Olshey goes contrarian by going big

[Mediocre Man]

I wantto clarify, I liked your post because I thought it was funny, not because I agree.

Me too

 

[Sinobas]

I think that whole copy-cat thing is such bullshit. I see it in the NFL too. Teams try to copy the last winner, as though they've discovered some brilliant new tactic. There's more than one way to win.

 

[Sinobas]

But yeah, that article is kind of stupid too. Olshey didn't "go big". He just did his best to replace 2/3rds of the roster, which we lost. We're no bigger than last year.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Or maybe it is. The rules have made this a perimeter guard and wing league.

Sounds good to me. I am good with a Dame, CJ, Henderson, Vonleh and Leonard lineup to close out games on offense. Crabbe will fit in with that philosophy as well.

The writer made some good points, but Neil hardly went big this summer. Especially if they play Davis as the back up center. Seems to me they have gone smaller and quicker with their bigs so they can cover the stretch 4's.

 

[mook]

But yeah, that article is kind of stupid too. Olshey didn't "go big". He just did his best to replace 2/3rds of the roster, which we lost. We're no bigger than last year.

If a lot of the league is moving one direction and you acquire a lot of assets that are counter to that direction, you are being a contrarian. Even if those assets are in the same mold of assets you had last year. One can be internally consistent and still contrarian--see Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul.

 

[PCmor7]

I don't think of this of looking at what's successful and going against it. The game evolves, but it often evolves because organizations have to find ways to succeed with the whoever the best guys are they can put together.

Would Shaq or Wilt or Olajuwon be any less forces if they played in today's game? I think they'd be just as dominant if not more so. It's just harder to find that kind of talented big than it is a talented guy who is between 6-4 and 6-6.

It's like the Oakland A's did in baseball. Recognize market inefficiencies. Find players who have winning traits that just aren't being recognized yet by other teams. And then find ways to be more dominant at your position of strength than your opponent is at theirs.

Had the Blazers kept LA and signed Monroe to go along with Aminu and the Henderson trade, I think this was a team being build specifically to deal with the Warriors, because you had terrific defenders to put on the Splash Brothers and guys who could score at the 4 and 5 that the Warriors couldn't match.

I don't think that's what Olshey is doing now. When it became apparent that LA wasn't coming back, I think Olshey just tried to collect as much young talent as he could find and then give them all a chance to play and let their performance sort things out. If even one of them turns out to be star level to go with Lillard and then you end up drafting high enough that you can land another star-level player, you are set for a while, especially if some of those other young guys turn out to be reliable rotation players.

 

[mook]

I don't think that's what Olshey is doing now. When it became apparent that LA wasn't coming back, I think Olshey just tried to collect as much young talent as he could find and then give them all a chance to play and let their performance sort things out. If even one of them turns out to be star level to go with Lillard and then you end up drafting high enough that you can land another star-level player, you are set for a while, especially if some of those other young guys turn out to be reliable rotation players.

I think you are right in that he went looking for the best young prospects he could find, regardless of position (aside from PG). I think guys like Davis, Plumlee and Vonleh were available, though, because of recent NBA trends. 10 years ago getting a legit NBA level PF/C 25 or under who could walk and chew gum at the same time was really expensive. The fact that we got 3 such guys while only really giving up Batum really says something.

 

[dviss1]

Im pretty sure Portlandites would much prefer a Blazing Blazer who might toss joints into the crowd than a mutt that pisses on every leg of every chair in the 100 level.

I don't know why and it has no logic behind it, but I really fucking hate blaze. He sucks as a mascot.

 

[BBert]

I don't know why and it has no logic behind it, but I really fucking hate blaze. He sucks as a mascot.

At least they fixed its tail. That was downright inappropriate.

 

[Sinobas]

If a lot of the league is moving one direction and you acquire a lot of assets that are counter to that direction, you are being a contrarian. Even if those assets are in the same mold of assets you had last year. One can be internally consistent and still contrarian--see Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul.

No you're not. We lost our starting PF, C and SF, so we obviously had to replace them. Would any GM have replaced them with 3 guards?

 

[dviss1]

At least they fixed its tail. That was downright inappropriate.

What? Maybe I didn't notice that! Crazy. Is there a before and after pic?

 

[dviss1]

At least they fixed its tail. That was downright inappropriate.

Oh shit! Yes it was very phallic...

Before:

After?:

 

[jlprk]

Hey, who the hell kinked up his tail? Why not just neuter the poor guy?

Cruel.

 

[jlprk]

How would you like it if I did that to you?

 

[oldfisherman]

Not sure I agree Olshey’s plan was to be contrarian this off-season. It was more about him picking up young players with high potential while giving up the least amount of assets.

The last two off-seasons, we called Olshey's value moves dumpster diving. All of those moves resulted in short contracts. His plan this season appears to be the same plan as the last two off-seasons; he took what the other GMs gave him. Except Olshey moved his action to a better class of dumpsters, and gambled on the young kids by giving them longer cheap contracts.



SlyPokerDog could never be the Blazers mascot. He can’t keep his eyes off of the fire hydrants.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Gimmicks don't win championships, talent does.

The greatest trick the devil ever played on humans was convincing us that it was Phil Jackson and Greg Popovic's systems that won those championships, not The Best Players in the Game.

 

[illmatic99]

This is a great observation, but I don't think it is a deliberate effort by Neil to do the contrarian thing.

I simply think he is in scramble talent acquisition mode to get as many cheap, young players as possible. Coincidentally, they are turning out to be big guys who don't really fit the league's trend of going small.

Talent aside, we definitely have some holes in the wing for skilled players.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

It's been proven over and over again that General Managers and coaches in the NBA, far beyond most other sports, don't know what it takes to win championships. Because the on-court players are so small in number (half that of other sports), individual talent doubles or more in value over other sports (goalies, pitchers, or quarterbacks may equal the value of a single player in basketball, but often not really).

The NBA, and basketball in general, doesn't have an ironclad stratagem or set of strategies that, when performed cleanly and efficiently, turn the odds significantly in your favor. Good shooting? Depends on game-to-game consistency, which basketball is practically designed to prevent: Players are allowed incredible freedom in how they approach defense compared to other sports. And the emphasis on individuals with personalities and skills and talents unique to them means that you're not getting a particular defense 82 games.

So you can't even say "good defense wins championships" without adding the caveat that all of your players on the court have to have compatible mindsets about defense, compatible personalities, and oh, they also need to be able to play offense really well together in about 20 seconds because you don't have a dedicated offensive team.

Add to that the interpretation of the rules by the refs who again must deal with the incredible freedoms players are given in the sport compared to "open hand only", or "don't use your hands". And when computers eventually replace home plate umps for strike zone calls and first base outs, the last major game-long efforts of ref interpretation will be gone from baseball.

Only basketball with three people trying to manage the personalities and skill variances of 400 players night in and night out will remain, a 48-minute long negotiation between players who want to get away with as much as possible (just like a pitcher working those corners), and refs who want the game to be played with a minimum of actual cheating, but with a maximum of personality, because they, more than any other people in any other league, realize that these characters make the game work.

I guess what I'm getting at is that, after every championship, coaches and GMs all go crazypants about following the trend with lesser players, then wonder why they got the 8th seed. Smart teams who win championship get the right compatible personalities with the most talent they can, work the markets and the draft to get better players that go well with their stars, and hope for a lot of luck.

Luck, more than in other sports, seems to rule basketball. But when you look at the size of the ball and the size of the hoop, it makes a ton of sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think defense wins championships at all. It takes a Jordan and a Pippen, great on offense, to be willing to play defense to win championships.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I'm starting to think that basketball isn't so much a team sport, but five boxing matches happening at the same time with a ball to determine which boxing match is the main event.

 

[Reep]

I don't think defense wins championships at all. It takes a Jordan and a Pippen, great on offense, to be willing to play defense to win championships.

Certainly the Jordan and Pippen plan works, but the Detroits and the San Antonios didn't really follow that plan and they have done well too.

 

[jlprk]

I'm starting to think that basketball isn't so much a team sport, but five boxing matches happening at the same time with a ball to determine which boxing match is the main event.

That may be your catchiest post ever.