We've talked a lot about a shoot first PG who can compliment Roy's game. There have been a lot of high profile names bantered back and forth. Ben Gordon, Mike Bibby, etc.
But what do those guys do that Blake doesn't? Blake can shoot the ball, play defense, and he has a manageable contract. The biggest difference I can see between Blake and those other guys is a lack of ego. Blake seems to put the team first, (except for folding chairs).
I have been asking this question for a couple of weeks now: Why do the Blazers need to replace Blake with a high priced, big ego, prima donna?
The answer at PG: Steve Blake
Moderators: The Sebastian Express, Moonbeam, DeBlazerRiddem
The answer at PG: Steve Blake
-
Butter
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,178
- And1: 136
- Joined: Aug 14, 2002
- Location: Youth movement, here we come
-
-
Wizenheimer
- RealGM
- Posts: 35,499
- And1: 7,335
- Joined: May 28, 2007
keep in mind that prior to this season, Blake's career shooting numbers were less then 41% overall and 37% from 3pt distance. So I'd expect him to cool off from where he has been.
But it's true that having a PG who is a league leader in assist/turnover ratio and who will accept different roles and some inconsistent playing time is a good thing.
I'm not one of those who thinks Blake is expendable. I think he should be around for the long haul.
But that's not to say that he's the 'answer' at PG by himself. I'm assuming Jack will be gone sooner or later, maybe before next season. If Rudy is the real deal, then a backcourt rotation of Roy, Rudy, Blake, & Sergio would be sufficient. But Sergio and Rudy are still question marks in my view, even though KP seems high on both. If portland has an opportunity to upgrade the backcourt without giving up much, I'd anticipate they would.
But if the 'price' is real steep, they shouldn't do it unless it would be a major upgrade like an Arenas or a Calderon.
As the luxury tax works it's magic and more an more teams become frugal, I think more and more pretty good players will be available for the MLE. Portland got Blake for less then the MLE, they may be able to repeat that kind of success.
sorry...rambling now
But it's true that having a PG who is a league leader in assist/turnover ratio and who will accept different roles and some inconsistent playing time is a good thing.
I'm not one of those who thinks Blake is expendable. I think he should be around for the long haul.
But that's not to say that he's the 'answer' at PG by himself. I'm assuming Jack will be gone sooner or later, maybe before next season. If Rudy is the real deal, then a backcourt rotation of Roy, Rudy, Blake, & Sergio would be sufficient. But Sergio and Rudy are still question marks in my view, even though KP seems high on both. If portland has an opportunity to upgrade the backcourt without giving up much, I'd anticipate they would.
But if the 'price' is real steep, they shouldn't do it unless it would be a major upgrade like an Arenas or a Calderon.
As the luxury tax works it's magic and more an more teams become frugal, I think more and more pretty good players will be available for the MLE. Portland got Blake for less then the MLE, they may be able to repeat that kind of success.
sorry...rambling now
-
BlackMamba
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 16,297
- And1: 81
- Joined: Jun 20, 2004
- Location: Cd. de M
-
i deffintelly say that blake can be the blazers PG no matter what.
like already mentioned, he plays for the team, something not many players like to do. he's also a good veteran and locker room preassence.
he seems like a nice guy and a hard worker.
players like him and jones should be blazers for a long, long time.
like already mentioned, he plays for the team, something not many players like to do. he's also a good veteran and locker room preassence.
he seems like a nice guy and a hard worker.
players like him and jones should be blazers for a long, long time.
-
Billy
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 12,623
- And1: 161
- Joined: Aug 14, 2001
-
When I was watching the GS game I thought to myself probably 5 or 6 times "man, that is EXACTLY what Portland needs out of their point guard."
Blake was great in that game. In particular he looked for his shot when it was there, and took shots he felt he could hit. I have no problem with my point guard taking 10-15 shots if he's going to make 8-12 of them.
I don't know if Blake is going to be the answer long term there. Like Wizenheimer pointed out, the averages point to him not being quite this hot. That's not to say he can't change, or that guys can't suddenly make marked and unexpected improvements suddenly when put in the right role. But I think it will take Blake finishing out this season rather strong and playing much the same next year before Portland would look at him as a possible long term answer as a starter.
What's great about Blake is that he's a team guy, and someone I can see here for the long haul. I don't think he cares where you play him, how you use him or whatever, he just wants to help the team win. Portland can certainly use that no matter what.
Blake was great in that game. In particular he looked for his shot when it was there, and took shots he felt he could hit. I have no problem with my point guard taking 10-15 shots if he's going to make 8-12 of them.
I don't know if Blake is going to be the answer long term there. Like Wizenheimer pointed out, the averages point to him not being quite this hot. That's not to say he can't change, or that guys can't suddenly make marked and unexpected improvements suddenly when put in the right role. But I think it will take Blake finishing out this season rather strong and playing much the same next year before Portland would look at him as a possible long term answer as a starter.
What's great about Blake is that he's a team guy, and someone I can see here for the long haul. I don't think he cares where you play him, how you use him or whatever, he just wants to help the team win. Portland can certainly use that no matter what.
-
Mr Odd
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 12,081
- And1: 8
- Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Yep, how Blaked played in the GS game is what we need.
I think Blake for the most part has done great this season.
But whenever I think about the PG spot I keep coming back
to Roy & Rudy. I have a feeling (not based on fact yet) that
Rudy will probably be starter type good. Now if he is it would
be a shame for him to waste on the bench just because we
have Roy at SG, and since Roys game is much like a PG it
would be nice to have Roy & Rudy as starters.. .However
there is a problem with this, who plays what spot?? You
would think Roy would move to the PG spot but if he does
that he will have trouble with the faster PGs in the NBA.. .
Rudy is pretty fast but again, I think he'll have trouble with
the quicker PGs. Its just something I think the Blazers will
most likely have to deal with sooner or later. I dunno.. .
I think Blake for the most part has done great this season.
But whenever I think about the PG spot I keep coming back
to Roy & Rudy. I have a feeling (not based on fact yet) that
Rudy will probably be starter type good. Now if he is it would
be a shame for him to waste on the bench just because we
have Roy at SG, and since Roys game is much like a PG it
would be nice to have Roy & Rudy as starters.. .However
there is a problem with this, who plays what spot?? You
would think Roy would move to the PG spot but if he does
that he will have trouble with the faster PGs in the NBA.. .
Rudy is pretty fast but again, I think he'll have trouble with
the quicker PGs. Its just something I think the Blazers will
most likely have to deal with sooner or later. I dunno.. .
bing'o-bang'o-bong'o-baby!!
-
Milkdud
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,095
- And1: 137
- Joined: May 21, 2001
- Location: Dreaming of Australia
Along the lines of Mr. Odd WAG (Wild Ass Guess 
) I don't see any reason that Rudy could come off the bench as an impact offensive player (Manu or Gorden type). To me at least I like the idea of Roy starting and playing a fair amount of the game as an off guard and in the 4th or other situations having him man the PG when it matters.
) I don't see any reason that Rudy could come off the bench as an impact offensive player (Manu or Gorden type). To me at least I like the idea of Roy starting and playing a fair amount of the game as an off guard and in the 4th or other situations having him man the PG when it matters.-
Butter
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,178
- And1: 136
- Joined: Aug 14, 2002
- Location: Youth movement, here we come
-
Wizenheimer wrote:keep in mind that prior to this season, Blake's career shooting numbers were less then 41% overall and 37% from 3pt distance. So I'd expect him to cool off from where he has been.
But it's true that having a PG who is a league leader in assist/turnover ratio and who will accept different roles and some inconsistent playing time is a good thing.
I'm not one of those who thinks Blake is expendable. I think he should be around for the long haul.
But that's not to say that he's the 'answer' at PG by himself. I'm assuming Jack will be gone sooner or later, maybe before next season. If Rudy is the real deal, then a backcourt rotation of Roy, Rudy, Blake, & Sergio would be sufficient. But Sergio and Rudy are still question marks in my view, even though KP seems high on both. If portland has an opportunity to upgrade the backcourt without giving up much, I'd anticipate they would.
But if the 'price' is real steep, they shouldn't do it unless it would be a major upgrade like an Arenas or a Calderon.
As the luxury tax works it's magic and more an more teams become frugal, I think more and more pretty good players will be available for the MLE. Portland got Blake for less then the MLE, they may be able to repeat that kind of success.
sorry...rambling now
But the same could be said about Ben Gordon or any of those guys. Gordon has almost been the definition of inconsistency. True, he can go off for 38 points, but he's just as likely to go 6-21 with a bunch of turn-overs.
Compare Blake's contributions on the court and in the locker room to someone like Gilbert Arenas. I have been hard on Arenas in the past, but do the Blazers need a flamboyant, eccentric, volume shooter, or a mellow, team oriented guy who has the rare ability to take a shot at the right time because he buys into the team concept? There may be nights when Blake takes a lot of shots, but it'll be games like GS when he's in the zone. The difference between someone like Blake and Arenas or Gordon, is that Blake scores within the team concept.
-
listerine
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 827
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 27, 2005
The problem with the PG position is that it MUST be a player who complements Roy. And the only way to figure that out is by trial and error. At the beginning of the season, I (and many others) thought Sergio had a chance to be our future at the position. Unfortunately, I've changed my outlook because, for whatever reason, it appears that Sergio's game is just not compatible with Roy. And now I have to wonder, would Ben Gordon or even Chris Paul be able to form a symbiotic court relationship with Roy the way Blake has?
But we should bear in mind that everything looks perfect when the team is in the midst of a 17-1 streak. By the end of next season we'll know exactly what this team needs to push it over the top.
But we should bear in mind that everything looks perfect when the team is in the midst of a 17-1 streak. By the end of next season we'll know exactly what this team needs to push it over the top.
-
Wizenheimer
- RealGM
- Posts: 35,499
- And1: 7,335
- Joined: May 28, 2007
Butter wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
But the same could be said about Ben Gordon or any of those guys. Gordon has almost been the definition of inconsistency. True, he can go off for 38 points, but he's just as likely to go 6-21 with a bunch of turn-overs.
Compare Blake's contributions on the court and in the locker room to someone like Gilbert Arenas. I have been hard on Arenas in the past, but do the Blazers need a flamboyant, eccentric, volume shooter, or a mellow, team oriented guy who has the rare ability to take a shot at the right time because he buys into the team concept? There may be nights when Blake takes a lot of shots, but it'll be games like GS when he's in the zone. The difference between someone like Blake and Arenas or Gordon, is that Blake scores within the team concept.
I'm not sure you're really disagreeing with me or I with you. I'm advocating keeping Blake around, but I'm not convinced at all that portland has enough backcourt strength 'on-line' with roy-blake-sergio-fernandez. I think they may need more to make and sustain any runs at NBA titles.
I used Arenas and Calderon as examples of the level of players portland might actually be willing to sacrifice existing rotation players for. Obviously, both of those players come with 'issues'. Arenas is a great talent but he's also a major flake (still, I think he could be awesome with this blazer roster) and Calderon might actually play worse defense then Sergio.
I don't think portland will have any luck finding a good PG through that cap-space option. There aren't many in the league to begin with, and almost none will be free agents in 2009. Baron Davis could be, but with his bad back, atitude issues, and demands for a max contract, I don't think the Blazers would be interested.
So a fall-back position of going with Blake, and maybe using the draft or MLE slots to add depth and versatility at the PG position may be a pretty good plan.
-
Milkdud
- RealGM
- Posts: 12,095
- And1: 137
- Joined: May 21, 2001
- Location: Dreaming of Australia
I honestly could see Ben playing style mesh well with Roy's in a similar fashion that Rip and Billups can work together. Namely while Gordon is a volume scorer/ shot taker he does a good amount of that work without the ball in his hand. To me Gordon is the type of player I label a "finisher" his role in the offense quite often is to receive the ball and either right then take the shot or put of the shot after just a few dribbles. To me that style of offense would seem to fit well with Roy's ability to beat his man and set other teammates up for good looks.
Paul is a complete different type player from BG and to be honest I haven't seen nearly enough of his game to really break that down. But hypothetically if those 2 were to play to in the same back court I would think it would be more important for Roy to change his game to fit well with Paul's then the other way around. My reasoning for that is first because I think Paul is clearly a better player maker in general terms then Roy and that ability is what makes Paul such a great player. Also I think Roy would be more then capable of adapting his game to be more of a scorer Roy and do it in a fashion that wouldn't limit his effectiveness.
Again its all WAG and speculation at this point but enjoyable speculation.
Paul is a complete different type player from BG and to be honest I haven't seen nearly enough of his game to really break that down. But hypothetically if those 2 were to play to in the same back court I would think it would be more important for Roy to change his game to fit well with Paul's then the other way around. My reasoning for that is first because I think Paul is clearly a better player maker in general terms then Roy and that ability is what makes Paul such a great player. Also I think Roy would be more then capable of adapting his game to be more of a scorer Roy and do it in a fashion that wouldn't limit his effectiveness.
Again its all WAG and speculation at this point but enjoyable speculation.
-
SabasRevenge!
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,221
- And1: 1
- Joined: Jun 10, 2007
- Location: Portland, OR
I certainly don't have a problem with Blake starting alongside Roy at 20+mpg, especially with the depth we've got at PG now. Is he a long term answer? I don't believe he's the optimal PG for this team, so if KP can upgrade the position into a guy who is a 35 minute asset on the floor, I'm sure he'll do it.
I was skeptical about the Rudy/Roy backcourt a while ago, but I'm warming up to the idea. My major concern with Rudy and Roy logging big minutes together in the backcourt would lie on the defensive end. Who matches up with the quicker guards? I haven't seen much of Rudy on the defensive end, the highlight reels seem to be mostly alley-oops, but I have a feeling I shouldn't expect great things on D from him next year. Yeah, we'd have some major mismatches on offense, but at what cost? How does Oden's interior presence with Lamarcus roaming make up for a lack of perimeter defensive speed?
While I believe we've got almost no chance at Paul and no chance at Williams, I'd have to think quite hard about the potentially disruptive influence Chris Paul could have on this team. I'll be the first to say he looks like the best point guard to come along in at least 10 years, but can it become too much? Can incredible players coexist like the Showtime Lakers this day in age? IMO it would most definitely be worth the risk.
My last thought .... is Roy essentially our PG? If he is, what type of player do we want next to him in the backcourt? A tough defender who can consistently knock down the outside shot is the first thing I think of. Which brings us back to Steve Blake...
I was skeptical about the Rudy/Roy backcourt a while ago, but I'm warming up to the idea. My major concern with Rudy and Roy logging big minutes together in the backcourt would lie on the defensive end. Who matches up with the quicker guards? I haven't seen much of Rudy on the defensive end, the highlight reels seem to be mostly alley-oops, but I have a feeling I shouldn't expect great things on D from him next year. Yeah, we'd have some major mismatches on offense, but at what cost? How does Oden's interior presence with Lamarcus roaming make up for a lack of perimeter defensive speed?
While I believe we've got almost no chance at Paul and no chance at Williams, I'd have to think quite hard about the potentially disruptive influence Chris Paul could have on this team. I'll be the first to say he looks like the best point guard to come along in at least 10 years, but can it become too much? Can incredible players coexist like the Showtime Lakers this day in age? IMO it would most definitely be worth the risk.
My last thought .... is Roy essentially our PG? If he is, what type of player do we want next to him in the backcourt? A tough defender who can consistently knock down the outside shot is the first thing I think of. Which brings us back to Steve Blake...
-
Butter
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,178
- And1: 136
- Joined: Aug 14, 2002
- Location: Youth movement, here we come
-
listerine wrote:The problem with the PG position is that it MUST be a player who complements Roy. And the only way to figure that out is by trial and error. At the beginning of the season, I (and many others) thought Sergio had a chance to be our future at the position. Unfortunately, I've changed my outlook because, for whatever reason, it appears that Sergio's game is just not compatible with Roy. And now I have to wonder, would Ben Gordon or even Chris Paul be able to form a symbiotic court relationship with Roy the way Blake has?
But we should bear in mind that everything looks perfect when the team is in the midst of a 17-1 streak. By the end of next season we'll know exactly what this team needs to push it over the top.
Thats a pretty solid point. Blake doesn't have to be perfect to be the future PG, he just has to be the best available back court match to Roy.
-
SalemStoner
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,779
- And1: 82
- Joined: Nov 07, 2005
I think it might be worth considering that the Blazers have no intentions of starting Rudy with Roy next year no matter how good Rudy is. There has to be consideration that the idea this year is to figure out who was going to be better for the Blazers with Roy between Jack and Blake and then play Sergio and Rudy together. This team is all about chemistry and I'm pretty sure Sergio and Rudy love playing together.
-
UGotThrilled
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 852
- And1: 6
- Joined: Aug 08, 2007
listerine wrote:The problem with the PG position is that it MUST be a player who complements Roy. And the only way to figure that out is by trial and error. At the beginning of the season, I (and many others) thought Sergio had a chance to be our future at the position. Unfortunately, I've changed my outlook because, for whatever reason, it appears that Sergio's game is just not compatible with Roy. And now I have to wonder, would Ben Gordon or even Chris Paul be able to form a symbiotic court relationship with Roy the way Blake has?
But we should bear in mind that everything looks perfect when the team is in the midst of a 17-1 streak. By the end of next season we'll know exactly what this team needs to push it over the top.
+1
-
Kobe Bean24
- Ballboy
- Posts: 20
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jan 08, 2008
- Location: P-town, OR
Our PG answer is Jason Kidd! the guy wants to win a title and he/we could get one(or more) if he was a Blazer. I say we get him before the trade deadline this year and see what happens.
Worst case senerio is his contract exspires same year Raef and Francis does, we would have to give up our 1st round pick this year along with one of our many PG and SF. Really would it be that bad to give up
Jack/Jones/2008 1st/Raef or
Blake/Outlaw/2008 1st/Raef
I mean its Kidd! as good as LA is he would be better with J-Kidd at the point, along with Oden and everyone else!
And for anyone who thinks he is decling just look at his stats. True point guards dont drop off ass much cause he will always be able to make good passes and read the floor
Worst case senerio is his contract exspires same year Raef and Francis does, we would have to give up our 1st round pick this year along with one of our many PG and SF. Really would it be that bad to give up
Jack/Jones/2008 1st/Raef or
Blake/Outlaw/2008 1st/Raef
I mean its Kidd! as good as LA is he would be better with J-Kidd at the point, along with Oden and everyone else!
And for anyone who thinks he is decling just look at his stats. True point guards dont drop off ass much cause he will always be able to make good passes and read the floor
Do it Mitch! Trade Kwame for SOMEONE GOOD!
-
Telfaire
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,201
- And1: 58
- Joined: Jan 09, 2005
But the same could be said about Ben Gordon or any of those guys. Gordon has almost been the definition of inconsistency. True, he can go off for 38 points, but he's just as likely to go 6-21 with a bunch of turn-overs.
True, but what we have to consider is this - Gordon serves as the Bulls' best scoring option, with no real threat from inside. Playing alongside Roy, LMA and Oden, Gordon would get much more high percentage shots.
Question is, would it be worth it to give him the money he's looking for? maybe he'll settle for less and sign a 3-4 years deal, hoping to raise his stock with us.
Return to Portland Trail Blazers