Paul Allen, Neil Olshey stood pat in draft, but wasn't inactive

[lawai'a]

I also really hate holding up the Spurs model to support the idea of standing pat. You can't compare us - or any other team - to the Spurs. They are unique. They work because they have the best coach of the past 20 years who knows how to get the most out of marginal talent. Not to mention the best PF of the modern era, and one of the best PGs in the league. But it all starts with the coach. We aren't going to emulate the Spurs under Terry "Can't Develop Players or Implement Adequate Defensive Schemes - And Let's Base Our Offense Around The Least Effective Shot In The Game" Stotts.
You know what's had greater success than the Spurs model? Acquiring the best talent possible.

if they are so unique why are their front office personel and assistant coaches so in demand around the league? why is their model the one that the majority of small market teams emulate? if stotts doesn't develop talent why a rookie of the year and carreer seasons by the starters? trob hasn't developed here?

 

[cmeese47]

Btw if Lillard was Allen's choice, who was Olsheys? You can't just say something like that unless you know it for a fact

The rumors mostly from Canzano were that Olshey preferred Barnes and Drummond to Lillard but was over ruled by Allen. Considering Allen's love and involvement in the draft this rumor seemed quite plausible.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

if they are so unique why are their front office personel and assistant coaches so in demand around the league?

Because nobody knows how to win in the NBA. There is no formula for success but presidents and owners are looking for something. Remember when every team needed a big burly center and a hot shooting guard? Remember when everyone needed a Big 3? Remember when everyone tried to run the triangle? I like San Antonio's approach a lot, but it's being treated just like every other fad.

Basketball has fewer players in play than just about every other team sport. As a result, individual talent, personalities, vagaries of refereeing and play calling and dumb luck are all amplified. In a stew of quantum events like that, who wins is less than 100% predictable... except last season, when SA flattened the waveform hard as motherfuck, which is why they're the sudden hotness.

...and their solution might be more portable than "wear a suit and have the three best players in the league". It's a "good and proper" technique. Very Wooden. But even so, it's just one way to win, and only works until someone beats it. Then their technique will be what everyone wants. Their coaches and executives will be poached shamelessly.

It's an endless cycle. The only surefire technique to winning it all is to score one or more points than your opponent, do it every night, and do it without needing luck or superhuman effort.

 

[lawai'a]

The rumors mostly from Canzano were that Olshey preferred Barnes and Drummond to Lillard but was over ruled by Allen. Considering Allen's love and involvement in the draft this rumor seemed quite plausible.

a canzano rumor is the antithesis of a fact

 

[lawai'a]

Because nobody knows how to win in the NBA. There is no formula for success but presidents and owners are looking for something. Remember when every team needed a big burly center and a hot shooting guard? Remember when everyone needed a Big 3? Remember when everyone tried to run the triangle? I like San Antonio's approach a lot, but it's being treated just like every other fad.

Basketball has fewer players in play than just about every other team sport. As a result, individual talent, personalities, vagaries of refereeing and play calling and dumb luck are all amplified. In a stew of quantum events like that, who wins is less than 100% predictable... except last season, when SA flattened the waveform hard as motherfuck, which is why they're the sudden hotness.

...and their solution might be more portable than "wear a suit and have the three best players in the league". It's a "good and proper" technique. Very Wooden. But even so, it's just one way to win, and only works until someone beats it. Then their technique will be what everyone wants. Their coaches and executives will be poached shamelessly.

It's an endless cycle. The only surefire technique to winning it all is to score one or more points than your opponent, do it every night, and do it without needing luck or superhuman effort.

how did dallas beat Miami?

 

[cmeese47]

a canzano rumor is the antithesis of a fact

Yah well Woj was busy that day

 

[blue9]

if they are so unique why are their front office personel and assistant coaches so in demand around the league? why is their model the one that the majority of small market teams emulate? if stotts doesn't develop talent why a rookie of the year and carreer seasons by the starters? trob hasn't developed here?

Of course teams are going to try to copy the Spurs - that's how businesses work. If you can't innovate, you try to copy the ones who can. But unless you have (1) a coach who understands all the facets of the game and (2) a good eye for players that will fit with your system, you're not going to build another "Spurs". Teams have been trying for a while now, and it just doesn't work because all other coaches are shit compared to Pops. The only other two coaches who had similar success are Sloan and Jax - and Jax is the most coat-tail-riding coach I've ever witnessed. Neither of them are coaching right now. So until another transcendent coach comes along there's not going to be another "system" team.

You think Stotts developed Lillard and Robinson? Lillard came in on DAY 1 with those skills. Stotts' training camp isn't the reason Lillard dropped 23/11 on the Lakers in his first pro game. Robinson looked about the same this season as he did in his Kansas videos that I've seen. The fact remains that our bench players play very few minutes, and as a result their development is stunted.

 

[Pinwheel1]

The rumors mostly from Canzano were that Olshey preferred Barnes and Drummond to Lillard but was over ruled by Allen. Considering Allen's love and involvement in the draft this rumor seemed quite plausible.

So Allen lobbied for Durant, Lillard and Mills. Maybe he should be the GM.

 

[lawai'a]

Of course teams are going to try to copy the Spurs - that's how businesses work. If you can't innovate, you try to copy the ones who can. But unless you have (1) a coach who understands all the facets of the game and (2) a good eye for players that will fit with your system, you're not going to build another "Spurs". Teams have been trying for a while now, and it just doesn't work because all other coaches are shit compared to Pops. The only other two coaches who had similar success are Sloan and Jax - and Jax is the most coat-tail-riding coach I've ever witnessed. Neither of them are coaching right now. So until another transcendent coach comes along there's not going to be another "system" team.

You think Stotts developed Lillard and Robinson? Lillard came in on DAY 1 with those skills. Stotts' training camp isn't the reason Lillard dropped 23/11 on the Lakers in his first pro game. Robinson looked about the same this season as he did in his Kansas videos that I've seen. The fact remains that our bench players play very few minutes, and as a result their development is stunted.

stotts system allowed him to excell. do you infer damewould have performed and produced as well under nate's ISO system? Trob played as well in Houston and sacramento?please

 

[cmeese47]

how did dallas beat Miami?

No bench on Miami's part, Wade was still clinging to the idea is was his team, and Dallas was effective from downtown, plus Miami could not stop Dirk, Marion and Terry.

 

[lawai'a]

No bench on Miami's part, Wade was still clinging to the idea is was his team, and Dallas was effective from downtown, plus Miami could not stop Dirk, Marion and Terry.

still seems superior talent lost and the bench/role players carried the day because they were in a system other than san Antonio's that allowed them to.

 

[H.C.]

how did dallas beat Miami?

dirk beat Miami. Not with the 3. but with the worst shot in the nba. the turnaround fadeaway 2 pointer.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2011_finals.html

 

[BlazerCaravan]

how did dallas beat Miami?

"individual talent, personalities, vagaries of refereeing and play calling and dumb luck"

"who wins is less than 100% predictable"

Did you even read my post?

Do you even lift, bro?

 

[blue9]

stotts system allowed him to excell. do you infer damewould have performed and produced as well under nate's ISO system? Trob played as well in Houston and sacramento?please

I'm sorry, I don't find your counter-arguments compelling. I'll respond to this, and then that's it unless you have something compelling.

Comparing Stotts to Nate doesn't support the idea that Stotts developed Lillard. You're setting up false parameters that have nothing to do with Dame's development. But, yes, it's entirely possible that Lillard would have done equally well - and entirely probable that he would have won rookie of the year - under Nate. Nate really liked to ISO the ball, and Dame would have been the one ISOing which means he'd have been scoring a lot of points.

Robinson never got much of a chance his rookie year, from what I've heard. (Also, SAC is the most dysfunction team in the league.) In his second year he got playing time, so he produced. But was his game more developed than it was at Kansas?

 

[blue9]

The only surefire technique to winning it all is to score one or more points than your opponent, do it every night, and do it without needing luck or superhuman effort.

Yup. This. Particularly like the mentioning of luck/superhumon effort. That's what I've been hitting on with us beating HOU. It was GREAT, but it relied on both of those items.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Robinson never got much of a chance his rookie year, from what I've heard. (Also, SAC is the most dysfunction team in the league.) In his second year he got playing time, so he produced. But was his game more developed than it was at Kansas?

Developed? Maybe, maybe not. Disciplined? Extremely.

 

[lawai'a]

"individual talent, personalities, vagaries of refereeing and play calling and dumb luck"

"who wins is less than 100% predictable"

Did you even read my post?

Do you even lift, bro?

individual talent: LeBron-wade-bosh>>>>>>>nowitski-terry-marion you might make for the bosh-nowitski case but no how no way on the others
personalities would seem to go into the "team" scheme concept
play calling is most assuredly scheme system that overcame superior talent
dumb luck and play calling could just as easily be argued for the spurs loss in the finals the previous year

heavy lifting means inclusion not exclusion

 

[BlazerCaravan]

individual talent: LeBron-wade-bosh>>>>>>>nowitski-terry-marion you might make for the bosh-nowitski case but no how no way on the others
personalities would seem to go into the "team" scheme concept
play calling is most assuredly scheme system that overcame superior talent
dumb luck and play calling could just as easily be argued for the spurs loss in the finals the previous year

heavy lifting means inclusion not exclusion

Well, at least you're amusing.

Dallas caught Miami at the right time.

Pop made a dumb move that cost the Spurs a championship.

I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore.

 

[lawai'a]

I'm sorry, I don't find your counter-arguments compelling. I'll respond to this, and then that's it unless you have something compelling.

Comparing Stotts to Nate doesn't support the idea that Stotts developed Lillard. You're setting up false parameters that have nothing to do with Dame's development. But, yes, it's entirely possible that Lillard would have done equally well - and entirely probable that he would have won rookie of the year - under Nate. Nate really liked to ISO the ball, and Dame would have been the one ISOing which means he'd have been scoring a lot of points.

Robinson never got much of a chance his rookie year, from what I've heard. (Also, SAC is the most dysfunction team in the league.) In his second year he got playing time, so he produced. But was his game more developed than it was at Kansas?

in the iso nate schemes dame would never had as many open "3"s or the opportunities to shoot them at his record pace. packed paint would have negated his impact in my opinion. this is my reasoning for dames excellent performance under stotts. very doubtful a point guard who averaged less than 6 assists/game would have been allowed to play through his turnovers under nate. just supposition on my part but if past performance is indicative I am comfortable with this conclusion.

trob certainly improved during the season and to dismiss that as only pertaining to more playing time and not coaching... not a compelling argument brah

 

[blue9]

... not a compelling argument brah

Congrats on pulling the conversation off-topic to suit your "arguments". None of which pertains to my original point that holding up the Spurs as a shining example of what we can become if we stand pat is silly.

You know another thing I hate? Using individual examples to prove a point. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. They often fall into the luck/superhuman effort BC mentioned. While of course I would love to win a championship by any means possible, I'd rather give ourselves the best shot at one rather than hoping we stumble into one. I think we have a better shot at "Mavericking" our way to a championship, than "Spuring" our way to one. Again - I'd take it, but I don't want to be the Mavs as I don't think it gives us a good chance at winning a championship.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Olshey just knows what we dont. Lebron coming to portland as free agent. Paul allens couch gets muddy because he can buy a new one.

 

[blue9]

Paul allens couch gets muddy because he can buy a new one.

[video]

 

[Hobbesarable]

Congrats on pulling the conversation off-topic to suit your "arguments". None of which pertains to my original point that holding up the Spurs as a shining example of what we can become if we stand pat is silly.

You know another thing I hate? Using individual examples to prove a point. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. They often fall into the luck/superhuman effort BC mentioned. While of course I would love to win a championship by any means possible, I'd rather give ourselves the best shot at one rather than hoping we stumble into one. I think we have a better shot at "Mavericking" our way to a championship, than "Spuring" our way to one. Again - I'd take it, but I don't want to be the Mavs as I don't think it gives us a good chance at winning a championship.

Having our team win a championship is a nice goal. In the end, I'm wanting entertainment. Spurs team style of basketball entertains me and I would be ecstatic if our team achieved that in the near future.

 

[lawai'a]

I also really hate holding up the Spurs model to support the idea of standing pat. You can't compare us - or any other team - to the Spurs. They are unique. They work because they have the best coach of the past 20 years who knows how to get the most out of marginal talent. Not to mention the best PF of the modern era, and one of the best PGs in the league. But it all starts with the coach. We aren't going to emulate the Spurs under Terry "Can't Develop Players or Implement Adequate Defensive Schemes - And Let's Base Our Offense Around The Least Effective Shot In The Game" Stotts.
You know what's had greater success than the Spurs model? Acquiring the best talent possible.

the can't develop players in quotation marks is your post brah

 

[e_blazer]

Congrats on pulling the conversation off-topic to suit your "arguments". None of which pertains to my original point that holding up the Spurs as a shining example of what we can become if we stand pat is silly.

You know another thing I hate? Using individual examples to prove a point. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. They often fall into the luck/superhuman effort BC mentioned. While of course I would love to win a championship by any means possible, I'd rather give ourselves the best shot at one rather than hoping we stumble into one. I think we have a better shot at "Mavericking" our way to a championship, than "Spuring" our way to one. Again - I'd take it, but I don't want to be the Mavs as I don't think it gives us a good chance at winning a championship.

I don't think that anyone is advocating or expecting that the Blazers are going to stand pat. They need a solid bench that can make consistant contributions. Adding more young players through the draft isn't the best way to do that quickly. Filling the two vacant slots with experienced vets, maybe making a trade to get another vet, and letting guys like TRob, Barton, and CJ mature through another summer and training camp to grow their games is the route that makes the most sense. If a trade comes along that can upgrade the starting five, great, but that's not likely and shouldn't be relied upon at the expense of building the bench.

 

[blue9]

I don't think that anyone is advocating or expecting that the Blazers are going to stand pat. They need a solid bench that can make consistant contributions. Adding more young players through the draft isn't the best way to do that quickly. Filling the two vacant slots with experienced vets, maybe making a trade to get another vet, and letting guys like TRob, Barton, and CJ mature through another summer and training camp to grow their games is the route that makes the most sense. If a trade comes along that can upgrade the starting five, great, but that's not likely and shouldn't be relied upon at the expense of building the bench.

I'm in full agreement with this. I don't think we're going to stand pat, and I'm not advocating for (or against) more rookies. I just think that using the Spurs as support for the idea of standing pat is cheap and thoughtless (not in the "you thoughtless bastard" way).

 

[blue9]

the can't develop players in quotation marks is your post brah

Yeah, and I stand by it. But it wasn't the point I was making - it was only one small off-hand remark.
Are you Mags?

 

[lawai'a]

your reasoning for not emulating the spurs model and I will quote you on "but it all starts with the coach" and then assert that he can't develop players.
I really think that the added quotation marks negates any attempt on your part to trivialize that as a small off hand remark but rather a major component of your thesis.

 

[blue9]

your reasoning for not emulating the spurs model and I will quote you on "but it all starts with the coach" and then assert that he can't develop players.
I really think that the added quotation marks negates any attempt on your part to trivialize that as a small off hand remark but rather a major component of your thesis.

So you're suggesting that Stotts can compare favorably to Pops?

 

[PDXFonz]

So exciting with that abundance of cap space we have.

Sup Debbie?