Time for a Major Shakeup

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Not defending CJ but he is one of only 3 players to have taken more than 400 shots the last 2 years and have a TOV% less than 10% both years. The other two are Klay Thompson and Anthony Davis. There is something to be said about getting shots at the hoop without turning the ball over much.
 
hoopsjock said:
Not defending CJ but he is one of only 3 players to have taken more than 400 shots the last 2 years and have a TOV% less than 10% both years. The other two are Klay Thompson and Anthony Davis. There is something to be said about getting shots at the hoop without turning the ball over much.
Click to expand...

true...however, I'd estimate that the biggest source of turnovers are passes, especially if those passes are going into tight windows and into the paint. CJ is a good ball-handler who doesn't often dribble the ball off his shoes. So him not passing much is almost certainly a big driver of that low turnover rate
 
wizenheimer said:
true...however, I'd estimate that the biggest source of turnovers are passes, especially if those passes are going into tight windows and into the paint. CJ is a good ball-handler who doesn't often dribble the ball off his shoes. So him not passing much is almost certainly a big driver of that low turnover rate
Click to expand...
Right, so what I'm wondering if in CJ's case it's better to just shoot the ball instead of pass when he doesn't seem to be good at doing that?
 
beast crnjo said:
Cj is a defensive liability. No one questions that. But a volume shooter who gets so few assists and whose ts% is below that of the team as a whole is not really helping the offense. You could argue he's a liability on both ends.
Click to expand...

Dame is a liability on defense too
 
hoopsjock said:
Right, so what I'm wondering if in CJ's case it's better to just shoot the ball instead of pass when he doesn't seem to be good at doing that?
Click to expand...

if he didn't stop the ball like he does, maybe. But he has the ball in his hands so much that not passing impacts the team. The first impact is that CJ's teammates tend to stand around more when he gets the ball and he starts his 'rocker-step-shake-n-bake-crossover-pounding' routine. They don't expect him to give the ball up. Yeah, that's a generalization but I noticed it a lot last year and it hasn't got better. Offensive motion tends to bog down when CJ gets the ball, a lot more than it does when Dame has the ball, for sure

I just don't think you can 'reverse-logic' to a position where CJ's regressing assist numbers are a good thing
 
wizenheimer said:
if he didn't stop the ball like he does, maybe. But he has the ball in his hands so much that not passing impacts the team. The first impact is that CJ's teammates tend to stand around more when he gets the ball and he starts his 'rocker-step-shake-n-bake-crossover-pounding' routine. They don't expect him to give the ball up. Yeah, that's a generalization but I noticed it a lot last year and it hasn't got better. Offensive motion tends to bog down when CJ gets the ball, a lot more than it does when Dame has the ball, for sure

I just don't think you can 'reverse-logic' to a position where CJ's regressing assist numbers are a good thing
Click to expand...

Been saying this for a couple of years. Nothing has changed with CJ.
 
Last edited:
The Blazer offense is like a shell game, where there is a pea under one shell, and the shill moves the shells all around, but keeps his right hand on the shell with the pea the entire time. Lots of movement, but when he stops everyone knows where the pea is.

Lots of movement and weaves, but when CJ gets the ball he is going to try and score, and if you are smart, you make sure Dame doesn't get the ball. Then you beat the Blazers.

I swear someone injected Nate McMillan's stem cells in to Stotts brain.
 
Jason Quick on primetime saying that CJ's contract might be viewed as a bad contract based on his performance. Never really thought of CJ as a non tradeable asset. Is he wrong? I'm not so sure....
 
The Professional Fan said:
Jason Quick on primetime saying that CJ's contract might be viewed as a bad contract based on his performance. Never really thought of CJ as a non tradeable asset. Is he wrong? I'm not so sure....
Click to expand...
I have no problem believing Neil waited to long to trade him, sounds pretty par for the course actually.
 
The Professional Fan said:
Jason Quick on primetime saying that CJ's contract might be viewed as a bad contract based on his performance. Never really thought of CJ as a non tradeable asset. Is he wrong? I'm not so sure....
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. CJ has the track record of a good player. And every NBA player with that kind of contract is overpaid to some extent. Put him on the right team and see what happens. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody lowballed the Blazers though.
 
LayneStaley said:
I have no problem believing Neil waited to long to trade him, sounds pretty par for the course actually.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I have been so vocal about trading CJ... there is already enough evidence to show the McLillard tandem isn’t a contender... I wanted to trade him at his peak value... I don’t think he is a negative asset but the longer Neil waits the worse the return will be
 
One obvious issue with replacing Stotts or Olshey - who would take the job?

Any hire would be wearing the label "interim" until the team is sold - with no clue when that will be. Why would a top candidate take the job under those conditions?
 
Scalma said:
God if only we would’ve given Vonleh a real chance. He could be starting at PF.
Click to expand...

No, he started 109 games here.

To succeed in the Stotts system, a big man must be "modern." In the NBA, the majority of big men is not, and never will be, "modern." So Vonleh and Davis will do fine under any other coach.
 
jlprk said:
No, he started 109 games here.

To succeed in the Stotts system, a big man must be "modern." In the NBA, the majority of big men is not, and never will be, "modern." So Vonleh and Davis will do fine under any other coach.
Click to expand...

Vonleh never got an opportunity to be anything other than a lamp post in Portland, despite all the “starts.” In New York he has the freedom to shoot and is averaging over 40% from outside. Defensively he’s perfect for the modern game. He got fucked over the minute Neil drafted Swanigan. To then see Olshey double down on his mistake and guarantee Biggies contract next year is just hilarious and shows you what kind of ego maniac we’re dealing with.
 
Scalma said:
Vonleh never got an opportunity to be anything other than a lamp post in Portland, despite all the “starts.” In New York he has the freedom to shoot and is averaging over 40% from outside. Defensively he’s perfect for the modern game. He got fucked over the minute Neil drafted Swanigan. To then see Olshey double down on his mistake and guarantee Biggies contract next year is just hilarious and shows you what kind of ego maniac we’re dealing with.
Click to expand...
I couldn't have said it any better. Very good post
 
I'm already scared what contract Neil will give to Swanigan in 2021
 
Reep said:
The Blazer offense is like a shell game, where there is a pea under one shell, and the shill moves the shells all around, but keeps his right hand on the shell with the pea the entire time. Lots of movement, but when he stops everyone knows where the pea is.

Lots of movement and weaves, but when CJ gets the ball he is going to try and score, and if you are smart, you make sure Dame doesn't get the ball. Then you beat the Blazers.

I swear someone injected Nate McMillan's stem cells in to Stotts brain.
Click to expand...

This is so silly... Dribble handoffs are a major part NBA offenses.

Executing multiple dribble handoffs isn't 3 card Monte.
 
dviss1 said:
This is so silly... Dribble handoffs are a major part NBA offenses.

Executing multiple dribble handoffs isn't 3 card Monte.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. Executing multiple dribble handoffs for seven seconds, then giving it back to Dame in a double team usually doesn't end well. I have seen a lot of plays where the other team just keeps shadowing Dame because they know the ball will get back into his hands.
 
I hardly need to post to this thread. This is great. This thread is saying what I have said for years, then been scared off each time by fanboys. I enjoy reading this thread and letting you guys do the work instead of me writing it and getting silenced.

But it's temporary. Lillard will get motivated, play 10 high-stat games, the one-man team will finish above .500, and everyone will post all summer about how the season was so great, when actually it was just a great month or two bailing out the awful months.

Stotts and Olshey are both below-average at their jobs. But with the loss of the Paul Allen spending advantage, Olshey's draft-don't-trade nontalent will fit the new cheapskate owner's budget. Olshey may be here forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

magnifier661
Larry sanders a possibility?
Replies
27
Views
1K
Natebishop3
Natebishop3
TorturedBlazerFan
I think Stotts is a good coach but...
Replies
24
Views
1K
Rastapopoulos
Rastapopoulos
BrunoSOC
Gods Plan
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
BrunoSOC
BrunoSOC
Boob-No-More
Alvin Gentry: Blazers 'Have More Weapons' Since Last Season's Playoffs
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
blue9
blue9
Further
Who will be 8th seed? Thunder vs Pelicans
2 3
Replies
78
Views
4K
dviss1
dviss1

Users who are viewing this thread

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