Ant/Dame/CJ Thought

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
GrandpaBlaze

GrandpaBlaze

Predictions Game Master
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
8,175
Likes
9,242
Points
113
I am excited to see the growth of Anfernee but while it seems as though he has been, to a degree, positioned as the second coming of Dame, I am starting to think differently - I think he is more the second coming of CJ.

Thus, with that thought in mind, I thought "What if we start Ant with Dame in the backcourt and bring in CJ to run with the second unit and help with "staggering". CJ is no Dame but he has, at times when Dame has been out, shown the ability to distribute and orchestrate.

I think by slightly weakening our starting five (Ant for CJ) it can significantly strengthen our second unit (with CJ acting as more a distributor and enabling him to use his skills and wiles against second units.

Probably things I haven't considered but an off-the-top of my head thought.

Reasonable or not?

Gramps...
 
Yes! By the way , that could strengthen the starting unit.
 
Kinda already doing that. Players have this thing about starting. Only way around it is to start em the first 5 mins of the 1st and 3rd quarters, and then bring em back in for all the second.
 
Yep if the reasoning is just for staggering their minutes, it is already happening without sending CJ to the bench. He leaves early and comes in with the bench. I also think that Baze deserves the first crack off the bench when CJ sits. So Dame, Baze and Hood can be in there together.

Then when the 2nd qtr starts you have CJ, Simons, Baze, Mario and.........? ( preferably Collins )
 
Like CJ, it's going to take Ant a while before his defense is passable.
 
I just cannot see putting Simons in against other teams starting back courts. The Blazers would start every game in a hole. Maybe in time but right now he would get smoked and the first quarter sets the tone of the game.
Okay you might be able to pull this off against teams like the Knicks or even the Kings but lets be honest here. The Nuggets, Jazz or even the Thunder would be a bad idea.
 
CJ would never agree to come off the bench and let Ant start.
 
kjironman1 said:
I just cannot see putting Simons in against other teams starting back courts. The Blazers would start every game in a hole. Maybe in time but right now he would get smoked and the first quarter sets the tone of the game.
Okay you might be able to pull this off against teams like the Knicks or even the Kings but lets be honest here. The Nuggets, Jazz or even the Thunder would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Huh? Why? You really think Simons is that bad that Portland would start every game in a hole?
 
GrandpaBlaze said:
I am excited to see the growth of Anfernee but while it seems as though he has been, to a degree, positioned as the second coming of Dame, I am starting to think differently - I think he is more the second coming of CJ.

Thus, with that thought in mind, I thought "What if we start Ant with Dame in the backcourt and bring in CJ to run with the second unit and help with "staggering". CJ is no Dame but he has, at times when Dame has been out, shown the ability to distribute and orchestrate.

I think by slightly weakening our starting five (Ant for CJ) it can significantly strengthen our second unit (with CJ acting as more a distributor and enabling him to use his skills and wiles against second units.

Probably things I haven't considered but an off-the-top of my head thought.

Reasonable or not?

Gramps...
Click to expand...
This makes 0 sense. We can stagger CJ to play him with the bench. Playing CJ less minutes isnt going to help. Playing him his normal minutes off the bench will either gas him or defeat any logic behind bringing him off the bench anyway. Bringing him off the bench has no positives compared to staggering him. He and Dame have chemistry.

Why do people still talk about bringing CJ off the bench as a good option? Why do people discuss it as if itd be hypothetically possible?
 
BonesJones said:
Huh? Why? You really think Simons is that bad that Portland would start every game in a hole?
Click to expand...
kjironman1 said:
Please start reading comments completely and understanding the meaning before responding.
Click to expand...
kjironman1 said:
I just cannot see putting Simons in against other teams starting back courts. The Blazers would start every game in a hole. Maybe in time but right now he would get smoked and the first quarter sets the tone of the game.
Okay you might be able to pull this off against teams like the Knicks or even the Kings but lets be honest here. The Nuggets, Jazz or even the Thunder would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Please remember what the fuck you type.
 
Guys, can someone help me out? Can "the Blazers would start every game in a hole" mean something other than the Blazers starting every game in a hole?
 
BonesJones said:
Guys, can someone help me out? Can "the Blazers would start every game in a hole" mean something other than the Blazers starting every game in a hole?
Click to expand...
No what you have in quotations only means what you have there.
However. There is a thing called "Taking a statement out of context" maybe you should read the entire statement?
Here i will post it again and i will darken specific parts that have meaning in the original statement.
kjironman1 said:
I just cannot see putting Simons in against other teams starting back courts. The Blazers would start every game in a hole. Maybe in time but right now he would get smoked and the first quarter sets the tone of the game.
Okay you might be able to pull this off against teams like the Knicks or even the Kings but lets be honest here. The Nuggets, Jazz or even the Thunder would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

How about we also add the Mavs. It would be a bad idea against that team also. You see how easy that is? It's really not that complicated.
If i were to write in words you could read better would that help? Lol, LMAO, Sigh, R U :-) now.
This isn't just me kid. Read the entire statement and give people a chance to express their opinion. Then here is another piece of advice.

THIS Right Here is just SAD
BonesJones said:
Guys, can someone help me out?
Click to expand...
Fight your own battles. Calling for support on here makes you look like a clown.
 
kjironman1 said:
No what you have in quotations only means what you have there.
However. There is a thing called "Taking a statement out of context" maybe you should read the entire statement?
Here i will post it again and i will darken specific parts that have meaning in the original statement.


How about we also add the Mavs. It would be a bad idea against that team also. You see how easy that is? It's really not that complicated.
If i were to write in words you could read better would that help? Lol, LMAO, Sigh, R U :-) now.
This isn't just me kid. Read the entire statement and give people a chance to express their opinion. Then here is another piece of advice.

THIS Right Here is just SAD

Fight your own battles. Calling for support on here makes you look like a clown.
Click to expand...
The clown is the guy saying what he said isnt actually what he meant and arguing stuff he made up. Thats just stupid. You do a horrible job of explaining what you apparently mean, which is why I literally asked you a question by quoting yourself back to you. Let people say their opinion? I literally asked you a question by quoting your opinion back to you. Yet you decided to give your usual passive agressive response. So screw off. I'm not here for your weird mid-life crisis, either.
 
Last edited:
Communication 101 for anyone struggling:

If you don't mean "we'd start every game in a hole", then dont say "we'd start every game in a hole". If you say that, then people might think that you mean the team would start every game in a hole. If you do make that mistake, don't be passive aggressive when questioned.

I'll let this guy continue his ego trip. I'm grabbing some popcorn.:bwpopcorn:
 
Last edited:
BonesJones said:
Guys, can someone help me out? Can "the Blazers would start every game in a hole" mean something other than the Blazers starting every game in a hole?
Click to expand...

I can definitely say this, three games in and some folks around here are already in “a hole” character.
 
For the proposed question, I think it would have made sense 2 years ago (if we had a guy like Simons and what he projects to be sometime within the next 6 months to 2 years). CJ's hot and cold game seemed better suited as a 6th man, and I thought he was a 6th man on a championship contending team and not a starter. But I think in the last two years he's found ways to still contribute when his shot isn't falling making him less of an anchor. No way does it make sense at the moment. When Simons gets to their level, might be worth looking into, although Simons would be a good 6th man for all the same reasons as CJ. I guess you start whoever is better at that point. Maybe it plays out similarly to Clyde, Porter, and Strickland. Hopefully, with better results.
 
Drttimmy said:
For the proposed question, I think it would have made sense 2 years ago (if we had a guy like Simons and what he projects to be sometime within the next 6 months to 2 years). CJ's hot and cold game seemed better suited as a 6th man, and I thought he was a 6th man on a championship contending team and not a starter. But I think in the last two years he's found ways to still contribute when his shot isn't falling making him less of an anchor. No way does it make sense at the moment. When Simons gets to their level, might be worth looking into, although Simons would be a good 6th man for all the same reasons as CJ. I guess you start whoever is better at that point. Maybe it plays out similarly to Clyde, Porter, and Strickland. Hopefully, with better results.
Click to expand...
Agree with this take.
 
e_blazer said:
I can definitely say this, three games in and some folks around here are already in “a hole” character.
Click to expand...
Bam!
You are right. i will try to calm the "A-Hole" statements down. Gonna be a long season.
 
Call me crazy (and you probably will), but I really feel like Portland and Philly are destined to make a trade to balance out both rosters. They have a surplus of high quality bigs. We have a surplus of quality guards. Different conferences, same win-now timeline (while Embiid is still healthy). It all just kind of lines up.

After Dec 15 both CJ and Tobias Harris are tradeable. Portland could start Ant or just give him a more featured role off the bench by starting Bazemore.

Of course, I've been predicting a trade between Portland and Philly for around 3 years now. Kind of reminds me of the saying that economists have predicted 8 of the last 3 recessions. :) I'm bound to be right eventually!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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