Blazers after Greg Monroe

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Natebishop3 said:
I would trade Wes because I think Wes is going to get overpaid next summer. Better to trade him now as part of a deal that helps the team long term. Someone is going to give him some stupid contract, especially with the overall lack of talent in free agency next summer.
Click to expand...

You want to trade every player on the Blazers, lol.
 
Draco said:
If I were coaching the Blazers I'd have Wesley Matthews shoot an open corner 3 pointer every possession. Our coaches must be idiots!
Click to expand...

If they could get open corner 3s every possession they would take them. They'd be stupid not to.
 
riverman said:
That'll build some Spurs like chemistry
Click to expand...

You know, everyone talks about the Spurs chemistry, but I think people undersell the fact that they have arguably the best power forward of all time. Plus, Pop is probably the second best coach to Phil Jackson in our era.
 
Draco said:
How did the Blazers beat the Rockets four times then? The Rockets only shoot 3's and layup the two most efficient areas on a basketball court.
Click to expand...

Your question is a total non sequitur. The fact is that shots in the paint and 3 pointers are much more efficient than mid range shots. This is not a debatable point, it's a mathematical fact.

Where a shot can be taken is another matter, a less efficient shot should only be taken if a team can't get a better one. And with teams gearing their defense to defend the 3 and paint (like the blazers), of course you take a mid range every once in awhile. But when your star's favorite shot is a low percentage shot, and you call his number to be the primary option, I think you have a problem. LA got incredibly hot with a low percentage shot in the Houston series, which is a big reason why we won.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You know, everyone talks about the Spurs chemistry, but I think people undersell the fact that they have arguably the best power forward of all time. Plus, Pop is probably the second best coach to Phil Jackson in our era.
Click to expand...
no coincidence that coach and power forward have been together for almost two decades eh?
 
Even if you throw 3 pointers out of the equation, LaMarcus 2pt FG% would is only better than 1 team in the NBA, the bottom ranked Bulls (by .4%)
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Locking up Monroe for 4 yrs oppose to maybe having Batum for only 2 yrs. Still love the starting unit and hate to see that broken up, but what you say makes sense to me. Wish I knew more about Monroe, but that is what Olshey is for
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.
 
Sinobas said:
Even if you throw 3 pointers out of the equation, LaMarcus 2pt FG% would is only better than 1 team in the NBA, the bottom ranked Bulls (by .4%)
Click to expand...

Neat story bro.... Amazing he's a all star and all NBA player. The dude shouldn't even break the D league
 
Natebishop3 said:
You know, everyone talks about the Spurs chemistry, but I think people undersell the fact that they have arguably the best power forward of all time. Plus, Pop is probably the second best coach to Phil Jackson in our era.
Click to expand...

I tend to think chemistry is bunk--used as a gap-filler for why a team is good, rather than actually being the reason they're good--BUT Parker and Manu and Duncan have all signed team-friendly deals and just as importantly the Spurs have been able to add guys who are willing to play roles and fit in. Who was the last Spur that was remotely a troublemaker? Stephen Jackson way back in the day?

They find guys who fit their system in terms of play/style/capabilities and personality. Whether that's good coaching and/or GMing and/or chemistry... I don't know, but they have something going on outside of the big three.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
I tend to think chemistry is bunk--used as a gap-filler for why a team is good, rather than actually being the reason they're good--BUT Parker and Manu and Duncan have all signed team-friendly deals and just as importantly the Spurs have been able to add guys who are willing to play roles and fit in. Who was the last Spur that was remotely a troublemaker? Stephen Jackson way back in the day?

They find guys who fit their system in terms of play/style/capabilities and personality. Whether that's good coaching and/or GMing and/or chemistry... I don't know, but they have something going on outside of the big three.

Ed O.
Click to expand...
I define chemistry in part as guys who fit a coaches system in terms of play, style, capability and personality. There's no denying how a team jells with instincts about each other that are second nature. Same as a good band, they just know where they're going at all times. I think the new look Blazers are on exactly that track.
 
riverman said:
I define chemistry in part as guys who fit a coaches system in terms of play, style, capability and personality. There's no denying how a team jells with instincts about each other that are second nature. Same as a good band, they just know where they're going at all times. I think the new look Blazers are on exactly that track.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. I have been in bands that had technically great musicians. I'm talking amazing individual talent. The band never gelled and making songs took forever.

My last band I was in had amazing chemistry. We had moments of writing 20-30 songs in a few months. All of us were decent musicians, but not even close to amazing. We had chemistry.
 
Ed O said:
I tend to think chemistry is bunk--used as a gap-filler for why a team is good, rather than actually being the reason they're good--BUT Parker and Manu and Duncan have all signed team-friendly deals and just as importantly the Spurs have been able to add guys who are willing to play roles and fit in. Who was the last Spur that was remotely a troublemaker? Stephen Jackson way back in the day?

They find guys who fit their system in terms of play/style/capabilities and personality. Whether that's good coaching and/or GMing and/or chemistry... I don't know, but they have something going on outside of the big three.
Click to expand...

Chemistry is no random accident. It's imposed by a strong Coach, who is willing to change his system to fit his players, but beyond that takes no guff.

This is why I should be Coach.
 
jlprk said:
Chemistry is no random accident. It's imposed by a strong Coach, who is willing to change his system to fit his players, but beyond that takes no guff.

This is why I should be Coach.
Click to expand...

The state mental hospital has a team?
 
Sinobas said:
Your question is a total non sequitur. The fact is that shots in the paint and 3 pointers are much more efficient than mid range shots. This is not a debatable point, it's a mathematical fact.

Where a shot can be taken is another matter, a less efficient shot should only be taken if a team can't get a better one. And with teams gearing their defense to defend the 3 and paint (like the blazers), of course you take a mid range every once in awhile. But when your star's favorite shot is a low percentage shot, and you call his number to be the primary option, I think you have a problem. LA got incredibly hot with a low percentage shot in the Houston series, which is a big reason why we won.
Click to expand...
How do you generate open 3 point shots and easy points in the paint? A key is having quality mid range jump shooting spreading out the defense and giving the offense spacing.
 
Draco said:
How do you generate open 3 point shots and easy points in the paint? A key is having quality mid range jump shooting spreading out the defense and giving the offense spacing.
Click to expand...

Spurs completely killed us because they had great mid range shooting.
 
This season, they brought back their core (and the best defensive lineup in the league) with one more year together in their system. Though no player averaged 30 minutes per game, they again ranked in the top five in defensive efficiency. And in the Western Conference playoffs, they got those “stops on demand,” holding the offenses of both the Portland Trail Blazers and Oklahoma City Thunder well under their regular season efficiency marks and setting up a Finals rematch.
The Miami Heat have gone in the opposite direction in the last two years. After ranking in the top five defensively in their first two seasons together, the Heat ranked seventh last season and 11th this year.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/


Not saying the spurs offense wasn't great. . . . with the way the spurs ate up everyone in the playoffs, it was both their defense and their offense that was a thing of beauty.
 
bamatrailblazer said:
Tony Parker killed us in all areas. He was the key to them beating us. He didn't miss.
Click to expand...
But he was injured and played less than one half with little impact in their series clinching win.

We got so dominated you could remove any single player or any single advantage their team had over us and we still lose. Can't remember ever seeing that in a playoff series in NBA history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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