CJ taking it to another level

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
kjironman1 said:
Hood was open BECAUSE of CJ attacking
Click to expand...
TRUE
kjironman1 said:
and taking that shot.
Click to expand...
FALSE. The vast majority of people who have criticism of CJ is that he doesn't make the right basketball play enough.

Attacking the basket is good. If players converge, then kick it out to the open player. If they don't, then take the shot.

He just takes way too many contested, difficult shots. He tends to seek them out.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Because I'm looking at big scoring games. Not averages. Dame doesn't average 50 points either, does he? People are talking about CJ today because he put up 41 points last night, but I'm trying to illustrate how inefficient that game was compared to other huge playoff games recently.

CJ has a ton of talent, and he can take over a game and make shots that most people can't make... but I just want the guy to not tunnel vision so much. I don't see why that's so controversial. Just because you hit your last two shots doesn't mean you need to start jacking up shots with three guys on you.
Click to expand...

No, what you are doing is taking one of the greatest playoff games in the history of the NBA and nit picking ONE player. Was Lillard efficient last night? Denver plays tough defense which has had a lot to do with the team struggling shooting at times just like Denver has struggled due to our defense. I have just never understood after a great game how some want to be a debbie downer. I guess if that's what you enjoy doing knock yourself out, but expect all the responses you have got regarding this thread. Getting all pissy and cussing doesn't accomplish anything does it?
 
tester551 said:
That's completely the wrong question. Great basketball teams share the ball with lits of movement - not iso ball.

Having different action is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Then you have to change the whole history of basketball.

There's more than one way to have a great basketball team. More often than not, the teams that win it all have had guys that were outstanding iso players. They still might move a lot with the ball, but if it was all about sharing the ball and moving without it, the Hawks at least would have been in the finals a couple of years ago. The teams with Jordan, Kobe, LeBron and Durant aren't winning mainly because they are moving the ball well. The Spurs might still be good with a serviceable PF instead of Tim Duncan, but they probably aren't winning multiple NBA titles with one of the Morris twins playing on the block instead of him.

It's a huge asset to having someone who can break down the defense for a couple of reasons. First, if you don't have a guy who can beat his own defender, the defense never has to adjust and rotate and get out of position. You have to rely totally on off-ball screening and movement to get the defenders out of position and off-balance. Second, even if that guy who draws multiple defenders takes a tough shot, he's also given his teammates better offensive rebounding opportunities.
 
PCmor7 said:
Kind of picky, don't you think? I mean there were other guys that played close to 60 minutes or more last night. None of them scored 41.

I already mentioned that CJ's improved his game. But sometimes it does affect their strengths. If their strength is as a shot-creator and scorer and you tell them you want them to give the ball up more, it's definitely going to affect their strength. I know, not exactly the point you were getting at ... but the point holds. It's like telling Giannis you want him to work on his perimeter shooting and you think it's not going to have an impact on his rebounding or scoring in the paint. It almost certainly will diminish that to some extent.

You and others create a false equivalency by using Dame. Dame is an extraordinary talent. He's in the most rarified of air in making adjustments and improvement to his game. No one is saying CJ is Dame. But if Dame is your benchmark only a handful of other players are even in the discussion. Someone else in this thread used Durant's absurd playoff stats and Dame's absurd playoff stats to diminish CJ's playoff productivity. If you expect any Blazers' improvement or performance to meet the bar Dame or Durant set, you are never going to be satisfied.

And I've always said if you trade CJ you need to get someone back of greater or at least equal value, and I don't think there are as many players we could get for him that would make the Blazers a better team. Sometimes it's about fit, not efficiency, and I think we have a lot of fans who don't value what CJ is because they are much too busy taking a magnifying glass to what he is not.
Click to expand...

I think you are mixing up the message. Reading the defense and making the best decision for the highest percentage shot is not the same as give the ball up more.

I don't disagree with some of the things you have said, other than the foundation of this conversation that its not okay to discuss his faults and how he could/should improve.

That is what brought me into it.

I dont agree with everything bones or nate have said. Some yes, some no. But when they are told they should not discuss this and are basically told to just shut up and enjoy the positives, thats where i said to whoa the horses.
He is fully within his right to break down the plays of the game and point out areas that could use improvement.

The world isn't always roses and sunshine aNd even on the aftermath of a great game, its okay to discuss how we could have and hope to make it greater next time snd that discussion involves players improving play.

Or.. nate could start a counter thread about how cj should improve his game so sunshine posters don't have a tissyfit with opposing opinions? (Not saying you had a tissufit)
Lol just sayin. Nobody should have an issue with Nate's take and if they do the issue i think, is thiers. Not Nates.
 
kjironman1 said:
He also made a couple nifty passes to shooters and the shots didn't fall Nate.
I just have a hard time tearing the guy down because he took on the load and put everything out there on the court.
He made a great pass to Aminu at the three point line twice and Aminu missed both. After that i can understand maybe not doing it a third time.
I think i remember a dish to harkless also for a dunk at the end of regulation i think? Blurry on that one.
I was thinking maybe a third shooter would have helped a bit? Dame was blanketed. When Stotts took Harless out and put Hood in it worked out. Happy he found him when he did.
Click to expand...

Your post is good and it almost proves CJ did take it to another level. Not that long ago actions you pointed wouldn't take place. So, yes, CJ improved on this field.
But.
My problem with CJ is how often he goes from smart player to stupid player.
I'm so glad that Dame and CJ matured so much and Rain Bros Hero Ball is not the case anymore. Well, at least Dame has grown a lot. CJ? CJ behaviour sometimes remindes me my dog. This dog was smart as hell, but sometimes, just sometimes he couldn't resist that cat he saw. Here is your tunnel vision. It seems like CJ just can't resist sometimes - and that's why, if you ask "did he take it to another level?" I'm with "almost, not quite yet".
Let alone this Hood play, when he decided he don't see Hood - this was very bad shot, even for CJ.
Go back to 107:107 and take a look at Hero three he missed. Not only very bad shot, but really why the fuck would you take quick bad three pointer at the over time when you even? This play was just Westbrook and nothing else - and CJ does it - "Well, what the fuck, if I make, Ill be hero". This play was so stupid it was beyond me. I couldn't belive it:)

So I think Nate has the point - You can not prise CJ for 41 points and just forget his bad plays. Analising bad plays leads to improvment. Blazers got W, CJ scored 41 and good, just don't go tunnel vision on him. His celing is still not there yet.

Saying this, I love his mad skills and I love having him in our team cos his assassin mode is just pure joy to watch.
 
Hobbesarable said:
I don't know about you guys, but I'm happy our Blazers won the freaking game!!!

The weather is lovely today and I just decided to put that in this thread. Time to break out the Wookiee dance! :blazerwookie:
Click to expand...

Sitting on the porch finishing a joint staring at the yard and my phone. Bout to go dig into the yard because no one is commiting to basketball!!!

Everyones just scared of me dunking on them!!!

And my yard is really calling my name.
 
blazerboy30 said:
False.
You asses the investment and compare to the probability of a different investment outperforming moving forward.
Click to expand...

A Wallstreet analogy maybe not the best because you know your return there. Not in the nba. Still. When a players value is high your return will generally be better than a player looking like he is regressing.
So not really false, just variables to consider regarding the situational return, but the rule of thumb is sell high buy low.

That isn't wrong imo.
 
PCmor7 said:
Then you have to change the whole history of basketball.

There's more than one way to have a great basketball team. More often than not, the teams that win it all have had guys that were outstanding iso players. They still might move a lot with the ball, but if it was all about sharing the ball and moving without it, the Hawks at least would have been in the finals a couple of years ago. The teams with Jordan, Kobe, LeBron and Durant aren't winning mainly because they are moving the ball well. The Spurs might still be good with a serviceable PF instead of Tim Duncan, but they probably aren't winning multiple NBA titles with one of the Morris twins playing on the block instead of him.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing that you dont need elite talent to win (which Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, Durrant, Duncan all are/were). They all had the ability to create their own shot, but they also all had the ability to make the right basketball read and play. They would hit the open man if the defense over-committed.
 
CupWizier said:
No, what you are doing is taking one of the greatest playoff games in the history of the NBA and nit picking ONE player. Was Lillard efficient last night? Denver plays tough defense which has had a lot to do with the team struggling shooting at times just like Denver has struggled due to our defense. I have just never understood after a great game how some want to be a debbie downer. I guess if that's what you enjoy doing knock yourself out, but expect all the responses you have got regarding this thread. Getting all pissy and cussing doesn't accomplish anything does it?
Click to expand...

Because it’s a thread about CJ.....

I’m nitpicking CJ in a thread about CJ and whether he has taken his game to the next level.
 
tester551 said:
No one is arguing that you dont need elite talent to win (which Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, Durrant, Duncan all are/were). They all had the ability to create their own shot, but they also all had the ability to make the right basketball read and play. They would hit the open man if the defense over-committed.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out that most of the bulls game winning shots didn't come from jordan.
I think it was overlooked. :)
 
Natebishop3 said:
Because it’s a thread about CJ.....

I’m nitpicking CJ in a thread about CJ and whether he has taken his game to the next level.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a thread about McCollum. Doesn't mean you have to go all uber negative on him after one of the greatest wins in NBA playoff history. Without McCollum last night, we don't win the game as Lillard was virtually shut down for awhile and nobody else was hitting much and Kanter was gassed and hurting in pretty much the whole OT. For that, I say kudos to him and the team for pulling out a spectacular win. I am going to go enjoy this game with a big cheshire cat smile on my face.

images
 
Orion Bailey said:
A Wallstreet analogy maybe not the best because you know your return there. Not in the nba. Still. When a players value is high your return will generally be better than a player looking like he is regressing.
So not really false, just variables to consider regarding the situational return, but the rule of thumb is sell high buy low.

That isn't wrong imo.
Click to expand...

This is wrong.
 
CupWizier said:
Yes, it was a thread about McCollum. Doesn't mean you have to go all uber negative on him after one of the greatest wins in NBA playoff history. Without McCollum last night, we don't win the game as Lillard was virtually shut down for awhile and nobody else was hitting much and Kanter was gassed and hurting in pretty much the whole OT. For that, I say kudos to him and the team for pulling out a spectacular win. I am going to go enjoy this game with a big cheshire cat smile on my face.

images
Click to expand...

Uber negative is subjective, I guess. I think any kind of criticism against CJ would be considered Uber negative in your eyes.
 
Not sure I follow any CJ hate. Regardless if he’s taking too many shots, he plays amazing defense for his size, plus he’s a threat. Don’t forget the BRoy days when teams would pack it on Roy and forcing it out of his hands. Without CJ, the Blazers would be down this series. End of story
 
wizenheimer said:
please tell me it was a typo when you said CJ plays amazing defense
Click to expand...

At the very least he is playing average defense. And when you put average defense along with really good offense, you get a pretty damn good player. Especially last night when you considered he played 60 minutes.

The same can be said about Kanter during these playoffs. Even Doris picked up on that.
 
magnifier661 said:
Not sure I follow any CJ hate. Regardless if he’s taking too many shots, he plays amazing defense for his size, plus he’s a threat. Don’t forget the BRoy days when teams would pack it on Roy and forcing it out of his hands. Without CJ, the Blazers would be down this series. End of story
Click to expand...

Are you back, buddy?
 
What's funny is, when CJ went down in San Antonio, lots of us thought we were screwed.
But the team continued winning at the same pace as before, without missing CJ.
When CJ came back from injury, his shots selection was reasonable and he played within the flow of the offense. Curry, Hood, Jake ... all got shots.
Recently, CJ has gone back to old CJ... Yes, he scores a lot, but he shoots the team out of games as well.
CJ can do better. Terry needs to stop this nonsense. 4 assists in 60 minutes? That's embarrassing.
 
magnifier661 said:
Not sure I follow any CJ hate. Regardless if he’s taking too many shots, he plays amazing defense for his size, plus he’s a threat. Don’t forget the BRoy days when teams would pack it on Roy and forcing it out of his hands. Without CJ, the Blazers would be down this series. End of story
Click to expand...

Constructive criticism is not "hate."
 
joeBlazers said:
What's funny is, when CJ went down in San Antonio, lots of us thought we were screwed.
But the team continued winning at the same pace as before, without missing CJ.
When CJ came back from injury, his shots selection was reasonable and he played within the flow of the offense. Curry, Hood, Jake ... all got shots.
Recently, CJ has gone back to old CJ... Yes, he scores a lot, but he shoots the team out of games as well.
CJ can do better. Terry needs to stop this nonsense. 4 assists in 60 minutes? That's embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Hey, but 4 assists in 60 minutes is better than zero assists in 45 minutes :devilwink:
 
magnifier661 said:
Not sure I follow any CJ hate. Regardless if he’s taking too many shots, he plays amazing defense for his size, plus he’s a threat. Don’t forget the BRoy days when teams would pack it on Roy and forcing it out of his hands. Without CJ, the Blazers would be down this series. End of story
Click to expand...
I just dont see the dude having a "great game" when he had 41 points on 39 shots in 60 minutes. And this reaction is closer to nuetral than negative.

If he had 24 points on 10-23 shooting in 36 minutes, people would say he had a solid or decent game. Thats the level of performance he had. He had very good stretces, and some poor stretches. I dont think its reflective of him taking it to "another level".
 
BonesJones said:
I just dont see the dude having a "great game" when he had 41 points on 39 shots in 60 minutes. And this reaction is closer to nuetral than negative.

If he had 24 points on 10-23 shooting in 36 minutes, people would say he had a solid or decent game. Thats the level of performance he had. He had very good stretces, and some poor stretches. I dont think its reflective of him taking it to "another level".
Click to expand...
Your all over the place on this but i can see your point.
Problem is there were way to many variables in the way the game played out last night. So i just can't agree with your take.
 
tester551 said:
TRUE

FALSE. The vast majority of people who have criticism of CJ is that he doesn't make the right basketball play enough.

Attacking the basket is good. If players converge, then kick it out to the open player. If they don't, then take the shot.

He just takes way too many contested, difficult shots. He tends to seek them out.
Click to expand...
Point is more that he was taking and making those shots so they were collapsing on him. The reason Hood was open was because CJ had the ball and was taking a shot. Watch the video. It's plain as day.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Hey, but 4 assists in 60 minutes is better than zero assists in 45 minutes :devilwink:
Click to expand...

He’s a fucking shooting guard dude god damn he’s not going to ever lead the league in dimes sorry

Go tell Lillard to average Chris Paul assist numbers if u like that shit he’s the point guard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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