Interesting mostly unbiased view of the Blazers

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Natebishop3 said:
Denny your pass-first point guards don't average very many assists, I'm noticing.
Click to expand...

So?

Not all passes are assists.

My pass first PGs don't take many shots. Nowhere near 12 a game.
 
Denny Crane said:
So?

Not all passes are assists.

My pass first PGs don't take many shots. Nowhere near 12 a game.
Click to expand...

You have a very narrow scope of what makes a pass-first point guard.

Oh, and btw, Quinn Buckner only averaged 22.6 mpg, and when you look at his per36 it bumps him up to 12.2 FGA.
 
Natebishop3 said:
You have a very narrow scope of what makes a pass-first point guard.

Oh, and btw, Quinn Buckner only averaged 22.6 mpg, and when you look at his per36 it bumps him up to 12.2 FGA.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to call this fight. I don't think Denny can see out of his swollen eyes anymore.

Have some mercy on the old man, Nate...
 
Natebishop3 said:
You have a very narrow scope of what makes a pass-first point guard.

Oh, and btw, Quinn Buckner only averaged 22.6 mpg, and when you look at his per36 it bumps him up to 12.2 FGA.
Click to expand...

Buckner was a notoriously poor shooter. Like Rondo. Like Rondo, he was willing to take and make layups whenever possible. Maybe he'd get 12.2 FGA on layup attempts if he played 36, maybe not. Look at his FT% for an idea of his outside shooting ability.
 
yuyuza1 said:
Still can't get over how many people think of Dame today as the Dame of the future. As mook said, the kid is not a traditional 4 year player, and has some glaring holes in his game right now. And we've already seen improvement in 50 games. Just wait until he gets a few summers under his belt.
Click to expand...


Agreed, he's a student of the game and is bound to grow significantly. I am anxiously watching the Clippers to see if they can compete this year. They have a model that is similar in makeup to us that we can follow, not to mention we have their ex-GM.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Someone needs to call this fight. I don't think Denny can see out of his swollen eyes anymore.

Have some mercy on the old man, Nate...
Click to expand...

:grin:

Anyway, my point is that the point guard position has evolved, the league has evolved over the years, and it doesn't bother me that he's not a "pass first point guard".
 
Denny Crane said:
Buckner was a notoriously poor shooter. Like Rondo. Like Rondo, he was willing to take and make layups whenever possible. Maybe he'd get 12.2 FGA on layup attempts if he played 36, maybe not. Look at his FT% for an idea of his outside shooting ability.
Click to expand...

Denny, I get the impression that you just really didn't like Stockton. Personally, I hated him and Malone. Dirty players from a team that I despised, but I still miss watching them.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Denny, I get the impression that you just really didn't like Stockton. Personally, I hated him and Malone. Dirty players from a team that I despised, but I still miss watching them.
Click to expand...

I liked Stockton a lot. He was a brilliant PG who could score and who could pass.

Magic Johnson only had a few seasons where he shot much more than Stockton, and he scored near 20 PPG with over 10 APG. I wouldn't call him pass first, either.

I would call a guy like Mark Jackson pass first, or Andre Miller perhaps.

Hell, I'd call Jason Kidd a pass first PG even though he took a lot of shots. He really sucked at outside shooting so teams dared him to shoot and he basically had to. But I know he looked to pass the ball rather than shoot it on most touches.
 
A mod could split out the PG related posts into a new thread.

Fine with me.
 
Denny Crane said:
I liked Stockton a lot. He was a brilliant PG who could score and who could pass.

Magic Johnson only had a few seasons where he shot much more than Stockton, and he scored near 20 PPG with over 10 APG. I wouldn't call him pass first, either.

I would call a guy like Mark Jackson pass first, or Andre Miller perhaps.

Hell, I'd call Jason Kidd a pass first PG even though he took a lot of shots. He really sucked at outside shooting so teams dared him to shoot and he basically had to. But I know he looked to pass the ball rather than shoot it on most touches.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Denny, but the notion that you could call Stockton anything BUT pass-first is absolutely ludicrous. The fact is, over his career, he had over 2,000 more assists than shots. Since every assist requires a pass, it seems to me that that is the very definition of pass-first. In fact, Stockton was in the league 15 years before he had even a single season in which he had fewer assists that FGA.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm sorry Denny, but the notion that you could call Stockton anything BUT pass-first is absolutely ludicrous. The fact is, over his career, he had over 2,000 more assists than shots. Since every assist requires a pass, it seems to me that that is the very definition of pass-first. In fact, Stockton was in the league 15 years before he had even a single season in which he had fewer assists that FGA.
Click to expand...

Well that and owning the title of most assists ever.
 
Denny Crane said:
I liked Stockton a lot. He was a brilliant PG who could score and who could pass.

Magic Johnson only had a few seasons where he shot much more than Stockton, and he scored near 20 PPG with over 10 APG. I wouldn't call him pass first, either.

I would call a guy like Mark Jackson pass first, or Andre Miller perhaps.

Hell, I'd call Jason Kidd a pass first PG even though he took a lot of shots. He really sucked at outside shooting so teams dared him to shoot and he basically had to. But I know he looked to pass the ball rather than shoot it on most touches.
Click to expand...

Meh, I think it's topical. One of the points in the thread that MM linked is that Lillard is an undersized shooting guard. This debate started because we were questioning what a point guard is, exactly.
 
BrianFromWA said:
that it's 180 out from a lot of people in here. Is that ignorance of the team on their part, or abject homerism on the part of those who think LMA's leading us to the promised land?
Click to expand...

Can you find anybody here that doesn't believe that the team needs a significant upgrade in talent to be competitive for a title? Some of us think it's silly to trade a guy like LMA for a lesser player and a draft pick. I don't think that's unreasonable. I mean, if Miami offered James for LMA, of course you take that deal. But trading just for the sake of trading (and in LMA's case, hoping to get an equal or better player down the road) isn't a plan.
 
PapaG said:
Can you find anybody here that doesn't believe that the team needs a significant upgrade in talent to be competitive for a title? Some of us think it's silly to trade a guy like LMA for a lesser player and a draft pick. I don't think that's unreasonable. I mean, if Miami offered James for LMA, of course you take that deal. But trading just for the sake of trading (and in LMA's case, hoping to get an equal or better player down the road) isn't a plan.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem (at least in my mind) and I'm curious what you think:

Is Lillard/Batum/Aldridge good enough, or will they be good enough, to win a championship?

Whether we add some bench talent or not, the question is whether that core group is good enough to win it all. If they're not, what's the point? I see a striking resemblance to the Spurs when Parker, Manu, and Duncan were all tearing it up, but I think Aldridge would have to drastically improve his defense to get us to that level.

The second question is, do we have a superstar? Lillard could be, but I have a feeling he's just going to be very good, but not great. An All-star, but not a superstar. I think we've seen enough of Aldridge to know that he's very much the same as Lillard, All-Star but not a superstar. So that leaves Batum, and I don't think he's the type of player either.

The final question is; can we win without a superstar? It sure doesn't look that way. Not with the way the NBA is currently set up. You need a LeBron, a Durant, or even a Dirk. We currently do not have one of those, so do we sit on what we have and hope for the best, or do we keep trying to find one of those in the draft? It's like Nik said, do you sit on a losing hand and settle for second, or do you turn in your cards and hope for a winning hand? We came within one unlucky draft pick of getting Durant. Just think, if we hadn't gone with the popular choice and taken Durant, we would have that star.

That's why some people are in favor of trading Aldridge. Hopefully get a pick that will net us a star. Or we could sit on our hand and hope for the best.
 
PapaG said:
Can you find anybody here that doesn't believe that the team needs a significant upgrade in talent to be competitive for a title? Some of us think it's silly to trade a guy like LMA for a lesser player and a draft pick. I don't think that's unreasonable. I mean, if Miami offered James for LMA, of course you take that deal. But trading just for the sake of trading (and in LMA's case, hoping to get an equal or better player down the road) isn't a plan.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. Some of the scenarios that have been thrown out there I would do. Unfortunately the other team would not. Then there are the scenarios that are extremely risky. If the gamble (i.e draft pick) does not work out...... a lot of people get fired.

I believe that more times than not, the team that gets the best player in trade always gets the best end of the deal. Even if multiple players are included for him. But again, if someone offered the top pick in the draft for LA, I would not rule out taking the trade. But I think that if someone has the top pick in the draft they may also want to go young and start over. Not sure why they would do it.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Here's the problem (at least in my mind) and I'm curious what you think:

Is Lillard/Batum/Aldridge good enough, or will they be good enough, to win a championship?

Whether we add some bench talent or not, the question is whether that core group is good enough to win it all. If they're not, what's the point? I see a striking resemblance to the Spurs when Parker, Manu, and Duncan were all tearing it up, but I think Aldridge would have to drastically improve his defense to get us to that level.

The second question is, do we have a superstar? Lillard could be, but I have a feeling he's just going to be very good, but not great. An All-star, but not a superstar. I think we've seen enough of Aldridge to know that he's very much the same as Lillard, All-Star but not a superstar. So that leaves Batum, and I don't think he's the type of player either.

The final question is; can we win without a superstar? It sure doesn't look that way. Not with the way the NBA is currently set up. You need a LeBron, a Durant, or even a Dirk. We currently do not have one of those, so do we sit on what we have and hope for the best, or do we keep trying to find one of those in the draft? It's like Nik said, do you sit on a losing hand and settle for second, or do you turn in your cards and hope for a winning hand? We came within one unlucky draft pick of getting Durant. Just think, if we hadn't gone with the popular choice and taken Durant, we would have that star.

That's why some people are in favor of trading Aldridge. Hopefully get a pick that will net us a star. Or we could sit on our hand and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

I guess that's what separates your opinion from mine. Personally, I have a feeling that Lillard will become a superstar.

But everything else I can actually agree with.

Yet, I see us giving those contending teams a run for their money already this season, with a dismal bench. I can imagine that if our bench was just a little better, we would have an easier time against them.
 
magnifier661 said:
I guess that's what separates your opinion from mine. Personally, I have a feeling that Lillard will become a superstar.

But everything else I can actually agree with.

Yet, I see us giving those contending teams a run for their money already this season, with a dismal bench. I can imagine that if our bench was just a little better, we would have an easier time against them.
Click to expand...

See, I don't think Lillard is a superstar because I see Irving, Rose (if healthy), Paul, and maybe Westbrook ahead of him. Then you have Deron Williams, Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, etc. There are a lot of really good point guards in the NBA right now, so where does Lillard rank with them? We honestly won't know for a couple seasons, I think. I see him up there, but a superstar in my mind is the best at his position. Either the best or the second best. There are only a few superstars in the league right now.

LBJ
Durant
Howard
Kobe

Those are the kind of players I'm talking about. Do you see Lillard on that same kind of list?
 
I think Lillard can make a big next step. I think a big thing working for us towards competing is having top players at their positions. Aldridge is a top 5 PF. Batum is in the argument for that 5th best SF, easly top 10, but around there. Lillard has the potential to make that leap. You fill in with the right type of role players, and I think you can get there.
 
Natebishop3 said:
See, I don't think Lillard is a superstar because I see Irving, Rose (if healthy), Paul, and maybe Westbrook ahead of him. Then you have Deron Williams, Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, etc. There are a lot of really good point guards in the NBA right now, so where does Lillard rank with them? We honestly won't know for a couple seasons, I think. I see him up there, but a superstar in my mind is the best at his position. Either the best or the second best. There are only a few superstars in the league right now.

LBJ
Durant
Howard
Kobe

Those are the kind of players I'm talking about. Do you see Lillard on that same kind of list?
Click to expand...

I doubt he gets to a LBJ, Durrant, Kobe level. I won't count on Howard because I don't think he has the superstar leadership like the others you mentioned.

So in terms of leadership, I think Lillard can definitely be at that level; but those players are legends when all is said and done. That's unfair to ask anything of that magnitude from Lillard.
 
Natebishop3 said:
See, I don't think Lillard is a superstar because I see Irving, Rose (if healthy), Paul, and maybe Westbrook ahead of him. Then you have Deron Williams, Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, etc. There are a lot of really good point guards in the NBA right now, so where does Lillard rank with them? We honestly won't know for a couple seasons, I think. I see him up there, but a superstar in my mind is the best at his position. Either the best or the second best. There are only a few superstars in the league right now.

LBJ
Durant
Howard
Kobe

Those are the kind of players I'm talking about. Do you see Lillard on that same kind of list?
Click to expand...

You named Howard and Kobe and they are both on the same team. And they currently are out of the playoffs. So it obviously takes more than having a super star. Not sure I want to keep blowing things up to get that elusive superstar.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
You named Howard and Kobe and they are both on the same team. And they currently are out of the playoffs. So it obviously takes more than having a super star. Not sure I want to keep blowing things up to get that elusive superstar.
Click to expand...

Good point! LOL
 
magnifier661 said:
I doubt he gets to a LBJ, Durrant, Kobe level. I won't count on Howard because I don't think he has the superstar leadership like the others you mentioned.

So in terms of leadership, I think Lillard can definitely be at that level; but those players are legends when all is said and done. That's unfair to ask anything of that magnitude from Lillard.
Click to expand...

Those are the superstars though. I think there is a distinct difference between an "All-Star" caliber player and a "Superstar" caliber player. The NBA sees a difference as well. Just look at how the refs handle those guys and tell me there isn't a difference. There's also a different way that they're marketed, a different way the fans view them, and their popularity level. All of those guys were voted into the All-Star game by the fans.

Pinwheel1 said:
You named Howard and Kobe and they are both on the same team. And they currently are out of the playoffs. So it obviously takes more than having a super star. Not sure I want to keep blowing things up to get that elusive superstar.
Click to expand...

Howard became a Superstar from when he was on the Magic. The D12 that is on the Lakers is a very different player, and he might not ever recapture that level of play. Back injuries have a way of robbing someone of their athleticism. Kobe still fits under the Superstar label, but he's pretty much in the twilight of his career. If Kobe was in his prime and Howard wasn't recovering from a back injury, yes, they would be in the playoffs. They would probably be the best team in the west.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Those are the superstars though. I think there is a distinct difference between an "All-Star" caliber player and a "Superstar" caliber player. The NBA sees a difference as well. Just look at how the refs handle those guys and tell me there isn't a difference. There's also a different way that they're marketed, a different way the fans view them, and their popularity level. All of those guys were voted into the All-Star game by the fans.
Click to expand...

Carter, T-Mac, and others like them were superstars.

I could definitely see Lillard being at Tony Parker's level. He won 3 championships.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Those are the superstars though. I think there is a distinct difference between an "All-Star" caliber player and a "Superstar" caliber player. The NBA sees a difference as well. Just look at how the refs handle those guys and tell me there isn't a difference. There's also a different way that they're marketed, a different way the fans view them, and their popularity level. All of those guys were voted into the All-Star game by the fans.



Howard became a Superstar from when he was on the Magic. The D12 that is on the Lakers is a very different player, and he might not ever recapture that level of play. Back injuries have a way of robbing someone of their athleticism. Kobe still fits under the Superstar label, but he's pretty much in the twilight of his career. If Kobe was in his prime and Howard wasn't recovering from a back injury, yes, they would be in the playoffs. They would probably be the best team in the west.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here.....Did Howard become a superstar in Orlando because they built their team around him and they are not in Los Angeles? Maybe he will never be a superstar if he has to play with one. I have seen some monster games from Howard this year, yet they still lost. I think it is more that he and Kobe have bad chemistry and/or they play in the wrong system. Not sure it was his back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

oldfisherman
10 LEAST valuable NBA contract includes three Blazers.
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Wizard Mentor
Wizard Mentor
SlyPokerDog
Boozer out for season, broken rib?
Replies
28
Views
1K
Shooter
Shooter
KingSpeed
RealGM forum on Blazers
Replies
12
Views
616
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man
KSF-ERIC
Giannis & Dame?
Replies
28
Views
1K
blazerkor
blazerkor
retroblazers
somebody found a strange quirk in Lillards jump shot
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
rasheedfan2005
rasheedfan2005

Users who are viewing this thread

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