Should the Blazers re-sign Jusuf Nurkic this summer?

[BBert]

If we don't resign Nurk, who is going to replicate what he does on defense for us? No one on the current roster, that's for sure. If the Blazers find this miracle center people are fantasizing about, either trade Nurk or bring him off the bench. Same if Collins becomes that guy in the next year or two. In the meantime, unless someone makes Nurk a stupid ridiculous offer, we have to resign him.

 

[Mediocre Man]

But how does NOT re-signing Nurk get us closer to winning in the POs? By not re-signing him we simply lose an asset and gain nothing - similar to the Crabbe situation, but worse because Nurk improves the team far more than Crabbe ever did or could.

I'm not talking about next year. Portland is nowhere near a contending team IMO

 

[Mediocre Man]

I'd actually like to see Nurk and Collins play together in the playoffs before I make that call.

BNM

So Durant and Green can run circles around them?

 

[blue9]

I'm not talking about next year. Portland is nowhere near a contending team IMO

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with Nurk.
I can't tell if you're against re-signing Nurk. Either way we're not contending. But we can't get better by not signing him...unless you're advocating tanking for a better pick?

 

[Boob-No-More]

So Durant and Green can run circles around them?

Don't Durant and Green run circles around pretty much the entire league? Will they be the only team we ever meet in the playoffs?

I know the sample size is small, but when has GSW ever run circles around POR with Jusuf Nurkic on the court? Nurk has only played in 3 games against GSW since he joined the Blazers. In those three games he is +8, +5 and -2. Again, I get that the sample size is small, but how will you know if it will extrapolate to a larger sample size unless you try?

Again, small sample size, but in 3 career games against GSW, Zach Collins is +1, +2, +13.

In the two games against GSW that both Nurk and Collins played in (2/14 and 3/9) POR is 2-0.

That's 2-0 even though Durant put up 50 and 40 in those two games. I'm fine with Durant running circles around us, as long as we win the game.

Again, I acknowledge the small sample size, but I'd like to actually see a larger sample size before I declare the Nurk/Collins front court a failure.

BNM

 

[AFully22]

Didn't most of the great "traditional centers" also have unique abilities or freak measurements?

Wilt was the most freakish athlete EVER. His combination of size, strength, speed, leaping ability hasn't been seen before, or since he was in his prime - in any sport.

Hakeem and David Robinson were both rim protectors extraordinaire that could also lock down a PG 1-0n-1.

I guess I just don't understand what folks in this thread are referring to as "traditional centers". If a young Hakeem or David Robinson were in this draft, would you pass them over for a PG or 6'7" wing player because of the way the game has changed? Hell, would you pass over Anthony Davis in place of a guard or wing player?

I think the only reason we aren't seeing more "traditional centers" (however you want to define them) make it to the finals is mostly due to the lack of overall quality at that position, combined with the fact that LeBron is the Michael Jordan of his generation and the formation of super teams (like the Heattles and GSW). Remember, Michael won six rings without a dominate "traditional center", but that didn't scare ORL away from taking Shaq No. 1 overall. Nor did it prevent Shaq from winning 4 rings, or Duncan from winning 5.

Say what you want about Nurk's individual skills, but the fact is a full season of Nurk transformed POR's defense from one of the worst in the league into one of the best. Can he guard PGs 1-on-1 on the perimeter? No, but he shouldn't have to (at least not very often). He does a great job using his size and strength to jam up the pick and roll which allows Dame and C.J. to recover and leads to much less switching. Proper technique and strategy is just as effective at guarding the pick and roll as having a mobile center that can defend smaller players on the perimeter.

I still think a front court of Nurk, Collins and Motivated Moe could be great defensively even in today's NBA. Nurk does a good job jamming the pick and roll and Collins and Moe have the length and lateral quickness to defend smaller players.

Going small to try to beat GSW at their own game seems like a fool's errand. We only saw 16 minutes of Nurk against GSW in the 2017 playoffs, but the team was +8 in those 16 minutes. In the game this year on 2/14, when GSW was at full strength, Nurk played 30 minutes and was +5 (POR won by 6). I know the sample sizes are small, but it's not like GSW has abused POR when Nurk is on the floor.

The fact is GSW's small ball, Hampton's 5 lineup is a tough match up for any team. So, don't play to their strength, because the other fact is that when GSW goes small, Nurk can, and does, destroy them on the low block. Rather than try to out small ball the best small ball team in the history of the world, punish them for their lack of size at the other end and on the boards. We can't beat them at their game. Force them to play ours.

BNM

Wilt, Robinson, and Hakeem were generational level talents that could succeed in any era because of how great they were. It’s the same reason I don’t consider Embiid a traditional center, he has the potential and shown flashes of the ability to be on a level near those other greats. When you’re that great I don’t think there’s anything “traditional” about it. It’s just a difference in how people define a traditional center.

I’ve posted this before but the reason people don’t have success staying big against smaller lineups is because it doesn’t have the same cumulative affect that a good small ball lineup has (imo). Unless you have a guy like Cousins, maybe. If it did people would have countered that by now and been successful, it’s not like it’s some revolutionary way of thinking to stay big.

Small ball lineups create a lot more action and space if they are on a level near that Hampton 5 lineup. Just dumping it in to Nurkic against a smaller defender, forcing him to be efficient inside or make smart decisions as a 7’0 275 lb center, doesn’t have the level of positive affect on an offense that small ball lineups have. Can you imagine the opposing coaches thinking when we opt to take the ball out of Dame and CJ’s hands to run the offense through Nurkic in the post? They would gladly oblige.

Add onto that the ability of that small ball lineup to switch everything defensively vs how you have to defend when staying big, and I get why no ones had succes with it. Just my two cents.

 

[tlongII]

I see no way where Nurk isn't back. No matter what the cost. It would be a traveshamockery to not match whatever he is offered.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Wilt, Robinson, and Hakeem were generational level talents that could succeed in any era because of how great they were. It’s the same reason I don’t consider Embiid a traditional center, he has the potential and shown flashes of the ability to be on a level near those other greats. When you’re that great I don’t think there’s anything “traditional” about it. It’s just a difference in how people define a traditional center.

I’ve posted this before but the reason people don’t have success staying big against smaller lineups is because it doesn’t have the same cumulative affect that a good small ball lineup has (imo). Unless you have a guy like Cousins, maybe. If it did people would have countered that by now and been successful, it’s not like it’s some revolutionary way of thinking to stay big.

Small ball lineups create a lot more action and space if they are on a level near that Hampton 5 lineup. Just dumping it in to Nurkic against a smaller defender, forcing him to be efficient inside or make smart decisions as a 7’0 275 lb center, doesn’t have the level of positive affect on an offense that small ball lineups have. Can you imagine the opposing coaches thinking when we opt to take the ball out of Dame and CJ’s hands to run the offense through Nurkic in the post? They would gladly oblige.

Add onto that the ability of that small ball lineup to switch everything defensively vs how you have to defend when staying big, and I get why no ones had succes with it. Just my two cents.

Define "no one has had success with it"? Are you only referring to the last two years? 17 of the last 19 NBA champions played a "traditional center" (unless you consider 6'11" Chris Bosh a small ball center).

In 2016, GSW was up 3-1 until Andrew Bogut (a "traditional center" if there ever was one) got injured. When forced to play too much small ball, GSW lost the series to CLE who was playing "traditional center" Tristan Thompson. Over the last 3 games of that series, CLE out scored GSW by an average of 17 ppg on points in the paint as GSW went small and had no rim protection resulting in a lay up drill for LeBron and company.

I think GSW's success has at least as much to do with a talent disparity as it does a style of play. They have two former MVPs, who have both won multiple NBA scoring titles, on their roster, along with another guy who holds NBA records for most points in a quarter (37) and most points in under 30 minutes (60 points in 29 minutes). I think that's just too much fire power for anyone to deal with, regardless of size or style of play.

Still, in the very limited sample size where Nurk has played against GSW, POR has had success.

I think Nurk is a valuable asset that is vital to the future success of this team. He's still only 23, and should be considerably better by the time he is 27. I just hop the rest of the league has swallowed the small ball Kool-Aid and no one offers him a ridiculous contract so we can retain him at a reasonable price.

BNM

 

[AFully22]

Define "no one has had success with it"? Are you only referring to the last two years? 17 of the last 19 NBA champions played a "traditional center" (unless you consider 6'11" Chris Bosh a small ball center).

In 2016, GSW was up 3-1 until Andrew Bogut (a "traditional center" if there ever was one) got injured. When forced to play too much small ball, GSW lost the series to CLE who was playing "traditional center" Tristan Thompson. Over the last 3 games of that series, CLE out scored GSW by an average of 17 ppg on points in the paint as GSW went small and had no rim protection resulting in a lay up drill for LeBron and company.

I think GSW's success has at least as much to do with a talent disparity as it does a style of play. They have two former MVPs, who have both won multiple NBA scoring titles, on their roster, along with another guy who holds NBA records for most points in a quarter (37) and most points in under 30 minutes (60 points in 29 minutes). I think that's just too much fire power for anyone to deal with, regardless of size or style of play.

Still, in the very limited sample size where Nurk has played against GSW, POR has had success.

I think Nurk is a valuable asset that is vital to the future success of this team. He's still only 23, and should be considerably better by the time he is 27. I just hop the rest of the league has swallowed the small ball Kool-Aid and no one offers him a ridiculous contract so we can retain him at a reasonable price.

BNM

You think the reason Cleveland was able to beat GSW was because Andrew Bogut got injured? I think it had a lot more to do with Draymond being suspended a game and Lebron + Kyrie being great in that series.

And it sounds funny but yes I’m referring to the last 2-3 years since it wasn’t until then did we see what a dominant small ball lineup could do. There were other variations of it previously but Draymond playing point forward/center surrounded by a team built to be able to play small while remaining a top tier defensive team was pretty revolutionary. There may not be another lineup as great at playing that style of ball as this GSW team but we have already seen some pretty damn good copy cats of it.

Where I think we agree is that I think there is a talent disparity at the 5 right now. But unless you have one of the few in the league that are talented enough to be a a suitable counter (we don’t) then it doesn’t make sense to stay big. It was one of the reasons I was really interested to see that Boogie+AD lineup in the playoffs this year. I think that’s about as good of a “big lineup” you can construct in today’s NBA and we could have really seen how they matched up against GSW.

I say all of this but I think it would be a huge mistake to let Nurk walk. He has a place in today’s game and pretty much single handedly transformed our defense but it just rarely pans out when you decide to build against the trends of innovation in the NBA.

 

[HailBlazers]

You think the reason Cleveland was able to beat GSW was because Andrew Bogut got injured? I think it had a lot more to do with Draymond being suspended a game and Lebron + Kyrie being great in that series.
.

Bogut was the missing piece when they won their first Chip for sure.

 

[Boob-No-More]

You think the reason Cleveland was able to beat GSW was because Andrew Bogut got injured? I think it had a lot more to do with Draymond being suspended a game and Lebron + Kyrie being great in that series.

And it sounds funny but yes I’m referring to the last 2-3 years since it wasn’t until then did we see what a dominant small ball lineup could do. There were other variations of it previously but Draymond playing point forward/center surrounded by a team built to be able to play small while remaining a top tier defensive team was pretty revolutionary. There may not be another lineup as great at playing that style of ball as this GSW team but we have already seen some pretty damn good copy cats of it.

Where I think we agree is that I think there is a talent disparity at the 5 right now. But unless you have one of the few in the league that are talented enough to be a a suitable counter (we don’t) then it doesn’t make sense to stay big. It was one of the reasons I was really interested to see that Boogie+AD lineup in the playoffs this year. I think that’s about as good of a “big lineup” you can construct in today’s NBA and we could have really seen how they matched up against GSW.

I say all of this but I think it would be a huge mistake to let Nurk walk. He has a place in today’s game and pretty much single handedly transformed our defense but it just rarely pans out when you decide to build against the trends of innovation in the NBA.

Yeah, I do believe Bogut's injury was the turning point of that series. GSW was dominating up until that point. After the injury, CLE killed GSW in the paint and on the boards. Remember this was before GSW added the 7' scoring machine and mismatch nightmare to their small ball lineup. Their small ball line up pre-Durant was very effective for stretches, but after the Bogut injury they were forced to play small for the entire game and couldn't keep Tristan Thompson off the offensive glass and couldn't keep LeBron from scoring at will at the rim. Green's suspension didn't help, but he was only suspended for one of those three games.

I think GSW, especially with the addition of Durant, is more of an anomaly than a long term trend. They added a 7' scoring machine to one of the most potent lineups in league history. You're not going to beat them at their own game. So, I think it's foolish and short sighted to try.

BNM

 

[Mediocre Man]

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with Nurk.
I can't tell if you're against re-signing Nurk. Either way we're not contending. But we can't get better by not signing him...unless you're advocating tanking for a better pick?

We can get better eventually. With some creative GMing, we could start to shed salary, and retool

 

[Mediocre Man]

Don't Durant and Green run circles around pretty much the entire league? Will they be the only team we ever meet in the playoffs?

I know the sample size is small, but when has GSW ever run circles around POR with Jusuf Nurkic on the court? Nurk has only played in 3 games against GSW since he joined the Blazers. In those three games he is +8, +5 and -2. Again, I get that the sample size is small, but how will you know if it will extrapolate to a larger sample size unless you try?

Again, small sample size, but in 3 career games against GSW, Zach Collins is +1, +2, +13.

In the two games against GSW that both Nurk and Collins played in (2/14 and 3/9) POR is 2-0.

That's 2-0 even though Durant put up 50 and 40 in those two games. I'm fine with Durant running circles around us, as long as we win the game.

Again, I acknowledge the small sample size, but I'd like to actually see a larger sample size before I declare the Nurk/Collins front court a failure.

BNM

I get it, and I don't think it is a fair. I think the playoffs are different, and running 2, 7 footers out there in today's game isn't a great recipe for success. It's just what I think.

 

[AFully22]

Yeah, I do believe Bogut's injury was the turning point of that series. GSW was dominating up until that point. After the injury, CLE killed GSW in the paint and on the boards. Remember this was before GSW added the 7' scoring machine and mismatch nightmare to their small ball lineup. Their small ball line up pre-Durant was very effective for stretches, but after the Bogut injury they were forced to play small for the entire game and couldn't keep Tristan Thompson off the offensive glass and couldn't keep LeBron from scoring at will at the rim. Green's suspension didn't help, but he was only suspended for one of those three games.

I think GSW, especially with the addition of Durant, is more of an anomaly than a long term trend. They added a 7' scoring machine to one of the most potent lineups in league history. You're not going to beat them at their own game. So, I think it's foolish and short sighted to try.

BNM

Agree to disagree. We may not see another lineup like this GSW team but I think there’s a lot of GM’s out there that are going to use them as a mold when building their teams. I don’t think it’s just a flash in a pan trend that’s going to go away within the next 5 years and I think we have a guy on the roster in Collins that can be a serious weapon should we chose to follow the trend. Good discussion.

 

[Blazinaway]

I see no way where Nurk isn't back. No matter what the cost. It would be a traveshamockery to not match whatever he is offered.

Hasn't the "no matter what the cost" mantra already put this team in a cap stranglehold with limited flexibility?

 

[tlongII]

Hasn't the "no matter what the cost" mantra already put this team in a cap stranglehold with limited flexibility?

Nope. We're fine. Just gotta get lucky in the draft.

 

[BigGameDamian]

I'd actually like to see Nurk and Collins play together in the playoffs before I make that call.

BNM

Wait & see mode is what the Blazers do best. Not long after often comes the shoulda, coulda, woulda sayings.

 

[Strenuus]

I see no way where Nurk isn't back. No matter what the cost. It would be a traveshamockery to not match whatever he is offered.

I liked it for the blending of words. True talent.

 

[Strenuus]

Wait & see mode is what the Blazers do best. Not long after often comes the shoulda, coulda, woulda sayings.

To play devils advocate... If the trades for the sake of trading happen and we still fail... The shoulda coulda wouldas would happen all the same.

 

[blue9]

We can get better eventually. With some creative GMing, we could start to shed salary, and retool

So don't sign Nurk so that we can maybe have financial flexibility 3 years from now? Somehow I think a re-signed Nurk will put us on a better path to become better in 3-4 years, even if only as a trade chip - salary cap will never (yes, that's bolded, underlined, AND italicised) be the road we should take to improve. The only argument for improvement sans-Nurk that makes any sense is the "tank" argument. I'm not entirely against that, but it's a DAMNED bold (some might say stupid) move to make when you have a potential legacy player on your roster who is entering his prime.
For what it's worth, I don't think Dame will ever lead us to a championship - so if that's all you care about, then don't re-sign Nurk. And trade CJ for a draft pick while you're at it. Also, don't bother bringing back Ed for anything more than MLE, Pat for the vet min, and forget Bazz altogether (which I'm totally fine with that last one).

 

[Mediocre Man]

So don't sign Nurk so that we can maybe have financial flexibility 3 years from now? Somehow I think a re-signed Nurk will put us on a better path to become better in 3-4 years, even if only as a trade chip - salary cap will never (yes, that's bolded, underlined, AND italicised) be the road we should take to improve. The only argument for improvement sans-Nurk that makes any sense is the "tank" argument. I'm not entirely against that, but it's a DAMNED bold (some might say stupid) move to make when you have a potential legacy player on your roster who is entering his prime.
For what it's worth, I don't think Dame will ever lead us to a championship - so if that's all you care about, then don't re-sign Nurk. And trade CJ for a draft pick while you're at it. Also, don't bother bringing back Ed for anything more than MLE, Pat for the vet min, and forget Bazz altogether (which I'm totally fine with that last one).

Championships is all anyone should care about

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Championships is all anyone should care about

...if you want to be perpetually dissatisfied...

 

[Hoopguru]

Unless dane gets Boggie to come here I don't see Nurk going anywhere, unless he signs a front loaded 70 million 4 year deal?

 

[Mediocre Man]

...if you want to be perpetually dissatisfied...

Rather than settle?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Rather than settle?

Settle...for contentment? Sure.

I have no control over whether or not the team wins a title. Why choose misery?

 

[Gronk Brady]

...if you want to be perpetually dissatisfied...

I think the point is to constantly be trying to win the championship... if there is hope, whether it’s a big trade or a high draft pick, the unknown at least gives you hope, which keeps the season interesting... the current roster has no hope of ever contending, so if Neil brings back same core next season it will be hard to get excited...

 

[Mediocre Man]

Settle...for contentment? Sure.

I have no control over whether or not the team wins a title. Why choose misery?

I'd just like them to have a realistic shot

 

[blue9]

Championships is all anyone should care about

I think it should be the #1 thing all teams strive for - yes. But if that's ALL we should care about, then trade everyone outside of Collins...and maybe even him.

Knowing that it's extremely rare - especially in the NBA - to even get a shot at a championship, I think you have to take a look at other, more achievable goals. I think the Blazers finally having a legacy player (Dame) they can lay claim to is more achievable than winning a championship. Personally, that's the 2nd best thing a team can achieve. So, IMO, we have to do whatever is necessary to make sure Dame is happy enough here to retire as a Blazer.

Back when our longest active Playoff streak in all major sports was active, I'd argue that it was important to keep that streak going even if we weren't legit contenders.

 

[tykendo]

I think the point is to constantly be trying to win the championship... if there is hope, whether it’s a big trade or a high draft pick, the unknown at least gives you hope, which keeps the season interesting... the current roster has no hope of ever contending, so if Neil brings back same core next season it will be hard to get excited...

"No hope of ever contending", that's ridiculous. What are you, Nostrafreakingdomus? You don't know what this team can accomplish with further development anymore than anyone else. Hard to get excited, go fishing, fly a kite, hike, create a cure for cancer. The Blazers aren't holding you hostage.

 

[Strenuus]

I think it should be the #1 thing all teams strive for - yes. But if that's ALL we should care about, then trade everyone outside of Collins...and maybe even him.

Knowing that it's extremely rare - especially in the NBA - to even get a shot at a championship, I think you have to take a look at other, more achievable goals. I think the Blazers finally having a legacy player (Dame) they can lay claim to is more achievable than winning a championship. Personally, that's the 2nd best thing a team can achieve. So, IMO, we have to do whatever is necessary to make sure Dame is happy enough here to retire as a Blazer.

Back when our longest active Playoff streak in all major sports was active, I'd argue that it was important to keep that streak going even if we weren't legit contenders.

Really really well said.