After a strong preseason, what should the Blazer's goal be this year?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
wizenheimer said:
in his first 5 seasons, he played on teams that won 35, 39, and 41 games

but do you believe he'd been a better player or had healthier knees if he'd played on teams that averaged 45 wins?
Click to expand...

Better player, yes.

I think Carmelo Anthony could have been a better player if he had better coaching earlier in his career.
 
kjironman1 said:
Two edged sword? Might get them the most back out of the trade in a very strong draft?
Click to expand...
Simons & Grant don't have the potential to net us the potential difference between a 12 pick and a top three pick.

It would be nice if they could, but I just can't make that math work in my head.
 
kjironman1 said:
I think his whole attitude problem was part of the people he played with yes. I wonder if he had better leadership around him if he would have handled the rehab differently and extended his career?
Click to expand...

you mean better leadership like Simons and Ayton?

by the way, I know you're not a big advocate for either player. But if they aren't winning type leading players, and evidence is they aren't even close, I don't understand why there is so much resistance to the arguments for organically tanking after trading them
 
PCmor7 said:
I think a lot of that depends on a couple of things: First, where are the Blazers and second, what's the market for Simons and Grant?

Trading off players who are playing well just for unknowns isn't the way to build a winning team. Don't presume if you have the worst record that you're going to have the first pick, don't presume that top pick is going to turn out to be measurably better than the seventh and don't presume any of them are going to be better players or better for your organization than the players you're jettisoning.
Click to expand...
But the odds of getting a better player in the top seven are far better than turning Grant or Simons into that kind of player.

These odds don't even compare. It's not close.
 
kjironman1 said:
Something tells me they will probably move Grant but maybe keep Simons? I have absolutely no reason to think that other than just the way it appears to me.
Click to expand...
That's the way it appears to me as well. And that is pretty discouraging, honestly.

Hopefully having Great defenders at every other position will be enough to make up for his lack of defense... But he really needs to become a better playmaker as well...

Maybe his value will increase if it looks like we're on a winning team... Who knows.

Again, I'll enjoy the wins if we're able to win. But I'll always regret not taking the opportunity to dip deep into the draft one or two more times, if indeed that's what happens.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Better player, yes.

I think Carmelo Anthony could have been a better player if he had better coaching earlier in his career.
Click to expand...

the Nuggets records in the first 7 full seasons Melo spent there:

2003-04 43-39
2004-05 49-33
2005-06 44-38
2006-07 45-37
2007-08 50-32
2008-09 54-28
2009-10 53-29

he was in the playoffs every one of those 7 seasons. And George Karl was his coach for 5 of those seasons. Karl was a pretty good coach
 
BTW, back to the players that failed because they landed in bad situations, I think it's fair to look at the inverse to that.

How many players do you think we look at as stars or at least very, very good players because they stepped into situations where they had good coaching, good FOs and some good mentorship on the team?

You easily could make a list of players that were terrific in winning seasons, parlayed that into a nice contract but went to a bad organization and never did anything there.
 
my perspective is that players show up in the NBA with the talent and character to succeed...or they don't.

and the people here advocating for good coaching (with good reason) as the key should be advocating for Billups to be fired
 
wizenheimer said:
you mean better leadership like Simons and Ayton?

by the way, I know you're not a big advocate for either player. But if they aren't winning type leading players, and evidence is they aren't even close, I don't understand why there is so much resistance to the arguments for organically tanking after trading them
Click to expand...
Could be players combined with coaches. Not certain obviously but I think he would have benefited from better leadership.
 
wizenheimer said:
my perspective is that players show up in the NBA with the talent and character to succeed...or they don't.
Click to expand...

That's demonstrably untrue, though, isn't it?

Chauncey's one of the best examples of that. Third overall pick played for three teams in his first three years. Then won an NBA title and just got inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Did Skrulls replace him?
 
PCmor7 said:
That's demonstrably untrue, though, isn't it?

Chauncey's one of the best examples of that. Third overall pick played for three teams in his first three years. Then won an NBA title and just got inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Did Skrulls replace him?
Click to expand...

what is "demonstrably untrue"?

I said players arrive with the talent and character they carry thru their careers; and that losing early in their careers doesn't significantly impact the talent and character they arrived with

Chauncey's team records his first few years:

36-46
16-66
14-36
35-47

he was 23 by then

according to the theory advocated in this thread, by some, Chauncey should have been a loser after a start like that
 
wizenheimer said:
what is "demonstrably untrue"?

I said players arrive with the talent and character they carry thru their careers; and that losing early in their careers doesn't significantly impact the talent and character they arrived with

Chauncey's team records his first few years:

36-46
16-66
14-36
35-47

he was 23 by then

according to the theory advocated in this thread, by some, Chauncey should have been a loser after a start like that
Click to expand...

That's not what anyone is saying.
 
The Blazers don't seem to be committed to any path. It's like they see if they are any good, then if not they start tanking. I think they're going to attempt the same experiment this year.
 
Chris Craig said:
That's not what anyone is saying.
Click to expand...

then I must have misunderstood this:

Chris Craig said:
How many years can you tank and it not affect the players you are developing negatively?
Click to expand...

and this:

kjironman1 said:
Exactly. Is this team going to trot out Shaedon Sharpe for another full year and tell him to lose or he gets shut down? And then use the excuse of " We need to draft a player that will be great so you can play second fiddle to them".
At what point do you let the chips fall where they may?
Click to expand...

I have said repeatedly I don't want any more blatant tanks when an effective organic tank is available

I want Portland to dump (yes, dump, for some value) the veterans that will only generate some extra wins damaging to Portland draft prospects. Then let the players who might actually be part of a future core (Sharpe-Scoot-Clingan-Deni) sink or swim as starters with major minutes. If those players generate too many wins for a top-5 pick, OK. But to have Simons-Grant-Ayton generate those wins is stupid...IMO
 
beast blazer said:
The Blazers don't seem to be committed to any path. It's like they see if they are any good, then if not they start tanking. I think they're going to attempt the same experiment this year.
Click to expand...

I think it's probably the prudent thing, because teams don't typically go from 20 wins to 50. Improvement's measured incrementally. It might not even be in wins.

I've posted this before, that this team could be A LOT better this season and it still probably winds up in the lottery just because there are so many good, proven teams in the West. But that's good for the Blazers, because these guys get seasoning and there'll be a nice addition to the mix next year either in the form of a lottery pick or a trade using that pick, and one would expect that with that and just the experience they're getting that the team would be even better the following season.
 
PCmor7 said:
That's demonstrably untrue, though, isn't it?

Chauncey's one of the best examples of that. Third overall pick played for three teams in his first three years. Then won an NBA title and just got inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Did Skrulls replace him?
Click to expand...
Just to bolster your argument there's this one guy Steve Nash who came into the league as a 22 year old college graduate after playing four years of lower level D1 ball. Nash struggled to be productive for his first four seasons, getting little playing time his first two seasons and then had a harder time being efficient as a starter in his third and fourth seasons. His fifth season he was third place for MIP. After that he was a perennial all star, won the MVP twice, all nba 6 times and the NBA assists leader 5 times. An all time great having a rocky start during his first four seasons after four years in college all but disproves the notion that NBA player shows up with the talent and character to succeed or they don't and Nash is just the most extreme example.
 
Strenuus said:
Losing as many games as possible is the only correct answer.

There's no argument to anything else.
Click to expand...

There is always an argument for losing on purpose.

Their first 13 games are really tough. (New Orleans 3 times and Minnesota 3 times) I don't think they need to try to lose. They will regardless.

However, if some strange unseen phenomena were to occur and they go 13-0...can they then try? How about 10-3?
I know it is a moot point because they won't, but I have no problem sitting on that fence for a while.
 
Everything Beagle said:
83 games is better than 82 games, period
Click to expand...
Yes. And getting as many more past 82 as often as possible is better than getting 86 once over a decade and then having to start rebuilding again.

The players should always be playing to win. But there is not one championship team outside of destination markets in the last 20 years that has made every move to win every game they possibly could every season.

That's simply not how winners are built in the NBA anymore.

The math doesn't math.
 
Forge a team identity. There is no superstars on this roster so it has to be something else. Defense, toughness, won’t quit?? Take your pick
 
You don't get to the top of the mountain in the NBA without a super-star.

The Blazers need to figure out if Shaedon Sharpe is one of those. There are other players who could be good 2nd options.

I guess Scoot could be a #1 super-star someday but right now he's barely a backup.

Anyway, if there is no #1 super-star option , figuring out of which should be Coach Billups #1 job, then the Blazers should be tanking again.
 
blazerfan11 said:
You don't get to the top of the mountain in the NBA without a super-star.

The Blazers need to figure out if Shaedon Sharpe is one of those. There are other players who could be good 2nd options.

I guess Scoot could be a #1 super-star someday but right now he's barely a backup.

Anyway, if there is no #1 super-star option , figuring out of which should be Coach Billups #1 job, then the Blazers should be tanking again.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can squint enough to see Scoot as a super-star

thinking about Curry, Morant, Doncic, SGA, Fox in the west, Haliburton, Brunson, Dame, Young, Lamelo in the east. It's hard enough to see Scoot as even a all-star level player...or top-10 PG. Maybe that last hurdle is achievable. Right now, the only superstar possibility is Sharpe and his glow has faded quite a bit.

Clingan may eventually enter the DPOY discussion, but that's a way off and he's not the kind of player that can lead a team to the promised land
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top