Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Boob-No-More said:
Bucher just makes shit up and presents it like it's a well known fact. The last great PG to win an NBA title was Isiah Thomas in 1990.

John Stockton = 0 titles
Jason Kidd = 0 titles
Steve Nash = 0 titles

Gary Payton won a title, but he was, by then, a shadow of the player he once was.

Having a great PG is nice, but hardly a requirement to winning a title. Conversely, being a Hall of Fame caliber PG is no guarantee you'll ever win a ring (see: John Stockton, Jason Kidd and Steve Nash).

Remember, dominant big men, defense and rebounding win titles. These aren't facets of the game where PGs excel. Having a great PG doesn't hurt, but is is simply not a prerequisite to winning an NBA title. Anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't know shit about NBA basketball (see: Ric Bucher).

BNM
Click to expand...

To be fair, Tony Parker and Chauncey Billups are pretty great players and both won NBA Finals MVP.
 
KingSpeed said:
You're wrong.

Derek Fisher in the 2000-01 season: 11.5 ppg, 4.4 apg, 39% from three point line.
Derek Fisher in the 2001-02 season: 11.2 ppg, 2.6 apg, 41% from the three point line.

Ron Harper in the 1995-96 season: 7.4 ppg, 2.6 apg, 27% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1996-97 season: 6.3 ppg, 2.5 apg, 36% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1997-98 season: 9.3 ppg, 2.9 apg, 19% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1999-00 season: 7.0 ppg, 3.4 apg, 31% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 2000-01 season: 6.5 ppg, 2.4 apg, 26% from the three point line.

Steve Blake in the 2008-09 season: 11.2 ppg, 5.0 apg, 43% from three three point line.

Sorry. Learn the game, then post.
Click to expand...

To be totally fair, Harper was at the end of his career. Before he suffered knee injuries he was awesome.
 
KingSpeed said:
To be fair, Tony Parker and Chauncey Billups are pretty great players and both won NBA Finals MVP.
Click to expand...

True, but neither are, at this point first ballot Hall of Fame PGs. Parker is a shoot first PG who has career averages of 16.6 PPG and 5.6 APG. He has yet to make a single 1st, 2nd or 3rd all NBA team.

Billups is very good all around all-around player, but his career numbers are 15.1 and 5.6. He was 2nd team all NBA once and 3rd team all NBA another time. Good, but certainly not a lock to make the Hall of Fame.

Neither one of them has a ring if not paired with great rebounders/interior defenders. Tim Duncan won a titel with Avery Johnson at PG. How many rings would Tony Parker win without Tim Duncan?

Neither player, at this point, can be considered a top 3 PG of their generation.

BNM
 
LittleAlex said:
To be totally fair, Harper was at the end of his career. Before he suffered knee injuries he was awesome.
Click to expand...

True, but when he was in his prime, he played SG (not PG) and won zero rings.

BNM
 
Get back to me when OKC has some muscle up front and a bench with some scoring punch. Green and Krstic? Yeah, there's a couple of guys who can keep Oden, Aldridge, and Joel off the boards. And Portland can bring guys like Rudy, Outlaw, Webster, and Bayless off the bench who, on any given night, can drop 20 points on the opponent. OKC?
 
KingSpeed said:
You're wrong.

Derek Fisher in the 2000-01 season: 11.5 ppg, 4.4 apg, 39% from three point line.
Derek Fisher in the 2001-02 season: 11.2 ppg, 2.6 apg, 41% from the three point line.

Ron Harper in the 1995-96 season: 7.4 ppg, 2.6 apg, 27% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1996-97 season: 6.3 ppg, 2.5 apg, 36% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1997-98 season: 9.3 ppg, 2.9 apg, 19% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 1999-00 season: 7.0 ppg, 3.4 apg, 31% from the three point line.
Ron Harper in the 2000-01 season: 6.5 ppg, 2.4 apg, 26% from the three point line.

Steve Blake in the 2008-09 season: 11.2 ppg, 5.0 apg, 43% from three three point line.

Sorry. Learn the game, then post.
Click to expand...

Since neither Blake, Harper nor Fisher were "stats" guys, it's weird that this is your proof.

Truth is that Harper and Fisher were vastly better defenders than Blake. It's not even close. Given that that's really the role they were supposed to play (and the role Blake should play here but doesn't) it's hard to argue Blake is better.

In a "holy crap I can't believe they left me so wide open" three point contest, I might pick Blake over Fisher (but then Fisher has hit a lot more game-winning shots, so I'd trust him more in pressure situations.) I'd definitely pick him over Harper in that situation.

But Blake just isn't as good an overall role player as those two because he just doesn't defend that well.
 
mook said:
Since neither Blake, Harper nor Fisher were "stats" guys, it's weird that this is your proof.

Truth is that Harper and Fisher were vastly better defenders than Blake. It's not even close. Given that that's really the role they were supposed to play (and the role Blake should play here but doesn't) it's hard to argue Blake is better.

In a "holy crap I can't believe they left me so wide open" three point contest, I might pick Blake over Fisher (but then Fisher has hit a lot more game-winning shots, so I'd trust him more in pressure situations.) I'd definitely pick him over Harper in that situation.

But Blake just isn't as good an overall role player as those two because he just doesn't defend that well.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but I think the point here is that you don't need a GREAT PG to win an NBA title. A solid role player will do. Was John Paxson a great defender? Steve Kerr? No, they were guys who, when left alone, could knock down an open 3-pointer. They knew their role and played it well within the limits of their ability. Sounds a lot like Steve Blake to me.

I'm not saying Blake will be the starting PG on a championship team (at the NBA level - he's already won championships in high school and college), just that he's in the same class as several other guys that have won titles at that position over the last 15 years (Fisher, Harper, Kenny Smith, Avery Johnson, Paxson, Kerr, etc.).

BNM
 
mook said:
Truth is that Harper and Fisher were vastly better defenders than Blake. It's not even close.
Click to expand...

Harper, yes. I don't agree Fisher was a much better defender than Blake. I think Fisher was overrated as a defender because he hustled and flopped, so seemed to be "active." He may have been active, but he wasn't very effective. But Fisher had Shaq behind him and while Shaq was no DPOY type of shot-blocker, he was an intimidating defensive presence to would-be slashers.

I'd prefer Blake to that Fisher (the current Fisher is even worse). Harper I thought was a great complement to that Bulls team because he was a lock-down defender. He'd be a great veteran presence to have on this team, but he worked for the Bulls because Pippen (and Jordan too, at times) handled the point guard duties. Roy can do that to some extent, but not to the same extent Pippen could. Blake, while not a lock-down defender, has some distribution ability and can nail open shots. He's quite upgradable, but I think he's at least as good for this Portland team as Harper or Fisher would be, if not better.
 
mook said:
Derek Fisher and Ron Harper were definitely better players than Blake.
Click to expand...

That's debatable. They're certainly not better point guards though (or weren't at the time - Fisher has gotten better at it). Fact is, the triangle doesn't require a traditional PG, which (of course) makes Bucher's claim all the more ridiculous.
 
LittleAlex said:
To be totally fair, Harper was at the end of his career. Before he suffered knee injuries he was awesome.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. We're talking about point guards who played on championship teams. So all that matters are Harper's numbers in those years. Blake is beter than he was in those years.
 
boob-no-more said:
that's all well and good, but i think the point here is that you don't need a great pg to win an nba title. A solid role player will do. Was john paxson a great defender? Steve kerr? No, they were guys who, when left alone, could knock down an open 3-pointer. They knew their role and played it well within the limits of their ability. Sounds a lot like steve blake to me.

I'm not saying blake will be the starting pg on a championship team (at the nba level - he's already won championships in high school and college), just that he's in the same class as several other guys that have won titles at that position over the last 15 years (fisher, harper, kenny smith, avery johnson, paxson, kerr, etc.).

Bnm
Click to expand...

exactly.
 
So what does Durant do that players like Carmelo and Granger don't do? I think Roy is better than both of those players.
 
Gee, here's a surprise... the Blazers are KILLING OKC on the glass 53 - 32 and stomping them by 32 points. I don't care how good Durant is, until OKC gets some big men that can rebound and play defense they aren't going anywhere.

Take that Ric Bucher! You know NOTHING about what it takes to win in the NBA.

BNM
 
All night long we played Durant straight up, mostly with Batum, and he has a pretty terrible night. While the Thunder are doubling, rotating bigs, and even trying ball denial like fronting etc etc. and Roy still has a pretty solid night... and because of all the attention he draws they have to single cover Aldridge... MISTAKE.

They have no one in the paint, on both offense and defense, who right now makes an impact. I'll take Portland all day every day.
 
Final tally... Portland outrebounds OKC 57 - 32, holds them to 36.5% FG% and stomps them by 35 points.

Note to Ric Bucher: Defense and rebounding wins backetball games and most importantly wins championships. Portland has it, OKC doesn't.

Durant may be a talented offensive player, but even if he leads the league in scoring for the next 10 years, OKC will not be a contender without a great big man to provide rebounding and interior defense.

Learn the game, then post.

BNM
 
Everyone should just screenshot the boxscore and send it to Ric.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Durant may be a talented offensive player, but even if he leads the league in scoring for the next 10 years, OKC will not be a contender without a great big man to provide rebounding and interior defense.
Click to expand...

But they, unlike the Blazers, have a surplus of cap room and draft picks they can use to get that big man. While the Blazers have all their ingridients, and all they can do now is 'bake it' (and that phrase goes against everything I stand for).

Portland is a lot farther ahead than OKC in their rebuilding project, because they started earlier. I don't why some of you guys think tonight or anything this season dictates who will be the better team in the future.
 
JE said:
But they, unlike the Blazers, have a surplus of cap room and draft picks they can use to get that big man. While the Blazers have all their ingridients, and all they can do now is 'bake it' (and that phrase goes against everything I stand for).

Portland is a lot farther ahead than OKC in their rebuilding project, because they started earlier. I don't why some of you guys think tonight or anything this season dictates who will be the better team in the future.
Click to expand...


I bet there is a multitude of talented big men lining up for the opportunity to play in Oklahoma! :biglaugh:
 
Portland only started a year earlier. OKC is more than a year behind.
 
JE said:
But they, unlike the Blazers, have a surplus of cap room and draft picks they can use to get that big man. While the Blazers have all their ingridients, and all they can do now is 'bake it' (and that phrase goes against everything I stand for).

Portland is a lot farther ahead than OKC in their rebuilding project, because they started earlier. I don't why some of you guys think tonight or anything this season dictates who will be the better team in the future.
Click to expand...

Well, one reason may be because Bucher basically said Durant was a "superstar" and didn't give Roy the same stature. OKC doubled Roy out top. A Blazer rookie shut down Durant straight up.

So that's why.
 
JE said:
But they, unlike the Blazers, have a surplus of cap room and draft picks they can use to get that big man. While the Blazers have all their ingridients, and all they can do now is 'bake it' (and that phrase goes against everything I stand for).

Portland is a lot farther ahead than OKC in their rebuilding project, because they started earlier. I don't why some of you guys think tonight or anything this season dictates who will be the better team in the future.
Click to expand...

The same argument about our lack of cap room can be made about their's... but later. If Durant, Westbrook, and Green are so good, well, there's a ton of cap room gone.

And don't think OKC can afford to go over the cap like Paul Allen can.
 
There's more than just players that make a winning franchise. Coaches, GM, owner. Portland has the edge in all of these, and probably will in the future.
 
PapaG said:
Well, one reason may be because Bucher basically said Durant was a "superstar" and didn't give Roy the same stature. OKC doubled Roy out top. A Blazer rookie shut down Durant straight up.

So that's why.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about Bucher. He's a dipshit. If I happen to agree with him, its entirely by accident and we probably took two very different routes of reasoning toward our conclusions.

Durant is not a superstar. Right now, he's one of the very top offensive players in the game, and is a real contender for next year's scoring champion. On defense, he is horrid. But I don't think he will always be horrid. LeBron was a shitty defender when he came into the league, and look at him now. One of the top perimeter defenders in the game. I have no reason to think that Durant won't pick up a defensive game somewhere along the way. When he does, look out.
 
Last edited:
JE said:
I'm not talking about Bucher. He's a dipshit. If I happen to agree with him, its entirely by accident and we probably took two very different routes of reasoning toward our conclusions.
Click to expand...

This thread is about Bucher and his opinion on why OKC will be better than Portland. If you want to give your own opinion that differs from his, I'm all eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top