the guy he`s sposed to be checking....sergio`s not much better but i`d definitly rather have him running the offense than blake...sergio can make something out of nothing


What are you talking about Blake is a good defender. Way, way better than Jack.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I think most people here are making way too much of this. McMillan's not talking about _starting_ Blake, Jack, and Roy. He's just thinking it might occasionally be an interesting unit. It would certainly be a better offensive unit than a defensive unit and we all know Nate's nearly always more concerned with defense than offense.

To clarify how all this started for Mgb and anyone else confused about it, Nate noted how well Blake and Jack were playing together -- something that might not have happened had Roy been healthy. Nate liked what he saw _and_ knows he eventually wants Roy on the court a bunch, so that might be one way to do it.

At the same time, Blake and Jack actually have a size _advantage_ playing against Green and Rodriguez. How long does anyone really think the coaching staff will stay with Blake and Jack if there's an opposing two guard that's punishing them?


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

PorterIn2004 said:


> At the same time, Blake and Jack actually have a size _advantage_ playing against Green and Rodriguez. How long does anyone really think the coaching staff will stay with Blake and Jack if there's an opposing two guard that's punishing them?


 What I'd like to know is who will play the PG and SG position in a 3-guard line-up?

What's rather strange is that Blake (pass-first PG) always seems to find himself in the SG role, where he usually does a decent job. Last year, playing with way under-sized AI, Blake had to face some pretty tough customers in the SG department whilst playing a Paxton kind of role in terms of a 3pt sniper. Blake would then switch to the PG role when AI was resting or injured. When AI was out for a spell due to injury, Blake averaging nearly a double-double as the "pure" PG. Regardless, Blake would always get the toughest of the guards. For example, he had to guard Parker during the playoff series with the Spurs. In that 5-games series, Parker pretty much achieved his "average" numbers - nothing more. Meanwhile, Blake shot very well, hitting 50% of his 3ptrs.

Of course, Jack can probably play either role as well. He can play some pretty good defense too. Like Blake, he is a smart player. However, I like the way Blake pushes the ball up the court - creating opportunities.

Regardless, you could interchange Blake and Jack at the PG or SG position as needed. With these two reliable players, I do not expect to see Roy playing PG at all; probably SG and SF.

Should be an interesting pre-season. I expect some interesting scenarios to be tested. Frankly, I'm not too worried about Blake, Jack, or Roy. The others....


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> steve blake could`nt guard a poster of the guy he`s sposed to be checking....sergio`s not much better but i`d definitly rather have him running the offense than blake...sergio can make something out of nothing





Blazed said:


> What are you talking about Blake is a good defender. Way, way better than Jack.


Yes indeed, cocaine IS a helluva drug if it makes someone think that Blake couldn't guard a dead body. Blake is a good defensive player, maybe not lock down, but good enough to hold his own. Methinks the mantle of "most underrespected NBA player" might now pass from Kirk Hinrich to Blake this season.

Jack (2 years in league) and Blake (4 years except for missing almost half a season in DC following 2004 ankle surgery and another injury) are the most experienced ballhandlers on the Blazers and ONE of them needs to be initiating the offense. I had a feeling this might happen a while back actually but I'm not going to go back and find that thread. Regardless of whether Roy is hurt or healthy, I could TOTALLY see a starting backcourt of Roy/Jack/Blake. Of course Roy being hurt right now mucks things up a bit but I otherwise think my premonition was somewhat correct.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

While I like the idea of seeing Blake, Jack, and Roy on the floor together some, I don't like the idea of starting games that way. I think either Blake or Jack with Roy and Jones, Outlaw, or even Webster makes more sense to me, mostly because of defensive match-ups, (though admittedly Webster might give as much or more away to most SFs as Jack or Blake would most SGs).


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

blakeback said:


> Oh, and Miles somehow fits into all of this... I hate to say it, but *he might be the best SF in our division*... but as always we won't know what we're going to get from him until it happens.


you can't possibly mean this. Other SFs in this division include Kirilenko, Carmelo, and now Durant. Even in the unlikely senario that Darius somehow becomes healthy and enjoys the best year of his career he could still be well behind all three of those guys.

STOMP


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

STOMP said:


> you can't possibly mean this. Other SFs in this division include Kirilenko, Carmelo, and now Durant.STOMP


Kirilenko - PF
Carmelo - Arguably PF (at the least a combo 3/4 but so is Darius I suppose)
Durant - SG


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Kirilenko - PF
> Carmelo - Arguably PF (at the least a combo 3/4 but so is Darius I suppose)
> Durant - SG


Since when does Carmelo play the 4? Also, Durant is at least 6'10 from what I've heard; I don't think he's a shooting guard.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Ras said:


> Since when does Carmelo play the 4? Also, Durant is at least 6'10 from what I've heard; I don't think he's a shooting guard.



He's been announced/declared as an SG, at least for now.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I can't _believe_ you all are arguing with Stomp over this. He arguably didn't pick the best examples but the West is still stronger than the East. There might well be better SFs _on this team_ than Miles, even if he somehow manages to return to the best shape he's ever been in.

For the sake of argument, let's go to ESPN and sort by players, Western Conference, SFs, and grab a few names:

1. Anthony, Carmelo
2. Battier, Shane
3. Bowen, Bruce
4. Gay, Rudy
5. Howard, Josh
6. Maggette, Corey
7. McGrady, Tracy

And that's just half-way through "M". In his best years, Miles has only had passing mention at best when it's come to All-Star lists. It's possible that he'll come back and be better than ever, or even _much_ better than ever... _maybe_ even enough better to actually be a serious candidate for the All-Star game, though that seems hugely unlikely to me. I'm not sure Jordan would've gotten more than an honorable mention had he ever had to come back from the knee damage Miles has sustained.

Don't get me wrong, I'd _love_ to see Miles come back and contribute meaningfully. If he can get back to even 3/4s of where he was physically and be really mentally in the game the whole time, he might be the team's best defender at the 3, though Jones might still beat him out for that position. Nonetheless, I very much _want_ him to succeed. But to suggest that he's got any realistic shot to be even among the best SFs in the Western Conference before he's even cleared to play in practice games... well, I suppose we all need dreams.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Relying on Miles to be the best SF in our division is like relying on Pat Robertson to teach acceptance in diversity. Good luck!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Roy will get eaten up at the 3 spot


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

I too don't like the prospects of Roy going up against LBJ, Carmelo and any of the other much larger SFs out there. But we'll have to see how it works. Our SF corps isn't great at the moment...unless for all we know they've improved much.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Kirilenko - PF
> Carmelo - Arguably PF (at the least a combo 3/4 but so is Darius I suppose)
> Durant - SG


The only reason that Seattle might be starting KD at the 2 is that they have no other legit option there. It's just about everyone's opinion that his devastating game best projects at the 3.

Carmelo measured 6'6.25 with a 7'0 wingspan at his predraft... thats about the same as Martell Webster. Dude plays like a wing which is in fact where he's played while at Syracuse, Denver, and on various team USAs. I'd love to read your argument on how he's a PF... that would be fun.

One could make a case for Kirilenko's best position being at the 4, but dude has played a vast majority of his career at the 3. He usually guards and is guarded by other 3's. His game is certainly not that of a classic 3 as he's not much of a shooter, but it's not like he's a post player either.

You're at best splitting hairs on Kirilenko, but most of this is assertion is in the outer rhelms of ridiculous. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

HB said:


> Roy will get eaten up at the 3 spot


He did play there last year in spurts after Ime went down. I may be wrong, but I don't think Nate is talking about starting him there. I expect that (like last year) Roy at SF is just a small ball look that he'll throw out when the matchups allow it and he wants a change of pace. 

STOMP


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

STOMP said:


> He did play there last year in spurts after Ime went down.


Even before that happened he was guarding the 3 - for example, against LA when Ime was guarding Kobe, Roy had to cover Odom - and did a pretty good job of it, as well.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Relying on Miles to be the best SF in our division is like relying on Pat Robertson to teach acceptance in diversity. Good luck!


Thanks Sam -- you just called to my attention that Blakeback was initially talking about the division, rather than the conference. My bad. Nonetheless, I still think it's a longshot for Miles to even ever get back to meaningful playing time, much less be the best SF on the team and _much_ less the best in the division.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

CocaineisaHelluvaDrug said:


> steve blake could`nt guard a poster of the guy he`s sposed to be checking....sergio`s not much better but i`d definitly rather have him running the offense than blake...sergio can make something out of nothing


Wow, you don't know much about Blake. He's a good defender.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

You people are a little too into heights and measurements. You think that Roy cannot play SF because he's an inch or so shorter than the "average SF", yet you think that factor has more bearing than the fact that Outlaw is a clutz on the perimeter/can't handle the ball, Webster(who is an inch taller) is extremly mistake prone on defense and sort of drifts around doing nothing, and James Jones, who is a decent role player, but not nearly as good as Roy.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

If Melo is a 4, I guess that makes Nene Denver's starting 3. Seriously, Carmelo Anthony is the prototypical small forward. He certainly isn't a power forward by an stretch of the imagination.

As far as Roy being undersized for a 3... he's taller than Ime Udoka. 2 is definitely his best position and where he'll play most of his minutes, but he can also adequately play either the 1 or the 3 for brief spurts.

So, depending on the match-ups, the three guard line-up of Black/Jack and Roy could work well for stretches in certain situations against certain teams (like GS with Nellie's small ball line up). It could also be a good line-up to use for full court pressing to force turnovers when the other team is trying to bring the ball up the court. It's certainly not the ideal starting line-up, but I can see it being effective if used in the right situations.

BNM


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Wow, you don't know much about Blake. He's a good defender.


Yes and no. He puts a lot of effort into defense and plays with intensity, and has good instincts. There are a lot of times though he gets over matched physically (Mostly because he only weights about a buck-eighty); in those situations he struggles defensivly.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

I only mentioned Miles in the last paragraph of my post, because we're talking about a 3-guard lineup and Miles is still on the team. Obviously we all know that we can't expect anything from him except the unexpected. But remember that we HAVE seen him play at a very high level for short spurts. To completely discount him, not consider him as a player on this team and talk about a 3-guard offense, well that's just... ah I guess I've done it too.

But Miles is a SF, he is on this team, he is (by all accounts) going to play this season, and he is- when he wants to be- a good player. 


Miles starting this season may be a pipe dream, but there will be plenty of dreaming had by all this year i think.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

one thing we tend to overlook is that while the three guard lineup is pretty small, we'll also have two guys in Aldridge and Przybilla that are around seven feet. it's not like we'll be using a SF at center like Golden State or Phoenix has done at times. and it's not like any of our guards are as diminutive as the Van Exel/Stoudamire fiasco. 

with two good shot blockers underneath, I'm not as concerned about the bigger slashing small forwards like Carmelo or LeBron. (besides, those guys get theirs no matter who you have.) 

it's the tall threes with range like Rashard Lewis and Kevin Durant who are going to rise up over shorter defenders and kill us. 

even in those situations, though, Nate can play with moving Aldridge over to guard them.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> If Melo is a 4, I guess that makes Nene Denver's starting 3. Seriously, Carmelo Anthony is the prototypical small forward. He certainly isn't a power forward by an stretch of the imagination.


Just to further clarify that Carmelo Anthony is not a power forward...

Of Denver's top 20 five man units from last season, Anthony isn't listed as a 4 once. Nene was their starting 4 and got the bulk of the minutes. Najera was the primary back-up 4, with Kleiza also getting minutes at the 4. Anthony was the SF in 12 of the 16 line-ups he played in and was the SG in the other 4 where he was listed. So, he's definitely a 3, and saw limited spot minutes at the 2, but no PT at the 4.

BNM


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Wow, a lot going on in this thread...

-Durant, AK47, and Carmelo are SF's. Can they play other positions? Of course, that hardly means that's their natural position... And yes, (I can't believe this even has to be argued) they are heads and shoulders above Miles on his best day.

-As some have already said, I don't think we'll be starting Blake, Jack, and Roy for many games. Most likely, if we see that lineup, it will come later in the game when the opponents lineup allows us to do that. 

-To the poster who likes cocaine... Comparing Blake and Sergio on defense is night and day. I like Sergio, but I have no problem with him not being in the rotation right now. He just hasn't earned it.

-I think the two guys who will surprise some of us this year are Jack and Martell, both in their 3rd year. Jack was never fully healed last year from the injury he sustained during his rookie year. From the sounds of it, this year in training camp his lateral mobility is much improved and I think he'll be good on defense. Martell supposedly has added a lot more of an inside/drive-to-the-hoop game, to compliment his outside shot. That should keep him more involved on offense. And hopefully the reports that his attitude/mind-set have changed are true. 

-I think Jones, Outlaw, or Webster starting at the 3, along with Roy and Jack/Blake is much better than the 3 guards.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Blake-Jack-Roy-LMA-Joel is an interesting lineup.

It fulfills the "best 5" paradigm emerging in the NBA right now.

If the report about Jack's improved 3 pointer is true, then it gives us a 3 point threat at each spot, along with a solid mid-range shooter in LMA (and didn't they say Joel can even shoot now?).

We won't have a strong post scorer inside though, which is one way teams typically creates open opportunities for 3 point shooters. Instead we'll use haste, picks and movement with the ball to create the open opportunities.

If the opposing team has wing defender who isn't good at moving his feet, that's another time this lineup can create a nice mismatch. Roy and Jack can both slash and do something good with the ball, so with both on the wing, the other team can't hide a bad defensive SG or SF.

On the defensive end, this lineup really isn't that small, but it is short. Jack and Roy are meaty guys who have really good core strength, so they can play a little bigger than they really are, sort of like Ime and Ruben Patterson do.

Both Jack and Roy have been somewhat overrated defensively in the past, but they do have the builds to be good on that end and reportedly are hard workers. Neither is lightning quick laterally but neither are they terribly slow, and both are strong. Also, with neither being the sole ballhandler and playmaker on the court in this lineup, both should have a little extra energy to spend on D.

One thing they can't develop is length though, so like someone else said, we are going to get burned by tall outside shooters with this lineup. It's weird, but our "small" lineup would probably result in the other team taking more jumpers, because even with a height advantage it's tough to drive against a guy like Jack or Roy and meet LMA or Joel behind them.

And With both teams probably taking more jumpers, Aldridge should be able to feast on long rebounds, because he is a nice combo of tall, quick and active.

Overall the more I think about this lineup, the more I like it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

If Portland is reduced to playing Blake/Jack/Roy/LA/Joel much, we are going to be very, very bad this year. Like worst-in-the-NBA bad.

Portland needs a small forward to emerge. Jones, Webster or Outlaw need to step up to starting level.

Putting Roy at the small forward spot MIGHT be our best hope to be competitive, but I would expect it will wear him down more, physically, having to guard bigger guys... and I hope that he can stay in the back court where he belongs.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> If Portland is reduced to playing Blake/Jack/Roy/LA/Joel much, we are going to be very, very bad this year. Like worst-in-the-NBA bad.
> 
> Portland needs a small forward to emerge. Jones, Webster or Outlaw need to step up to starting level.
> 
> ...


Yea I see anything that takes Roy out of a primary ball handler role bad. You are definitly correct about the SF situation. But hell, Portland has needed a small forward every since Pippen left. Some people may say Idoka filled that role, but truthfully he wasn't really a well rounded small forward. He was a good defender, consistent outside jump shooter with not much else to his game, and he was under sized.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

People don't seem to realize that Jones did start a large number of games for a very successful Phoenix team. In fact, he started several games for a successful Suns team before being replaced by an emerging Boris Diaw in 2005.

Anyways, I have no reason to see why we don't start PG/Roy/Jones/Aldridge/Pryz

You don't play your best player out of position to accommodate for others. Jones/Webster/Outlaw...one of the three WILL step up to be at least starter capable, and I figure to be the position by committee and Miles will throw into the mix as well at some point. 

PGs: Jack/Blake/Sergio/Green
Wings: Roy (Starter) + Jones, Webster, Outlaw (and Miles) to get the minutes at 2/3 spots.
Bigs: Aldridge (Starter), Joel (Starter), Frye (main big-man sub), McRoberts, Raef


9-Man Rotation = Jack/Blake, Roy/Jones/Webster/Outlaw, Aldridge/Joel/Frye

That's how we play basketball!!!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Perfection said:


> 9-Man Rotation = Jack/Blake, Roy/Jones/Webster/Outlaw, Aldridge/Joel/Frye
> 
> That's how we play basketball!!!


yup. Roy and Aldridge get 30+ MPG everyone else listed is in a 15-25 MPG supporting role.

I agree with your starters as well... I'll just throw out a guess Jack starts out as the starter at PG. I recall reports back from his rookie draft that his ankle would take at least 2 seasons to recover. Last year I recall him rating it at 85% of normal. He's the incumbent and he supposed to be looking fit and playing well so I'm guessing Nate will stand pat for now.

STOMP


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> If Portland is reduced to playing Blake/Jack/Roy/LA/Joel much, we are going to be very, very bad this year. Like worst-in-the-NBA bad.
> 
> Portland needs a small forward to emerge. Jones, Webster or Outlaw need to step up to starting level.
> 
> ...


? Then you may as well predict we are going to be the worst team in the NBA. Why do you use the term "reduced", what is a better option? Webster was Mr. Invisible last year, and in summer league. Outlaw is one dimensional, and struggled on the perimeter defensivly, and I don't see how "Blake/Roy/Jones" is so much better than Blake/Jack/Roy.

Brandon Roy is 6-6 230 pounds, yet some of you are acting like we're asking some 6-3 200 lb guy to play SF. Do you think he's going to get abused inside, or do you think he'll run out of energy sooner because the other guy is an inch or two taller? That makes no sense. It would be more likely that he'd spend more energy trying to guard opposing SGs.

Brandon, overall, is our best SF and SG, but he can only play one position. Jarrett Jack is our best SG after Roy, and Blake is our best PG. Webby, Outlaw and Jones are backup quality at this point(unless one of them blows up this year)


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Yea I see anything that takes Roy out of a primary ball handler role bad. You are definitly correct about the SF situation. But hell, Portland has needed a small forward every since Pippen left. Some people may say Idoka filled that role, but truthfully he wasn't really a well rounded small forward. He was a good defender, consistent outside jump shooter with not much else to his game, and he was under sized.



Just because we've got Blake, Jack and Roy on the court at the same times doesn't mean Roy will handle the ball less. Jack(mr. travel) would handle the ball less than Roy and Blake. Roy could still play a big role in running the half court offense. 

I have a feeling this Blazer team will have trouble scoring next year, and we'll need all the offense we can get.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Perfection said:


> People don't seem to realize that Jones did start a large number of games for a very successful Phoenix team. In fact, he started several games for a successful Suns team before being replaced by an emerging Boris Diaw in 2005.
> 
> Anyways, I have no reason to see why we don't start PG/Roy/Jones/Aldridge/Pryz


I'm guessing we will start that group and that Nate was just talking about an alternate lineup he is thinking of using at other points during the game besides tipoff.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Just because we've got Blake, Jack and Roy on the court at the same times doesn't mean Roy will handle the ball less. Jack(mr. travel) would handle the ball less than Roy and Blake. Roy could still play a big role in running the half court offense.
> 
> I have a feeling this Blazer team will have trouble scoring next year, and we'll need all the offense we can get.


At the same time, how many NBA half court offenses initiate their offense through the small forward? Not many. It doesn't mean we can't do it. I just don't see it is likely with Nate in charge.


----------

