Who's our fifth starter?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Fifth starter?

  • Total voters
    91
PtldPlatypus said:
Not to mention that Ginobili is really the exception that proves the rule, and even as said exception, he didn't start coming off the bench until he was 29. His situation was not and has never been comparable to Ant's, so it was silly and lazy to bring him up in the first place.
Click to expand...
Speaking of silly and lazy, it's pretty easy to look at his career stats and see that you're throwing out complete BS. He came off the bench when he was 25 & 26 and only started for 349 of his 1057 career games. When the team needed him to start he started. When it was best to have him off the bench, thats what he did too. Throughout his prime he always played major minutes for them.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01.html

You asked for an example and a recent HOFer was provided that fit all your silly criteria. Instead of saying oops, my bad, you make shit up and throw out more insults. Big fat fail on your part.

Few situations are exactly alike, but talented players doing whats best for their team make Ant and Manu's situations comparable.

STOMP
 
STOMP said:
You asked for an example and a recent HOFer was provided that fit all your silly criteria. Instead of saying oops, my bad, you make shit up and throw out more insults. Big fat fail on your part.
Click to expand...
My "silly criteria" were "a player in his 20s who was the second-highest player on his team." Manu started 74 of 74 games in the only season in which both of those applied.

And I never insulted you. Not once. My comments were about your reply, not about you personally. I will never, never insult a poster--even you.
 
i had voted for nas initially.

but i had a thought -- i know chauncey would never do it, but why not let shaedon get a token role like vonleh did? let him get 8 minutes to start each half.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
My "silly criteria" were "a player in his 20s who was the second-highest player on his team." Manu started 74 of 74 games in the only season in which both of those applied.

And I never insulted you. Not once. My comments were about your reply, not about you personally. I will never, never insult a poster--even you.
Click to expand...
So your silly criteria was more pure stupidity then silly and you're backing up your stupid criteria with dumb reasoning. No offense to you personally for coming up with and standing by such moronic nonsense. Obviously using language like that is not how to have a reasonable productive conversation regardless of whether I'm attacking you or your post, thats how to offend. Nothing I'd posted warranted the insulting silly and lazy insulting response I received for supporting Zags comments and subsequent Manu example. You were also flat wrong in saying "he didn't start coming off the bench until he was 29". Own it or don't, but thats why we've butted heads here.

No team wants their two best players to both be 6'2 PGs for numerous good reasons, but thats where we find our Blazers. The question isn't what you or I would do, it's what will the team do? 6'2 190 lb guys struggle to match up/guard most of the league's players and like the CJ & Dame duo prior, both guys have shown they're much more effective as the lead with the ball in their hands then off ball in a supporting role. Trying to ram a square peg (Ant) into that round hole (Portland's SG spot) because they had to pay to keep him, puts Portland's young stud in a position to struggle not succeed. Having watched Dame & CJ exploited for most of the past decade, I can't believe there are still PDX fans who want extra helpings of that. Starting both players as an ego stroke makes it much more difficult to effectively stagger their minutes to keep one on the court at all times. Sorry it does. It's a poorly constructed team without contending level talent, but I expect them to at least give it their best shot at winning games. A starting lineup that is undersized at 3 of the 5 spots will predictably struggle to get stops. If they go with that to start the year, I expect that CCB will change things up shortly as the results come in. Above all else the potential to win games is what dictates lineups and PT allotment as it's the coach's job to win with what he's got. My "wishful thinking" is that management recognizes the obvious and is actively exploring it's options at the trade deadline.

STOMP
 
Last edited:
Based on the first couple of preseason games, I actually think Winslow fits best with the starters. I definitely would not have picked him earlier in the summer.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Outside of injury, there is no reason to believe that Ant will ever not start a game this season.
Click to expand...

STOMP said:
Obviously I know that I am stepping out on a limb and bucking the incredible wisdom of those who know all and post here….. …….That defense matters in winning hoops is actually a commonly held belief among those who follow the game.

STOMP
Click to expand...

PtldPlatypus said:
If you could give me a single example in the past 30 years of a player in his 20s coming off the bench while being the second-highest-paid player on his team, I might concede the validity of your reasoning. Until then, I will chalk it up to nothing more than wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

STOMP said:
You might concede the validity of my reasoning??? Any viable reason why anyone should give the slightest of fucks about your opinion? I'm sharing mine on the topic at hand not hoping to please you your highness. If you disagree, fine, whatever. We're just nobodies outside the loop speculating in the downtime, but good grief...

As an actual retort to the kernel of your question, a big issue for this roster is that their two best players play the same position... which isn't wishful thinking or normal. Since physically neither Dame or Ant have the size to match up against a typical SG, how does one maximize their time together on this roster? Obviously there will be considerable overlap, but I'm thinking time will prove it's best to stagger their PT keeping at least one on the court at all times.

STOMP
Click to expand...
STOMP said:
So your silly criteria was more pure stupidity then silly and you're backing up your stupid criteria with dumb reasoning. No offense to you personally for coming up with and standing by such moronic nonsense. Obviously using language like that is not how to have a reasonable productive conversation regardless of whether I'm attacking you or your post, thats how to offend. Nothing I'd posted warranted the insulting silly and lazy insulting response I received for supporting Zags comments and subsequent Manu example. You were also flat wrong in saying "he didn't start coming off the bench until he was 29". Own it or don't, but thats why we've butted heads here.

No team wants their two best players to both be 6'2 PGs for numerous good reasons, but thats where we find our Blazers. The question isn't what you or I would do, it's what will the team do? 6'2 190 lb guys struggle to match up/guard most of the league's players and like the CJ & Dame duo prior, both guys have shown they're much more effective as the lead with the ball in their hands then off ball in a supporting role. Trying to ram a square peg (Ant) into that round hole (Portland's SG spot) because they had to pay to keep him, puts Portland's young stud in a position to struggle not succeed. Having watched Dame & CJ exploited for most of the past decade, I can't believe there are still PDX fans who want extra helpings of that. Starting both players as an ego stroke makes it much more difficult to effectively stagger their minutes to keep one on the court at all times. Sorry it does. It's a poorly constructed team without contending level talent, but I expect them to at least give it their best shot at winning games. A starting lineup that is undersized at 3 of the 5 spots will predictably struggle to get stops. If they go with that to start the year, I expect that CCB will change things up shortly as the results come in. Above all else the potential to win games is what dictates lineups and PT allotment as it's the coach's job to win with what he's got. My "wishful thinking" is that management recognizes the obvious and is actively exploring it's options at the trade deadline.

STOMP
Click to expand...

not true. Your first post insinuated that he either doesn't watch the game or knows nothing about defense. Go reread your first post dude.

He is responding to your abrasive posts in kind. Not the other way around….

Chill pills on isle 7. You seem to be in need. ;)
 
BlazerBender said:
not true. Your first post insinuated that he either doesn't watch the game or knows nothing about defense. Go reread your first post dude.

He is responding to your abrasive posts in kind. Not the other way around….

Chill pills on isle 7. You seem to be in need. ;)
Click to expand...

Aisle 7.
 
HailBlazers said:
Speaking of five starters I'd like to see.

Dame
Hart
Justise
Grant
Nurk
Click to expand...
I totally agree (although I concede there'd be offensive issues - that lineup is low on shooting). Of course, it's not going to happen, but I think Anfernee has never played his best next to Dame. All of his really eye-opening performances have come when he's the lead guard. This, to me, is a test of Chauncey's nerve: does he dare to have our second-highest-paid (and probably second-best) player come off the bench? Because Anfernee as Microwave would be great, I think.

Of course, he'd still have to play around 35 mpg, so there'd be a lot of overlap, so if that's going to happen, why not have them start together? What's the difference? Well, I just think if he can have total freedom to look for his own shot when he steps on the court he'll be more comfortable.
 
HailBlazers said:
Speaking of five starters I'd like to see.

Dame
Hart
Justise
Grant
Nurk
Click to expand...
That's the no-brainer default starting lineup unless Hart has totally lost his ability to shoot 3-pointers.
And that could be a very good lineup because Winslow will make Nurk a big problem for the opposing defense. It is really hard to defend a guy Nurks size when he is moving without the ball which he will do consistently with Winslow on the court with him.
Watching Winslow lead the break and throw it back and hit Dame for an open 3-pointer showed that Winslow makes the opponent pick their poison. It was fantastic to see Justice make that pass.
 
This is why Winslow has to be a starter. I think he could make Nurkic an All Star or at least playing at All Star level. That's not even including what he'll do for Grant and Lillard and Simons.
 
If Grant is averaging 18-20, along with Lillard, Simons, and Nurkic (at a double-double), then Winslow's lower scoring is less of an issue. The recent history (post-LMA) is of having NEITHER the SF nor the PF claiming their position. At least one of them must be clear-cut and a 2-way, actual-consistent-reliable-scoring threat. Grant looks like that guy.

If Winslow gets the position, then Hart and/or Little is gone by the February deadline, and that would be outstanding to gain a better SF or to address the PF/C backups.
 
BlazerBender said:
not true. Your first post insinuated that he either doesn't watch the game or knows nothing about defense. Go reread your first post dude.

He is responding to your abrasive posts in kind. Not the other way around….
Chill pills on isle 7. You seem to be in need. ;)
Click to expand...
My first post wasn't in response to him, it was in support of a post by Zags. Go reread that first post, dude... what was abrasive there? He then responded to me saying my my reasoning/thoughts were invalid and got more aggressive each time... dont get it twisted.

http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/whos-our-fifth-starter.377958/page-11#post-5420403

your posts make it seem like you're not to be able to handle that someone steeped in Blazer fandom disagrees with you so you're lashing out ;-) Past time to let this go

STOMP
 
Last edited:
we dont need 5th starter to be the best player, but the best fit with other starters

i just dont see hart being that guy and on top of that, wed look good having hart off the bench being the co-scorer with ant/dame, so either little or winslow for me, maybe winslow due to his strength, defense and chemistry with nurk

whoever gets the spot, it shouldnt be set in stone, if it doesnt work, just try another guy, we have three of them and season is long, one should work good enough
 
illmatic99 said:
i had voted for nas initially.

but i had a thought -- i know chauncey would never do it, but why not let shaedon get a token role like vonleh did? let him get 8 minutes to start each half.[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...
bump
 
Tince said:
He's a PF in my eyes, but like I said, I suspect he'll get more minutes at the 5 than the 3. I could be way off, I'm just going off how Cronin/Billups decided to put the roster together.
Click to expand...

perkinsfor3 said:
Whenever Winslow and GPII play together, it'll be Winslow playing PG and GPII PF a bit. Due to their limitations on offense, I doubt they'll spend a lot of time on the court together though. Closing out a tight game could be fun if you'd throw GPII, Hart, Nas, Winslow and Walker at a team.
Click to expand...

Now that the season has started, it's interesting to revist our predictions from July.

Nas was the run away winner to start, but appeared to be 9th-10th in the rotation last night.
 
Tince said:
Now that the season has started, it's interesting to revist our predictions from July.

Nas was the run away winner to start, but appeared to be 9th-10th in the rotation last night.
Click to expand...

I wanted Winslow and Hart to start, but what is more important is the rotation for the whole game. I really liked it. Winslow still got 26 minutes coming off the bench.

Hart had 7 rebounds as our SF. There will be some matchups where Hart will be too short, but he does have a 6'9" wing span which is not elite but not horrible. Actually most of the Blazers have decent wings for their height. (Simons has a 6'9" wing, Dame at 6'8" ,, Nurk 7'2", Winslow 6'10".

Sharpe 7' and Grant 7'3 and Little 7'1" on the other hand are extra long for their height.
 
tlongII said:
Aisle 7.
Click to expand...

going to aisle 7 is just lumbering around the stupid store

going to isle 7 is an adventure and the women there are supple and athletic....unless it's an isle in the UK which has women like an aisle in Walmart
 
Pinwheel1 said:
I wanted Winslow and Hart to start, but what is more important is the rotation for the whole game. I really liked it. Winslow still got 26 minutes coming off the bench.

Hart had 7 rebounds as our SF. There will be some matchups where Hart will be too short, but he does have a 6'9" wing span which is not elite but not horrible. Actually most of the Blazers have decent wings for their height. (Simons has a 6'9" wing, Dame at 6'8" ,, Nurk 7'2", Winslow 6'10".

Sharpe 7' and Grant 7'3 and Little 7'1" on the other hand are extra long for their height.
Click to expand...

Agreed that rotation, total minutes, and closing group is more important that who starts.

Also agree that the starting forwards getting 15 rebounds has to be considered a win on any night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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