Fire Stotts Eventually (1 Viewer)

[Lanny]

I'm not saying to bench Dame, CJ, or Nurk. The 5 I mentioned could be the 2nd unit. Until last game they had been awful for awhile so I'd rather play guys with potential over guys like Leonard, Turner, and Stauskas.

Turner is a very good player.

 

[hoopsjock]

Because you are talking about playing dudes that might not even be a roster of some teams let alone playing major minutes.
That would be considered "Tanking" by most.

What? You are completely off here.

Playing the rookies wouldn't be giving minutes to players that might not be on a roster. It's called development. Last year should they have played Leonard instead of Collins down the stretch? Heck no, Collins being inserted into the lineup even though he might not have been ready is when the team started taking off. Simons might not be ready either. He probably isn't but Trent was supposed to have an NBA ready body and skill set. I don't think it's tanking to give him some minutes.

Baldwin can do everything Turner can do and showed he is at least capable of running a team in summer league.

Layman has shown to be very active in limited minutes and I think at the very least he deserves more consistent minutes to see what he can do. He fits in well with the starters because he actually moves off the ball and he also fits with the 2nd unit because he can get hot.

 

[kjironman1]

Give me an example.

It's in the thread but the basic premise was to quit playing Leonard, Turner, Stauskas. Curry and start playing Trent, Simmons and Baldwin so they can develop players.
I don't think the fan base would go for that and would consider that tanking at this point.

 

[kjironman1]

What? You are completely off here.

Playing the rookies wouldn't be giving minutes to players that might not be on a roster. It's called development. Last year should they have played Leonard instead of Collins down the stretch? Heck no, Collins being inserted into the lineup even though he might not have been ready is when the team started taking off. Simons might not be ready either. He probably isn't but Trent was supposed to have an NBA ready body and skill set. I don't think it's tanking to give him some minutes.

Baldwin can do everything Turner can do and showed he is at least capable of running a team in summer league.

Layman has shown to be very active in limited minutes and I think at the very least he deserves more consistent minutes to see what he can do. He fits in well with the starters because he actually moves off the ball and he also fits with the 2nd unit because he can get hot.

I'm not off here at all. You are explaining the exact same thing we just talked about. I already said "Play Em"
But the fan base ain't gonna like it when the losses start piling up and management aint gonna like losing either when ticket sales go down.
This whole conversation is about business and entertainment. That is what the NBA is.
You either play your best players to win or you don't.

 

[CupWizier]

Stotts has been a head coach 2 other times. We've seen him coach with different rosters.

Stotts is only a decent coach. He has a good rapoir with the players..... prefect for an assistant coach.

Those two teams he coached prior were horrible before he got there and horrible after he left so it's hard to pin that on Stotts. I have always said, with very few exceptions that coaches are hired to be fired and maybe this off season the team will make a change, but replacing him now would be a big mistake in my opinion as seldom does that ever work for the positive.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

What? You are completely off here.

Playing the rookies wouldn't be giving minutes to players that might not be on a roster. It's called development. Last year should they have played Leonard instead of Collins down the stretch? Heck no, Collins being inserted into the lineup even though he might not have been ready is when the team started taking off. Simons might not be ready either. He probably isn't but Trent was supposed to have an NBA ready body and skill set. I don't think it's tanking to give him some minutes.

Baldwin can do everything Turner can do and showed he is at least capable of running a team in summer league.

Layman has shown to be very active in limited minutes and I think at the very least he deserves more consistent minutes to see what he can do. He fits in well with the starters because he actually moves off the ball and he also fits with the 2nd unit because he can get hot.

I agree mostly except about Baldwin and ET. I dont like ET at all, but Im not sure he can do what ET does. For all his faults and there are many, ET is a good ball handler that can manuever in the paint and midrange and he is ok at find the right guy in tight spaces. Im not sure Baldwin can do any of that. I would love to see more of Baldwin in place of ET to see what he has but Im not sure he can do the same or better at this point.

 

[kjironman1]

The writing is on the wall. This team lacks talent. Lillard is good but he is not above being human.

If it was truly just a lack of talent then we should be giving a ton of minutes to Simons, Trent, Baldwin, Layman, and Collins.

Then I said this-

You will get no argument from me on that. But that would be against the NBA standards. Can you imagine the outcry if Portland showed up at games and sat their best players? Seriously. It's not just Stotts. The NBA markets teams and Lillard/CJ/Nurk are part of the marketing plan. From a totally business objective Portland only has a couple players that sell tickets. Who wants to watch the Blazers in Oklahoma without Lillard vs Westbrook?

Like i said. You will get no argument from me.
But from a business point of view it's gonna cost. Team management and the NBA in general would not like to see that.

 

[hoopsjock]

I'm not off here at all. You are explaining the exact same thing we just talked about. I already said "Play Em"
But the fan base ain't gonna like it when the losses start piling up and management aint gonna like losing either when ticket sales go down.
This whole conversation is about business and entertainment. That is what the NBA is.
You either play your best players to win or you don't.

Whoooooooosh! Over your head again.

I'm saying playing those guys DOES give us just as good of a chance to win, so we would be playing our best players.

 

[kjironman1]

Whoooooooosh! Over your head again.

I'm saying playing those guys DOES give us just as good of a chance to win, so we would be playing our best players.

You are so far off topic there is no way anyone could possibly keep up. Go back and read the thread. It's like you have too many conversation going.

 

[kjironman1]

Whoooooooosh! Over your head again.

I'm saying playing those guys DOES give us just as good of a chance to win, so we would be playing our best players.

I assume you have read now.

Exactly who's head is this over? You are talking about players capabilities when the original topic is about the business end and marketing.

 

[BonesJones]

You are so far off topic there is no way anyone could possibly keep up. Go back and read the thread. It's like you have too many conversation going.

I easily caught up. You're not understanding his point. He's saying playing or giving more minutes to some specific yet wouldn't qualify as "tanking" even though you're saying it would. He's saying it wouldn't qualify since they're not worse than guys that are already playing. You're talking about "How do you think fans would react if we started losing games because we played this guys", and he's saying "Playing these guys wouldn't lead to more losses".

 

[hoopsjock]

I agree mostly except about Baldwin and ET. I dont like ET at all, but Im not sure he can do what ET does. For all his faults and there are many, ET is a good ball handler that can manuever in the paint and midrange and he is ok at find the right guy in tight spaces. Im not sure Baldwin can do any of that. I would love to see more of Baldwin in place of ET to see what he has but Im not sure he can do the same or better at this point.

So you don't think Baldwin could match Turner's abysmal 49.3% TS%?

Or how about his terrible 19.1 TOV% which means he turns the ball over almost 1 out of every 5 times he has the ball.

I think he could potentially be better defensively too.

 

[hoopsjock]

I assume you have read now.

Exactly who's head is this over? You are talking about players capabilities when the original topic is about the business end and marketing.

I've had the same point the whole time KJ. You are the one who is trying to change my point to mean we are tanking or not thinking about the business.

And if you think just throwing out this same style of play and playing the same guys is good for any team's business model when they can't even win a playoff game then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

So you don't think Baldwin could match Turner's abysmal 49.3% TS%?

Or how about his terrible 19.1 TOV% which means he turns the ball over almost 1 out of every 5 times he has the ball.

I think he could potentially be better defensively too.

I honestly dont know. Baldwin has looked really good in short samples, I totally agree there. Theres gotta be some reason he never plays, and that Memphis cut him loose so quick. Im also not sure he’s a very willing passer. I just dont think weve seen enough to know.

 

[hoopsjock]

I honestly dont know. Baldwin has looked really good in short samples, I totally agree there. Theres gotta be some reason he never plays, and that Memphis cut him loose so quick. Im also not sure he’s a very willing passer. I just dont think weve seen enough to know.

That is kind of my point. We've seen what Turner does, right? Is that going to lead us to a WCF or even out of the 1st round (we're 0-8 in the playoffs with Turner)? Without a major trade we need someone to pop if we are going to take any steps, would you agree with that? Turner is who he is. Guys like Baldwin could still potentially breakout and be really useful players.

 

[hoopsjock]

I assume you have read now.

Exactly who's head is this over? You are talking about players capabilities when the original topic is about the business end and marketing.

You're clearly of the mindset that a lack of talent is the main culprit of the Blazers right now right?

While also arguing that the Blazers need to play that lack of talent so they don't lose business and fans?

HUH?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

That is kind of my point. We've seen what Turner does, right? Is that going to lead us to a WCF or even out of the 1st round (we're 0-8 in the playoffs with Turner)? Without a major trade we need someone to pop if we are going to take any steps, would you agree with that? Turner is who he is. Guys like Baldwin could still potentially breakout and be really useful players.

Yeah. I agree Im on board for trying young guys and letting them see what they have. I just have trepidation about Baldwin. I really would like to see Simons and Trent Jr though. Considering how much it was talked up that Trent was “NBA ready” I thought he would play more.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

You think we arent seeing youngins’ much because Stotts knows his seat is hot this year? I mean our opinions dont matter. Im sure he can read and knows he was close to being done after the Pelican series.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Are Trent, Simons, and Laymen truly inferior players to the guys ahead of them, or just less experienced? There is frequently an assumption that younger players will be less predictable/consistent than vets. Anybody watching the Blazers can see how silly that argument is. Aminu, Harkless, Turner, Leonard, Stauskas, Curry....there isn't a one of them you can honestly call consistent.

Trying to develop the younger players to replace them is a logical step in *improving* the team. How is that "tanking?" The worst case scenario is that the team continues on as it is now. The best case is that by the end of the season they have improved enough to be relevant.

If Collins/Simons/Trent are exposed as untalented as well as inexperienced - that is just another reason to kick Olshey to the curb.

 

[Orion Bailey]

You think we arent seeing youngins’ much because Stotts knows his seat is hot this year? I mean our opinions dont matter. Im sure he can read and knows he was close to being done after the Pelican series.

I do. I think he has more trust in his veteran players nad doesnt want to sacrifice any type of drop off by taking a chance on the unproven inconsistencies. THis is why im losing trust in him.
The players he seems to trust, i dont.

 

[hoopsjock]

You think we arent seeing youngins’ much because Stotts knows his seat is hot this year? I mean our opinions dont matter. Im sure he can read and knows he was close to being done after the Pelican series.

I think that's probably a logical assumption. The other is that they were so convinced in the off season that playing Turner at PG and having shooters around him would work.

 

[kjironman1]

I easily caught up. You're not understanding his point. He's saying playing or giving more minutes to some specific yet wouldn't qualify as "tanking" even though you're saying it would. He's saying it wouldn't qualify since they're not worse than guys that are already playing. You're talking about "How do you think fans would react if we started losing games because we played this guys", and he's saying "Playing these guys wouldn't lead to more losses".

Seems like you missed me saying play em also. Just understand that yours and hoops opinion are different than not just a bunch of people but a team of coaches. We aren’t talking about just Stotts. We are talking a whole coaching staff. If the idea of playing Wade Baldwin was better than playing Turner don’t you think that would have come up?
It’s kind of funny how both you and Hoops seem to want to jump in on each other’s conversations. It’s like you both simply cannot stand someone else saying something different than what you perceive to be fact.
If you think this team would fair better with Baldwin playing instead of Turner then I’m fine with that. All I’m saying and have been saying is not only do I doubt it but the fan base would not appreciate the losses from making a change like that. It would be considered tanking and just allowing this season to be a total loss

 

[Orion Bailey]

Seems like you missed me saying play em also. Just understand that yours and hoops opinion are different than not just a bunch of people but a team of coaches. We aren’t talking about just Stotts. We are talking a whole coaching staff. If the idea of playing Wade Baldwin was better than playing Turner don’t you think that would have come up?
It’s kind of funny how both you and Hoops seem to want to jump in on each other’s conversations. It’s like you both simply cannot stand someone else saying something different than what you perceive to be fact.
If you think this team would fair better with Baldwin playing instead of Turner then I’m fine with that. All I’m saying and have been saying is not only do I doubt it but the fan base would not appreciate the losses from making a change like that. It would be considered tanking and just allowing this season to be a total loss

I dont think you are giving the fan base enough credit to know that the inconsistencies the young unproven talent would have already exist in those they are replacing.
Its not like we are sitting dame for simons.

 

[kjironman1]

I've had the same point the whole time KJ. You are the one who is trying to change my point to mean we are tanking or not thinking about the business.

And if you think just throwing out this same style of play and playing the same guys is good for any team's business model when they can't even win a playoff game then I don't know what to tell you.

Whatever? I am not debating your opinion on this sorry.

 

[BonesJones]

Seems like you missed me saying play em also. Just understand that yours and hoops opinion are different than not just a bunch of people but a team of coaches. We aren’t talking about just Stotts. We are talking a whole coaching staff. If the idea of playing Wade Baldwin was better than playing Turner don’t you think that would have come up?
It’s kind of funny how both you and Hoops seem to want to jump in on each other’s conversations. It’s like you both simply cannot stand someone else saying something different than what you perceive to be fact.
If you think this team would fair better with Baldwin playing instead of Turner then I’m fine with that. All I’m saying and have been saying is not only do I doubt it but the fan base would not appreciate the losses from making a change like that. It would be considered tanking and just allowing this season to be a total loss

You're literally misunderstanding what he's saying, saying he's off-topic and nobody can keep up with what he's saying because you misunderstand him, so then I come in to explain what he's trying to say. That's what happened.

So now you're mucking up the conversation with the following:
- Hop in on Hoops conversation? Me and Hoops post a lot. Do I need to avoid threads he's posting in, and him the same? Damn @hoopsjock, we're gonna have to cut back on our posting a bit.
- We can't stand someone else saying something different... We're literally just stating opinions. Isn't this forum for discussing opinions on basketball? We've been doing so respectfully, but apparently thats a problem too Hoops. Dang, if we can't disagree with anyone then I guess that'll help us cut back as needed.

"Coaches can never be wrong because they're coaches, so they know more." is a paraphrased version of the type of thing you keep on saying. Blanket statement that doesn't even address any context involved in the actual point someone's trying to explain. Many coaching staffs do something differently, so why are you belittling our opinions because they disagree with the current staff?

If we're not losing more games and Baldwin is playing up to the low standard Turner has set in the past couple years, fans wouldn't view it as tanking. We'd be just as competitive, so why would they? That's Hoops whole point.

 

[kjironman1]

You're clearly of the mindset that a lack of talent is the main culprit of the Blazers right now right?

While also arguing that the Blazers need to play that lack of talent so they don't lose business and fans?

HUH?

Hoops... It’s the only talent they have. It ain’t good but it ain’t Wade Baldwin bad.

 

[wizenheimer]

Turner is a very good player.

wut? Huh? Yikes!...you need to define "very good" because he's well below average in my book

* out of 324 players who have logged 200 minutes or more, Turner ranks 235th in PER. That's the 27th percentile meaning 73% of the league is better

* he ranks 277th in TS%, That's the 14th percentile which means 85% of the league is better

* he ranks 260th in winshares/48. That's the 20th percentile which means 80% of the league is better

* of the 309 players who had a Box plus/minus of -5.0 or better, Turner ranked 201st. That's the 35th percentile which means 65% of the league is better

* of the 451 NBA players tracked for RPM (real plus/minus) Turner ranked 415th. That's right, 415th out of 451. That's the friggin 8th percentile which means 92% of the NBA is better

to me, all that matches pretty well with the eyeball test. Another way to put it is that Turner kinda sucks which may or may not be the same as "very good" depending upon which pages of your dictionary are missing

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

wut? Huh? Yikes!...you need to define "very good" because he's well below average in my book

* out of 324 players who have logged 200 minutes or more, Turner ranks 235th in PER. That's the 27th percentile meaning 73% of the league is better

* he ranks 277th in TS%, That's the 14th percentile which means 85% of the league is better

* he ranks 260th in winshares/48. That's the 20th percentile which means 80% of the league is better

* of the 309 players who had a Box plus/minus of -5.0 or better, Turner ranked 201st. That's the 35th percentile which means 65% of the league is better

* of the 451 NBA players tracked for RPM (real plus/minus) Turner ranked 415th. That's right, 415th out of 451. That's the friggin 8th percentile which means 92% of the NBA is better

to me, all that matches pretty well with the eyeball test. Another way to put it is that Turner kinda sucks which may or may not be the same as "very good" depending upon which pages of your dictionary are missing

I think its fit and system. The idea was flawed this summer. The idea was make him a PG / Ball handler and surround him with shooters. The flaw he’s not a threat on offense, he’s not good enough as a floor general to get around that. Rondo might be the best floor general around and his lack of shooting has made him a journeyman pg that hasnt stuck, and he’s won a championship. The spacing is bad, the offense doesnt really flow. They’re very dependant on the 3 ball dropping, which yes most teams are these days but their spacing to get good shots is bad. ET doesnt fit that.

I think ET like most role players could be solid in the right situation, but Portland with Stotts isnt it.

 

[kjironman1]

You're literally misunderstanding what he's saying, saying he's off-topic and nobody can keep up with what he's saying because you misunderstand him, so then I come in to explain what he's trying to say. That's what happened.

So now you're mucking up the conversation with the following:
- Hop in on Hoops conversation? Me and Hoops post a lot. Do I need to avoid threads he's posting in, and him the same? Damn @hoopsjock, we're gonna have to cut back on our posting a bit.
- We can't stand someone else saying something different... We're literally just stating opinions. Isn't this forum for discussing opinions on basketball? We've been doing so respectfully, but apparently thats a problem too Hoops. Dang, if we can't disagree with anyone then I guess that'll help us cut back as needed.

"Coaches can never be wrong because they're coaches, so they know more." is a paraphrased version of the type of thing you keep on saying. Blanket statement that doesn't even address any context involved in the actual point someone's trying to explain. Many coaching staffs do something differently, so why are you belittling our opinions because they disagree with the current staff?

If we're not losing more games and Baldwin is playing up to the low standard Turner has set in the past couple years, fans wouldn't view it as tanking. We'd be just as competitive, so why would they? That's Hoops whole point.

Both of you are really something. I get in here a couple times a month for any extended conversations. Other than that it's check the game thread and see what notifications i got waiting. This particular thread has been going since 2016 and has 39 pages by last count almost 800 comments. Go back and read some of them. Over the last couple years a number of people have come in with a different view and it seems they are not allowed that view.

Anyway that was way off topic. I simply responded to a simple statement with

So i guess Dame is the problem. Lillard Must Go!

It was kind of a light hearted poke but yes it was a poke at Hoops.
He responded with-

Not at all, just a little sick of how playing poorly as a team doesn't seem to bother or affect anyone.

Dame was always known for acting pretty calm win or lose but the last few years he gets a lot more "showy" when he hits a big shot. Sometimes I want to see a player mad or frustrated that they lost too.

I responded with-

The writing is on the wall. This team lacks talent. Lillard is good but he is not above being human.

He responded with-

If it was truly just a lack of talent then we should be giving a ton of minutes to Simons, Trent, Baldwin, Layman, and Collins.

I responded with-

You will get no argument from me on that. But that would be against the NBA standards. Can you imagine the outcry if Portland showed up at games and sat their best players? Seriously. It's not just Stotts. The NBA markets teams and Lillard/CJ/Nurk are part of the marketing plan. From a totally business objective Portland only has a couple players that sell tickets. Who wants to watch the Blazers in Oklahoma without Lillard vs Westbrook?

Can you read the part where it says "You will get no argument from me on that"?
This is where the plot thickens--------
Hoops responded with-

I'm not saying to bench Dame, CJ, or Nurk. The 5 I mentioned could be the 2nd unit. Until last game they had been awful for awhile so I'd rather play guys with potential over guys like Leonard, Turner, and Stauskas.

Now at this point nobody anywhere said to bench Dame or CJ. But i did say the NBA markets them. Marketing them means they need to play and play as well as they can with the players that help them win.
Now you can also see where Hoops changes his statement to playing other players than Leonard Turner and Stauskas. Remember he wants to give a "Ton of minutes to Simmons, Baldwin, Layman (Who i agree wholeheartedly with) and Collins(who is already getting nearly 20 mins a game).
So i respond with-

Collins is getting minutes. But sure lets see the second unit really be bad. That would get the fan base excited. I guess they would try hard.

So Hoops then comes back with making this about Turner and Leonard (These are both of your stand by whipping posts)

LMAO, do you think the fan base is currently enjoying watching Evan Turner and Meyers Leonard?

At this point i'm still trying to stay on topic. Talking about the team trying to win or are they trying to develop. Honestly at this point i ask an honest question. I even said "Play Em" I actually agree because this season to me is meaningless at this point. The team is a 42 win team maybe?

Look i cannot debate the way the fan base feels. I also don't disagree with your premise at all. Play em.

But there is another point to be made. First off if you were at games you might be shocked at the size of Meyers Leonard's following at this point. Also like him or not when Evan Turner plays well he gives the Blazers the best chance to win over the likes of Baldwin and Trent or Simmons. What do you really want here? Do you want this team to tank or what? You can assume if they quit playing the best most experienced players they have essentially given up and don't want to stay in the mix for the playoffs. It's even you saying the most that Tanking at this point is "Pointless". The Team wants to sell tickets and the fans want the best players to play. That is fact. They win the most games playing the best players. The Team sells more tickets when the team wins. There is no Laughing your Ass Off about that. Those are simple truths that any sports entertainment industry must adhere to.

Here is Hoops response-

Turner does NOT give the Blazers the best chance to play well as long as Stotts is the coach and Dame is on the roster. When he plays with the starters he mostly just stands on the 3 point line which is the worst spot for him. At most in his current role he should be playing 12 minutes a game when Dame is off the court. Instead he's almost always the first on off the bench and almost always in the game during crunch time. Is it a coincidence that we've gotten off the a good start only to see substitutions kill our lead? Or is it a coincidence that by far the 2nd quarter is our worst quarter? Or that we've barely hung on to win games that should've been out away sooner?

As far as the tanking thing, I am very much against when people say "We should tank for Zion" and crap like that when we are too good to be that bad. It's like people think a team can just decide to tank and that's all you have to do. They have no plan on how to convince Dame to go along with it or anything like that. I'm not against tanking necessarily. In fact this year when Jimmy G got hurt for the 49ers I wanted them to lose every game. They won 5 straight games to end the year last year so instead of getting the 2nd pick they went to 9th and had to pay Jimmy G a ton of money for a few meaningless victories. I don't think you are giving fans enough credit to be able to determine that Turner is not part of the future and to see that playing Baldwin and Layman might be better long term. Also, I'd guess most fans would want to see the rookies get some run.

Now he is on Turner saying saying he doesn't give the team the best chance but he muddies the water even more and says "While Stotts is coach and Dame is on the team.

From there on out its all off the topic. This is you and Hoops game. You both have been at it for about a year now. You can't beat people down into thinking your way. That is not the way the forum works. Both of you are very intelligent posters that do some research but unfortunately it's pretty one sided and only the way you believe things to be. This is the last time i go back and spell shit out for you. I have way too much going on in the real world and i will not be bullied on a forum i was a member of before either of you. Go ahead and be the posters that make the most comments on here and try to gang up on people but it isn't bringing more people around. It's simply running people off. Good people who love the Blazers just as much as both of you do. Have a nice night.

I got a stadium seating area to build and keep on schedule. Then i have to get back to Vegas and help the Raiders Stadium. Then hopefully the airport terminal will be ready and with any luck we can start a baseball stadium soon. I'll drop in when i have time but don't expect me to cowtow to either of you again.

 

[hoopsjock]

We aren’t talking about just Stotts. We are talking a whole coaching staff. If the idea of playing Wade Baldwin was better than playing Turner don’t you think that would have come up?

I'm just going to ignore all the other bullshit from your post.

Don't you think there is pressure to play Turner given he makes $17.8 million versus the minimum contract of Baldwin? You don't think they pretty much have to play Turner after propping up how great it is going to be with him leading the 2nd unit surrounded by shooters? As @TorturedBlazerFan eluded to, you don't think Stotts is coaching for his job and is afraid to take risks right now?