Start Sharpe

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
He shouldn’t be starting.

I like that he can get his feet wet against 2nd units.

Also, our bench scoring would be absolutely horrific without him…

Unless you move Ant to the bench… ;)
 
Listening to Rob Perez's recap call-in show last night, and two different Blazer fans got on and were downright depressed and he kept having to check - 'your team did win tonight, right?'. The poor man is unfamiliar with our fanbase.
 
Predator said:
He shouldn’t be starting.

I like that he can get his feet wet against 2nd units.

Also, our bench scoring would be absolutely horrific without him…

Unless you move Ant to the bench… ;)
Click to expand...
We can't have 6 guys on the floor. Yes, Simons or Lillard should be on the bench. The starting unit should not have 2 poor defenders, and all over again, they're in the backcourt.
 
blazerfan11 said:
We can't have 6 guys on the floor. Yes, Simons or Lillard should be on the bench. The starting unit should not have 2 poor defenders, and all over again, they're in the backcourt.
Click to expand...

The unit that finished the game had both Simons and Lillard and it had excellent defense. The point is that the real problem is that our center is a slow, earth bound defender. The modern NBA is built on fast, mobile centers that can switch on the perimeter. with Nurk on the floor and 2 not as great one on one defenders in Dame / Ant - the Blazers are really having a problem with switching and really have to play drop-coverage to have any kind of effective defense that does not put Nurk on an island. That's why Stotts played so much drop-coverage, it is the only reasonable option for long stretches with a guy like Nurk.

The team can have 2 "sub par" defenders if the other 3 are good. The problem that starting unit has is that while Nurk is a good rim protector and an OK one on one post defender, he is a poor perimeter defender in the modern NBA, so the Blazers play with 2 "sub par" individual defenders and one sub par switching defender for the kind of switching defense Chauncy wants to play.
 
I would be very content if Shaedon can get 15-20 mpg on a regular rotation. That's fairly on par with what guys like Kobe/Paul George/TMac/Jaylen Brown got their rookie years.

Unless we hit a rough spot and drop a bunch of games... if so, then I want him getting reps closer to 30 mpg
 
andalusian said:
He is not the best player on the team yet, but he has a chance to be in a couple of years. As long as he gets 12-15 minutes a game at the start of the season, that's enough.
Click to expand...
Word, but it was an excellent attention grabber. OP knew what they were doing.

I think an argument for him starting isn’t too crazy.
 
andalusian said:
The unit that finished the game had both Simons and Lillard and it had excellent defense. The point is that the real problem is that our center is a slow, earth bound defender. The modern NBA is built on fast, mobile centers that can switch on the perimeter. with Nurk on the floor and 2 not as great one on one defenders in Dame / Ant - the Blazers are really having a problem with switching and really have to play drop-coverage to have any kind of effective defense that does not put Nurk on an island. That's why Stotts played so much drop-coverage, it is the only reasonable option for long stretches with a guy like Nurk.

The team can have 2 "sub par" defenders if the other 3 are good. The problem that starting unit has is that while Nurk is a good rim protector and an OK one on one post defender, he is a poor perimeter defender in the modern NBA, so the Blazers play with 2 "sub par" individual defenders and one sub par switching defender for the kind of switching defense Chauncy wants to play.
Click to expand...

yeah...I kept saying last season that if you gauged by the direction the NBA is evolving, and then factored Nurk's injury history and paint-bound game, he didn't deserve more than the 12M he was making; and that was being generous IMO

I get that the Blazers were kind of in a corner and couldn't let Nurk walk, but he's overpaid now and very likely a negative contract

all Nurk's faults we saw last night have been visible for years. He's 28 now and it's probably not realistic to think he'll alter his game for the better.
 
wizenheimer said:
yeah...I kept saying last season that if you gauged by the direction the NBA is evolving, and then factored Nurk's injury history and paint-bound game, he didn't deserve more than the 12M he was making; and that was being generous IMO

I get that the Blazers were kind of in a corner and couldn't let Nurk walk, but he's overpaid now and very likely a negative contract

all Nurk's faults we saw last night have been visible for years. He's 28 now and it's probably not realistic to think he'll alter his game for the better.
Click to expand...
hate is not good man, go see a psychiatrist
 
Mr. Robot said:
hate is not good man, go see a psychiatrist
Click to expand...

was Nurk worth 17.5M/year last night? Do you pay a guy 17.5M/year to sit on the bench in the 4th Q?

I know Nurk will have some good games; but I also know he will have many games like last night. I also know there's a good chance he'll miss games this year and during the 4 years of that contract...maybe lots of game
 
illmatic99 said:
I would be very content if Shaedon can get 15-20 mpg on a regular rotation. That's fairly on par with what guys like Kobe/Paul George/TMac/Jaylen Brown got their rookie years.

Unless we hit a rough spot and drop a bunch of games... if so, then I want him getting reps closer to 30 mpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It would probably depend on what our record it. If we are around 4-8 seed, he may still be around the 15mpg mark and my guess is the roster stays largely the same + a new backup C maybe.

If we are around 10 or are out of the play-in, I want his minutes closer to 30 because Hart is probably gone.

There will be competing teams that will give us at least a 1st and a backup C for Hart imo.
 
BankTeller said:
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It would probably depend on what our record it. If we are around 4-8 seed, he may still be around the 15mpg mark and my guess is the roster stays largely the same + a new backup C maybe.

If we are around 10 or are out of the play-in, I want his minutes closer to 30 because Hart is probably gone.

There will be competing teams that will give us at least a 1st and a backup C for Hart imo.
Click to expand...
Me, id trade Naz before Hart. Sharpe can get play behind Simons and Hart.
Josh is a difference maker.
 
Sit Nurk and go small ball.
Lillard
Simons
Sharpe
Hart
Grant

Winslow
Nurkic/Eubanks
Nassir (I still like him. Dude hasn’t played in forever)
 
Hoopguru said:
Me, id trade Naz before Hart. Sharpe can get play behind Simons and Hart.
Josh is a difference maker.
Click to expand...
No doubt he’s a difference maker. That’s the thing though—man will likely play himself into a contract that is out of our reach. Guys like Sharpe and Nas are also behind him, and Hart’s contract and play make for a very attractive trade piece.

I think it’s almost inevitable that a Hart trade happens at the deadline no matter where we are in the standings. I’m going to just enjoy the ride, I love watching him play.
 
Last edited:
BankTeller said:
No doubt he’s a difference maker. That’s the thing though—man will likely play himself into a contract that is out of our reach. Guys like Sharpe and Nas are also behind him, and Hart’s contract and play make for a very attractive trade piece.

I think it’s almost inevitable that a Hart trade happens at the deadline no matter where we are in the standings. I’m going to just enjoy the ride, I love watching him play.
Click to expand...
You may be right but I think Chauncey values defense and Josh is a better defender than Anf & Dame. Plus he pushes the ball regardless what position he plays.
It will come down to who Chauncey wants, imo and from what I understand he was high on the Hart acquisition.
 
wizenheimer said:
yeah...I kept saying last season that if you gauged by the direction the NBA is evolving, and then factored Nurk's injury history and paint-bound game, he didn't deserve more than the 12M he was making; and that was being generous IMO

I get that the Blazers were kind of in a corner and couldn't let Nurk walk, but he's overpaid now and very likely a negative contract

all Nurk's faults we saw last night have been visible for years. He's 28 now and it's probably not realistic to think he'll alter his game for the better.
Click to expand...

It's kind of a fallacy that centers in the NBA were lead-footed players who took up space rooted to the area right in front of the basket in the past, though. Few of the best fit that mold. Wilt might have been the best all-around athlete in NBA history. Russell was a great athlete. Kareem was a karate student for freaking Bruce Lee. Hakeem. David Robinson. Alonzo Mourning. Oden, if he had stayed healthy. Those guys might not have shot the ball outside the way today's 5s do, but they were agile defenders and great leapers. There were a few Nurk-like centers who got near that level, but most of those types hit their ceiling at very good and they're the vast majority of journeymen.
 
Hoopguru said:
You may be right but I think Chauncey values defense and Josh is a better defender than Anf & Dame. Plus he pushes the ball regardless what position he plays.
It will come down to who Chauncey wants, imo and from what I understand he was high on the Hart acquisition.
Click to expand...

Agree, I am really reluctant to get rid of Hart. And before there are any stupid "untouchable references", yes of course I would trade him for the right big. But usually, the right bigs, are not available. (fans can fantasize about it if they choose) He reminds me of Mario Elie who we let slip away after just one year for a 2nd round draft pick. We would end up regretting it.
 
PCmor7 said:
It's kind of a fallacy that centers in the NBA were lead-footed players who took up space rooted to the area right in front of the basket in the past, though. Few of the best fit that mold. Wilt might have been the best all-around athlete in NBA history. Russell was a great athlete. Kareem was a karate student for freaking Bruce Lee. Hakeem. David Robinson. Alonzo Mourning. Oden, if he had stayed healthy. Those guys might not have shot the ball outside the way today's 5s do, but they were agile defenders and great leapers. There were a few Nurk-like centers who got near that level, but most of those types hit their ceiling at very good and they're the vast majority of journeymen.
Click to expand...

that's true. There were some great paint-bound C's like Artis Gilmore, Bob Lanier, etc. But the all time greats were pretty mobile. But there wasn't the floor-stretching factor of the three point line, and that has drastically changed game concepts

there were also some 'modern' NBA C's back then like Dave Cowens, Dan Issell, and Alvin Adams. And some amazing stretch-4's like Tom Chambers
 
PCmor7 said:
It's kind of a fallacy that centers in the NBA were lead-footed players who took up space rooted to the area right in front of the basket in the past, though. Few of the best fit that mold. Wilt might have been the best all-around athlete in NBA history. Russell was a great athlete. Kareem was a karate student for freaking Bruce Lee. Hakeem. David Robinson. Alonzo Mourning. Oden, if he had stayed healthy. Those guys might not have shot the ball outside the way today's 5s do, but they were agile defenders and great leapers. There were a few Nurk-like centers who got near that level, but most of those types hit their ceiling at very good and they're the vast majority of journeymen.
Click to expand...

Nurk's more of a Bob Lanier/Nate Thurmond type. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Agree, I am really reluctant to get rid of Hart. And before there are any stupid "untouchable references", yes of course I would trade him for the right big. But usually, the right bigs, are not available. (fans can fantasize about it if they choose) He reminds me of Mario Elie who we let slip away after just one year for a 2nd round draft pick. We would end up regretting it.
Click to expand...
100% and Hart is a player that can be vocal with other players which imo is needed if done in the right way.
 
Hoopguru said:
100% and Hart is a player that can be vocal with other players which IMO is needed if done in the right way.
Click to expand...

As was Mario Elie btw. These types of players are more firey than most. Not many on the current roster. Most are pretty quiet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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