Skip to main content

Do the Nuggets hate me?

They probably do.

No idea why. But what other conclusion can I draw when the team elects to celebrate its biggest game of the year (the return of Carmelo) by starting Steve Blake?

I feel like I was too easy on the Nuggets for the acquistion of Blake or, more appropriately, for the disacquistion of Earl Boykins. Boykins was everything a team would want in a bench player, with all the strut of a superstar.

The team tried to spin Blake's arrival as a positive, as he gave the Nuggets something they'd missed for years-a pass-first, push-the-tempo point guard. Unfortunately, Blake's buzz cut calls to mind an obvious comparison for Nuggets fans-he's Jon Barry, minus the talent. (That is not a compliment.)

(Besides, the need for a little man skilled at passing seemed filled when we traded for that other guard last month.)

Anyway, it's hardly Blake's fault the Nuggets organization only pretends to care about winning. The bigger story tonight was /is (the game's still on), of course, Carmelo.

Marcus Camby tossed an alley-oop to 'Melo for a lay-in and the first two points of the game. Color commentator Scott Hastings said that your first basket is big, because it's nice "to know you're not gonna be held scoreless." Comments like these make you think Hastings was some kind of scrub in the NBA.

Carmelo was pretty solid for missing so much time. What were the other positives from tonight's game?

  • Allen Iverson's still fine with deferring to Carmelo, if you're wondering, and almost to a fault. He passed up on an easy early lay-up to dish it to Carmelo for a more difficult shot.
  • The Nuggets played with energy and, as of the end of the third quarter, have handled the Grizzlies fairly easily. Ed Najera even annoyed me less than usual-I think I'm finally get used to rooting for him.

The negatives?

  • Carmelo's not in game shape anymore, which is hardly surprising. I don't think any amount of running adequately prepares you for the fast pace and constant change of direction of an NBA game. He looked tired only a few minutes in. But that's no big deal because it won't last.
  • Iverson has picked up some bad habits over the years-he can be a lazy defender and sometimes loiters on offense on the rare occasion he's not part of the play. But you can tell from some of the plays he tries that he's bored out there. For a January game against Memphis, I'm not sure I really blame him. It's not the ideal attitude to have, but he knows when to turn it on, and besides, it hasn't kept Shaq ringless.

In other words, the positives far outweigh the minor negatives. It's just too bad the Earl won't be along for the ride.

(Blake just picked up his tenth assist on a fine pass to Carmelo down low. Maybe it'll be okay after all.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
blake is awesome, guess you didn't see him play for MD
Anonymous said…
How far do the Nuggets go and why isn't JR starting? the whole Blake joke really isn't that funny.
Mike said…
How's the Kool-Aid? The only reason the Nuggets have Steve Blake is that he doesn't get paid very much. The trade of Boykins was so obviously a move to cut salary and just as clearly not a move to improve the team. How can anyone say otherwise?

Like I said, it's not Blake's fault the Nuggets don't care as much as other teams about winning. But to suggest the trade for him is anything other than a slap in the face to Nuggets fans, who had to put up with so much losing in the past, is absurd. (Not to bash Blake, but I did see him at Maryland, and never thought he'd be a great NBA player-he's surely no Boykins.)

I have no idea why Blake started ahead of J.R. Smith, especially since A.I. ran the offense often even with Blake on the floor. (In other words, it wasn't so A.I. wouldn't have to play point.) That's all I'm saying-why start him? Right now, all he does is remind me of that awful Boykins trade, and why ruin it when I'm trying to celebrate 'Melo's return?

I think the Nuggets are still shy of the Spurs, who've faltered a little, and at least a hair behind the Suns and Mavericks. It's possible they could go as far as the Western Conference Finals, but I think that would take some lucky breaks.
Bro T said…
On the other hand, John, Blake probably won't take as many bad shots as Boykins and, on the defensive end, can't be posted up quite as easily as Earl. With Earl being a shoot first guy, the flow of other four players didn't keep up. Although Blake's not as fast individually, others are moving without the ball the flow seems better.
Mike said…
You have a good point about Earl's style of play-on the other hand, despite their billing as a running team, the Nuggets really haven't had any reserves who could score. So the Earl sort of needed to carry the offensive load when he was in, especially when Carmelo was on the bench.

Since either AI or Carmelo should always be on the floor now, you may be right that Blake could become a better fit chemistry-wise. Again, I don't hate Steve Blake and would love to see him star here. But I can't shake the feeling this was mostly a financial move, and I can't excuse that. That's why it's easy to love the Broncos-sometimes they do stuff that's stupid, but there's no doubt that they always try to win.
Bro T said…
Dish has a free NBA preview this week for their all games pass. I caught three or four offensive possessions of the Sixers-Cavs game. Andre Miller was walking the ball up the court in a half-court set. I'll bet AI was really glad to get out of that mess.... The Nuggets/Jazz game tomorrow should have a playoff atmosphere.
Mike said…
Yeah, AI's got to be on cloud nine.

I still don't think the Jazz are as good as their record, but they're very good at home. If we can win in Utah, that'll be huge.

Popular posts from this blog

National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!

If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place! Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother. Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven...

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview : Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note. Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them. As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why? "Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway. Humble...

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...