PCmor7
Generational Poster
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,165
- Likes
- 12,066
- Points
- 113
I just did a couple of posts earlier.
He played 500 minutes on a 68-win team, which then cut him. The Thunder cut him. His shooting numbers were awful, significantly worse than Rupert's. His scoring average is lower than Rupert's. He's three year's older than Rupert. Rupert has a 19-point, 10-rebound game on his resume. Jones' career high is 13 and he did that in a game where he played more than 36 minutes. Rupert has twice as many double-figure scoring games than Jones in a little less than twice as many games. Love's played eight games and already has a scoring game better than Dillon Jones' career-high.
The Blazers could have picked up Jones on a two-way contract, but they didn't. The Thunder let him go.
And, no, that was not the point/issue. You're moving the goalposts, probably because you actually took a couple of minutes and looked into Dillon Jones' qualifications. The point/issue was that Dillon Jones needs to be a clear-cut improvement on what the Blazers already have, but he's not that and we actually have data that shows he's probably worse, while the players we'd be replacing to have him eat some minutes have a) better numbers and b) more upside. You can argue they don't have significantly better numbers or significantly better upside, but that doesn't matter, because you were the one arguing that he was. All I had to do was make the argument that he wasn't, and it's silly to argue for Dillon Jones for the 14th spot on your roster over a guy that's done more for your team and is three years younger.
Again, if you want to argue the Blazers could have better players at the end of their bench than Rayan Rupert, that's entertainable. It might be right. It's probably right. But I've asked for people we could sign to replace Rupert and no one has an answer. The thing is, Dillon Jones has a sample size and there's nothing to suggest he's even slightly better.
