Low point in Blazer history

[Orion Bailey]

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.

great post!

Hope it wasn't too exhausting! Lol

i pretty much agree with everything you said.
Basically i dont think he is one. But can certainly still become one if he fills those trohpy cupboards with a ring and mvp or two.

 

[blazerkor]

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?

If you're talking about the change in physicality I think Dame has been hurt by that. I think his build and approach to the game would have withstood the hand checking and bumping in the lane he would have seen as a scorer and facilitator. I think Steph would be the one relegated to being Mark Price in a different era. If we're talking about Dame's ability to get to the line or Harden's for that matter, these guys would have been able to impact the game in other ways back then. If Dame was allowed to be more physical on defense, throughout his career, he actually would have fared much better on that end of the court.

 

[HailBlazers]

great post!

Hope it wasn't too exhausting! Lol.

Reading your Dame hate is!!!

Generational Talent is Superstar IMO. Top50-75

 

[wizenheimer]

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.

do you really believe that Watford-Brown-Williams are learning nothing right now? I sure don't. If Portland was deep into the playoff race those guys wouldn't be playing. They are gaining experience, and experience is gained on the floor, not the scoreboard. Those are not going to be clutch-time players

worrying about possible bad habits for players that will very likely be 11-15 in the rotation when there are bigger issues in play seems misplaced energy. I know it's not an entertaining product right now, but I'm looking at it as the season has been over since the trade deadline. In fact, what I'm seeing right now is that 4 game win-streak and winning 6 of 8 games a little earlier are hurting Portland. Those were entertaining games, but those games would still have been entertaining if the Blazers would have gone 6-6 or 5-7 instead of 10-12. If so, they'd be firmly in 4th or 5th place right now in lottery odds (with a chance of moving higher) instead of seemingly locked into 7th-9th seed.

we disagree on things but we're alike in being big Blazer fans. Even believing as I do that at this point in time that losing has value, if I watch a game I'm still pulling for the Blazers to win...kind of. But that's my heart; what little there is of my brain is saying "keep losing", we've dug the hole pretty deep but need to keep digging

besides that, maybe my foundational complaint about the olshey-era was that it was a decade of fence-straddling. It's good to see they aren't wishy-washy about the tank even though there's no guarantee it will work

 

[illmatic99]

It's good to see they aren't wishy-washy about the tank even though there's no guarantee it will work

this, i am in full agreement with. i also called for the tank, but i just don't think there needs to be any scenario where we have to sit Ant/Hart. Those guys would at least contribute to making games closer and put our youngins in situations that they might need experience for later.

And yes , i really believe Watford et al are getting nothing out of this glorified summer league rat ball. Even Billups admitted that we aren't running any actions because guys that are on the floor don't know where to go, or what to do.

 

[wizenheimer]

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."

There have now been 2 generations of Blazer players and Blazer fans. Is leadership a talent? I say yes, it is. Does loyalty and integrity and morality enter the equation? Why shouldn't those be factored? All things considered Dame is the best Blazer player in 2 generations. Maybe confining it to Blazer players dilutes the meaning of 'generational talent', but that a pretty subjective label to start with.

 

[illmatic99]

There have now been 2 generations of Blazer players and Blazer fans. Is leadership a talent? I say yes, it is. Does loyalty and integrity and morality enter the equation? Why shouldn't those be factored? All things considered Dame is the best Blazer player in 2 generations. Maybe that somehow dilutes the meaning of 'generational talent', but that a pretty subjective label to start with.

And it's not even the intangibles.

The last two Dame seasons have been fairly close to Steph's in the two years where he won unanimous MVP.

Lillard averaged 30/8/4 on a ridiculous 63% TS%.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Reading your Dame hate is!!!

Generational Talent is Superstar IMO. Top50-75

Dammit its not Dame hate! Lol.

Ill say this. If not for Steph i think the question is easily answered.
Top 50-75 may be a good basis for generational but i bet if you combed that list i think there would be alot of players the majority would consider not generational.
To me generational is super rare. Rarer than an mvp.

i put about 10-15 names in that category.
Unfortunately Dame isn't currently one of them.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

dame has played a major role in changing it.

Again i agree. Just not sure i would call him generational in terms of talent.

 

[STOMP]

dame is a generational talent?

Between the given choices of generational talent, a really good asset and serviceable, I'll stick with arguably the greatest Blazer in the 50+ years the franchise has existed as being a generational talent.

STOMP

 

[Orion Bailey]

Between the given choices of generational talent, a really good asset and serviceable, I'll stick with arguably the greatest Blazer in the 50+ years the franchise has existed as being a generational talent.

STOMP

im not sure using the blazers history of talent pool is an accurate barometer?

is chris webber a generational talent? Some say he was the best king ever.

i thought we were discussing nba generational talent? Not the Blazers generational talent?
Of course Dame is generational talent if only considering Blazer players.

 

[illmatic99]

im not sure using the blazers history of talent pool is an accurate barometer?

is chris webber a generational talent? Some say he was the best king ever.

the Kings/Royals are poverty franchise. ours isn't. And Oscar Robertson is their best player ever. Webber isn't even close considering how few seasons he played there.

 

[Orion Bailey]

the kings are poverty franchise. ours isn't. And Oscar Robertson is their best player ever. Webber isn't even close considering how few seasons he played there.

okay… so is oscar robertson a generational talent?

also seriously man. Dont pick and choose my quotes to you that you respond to and then complain conversing with me is exhausting.

If you are going to respond to this you can respond to my question asking you to define generational..

 

[illmatic99]

respond to my question asking you to define generational..

already have.

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."

 

[illmatic99]

And if the Big O is not considered "generational" talent, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[Orion Bailey]

already have.

that is not defining generational talent. That is explaining why you think Dame is.
There is a difference in my opinion.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

that is not defining generational talent. That is explaining why you think Dame is.
There is a difference in my opinion.

Well the question was about Dame being generational so there is that.

 

[Orion Bailey]

And if the Big O is not considered "generational" talent, I'm not sure what to tell you.

i would say he was. But not for Sacramento. More so for the bucks? Didn't he play mostly there and win there?

kinda getting off track but seemingly proving my point that the team shouldn’t matter. It should be the player vs the nba. Not other players on the team.

I think it just comes down to a different opinion of the definition of generational.
I take it as once in a generational. Nothing else like it, type of definition.

 

[STOMP]

i would say he was. But not for Sacramento. More so for the bucks? Didn't he play mostly there and win there?

While he won a championship as a Buck, that was largely Alcindor's doing. The first 10 years of Oscar's professional career (ages 22-32) were with the Cincinnati Royals.

STOMP

 

[Orion Bailey]

While he won a championship as a Buck, that was largely Alcindor's doing. The first 10 years of Oscar's professional career (ages 22-32) were with the Cincinnati Royals.

STOMP

did they turn into the kings?

 

[THE HCP]

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"?

Karl Malone vs Charles Barkley
John Stockton vs Isaiah Thomas vs Magic
Wilt vs Russell
David Robinson vs Hakeem
Duncan vs KG vs Dirk

All those players played at the same time against each other and I would consider them generational talents.

 

[STOMP]

im not sure using the blazers history of talent pool is an accurate barometer?

I'm not sure you read what I responded to.

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

did they turn into the kings?

yes, illmatic99 noted this several posts back

STOMP

 

[Orion Bailey]

the Kings/Royals are poverty franchise. ours isn't. And Oscar Robertson is their best player ever. Webber isn't even close considering how few seasons he played there.

yes, illmatic99 noted this several posts back

STOMP

ahh i literally didnt know that. I thought he was expanded crap franchises into baseball and kc.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Between the given choices of generational talent, a really good asset and serviceable, I'll stick with arguably the greatest Blazer in the 50+ years the franchise has existed as being a generational talent.

STOMP

I'm not sure you read what I responded to.

STOMP

NOw you lost me. Lol your post was responding(quoted me asking if Dame is a generational talent) I asked this:
dame is a generational talent?

you then said yea because he is the best Blazer?

 

[STOMP]

NOw you lost me. Lol your post was responding(quoted me asking if Dame is a generational talent) I asked this:
dame is a generational talent?

you then said yea because he is the best Blazer?

As framed by the post I responded to, our choices for what sort of category Dame belongs in are...

A. generational talent
B. really good asset
C. serviceable

... given those choices, I went with A as really good asset is selling him way short in my subjective opinion which you're free to disagree with. Part of my point was that judging this draft today is bound to be errant. I also think the three choices aren't nearly enough shades of grey.

STOMP

 

[Orion Bailey]

As framed by the post I responded to, our choices for what sort of category Dame belongs in are...

A. generational talent
B. really good asset
C. serviceable

... given those choices, I went with A as really good asset is selling him way short in my subjective opinion which you're free to disagree with. Part of my point was that judging this draft today is bound to be errant. I also think the three choices aren't nearly enough shades of grey.

STOMP

Did some posts get deleted? I dont recall an a, b,c thing?

no biggy. Just not following you but i get your point even if i don't understand where it came from.

 

[STOMP]

this back and forth has become very tedious. The post I responded to was post #121... you liked it

STOMP

 

[daddylogan]

The Blazer front office decided to throw away the last 20 games to get a better pick. You can dress it up any way you want to, but that’s what it comes down to. They made some big trades just before the deadline, giving away players for a lot less value because the “shake-up” would mean all bets were off for the rest of the year, and no one would expect them to win anyway. But Lo and behold, their rag-tag bunch of new players went on a 4 game winning streak and they panicked. The next step, and none too soon (!) was to sit Nurkic for the rest of the year.

Agree 100% - I have been right there with ya...fan since day 1 in 1970 pretty much and this last stretch by far (sitting Nurk) has been the most miserable, barely watchable unit ever. We were sitting at a play in spot - and if you want to give young guys experience, then get them to at least a play-in game. Tanking is not going to improve anything as some things are the luck of the draw (lottery odds) anyhow. And for those of you people who keep say "well, don't watch then" some of us here have paid our hard earned money to either go to the games or pay for it to watch on TV (in advance might I add...no turning back) so re-think some things before knocking people who are upset about having to watch 30 point losses night after night.

BBango - you are spot on and it is disgraceful especially since this organization has prided itself on overcoming obstacles to win.

peace out,
daddylogan

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

I think of Dame as (and this will age me), a Walt Frazier type player. Very good and among the best at the time but not generational.