What do you think is the main problem?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

What is the main contributing factor to the Blazers' poor record?

  • Total voters
    59

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Current record: Too many injuries and not enough bench talent/experience. I counted, I think, 12 of the losses as being by 7 points or less. If being healthy and able to play Winslow, Payton, and Little more minutes flips half of those losses to W’s, the Blazers are at 27-18 and in 3rd spot in the West.

True Contention: The Blazers need an impact SF, which means either replacing Hart or getting another PF (hopefully bigger) and moving Grant to SF. The bench needs an infusion of experience at PF an C.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Remember how Plumlee looked like a poor man's Domatas Sabonis (so a poor POOR man's Jokic) for a while there because Stotts unlocked his passing? And then when we acquired Nurk, he was plugged into that role, and his passing really expanded? But then, perhaps because of the cost of turnovers when your defense sucks, Stotts minimized that role for him? I kinda wish we could go back to that again. I mean, Sacramento has managed to make two non-shooters (Sabonis and Fox) be the engine that drives perhaps the best offense in the league. Either that or just trade back for Plumlee (he's having a pretty solid season!)
Click to expand...
Now you made me start thinking. I wondered if Plumlee is actually better than Nurk? Well the stats say yes.
Plumlee Nurk
efg% .659 ,561

Reb/36 12.5 12,7
TRB% 18.5 20.2

blocks and steals similar

TOV 2.0 3.2

ORTG 133 113
DRTG 115 110

OBPM 1.4 - .4
DBPM .7 1.1

Plumlee much more efficient scorer but Nurk scores three points per game more. Plumlee a full assist per 36 more than Nurk. Nurk slightly better rebounder and seems to clearly be better defender.
I would consider Simons for Plumlee, Oubre and Jalen McDaniels. Those three are expiring contracts. Would need assurance from McDeaniels that he would sign with Blazers. Get a FRP from Charlotte that we could use in another trade since they are not really giving up anything here.
 
6398c0bdcb583.image.jpg
 
Trent? take a hike. Powell? go away. McCollum? good riddance. Simons?? Blazers are down to their 4th string SG. I blame management for vehemently proclaiming this team has championship level talent, and Coach Billups overwhelming the youngster with a ridiculous amount of playing time, in what looks like an attempt to save Chauncey and Rodney's coaching jobs.

"let's go Ant, get in there and stick 5 threes for us... PLEASE"
 
Last edited:
Propagandist said:
And you think that's a more talented team than this team?!?
Click to expand...
The question wasn't about talent... like if there were some sort of insane round robin one on one tourney which team would win? That shit doesn't matter. The question was about did he have a better roster and of course that's a better roster than this one, of course it is. If you can't see that, then I don't think you know the first thing about the game. The length and athleticism of that roster around Dame and CJ worked... it didn't work as well as it would have if CJ would have been another two way player who didn't hog the ball but that's both here and there, meaning we're still dealing with that shit it's just Ant now instead of CJ.

When people say talent it's very abstract. I am just saying that there are far more NBA rotational players spread out across every position on that roster than there are on this roster.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I think Chauncey is trying to coach "the right way" - lots of ball movement, etc. - while Stotts just thought "fuck it, how can I maximize having my two best players be undersized gunners?" I like Chauncey's method better (because I like that style of basketball much more than the cautious, plod-it-up-the-court game that seems to suit Dame best) but there's no question that Stotts got more wins out of teams built round Dame (and CJ).
Click to expand...

Funny, when I watched the Blazers late last year when they were on full-tank mode - I saw exactly what you say, lots of motion. I don't see that this year.

Interestingly enough, the offense seems amazingly Stotts-esque. Guys going to the corners but not a lot of movement or passing (in general). It seems we get the most ball, and player, movement when both Dame and Ant are out of the game.

Perhaps that is a statement on the players but it is also a statement on the coach. Either we go with movement or we don't. Right now it seems a lot more don't than do.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
Now you made me start thinking. I wondered if Plumlee is actually better than Nurk? Well the stats say yes.
Plumlee Nurk
efg% .659 ,561

Reb/36 12.5 12,7
TRB% 18.5 20.2

blocks and steals similar

TOV 2.0 3.2

ORTG 133 113
DRTG 115 110

OBPM 1.4 - .4
DBPM .7 1.1

Plumlee much more efficient scorer but Nurk scores three points per game more. Plumlee a full assist per 36 more than Nurk. Nurk slightly better rebounder and seems to clearly be better defender.
I would consider Simons for Plumlee, Oubre and Jalen McDaniels. Those three are expiring contracts. Would need assurance from McDeaniels that he would sign with Blazers. Get a FRP from Charlotte that we could use in another trade since they are not really giving up anything here.
Click to expand...

Stats don't accurately measure defense.
 
I selected other. It's lack of talent. But not because it's poorly constructed. It's still in the process of being constructed.

We need to add a better-than-Nurk-level PF to this team (move Grant to the 3, or bring in a great 3), move Ant to the bench, and then fill out the roster with players who fit better.
 
Last edited:
HailBlazers said:
Stats don't accurately measure defense.
Click to expand...
I have always agreed with this. Defense is absolutely contingent on the team aspect of the game. A really good defender like Nurk could have way better stats on a team that plays better team defense. The better mix of players will make everyone better.
Just so hard to pull up defensive stats and think they are not tied to the players any one player might be playing with.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I selected other. It's lack of talent. But not because it's poorly constructed. It's still in the process of being constructed.

We need to add a better-than-Nurk-level PF to this team (move Grant to the 3, or bring in a great 3), move Ant to the bench, and then fill out the roster with players who fit better.
Click to expand...
My thinking as well. It's pretty obvious.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
Now you made me start thinking. I wondered if Plumlee is actually better than Nurk? Well the stats say yes.
Plumlee Nurk
efg% .659 ,561

Reb/36 12.5 12,7
TRB% 18.5 20.2

blocks and steals similar

TOV 2.0 3.2

ORTG 133 113
DRTG 115 110

OBPM 1.4 - .4
DBPM .7 1.1

Plumlee much more efficient scorer but Nurk scores three points per game more. Plumlee a full assist per 36 more than Nurk. Nurk slightly better rebounder and seems to clearly be better defender.
I would consider Simons for Plumlee, Oubre and Jalen McDaniels. Those three are expiring contracts. Would need assurance from McDeaniels that he would sign with Blazers. Get a FRP from Charlotte that we could use in another trade since they are not really giving up anything here.
Click to expand...
The grass is always greener. I remember when we had Plumlee just being exasperated that he seemed to be a non-entity on defense. I mean, he's tall and he jumps high, why can't he block a few shots? But Sabonis isn't exactly known for his defense, and our defense sucks anyway... And besides, even if we had Plumlee, would Billups plug him in as the focus of our offense? Highly doubtful. Besides, he'll be available in the off-season as a FA, in all likelihood.
 
TBpup said:
Curry couldn't wait to leave Portland because of how they played.
Click to expand...
Not having too much fun in Brooklyn these days. It's pretty much feast or famine for him: when he's given minutes, he's a great scorer and a good +/- guy, but coaches just seem allergic to giving him minutes, probably because he's a traffic cone on D.
 
GrandpaBlaze said:
Funny, when I watched the Blazers late last year when they were on full-tank mode - I saw exactly what you say, lots of motion. I don't see that this year.
Click to expand...

Exactly: Chauncey's a great coach of the scrubs because he can get them to play his way. The reason we sucked ass before the two big trades (Clips and Pelicans) last year is because a solid core of veterans really didn't want to do that. Also: remember who wasn't playing in the second half of last year?

GrandpaBlaze said:
Interestingly enough, the offense seems amazingly Stotts-esque. Guys going to the corners but not a lot of movement or passing (in general). It seems we get the most ball, and player, movement when both Dame and Ant are out of the game.

Perhaps that is a statement on the players but it is also a statement on the coach. Either we go with movement or we don't. Right now it seems a lot more don't than do.
Click to expand...
Dame ain't going to change now. Why should he? When he's on, he's a top 5 player in the league. You're telling him to change that? Get the ball OUT of his hands? Good luck with that, Mr. Rookie coach.
 
A month from now we’ll all be talking about how good this team is. Part of the problem has been injury and guys just playing more than they should. With our full roster back we’ll be average to good team. Good enough no unless you swing big at deadline
 
Roster and coach. Billups is probably a fine coach but to think he is "the guy" to help Dame get a title was a bit misguided. Combine that with very very limited assets to actually make deals and you have a team exactly where pundits thought they would be: hovering around the play in but really a completely ignorable team like Washington and the Hornets. The Blazers are as interesting as the Wizards and Hornets. It is a shame but all we can say is "maybe next season".

Only assets that could yield draft captial are Grant, Ant and Shae. Such capital is needed to prise stars away from teams.

I hate to always come back to this but Oshley is still rearing his ugly head. I just doubt Portland will be out of that shadow while Dame is still Dame.
 
I'm the only one who selected effort, so I assume this will be an unpopular opinion. I feel like they are, on the whole, passive. Early in the season, they attacked the rim consistently, they pressed up defensively on the perimeter, they pushed the ball up the court, and that has mostly disappeared. Perhaps there's a confidence issue; perhaps it's a function of injuries limiting their depth; perhaps it's an effort to limit turnovers... whatever it is, it just feels like the aggressiveness is gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top