TANK!

[riverman]

It really feels like we are missing something by not having a thread about "Some generalizations about some generational talents."

yeah...Laker fans, Pedophiles, Racists.....there are some topics to lump together and have strong opinions about....I taught an English class overseas that was called "topics of controversy"...it never fails when I look back on it

 

[Reep]

SOME pieces. not ALL! LOL

Are bodily fluids considered pieces?

 

[riverman]

River its okay to correct someone or point out something without it having to be offensive to do so. I read Hoops as simply saying don't lump me in with them. Instead of just saying , oops, I didn't mean all. it comes to a back and forth....

Compromise is a fine and rare skill!

Its okay to point out a mistake without it being offensive. Its also okay to admit a miss type or mistake without feeling wrong too.

Blazer hugs?

I actually wasn't thinking of hoops when I talked about Stotts detractors.....and I did mention that to him...I've moved on ...

 

[riverman]

The BeeGees rocked!!!!

They actually had a band and played instruments....that's funk.....disco to me isn't funk...it's Gloria Gaynor or Donna Summers..a singer with a dj

 

[Dougnsalem]

They actually had a band and played instruments....that's funk.....disco to me isn't funk...it's Gloria Gaynor or Donna Summers..a singer with a dj

ABBA?

Edit: ok, everywhere says ABBA was Pop. I think they are all wrong. Lol

 

[hoopsjock]

River its okay to correct someone or point out something without it having to be offensive to do so. I read Hoops as simply saying don't lump me in with them. Instead of just saying , oops, I didn't mean all. it comes to a back and forth....

Compromise is a fine and rare skill!

Its okay to point out a mistake without it being offensive. Its also okay to admit a miss type or mistake without feeling wrong too.

Blazer hugs?

Exactly this!

Arguing about Stotts' ability as a coach is completely different than saying if you don't like Stotts that you're rooting for them to do bad so he gets fired. Instead of just saying that he's seen posts on here that certain people want the team to do bad so Stotts gets fired he said Stotts detractors. I pointed out that those things aren't automatically tied together. Like you mentioned in a previous post this is the problem when people generalize comments like that.

 

[riverman]

Generalizing Stotts system is ok though eh?....or Tolliver's game...or Neil's valet parking.....c'mon folks...we all use generalizations....what we shouldn't do is make it "personal"..which happens around here. In regards to hoops....I tried to use a disclaimer my second response and say it wasn't personally directed at him, then got called....."cowardly"....ok....if one considers themselves objective about a topic...have the conversation...in regards to my opinion, it seems I got a subjective response.

 

[hoopsjock]

Generalizing Stotts system is ok though eh?....or Tolliver's game...or Neil's valet parking.....c'mon folks...we all use generalizations....what we shouldn't do is make it "personal"..which happens around here. In regards to hoops....I tried to use a disclaimer my second response and say it wasn't personally directed at him, then got called....."cowardly"....ok....if one considers themselves objective about a topic...have the conversation...in regards to my opinion, it seems I got a subjective response

So you meant to call out every Stotts detractor except for me or only those that respond to your post? This is what happens when you call out a generalized group.

This same shit happened a couple days ago on Twitter with Dan Marang. He called Anti-Stotts people flat-earthers. Then when called out about it he says he wasn't directing it at anyone specific while also doubling down on the original statement. He could of just said it was wrong of him to equate everyone critical of Stotts to being a crazy moron.

This has nothing to do with me. There are extremes on both sides of the argument of Stotts. When you call out Stotts detractors either defend your stance or say you didn't mean to lump everyone together (NOT JUST ME, I DON'T MATTER IN THIS STATEMENT). I don't understand how people can't see that calling out a group like that IS in fact making personal.

 

[riverman]

So you meant to call out every Stotts detractor except for me or only those that respond to your post? This is what happens when you call out a generalized group.

This same shit happened a couple days ago on Twitter with Dan Marang. He called Anti-Stotts people flat-earthers. Then when called out about it he says he wasn't directing it at anyone specific while also doubling down on the original statement. He could of just said it was wrong of him to equate everyone critical of Stotts to being a crazy moron.

This has nothing to do with me. There are extremes on both sides of the argument of Stotts. When you call out Stotts detractors either defend your stance or say you didn't mean to lump everyone together (NOT JUST ME, I DON'T MATTER IN THIS STATEMENT). I don't understand how people can't see that calling out a group like that IS in fact making personal.

Not at all....CC is a Stotts detractor, Darkwebs is a Stotts detractor on and on....all people I really like.....bones seems to hate Stotts...you guys are in the majority...if you say you don't understand how people could like Chiefs game...big deal....it's ok to say "people"....and there ARE people who want this coaching change....see the "Fire Stotts" thread. I try to have Stotts back because I like a player's coach with a calm demeanor that gets loyal support from the team and not a Stan Van Gundy micro managing screamer. Every game thread is filled with Stotts critics.....that's not generalization hoops, it's observation...for the sake of capping this back and forth I'm going to go back and add "some" to my post so you don't interpret it as an affront....my post you had issue with was a response to a question by Rasta about do people want Stotts to fail...or something like that

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

So you meant to call out every Stotts detractor except for me or only those that respond to your post? This is what happens when you call out a generalized group.

This same shit happened a couple days ago on Twitter with Dan Marang. He called Anti-Stotts people flat-earthers. Then when called out about it he says he wasn't directing it at anyone specific while also doubling down on the original statement. He could of just said it was wrong of him to equate everyone critical of Stotts to being a crazy moron.

This has nothing to do with me. There are extremes on both sides of the argument of Stotts. When you call out Stotts detractors either defend your stance or say you didn't mean to lump everyone together (NOT JUST ME, I DON'T MATTER IN THIS STATEMENT). I don't understand how people can't see that calling out a group like that IS in fact making personal.

It's an issue, insulting a group is always in one way or another insulting anyone who believes they are part of that group, it's stereotyping, and the cause of tribalism, racism, sexism, etc. However at the same time, one can use generalities and also be mindful of the fact that not everyone under that generalization belongs in that group.

For instance, River claims that you or Bones have said that if you're a Stotts supporter that you don't know basketball, do you believe that to be one hundred percent the case? Obviously Dame thinks he knows basketball, he was on Rick Carlisle's staff, he's played professionally. I'm guessing you didn't mean Dame, in particular, doesn't know basketball or Carlisle doesn't know basketball or a plethora of other NBA guys who are Stott's "supporters".

My point is generalizations are definitely dangerous and can lead to weird arguments like this, but we all use them to some extent and we all know that they don't apply to everyone in a particular segment of the population who identify a certain way.

What Marang did was try to belittle all Anti-Stotts people by calling them basically an idiot, and he was wrong and his argument weak, but it goes both ways, and we all need to be mindful of that when using generalities, and calling out every single person for their use of generalities is going to be pretty time consuming.

 

[riverman]

I don't understand how people can't see that calling out a group like that IS in fact making personal.

Are you a fan or a group? I'm confused. If I talk about Trump supporters, I also consider them a group....I have a son who is part of that group that I love dearly but we disagree about many things

 

[riverman]

It's an issue, insulting a group is always in one way or another insulting anyone who believes they are part of that group, it's stereotyping, and the cause of tribalism, racism, sexism, etc. However at the same time, one can use generalities and also be mindful of the fact that not everyone under that generalization belongs in that group.

For instance, River claims that you or Bones have said that if you're a Stotts supporter that you don't know basketball, do you believe that to be one hundred percent the case? Obviously Dame thinks he knows basketball, he was on Rick Carlisle's staff, he's played professionally. I'm guessing you didn't mean Dame, in particular, doesn't know basketball or Carlisle doesn't know basketball or a plethora of other NBA guys who are Stott's "supporters".

My point is generalizations are definitely dangerous and can lead to weird arguments like this, but we all use them to some extent and we all know that they don't apply to everyone in a particular segment of the population who identify a certain way.

What Marang did was try to belittle all Anti-Stotts people by calling them basically an idiot, and he was wrong and his argument weak, but it goes both ways, and we all need to be mindful of that when using generalities, and calling out every single person for their use of generalities is going to be pretty time consuming.

Thank you

 

[Orion Bailey]

Are bodily fluids considered pieces?

Yes but costs alot more to ship liquids. I would stick with the nails.

 

[CupWizier]

Exactly this!

Arguing about Stotts' ability as a coach is completely different than saying if you don't like Stotts that you're rooting for them to do bad so he gets fired. Instead of just saying that he's seen posts on here that certain people want the team to do bad so Stotts gets fired he said Stotts detractors. I pointed out that those things aren't automatically tied together. Like you mentioned in a previous post this is the problem when people generalize comments like that.

LET IT GO!!

You are no less guilty of doing what you claim riverman as doing. I find it funny how much like bonesy you have become since migrating to this forum as I actually enjoyed our interaction in the past. Not so much anymore and a part of the reason I participate less and less in the Blazer section.

 

[hoopsjock]

LET IT GO!!

You are no less guilty of doing what you claim riverman as doing. I find it funny how much like bonesy you have become since migrating to this forum as I actually enjoyed our interaction in the past. Not so much anymore and a part of the reason I participate less and less in the Blazer section.

Oh yay, here's Cup to insert himself into the conversation.

 

[CupWizier]

Oh yay, here's Cup to insert himself into the conversation.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Oh yay, here's Cup to insert himself into the conversation.

And bringing up someone else who isn't even in this convo. One of the main reason I frequent this place less. and my life has been happier not reading his crap. Keep doing what you are doing, maybe he will not participate in this section at all!

Then we can make this place great again! LOL

 

[riverman]

I was happy when listening to the last podcast to hear bones talk positively about Neil Olshey and admit he wasn't a fan of his in the past......actually you guys talk about interesting points often but there is an obvious theme about Stotts that is common in the discussions you two have....I think Stotts has more complicated schemes than "the weave" for one example..rather than argue the point on youtube, I just let it go ..I tune in and try and find common ground where I find it.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Do we have any examples of tanking leading to championships? The only "sort of" example I've seen given is SAS w/ Duncan, but I think a decent argument can be made that they just weren't good, they weren't trying to lose.

Everyone brings up Philly, but has Philly won anything? no.

Can't think of a single team that purposefully went out to suck that, that strategy has worked out for them in terms of winning rings.

There's a few examples of teams that got better, but for the most part I think teams are better off, trying to win, and create a culture where winning is the goal. If say there's 20 games left in the season and you're out of it, then sure you can rest guys and go for a higher pick, but 20 games into the season saying it's time to tank is just going to make a lot of your vet's want out, it's going to create a bad situation.

 

[riverman]

Back on topic....tanking is never an option ..it breeds apathy

 

[riverman]

Do we have any examples of tanking leading to championships? The only "sort of" example I've seen given is SAS w/ Duncan, but I think a decent argument can be made that they just weren't good, they weren't trying to lose.

Everyone brings up Philly, but has Philly won anything? no.

Can't think of a single team that purposefully went out to suck that, that strategy has worked out for them in terms of winning rings.

There's a few examples of teams that got better, but for the most part I think teams are better off, trying to win, and create a culture where winning is the goal. If say there's 20 games left in the season and you're out of it, then sure you can rest guys and go for a higher pick, but 20 games into the season saying it's time to tank is just going to make a lot of your vet's want out, it's going to create a bad situation.

Even after years of tanking, the Lakers end up trading their picks and young guys for Lebron in the end....if that's the path, glad I'm not a Laker fan....sorry HCP...I want players who want to be in Portland for the duration

 

[Strenuus]

Back on topic....tanking is never an option ..it breeds apathy

Weird. Im not apathetic about tanking.

I do, however, become apathetic when we are mediocre.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Back on topic....tanking is never an option ..it breeds apathy

Like I said I think if it's the last leg of the season, and you're basically out of it anyways, that's one thing, when it's 20 games in, that seems a little early. Now maybe the Blazers will be "tanking" this season unintentionally by just not being good, but I really don't want the organization and players to take the approach of, oh there is always next year, and losing is ok.

I tend to think that attitude has played a part in some of the issues this season, they seemed way too happy to be in the WCF's, and the way too happy all summer about it rather than upset they lost. You want your players to hate losing more than they love winning. You don't want them out there getting apathetic (to use your word) about losing.

 

[riverman]

Weird. Im not apathetic about tanking.

I do, however, become apathetic when we are mediocre.

You're not affecting team culture or pride though....right now we're not even mediocre but that will turn around...I think we'll be competitive now and better than mediocre when Nurk suits up

 

[riverman]

Like I said I think if it's the last leg of the season, and you're basically out of it anyways, that's one thing, when it's 20 games in, that seems a little early. Now maybe the Blazers will be "tanking" this season unintentionally by just not being good, but I really don't want the organization and players to take the approach of, oh there is always next year, and losing is ok.

I tend to think that attitude has played a part in some of the issues this season, they seemed way too happy to be in the WCF's, and the way too happy all summer about it rather than upset they lost. You want your players to hate losing more than they love winning. You don't want them out there getting apathetic (to use your word) about losing.

I don't sense apathy about losing at all....I think Dame and CJ stayed off of team USA because they were pissed about losing the finals. trades were made because they wanted to address that as well...it wasn't going to click overnight

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Weird. Im not apathetic about tanking.

I do, however, become apathetic when we are mediocre.

Being stuck in the middle ground is really hard, not good enough to win rings, not bad enough to get top picks in the draft. I'm not sure it makes me apathetic, I do find it frustrating at times though.

 

[riverman]

I hope we bump this thread in March and reflect on some of these views

 

[Strenuus]

You're not affecting team culture or pride though....right now we're not even mediocre but that will turn around...I think we'll be competitive now and better than mediocre when Nurk suits up

Lol. No duh were better than mediocre when nurk suits up. That goes without saying.

Were mediocre right now though. Actually, thats too positive of a word for our team right now. We suck right now. No win against a lowly bulls team is gonna take the stench away from the ugly ass losses we have.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I don't sense apathy about losing at all....I think Dame and CJ stayed off of team USA because they were pissed about losing the finals. trades were made because they wanted to address that as well...it wasn't going to click overnight

I guess I see it differently, all their social media stuff, and interviews came off to me as hey you can't tell us Dame / CJ doesn't work we got to the WCF's, and NO mentioned the WCF's a ton, like making it there was the goal. This is obviously my opinion, but then when it came out Dame basically said he wasn't doing the SD trip, or any team building type exercises prior to the season, and the way they talked. It totally made me feel like just getting there was good enough. Yeah they talked about now they're a championship contender, and now they're for real, but getting knocked out of the WCF's did not seem to bother them all that much.

 

[riverman]

Lol. No duh were better than mediocre when nurk suits up. That goes without saying.

Were mediocre right now though. Actually, thats too positive of a word for our team right now. We suck right now. No win against a lowly bulls team is gonna take the stench away from the ugly ass losses we have.

We're a new team with a buttload of road games and a starter who's never been in the practice facility...…..patience..December they will have 12 home games and time to work out the kinks....