Low point in Blazer history

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

However what the blazers are doing isn't a low point. Its just called playing the game. Lotto picks are huge assets and increase with a top ten and a top five and a top three pick.

Were digging for gold with a decent change of striking it this time around with the picks. How they are used is another topic. But what we are doing is the best long term choice.
I personally think Lotto Picks are just that. Draft Picks. They mostly give you serviceable players that can contribute. A top three pick can be a really good asset. Some drafts have "generational talented" players. This one does not. Sometimes you get lucky and a player further down the draft becomes an all star talent. Not often does that happen.
 
I personally think Lotto Picks are just that. Draft Picks. They mostly give you serviceable players that can contribute. A top three pick can be a really good asset. Some drafts have "generational talented" players. This one does not.
At this point of the year in 2012, were you saying Damian Lillard was a generational talent? As the 6th pick he fell well outside your really good asset bracket into serviceable player. Hell, the 5th pick in the 2nd round of that same draft stands a pretty good chance of getting into the Hall of Fame. Granted the 2022 lotto lacks a hyped sure thing prospect like Greg Oden or Zion Williamson, but probably a good idea to not be so sure of your evaluation of the talent this far out as it's likely you'll be proven wrong.

STOMP
 
Last edited:
At this point of the year in 2012, were you saying Damian Lillard was a generational talent? As the 6th pick he fell well outside your really good asset bracket into serviceable player. Hell, the 5th pick in the 2nd round of that same draft stands a pretty good chance of getting into the Hall of Fame. Granted the 2022 lotto lacks a hyped sure thing prospect like Greg Oden or Zion Williamson, but probably a good idea to not be so sure of your evaluation of the talent this far out as it's likely you'll be proven wrong.

STOMP
Do you honestly feel Damian Lillard is a "Generational Talent"? Or do you feel he is just one of the best to ever play for the Blazers? Is that because of his talent or because of his overall value due to personality and commitment?
I personally feel he is an All Star talent but not on the level of LeBron, Duncan, Jordan, Magic, Bird as well as many others.

I agree with you however it's early in the game and a pick in the 7-10 area could be a great pickup? If they were to get lucky enough to get a player on the level of Dame they would certainly have done very well. If they get a player on the level of Damian Lillard or even CJ. If they get a project that will take 2-3 years to make an impact they might not look so good? Ant, Little, Watford, Elleby, Brown. I feel they have plenty of projects as it sits.
 
At this point of the year in 2012, were you saying Damian Lillard was a generational talent? As the 6th pick he fell well outside your really good asset bracket into serviceable player. Hell, the 5th pick in the 2nd round of that same draft stands a pretty good chance of getting into the Hall of Fame. Granted the 2022 lotto lacks a hyped sure thing prospect like Greg Oden or Zion Williamson, but probably a good idea to not be so sure of your evaluation of the talent this far out as it's likely you'll be proven wrong.

STOMP
dame is a generational talent?
 
This thread reminds me why I have been a long opponent of "tear it down and start over". Most fans can't handle a half-season of sucking, let alone
multiple years.

I am all in for tanking for the second half of a season in the right situation, and this year with Dame out and CJ traded.....it is the right time. Especially since I think they are just one solid PF away from being good next year. It is worth the agony for a few months in order to roll the dice. I look at it as an extended summer league where it is interesting to see how the young players are developing and who should be kept. But no way would I want to see this for another year.
 
This thread reminds me why I have been a long opponent of "tear it down and start over". Most fans can't handle a half-season of sucking, let alone
multiple years.

I am all in for tanking for the second half of a season in the right situation, and this year with Dame out and CJ traded.....it is the right time. Especially since I think they are just one solid PF away from being good next year. It is worth the agony for a few months in order to roll the dice. I look at it as an extended summer league where it is interesting to see how the young players are developing and who should be kept. But no way would I want to see this for another year.
Outside of GS two years ago, this fanbase is probably one of the most pro-tank markets in the NBA. We have the longest active consecutive playoff appearance streak in the league but everyone knew this year needed to be a reset. But the way we are doing this is egregious and it wears on you. I am largely fine with it, but think we're taking it way too far.

When you lose by 30+ in three straight games, then decide to rest one of your two NBA caliber players in the next two games, it becomes overkill. We had no justifiable reason to bench Hart/Ant in the past two games when we're already losing as is.
 
Do you honestly feel Damian Lillard is a "Generational Talent"? Or do you feel he is just one of the best to ever play for the Blazers? Is that because of his talent or because of his overall value due to personality and commitment?
I personally feel he is an All Star talent but not on the level of LeBron, Duncan, Jordan, Magic, Bird as well as many others.

I agree with you however it's early in the game and a pick in the 7-10 area could be a great pickup? If they were to get lucky enough to get a player on the level of Dame they would certainly have done very well. If they get a player on the level of Damian Lillard or even CJ. If they get a project that will take 2-3 years to make an impact they might not look so good? Ant, Little, Watford, Elleby, Brown. I feel they have plenty of projects as it sits.
Dame averages 25/7/4 for his career and has been the picture of durability until this year. He has better or comparable raw career numbers to Steph.
 
unquestionably.

I question it. If a player is never the best in the league at his own position, how can he be termed a "generational talent"?

by that definition of "generational" you probably only have about 5 dudes on that list.

yes. Five dudes. GENERATIONAL talent to me means the best in the generation.
As much as i love Dame he is unquestionably NOT a generational talent or he would be consider in the same teer as giannis, curry, lbj, Luka, jokic all generational talents in this generation.

any team out there would pass on Dame for any of these other players. In this generation alone.
Dame is the best Blazer ever in my book.

Still not generational.
 
Outside of GS two years ago, this fanbase is probably one of the most pro-tank markets in the NBA. We have the longest active consecutive playoff appearance streak in the league but everyone knew this year needed to be a reset. But the way we are doing this is egregious and it wears on you. I am largely fine with it, but think we're taking it way too far.

When you lose by 30+ in three straight games, then decide to rest one of your two NBA caliber players in the next two games, it becomes overkill. We had no justifiable reason to bench Hart/Ant in the past two games when we're already losing as is.
There is no taking this too far. If we're going to tank we better get every last loss out of it as we possibly can. If you play Hart and Ant together you increase your chances of winning even if they're slim. The only thing I'm worried about with this tank is that the team gets fatigued with it like you are and wins some games because they want to keep things competitive.
 
Top 10 in active career points and their draft year.

1. Lebron - 2003
2. Carmel0 - 2003
3. Durant - 2007
4. Harden - 2009
5. Westbrook - 2008
6. Paul - 2005
7. Aldridge - 2006
8. Curry - 2009
9. Derozan - 2009
10 Howard - 2004
11. Dame - 2012


The fact that Dame is only about 2000 pts behind Steph while having been drafted 3 years after him is madness. Some of you guys are taking Dame's consistent greatness for granted.
 
Top 10 in active career points and their draft year.

1. Lebron - 2003
2. Carmel0 - 2003
3. Durant - 2007
4. Harden - 2009
5. Westbrook - 2008
6. Paul - 2005
7. Aldridge - 2006
8. Curry - 2009
9. Derozan - 2009
10 Howard - 2004
11. Dame - 2012


The fact that Dame is only about 2000 pts behind Steph while having been drafted 3 years after him is madness. Some of you guys are taking Dame's consistent greatness for granted.

total points is the lone credential for being a generational talent?
 
There is no taking this too far. If we're going to tank we better get every last loss out of it as we possibly can. If you play Hart and Ant together you increase your chances of winning even if they're slim. The only thing I'm worried about with this tank is that the team gets fatigued with it like you are and wins some games because they want to keep things competitive.
I want our young guys to get something from these games. They aren't learning a damn thing losing by 30 every night. Your mindset would be somewhat OK if the only two guys we're carrying forward next year were Ant/Hart. But we're going to inevitably bring back more than just those guys and it's hard for them to develop when teams are running roughshod over them nightly.
 
Top 10 in active career points and their draft year.

1. Lebron - 2003
2. Carmel0 - 2003
3. Durant - 2007
4. Harden - 2009
5. Westbrook - 2008
6. Paul - 2005
7. Aldridge - 2006
8. Curry - 2009
9. Derozan - 2009
10 Howard - 2004
11. Dame - 2012


The fact that Dame is only about 2000 pts behind Steph while having been drafted 3 years after him is madness. Some of you guys are taking Dame's consistent greatness for granted.

stephs carreer fg is .473

dame is .437

shots attempted:

Dame: 18.4

steph: 17.6

yeah no. Not as good as steph…
 
stephs carreer fg is .473

dame is .437

shots attempted:

Dame: 18.4

steph: 17.6

yeah no. Not as good as steph…
did i say he was? Steph will end up as a top 10 player of all time. Dame might end up in the top 50 when it's all said and done. In an era where Steph transformed the game, Dame has been the closest facsimile to a guy who was the transcendent talent of the generation. And I'll maintain that if you give Dame guys like Draymond/KD/Klay as teammates, Dame's efficiency would be pretty damn close to Steph's.

The point is... some of us have different definitions of "generational."
 
A player can play for 20 plus years and achieve total stTs that top lists, doesnt make them generational in my opinion, just ming of endurance.
 
did i say he was? Steph will end up as a top 10 player of all time. Dame might end up in the top 50 when it's all said and done.

The point is... some of us have different definitions of "generational."

i didnt say you did say steph was the best. I just countered your stats with some others is all and it shows me he isnt even better than steph.

You are right though. Define generational.
 
how many players would you consider can be a generational talent in one generation?

did i say he was? Steph will end up as a top 10 player of all time. Dame might end up in the top 50 when it's all said and done. In an era where Steph transformed the game, Dame has been the closest facsimile to a guy who was the transcendent talent of the generation. And I'll maintain that if you give Dame guys like Draymond/KD/Klay as teammates, Dame's efficiency would be pretty damn close to Steph's.

The point is... some of us have different definitions of "generational."

So define it. I define it as the best player or couple of players in the generation.
Can a generation have lots of generational players? Possibly but then some will be better than others so how do the others still get considered generational when there are other plYers better than them in the same generation?
 
So define it. I define it as the best player or couple of players in the generation.
Can a generation have lots of generational players? Possibly but then some will be better than others so how do the others still get considered generational when there are other plYers better than them in the same generation?
I feel like you guys are missing the forest through the trees with this definition of "generational." And yes, I feel like that moniker can be bestowed on more than the five best players at each position, especially when they are damn close in a bunch of different categories.

This conversation stemmed from the fact that @STOMP countered that 3 months before a draft, you can't simply dismiss the entire draft as being bereft of high level talent when this has been proven wrong year after year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
I feel like you guys are missing the forest through the trees with this definition of "generational." And yes, I feel like that moniker can be bestowed on more than the five best players at each position, especially when they are damn close in a bunch of different categories.

This conversation stemmed from the fact that @STOMP countered that 3 months before a draft, you can't simply dismiss the entire draft as being bereft of high level talent when this has been proven wrong year after year.

No need to bring up your opinion of others lack of sight.

okay so 1st and 2nd all nba players could be considered a generational talent?
Maybe 3rd?

fair enough. I personally think a generational talent is just that. The best of his/her generation. That, to me, leaves room for only a few players in a generation. Not 10-30 players.
But its just my opinion. I dont think their is a Webster's definition per say.

now on how the convo started, i agree one cant judge so early in a draft about generational talent. Giannis is a recent example of that alone.

but it still should be defined what a generational talent is, in order to understand who was/wasnt missed out on.
Is klay and dgreen a generational talent? They were steals in the draft but still not generational to me.
Generational talent, to me, is a guy always in the running and winning a few mvps. Dame has been in the talks a couple of years early in the season and thats about it.

In my opinion he is not generational. Close. But still a step down from those currently playing, i would consider generational.
 
I want our young guys to get something from these games. They aren't learning a damn thing losing by 30 every night. Your mindset would be somewhat OK if the only two guys we're carrying forward next year were Ant/Hart. But we're going to inevitably bring back more than just those guys and it's hard for them to develop when teams are running roughshod over them nightly.
I think our young guys will get a lot out of the games from the twentieth of this month until April seventh when they won't be as outclassed but will still be losing almost all of those games. I don't see young NBA players like young NFL quarterbacks who can get shelled so much that they end up with shell shock that ruins their potential. These guys are getting reps in Chauncey's system against much better players than they will face as second and third stringers. They'll be better just from having real NBA playing time. It's just uncomfortable to watch.

I do believe it's either making the guys that are playing better or exposing them as being too far away from being competitive to rely on in the future.
 
Top 10 in active career points and their draft year.

1. Lebron - 2003
2. Carmel0 - 2003
3. Durant - 2007
4. Harden - 2009
5. Westbrook - 2008
6. Paul - 2005
7. Aldridge - 2006
8. Curry - 2009
9. Derozan - 2009
10 Howard - 2004
11. Dame - 2012


The fact that Dame is only about 2000 pts behind Steph while having been drafted 3 years after him is madness. Some of you guys are taking Dame's consistent greatness for granted.
Game has changed quite a bit for these players. Without Question Curry and Lillard will continue to rise among them for this stat.
 
Dame averages 25/7/4 for his career and has been the picture of durability until this year. He has better or comparable raw career numbers to Steph.
Fair enough.
Dame is unquestionably very very good. Maybe because he has played during the same time that some other players played has come into play.
I think possibly his game could be duplicated and maybe even improved upon? We are all seeing what Morant is doing.
Not trying to diminish him at all but the Game has changed and he was one of the players that might have benefitted from that?
 
Fair enough.
Dame is unquestionably very very good. Maybe because he has played during the same time that some other players played has come into play.
I think possibly his game could be duplicated and maybe even improved upon? We are all seeing what Morant is doing.
Not trying to diminish him at all but the Game has changed and he was one of the players that might have benefitted from that?
dame has played a major role in changing it.
 
No need to bring up your opinion of others lack of sight.

okay so 1st and 2nd all nba players could be considered a generational talent?
Maybe 3rd?

fair enough. I personally think a generational talent is just that. The best of his/her generation. That, to me, leaves room for only a few players in a generation. Not 10-30 players.
But its just my opinion. I dont think their is a Webster's definition per say.

now on how the convo started, i agree one cant judge so early in a draft about generational talent. Giannis is a recent example of that alone.

but it still should be defined what a generational talent is, in order to understand who was/wasnt missed out on.
Is klay and dgreen a generational talent? They were steals in the draft but still not generational to me.
Generational talent, to me, is a guy always in the running and winning a few mvps. Dame has been in the talks a couple of years early in the season and thats about it.

In my opinion he is not generational. Close. But still a step down from those currently playing, i would consider generational.
I think some people would say that a generational talent is the best player from his generation. I think some would say a generational talent would be a superstar in any generation. I think some would say a generational talent is one whose talents will be remembered for generations. It's a really loose term to be arguing about. Dame is a superstar talent, he may still very well end up with an MVP and a championship or more. That being said, I think he's lived in Steph's shadow for so much of his career that he'll never be on anyone's Mt. Rushmore of point guards let alone their overall Mt. Rushmore. So in that way he's not a generational talent like LeBron, MJ, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Bird, The Big O or a handful of others and he's not even one like Steph who will be on a lot of people's Mt. Rushmore of point guards.

I do believe that Dame would have been a superstar in any generation and I do think when it's all said and done his talent will be remembered for generations. Does that make him a "generational talent"? I don't know and I really don't care. It makes him an all time great and we know that because of out of all of the thousands of players to ever play in the league Dame was recognized as one of the top 75 and his body of work is far from being complete.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top