Quick calls out Stotts etc

[Scalma]

That simply isn;t true as he averaged 20.7 minutes for the season and the last month he played

21.2 min in April

18.6 in March

20.0 in February

24.9 in January

25.1 in December

20.5 in November

Now how is that barely playing the end of the season? Looks pretty consistent to me. Not sure the relevance of a 4 game playoff series as you also never mentioned playoffs in your initial response that Napier barely played as I was talking an 82 game season.

I said Napier barely played when it counted. I didn’t know I had to literally spell out playoffs. Playoffs. You know, the time when a coach only goes with players he trusts.

But this is straying from the original point that Stotts leaned on McCollum as his backup point for way too long. I don’t know how anyone can argue that.

 

[CupWizier]

So like Olshey, Stotts won't take questions that aren't softballs?

Is this a new game of yours to manufacturer a false narrative of what a poster says? I would appreciate it if you respond to what is said rather than projecting a false narrative. If you disagree with what I post fine, but at least be honest with what I or any other poster says. Fair enough?

 

[Scalma]

So like Olshey, Stotts won't take questions that aren't softballs?

“Brooke, look..”

 

[CupWizier]

I said Napier barely played when it counted. I didn’t know I had to literally spell out playoffs. Playoffs. You know, the time when a coach only goes with players he trusts.

But this is straying from the original point that Stotts leaned on McCollum as his backup point for way too long. I don’t know how anyone can argue that.

Seriously? Napier played in 74 regular season games last year and averaged 20.7 minutes. It's basic math and not that hard to understand that Napier was a role player last year that was in the rotation. He was out a few games with injury and most of his low usage was the first couple weeks of the season. Go check the stats out and you will see that your theory just doesn't hold much water. The last 3 years prior to this season he averaged 3.4, 3.6 and 4.3 apg. Reasonable numbers. If this discussion is just for an argument then let's end this and move on.

 

[illmatic99]

Is this a new game of yours to manufacturer a false narrative of what a poster says? I would appreciate it if you respond to what is said rather than projecting a false narrative. If you disagree with what I post fine, but at least be honest with what I or any other poster says. Fair enough?

Quick is a hack. I can see why you probably like him.

 

[Scalma]

Seriously? Napier played in 74 regular season games last year and averaged 20.7 minutes. It's basic math and not that hard to understand that Napier was a role player last year that was in the rotation. He was out a few games with injury and most of his low usage was the first couple weeks of the season. Go check the stats out and you will see that your theory just doesn't hold much water. The last 3 years prior to this season he averaged 3.4, 3.6 and 4.3 apg. Reasonable numbers. If this discussion is just for an argument then let's end this and move on.

The argument isn’t about whether or not Napier was in the rotation though is it? It’s about McCollum as the backup point guard. If you want to do a deep dive into Napier, we can do that. I can mention that the spike in his minutes came when Lillard was injured. But I’d rather focus on my original point instead.

You want to argue that McCollum wasn’t the backup point for too long? If not, this is pointless.

 

[illmatic99]

To be frankly honest, I'm about to delete all the posts that dont have to do with the thread.

We'd be left with about 15 posts, but still!

Get it back on topic, there is most definitely a discussion to be had.

i dont think you should have deleted all of that

 

[hoopsjock]

Is this a new game of yours to manufacturer a false narrative of what a poster says? I would appreciate it if you respond to what is said rather than projecting a false narrative. If you disagree with what I post fine, but at least be honest with what I or any other poster says. Fair enough?

No, I'm curious what your thoughts are. Olshey very clearly tries to control the media here in town and rarely does interviews that aren't fluffy ones. In my opinion no one is asking very tough questions of Stotts, especially after losses. The first time in awhile that someone does he shuts it down. I think there is something to that. If you don't, that is fine too.

 

[Scalma]

No, I'm curious what your thoughts are. Olshey very clearly tries to control the media here in town and rarely does interviews that aren't fluffy ones. In my opinion no one is asking very tough questions of Stotts, especially after losses. The first time in awhile that someone does he shuts it down. I think there is something to that. If you don't, that is fine too.

Olshey trying to control the media, and thus the narrative...is that even..I don’t know the right word..ethical? Does that happen anywhere else? I’m honestly wondering, because it doesn’t seem like he gets enough shit for that.

 

[CupWizier]

No, I'm curious what your thoughts are. Olshey very clearly tries to control the media here in town and rarely does interviews that aren't fluffy ones. In my opinion no one is asking very tough questions of Stotts, especially after losses. The first time in awhile that someone does he shuts it down. I think there is something to that. If you don't, that is fine too.

What's played out in the open and the media is often nothing like what is going on behind closed doors. Do we all want to know? Sure Do we deserve to know? No. Will we likely ever know what goes on in meetings and practices? not likely. I prefer the teams I root for to deal with issues internally and especially not through a hack like Quick as nothing good usually comes out of it when it is.

 

[hoopsjock]

Olshey trying to control the media, and thus the narrative...is that even..I don’t know the right word..ethical? Does that happen anywhere else? I’m honestly wondering, because it doesn’t seem like he gets enough shit for that.

I know that's why Blazersedge hates him because the Blazers changed their policy on media credentials shortly after him and McGowan took over. Kind of funny that one of their writers is now on a Blazers Pre and Post Game show and has to watch what he says now.

 

[CupWizier]

The argument isn’t about whether or not Napier was in the rotation though is it? It’s about McCollum as the backup point guard. If you want to do a deep dive into Napier, we can do that. I can mention that the spike in his minutes came when Lillard was injured. But I’d rather focus on my original point instead.

You want to argue that McCollum wasn’t the backup point for too long? If not, this is pointless.

Okay, we're done as you continually bounce all over the place and refuse to accept the real numbers and instead keep coming back with a different narrative and more excuses. Lillard only missed 9 games last year out of 82 and Napier was the PG for the most part during those games. Have a nice night.

 

[hoopsjock]

What's played out in the open and the media is often nothing like what is going on behind closed doors. Do we all want to know? Sure Do we deserve to know? No. Will we likely ever know what goes on in meetings and practices? not likely. I prefer the teams I root for to deal with issues internally and especially not through a hack like Quick as nothing good usually comes out of it when it is.

Okay, so do you think the CJ struggles are an issue for this team? If so, is it not okay for a reporter to ask about that issue? From my view it doesn't seem like there is any accountability about it because nothing changes.

 

[Scalma]

I know that's why Blazersedge hates him because the Blazers changed their policy on media credentials shortly after him and McGowan took over. Kind of funny that one of their writers is now on a Blazers Pre and Post Game show and has to watch what he says now.

I remember when Ropp got fired for being critical of the team, and his paycheck didn’t even come from the team itself. I don’t think that’s ok and Olshey should be held accountable for that, but won’t be, because there’s nobody to do it. Not without risking their livelihood at least.

 

[Scalma]

I’m actually surprised this forum still exists now that I think about it lollll.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I remember when Ropp got fired for being critical of the team, and his paycheck didn’t even come from the team itself. I don’t think that’s ok and Olshey should be held accountable for that, but won’t be, because there’s nobody to do it. Not without risking their livelihood at least.

I think to be fair we only heard Ropps side of it. Who knows if thats the whole story or not. Ropp never belonged on that show anyways. He knows basically nothing about basketball. He’s much more interested in other sports.

 

[Scalma]

I think to be fair we only heard Ropps side of it. Who knows if thats the whole story or not. Ropp never belonged on that show anyways. He knows basically nothing about basketball. He’s much more interested in other sports.

That’s fair, but I also think there’s enough smoke around Olsheys treatment of local media to believe the baseline of his side.

 

[CupWizier]

I think to be fair we only heard Ropps side of it. Who knows if thats the whole story or not. Ropp never belonged on that show anyways. He knows basically nothing about basketball. He’s much more interested in other sports.

That was pathetically sad how much he whined and cried about it also and like what you mentioned, he knows little about the game and was a fish out of water on that show. Kind of like that Shain guy on the Blazer Outsiders. I hope and expect changes to be made to that show or a completely new show offered at some time. Maybe we can get a show with Ropp, Jaynes and Aaron Fentress. That would be a real winner, lol.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Quick is a hack. Do you like his style of trying to create controversy? I don't..

Seemed like a fair line of questioning to me?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

That’s fair, but I also think there’s enough smoke around Olsheys treatment of local media to believe the baseline of his side.

No doubt, but I think there's enough smoke around Ropp at this point to not just take his side either. I know everyone makes mistakes and all that but the way he handled that DUI was pretty hypocritical to me, considering he always tells everyone they should handle that stuff differently than he was willing to. Makes me question his character too. Anyways, to me the local sports media just does a bad job covering the Blazers and yes some of it is on the Blazers and how NO has handled the media but the other side of that is if the media around here grew up Neil would be forced to act like a grown up too.

 

[CupWizier]

No doubt, but I think there's enough smoke around Ropp at this point to not just take his side either. I know everyone makes mistakes and all that but the way he handled that DUI was pretty hypocritical to me, considering he always tells everyone they should handle that stuff differently than he was willing to. Makes me question his character too. Anyways, to me the local sports media just does a bad job covering the Blazers and yes some of it is on the Blazers and how NO has handled the media but the other side of that is if the media around here grew up Neil would be forced to act like a grown up too.

It has been going on with the media well before Olshey came along. It was the peeking through the blinds during pre draft workouts and trying to read Pritchards lips while looking through bushes and even before that.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It has been going on with the media well before Olshey came along. It was the peeking through the blinds during pre draft workouts and trying to read Pritchards lips while looking through bushes and even before that.

I agree Stotts doesnt have to answer a question. I also think Quick’s questions were relevant and fine questions to ask.
I think the idea that Quicks reputation is so bad with them that he’s not allowed to ask questions that make Stotts uncomfortable is weird though. So who is allowed to ask tough questions? It really seems to me that tough questions are almost never answered by Stotts or NO. Most of the time NO just hijacks the conversation with long diatribes that rarely actually say anything and Stotts is liked/likeable enough they’re rarely asked.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Welcome to the Neil Olshey administration.

Where media isn't allowed to ask questions that would bring awareness to their lack of ability and accountability.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Olshey is Hitler 2.0!

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

To be frankly honest, I'm about to delete all the posts that dont have to do with the thread.

We'd be left with about 15 posts, but still!

Get it back on topic, there is most definitely a discussion to be had.

Deleting posts. The ultimate reach-around from the reach-around king!

But really.... let’s be “frankly” honest.... if you start deleting off-topic posts from every thread, most threads would be left with maybe 20% of their post counts.

 

[kjironman1]

What's wrong with the question "How has he impacted the game in other ways" ... that's an easy answer if he in fact is. I know Quick's history and that question is an easy and appropriate question to ask.. if you can't answer it, then he (Stotts) is not seeing any other impact. AND that is telling.

Quick is who he is, but I thought the questioning was way more than fair, and NEEDED to be asked.

Nothing is "WRONG" with the question. What you have to think about is the next question. Stotts already knew where that line of questioning was going. If you can't see it then i guess you can't see it. I personally see exactly what Quick was working for. I have been reading the dude since he started with the Oregonian in 99-2000. It's what he does. He even proved it by going for the drop on the "Meeting later In His Office" jab. You ask a question and get an answer. The original answer by Stotts covered CJ's shooting issues and it covered making an impact. The Quick went after that course. and Stotts agreed. Then Quick decided to push for Stotts to drag his player through the mud. Stotts refused!

If you want a coach that is willing to drag one of his players through the mud then you might as well go root for the Clippers. Rivers would be your guy. But if you want a coach with integrity then don't look to Stotts, Pops, Carlisle, Kerr, even DiAntoni not to mention a whole host of others that simply would have shut Quick down also.

 

[CupWizier]

I agree Stotts doesnt have to answer a question. I also think Quick’s questions were relevant and fine questions to ask.
I think the idea that Quicks reputation is so bad with them that he’s not allowed to ask questions that make Stotts uncomfortable is weird though. So who is allowed to ask tough questions? It really seems to me that tough questions are almost never answered by Stotts or NO. Most of the time NO just hijacks the conversation with long diatribes that rarely actually say anything and Stotts is liked/likeable enough they’re rarely asked.

I have answered the Quicks question thing already enough times as I was simply pointing out that the media situation (especially Quick and Canzano along with their respective reputations) has been well before Olshey came to this team. We have become a media frenzy society and in some cases demand that we get more where as the Blazers prefer to keep information internally and not play it out in the media. I think a lot of that had to do with Paul Allen as well. Some businesses like to play it out in the media while others like to keep it internally.

 

[TBpup]

I don't see anything wrong with the questions Quick asked. It's just that the Coach/GM are so used to soft questions with no follow up from the majority of the Portland media that when an actual legit question comes out, they bristle. Those were the obvious follow up questions and I'm impressed someone finally asked them

As for MeJ's mentions of 'there not being many rebounds', that is a joke. How about getting some assists and playing better defense. I could care less about him getting many rebounds. The fact that his answer went immediately there is telling to me.

 

[CupWizier]

Deleting posts. The ultimate reach-around from the reach-around king!

But really.... let’s be “frankly” honest.... if you start deleting off-topic posts from every thread, most threads would be left with maybe 20% of their post counts.

lol, yes, but what would be left would be on topic. One thing I have noticed with this forum is that almost every thread ends up going sideways or completely off track. I would think mods would interject posts into threads reminding posters to stick to the topic. I have been guilty of it as well as most others have also.

 

[jlprk]

I was watching this video of Pop and the big 3 a few days back and listen to Pop talk about accountability and leadership.

Ha ha. At 2:30, Popovich says the 3 players with him aren't unAmerican. Not one is from the U.S.