Zach Lowe and an interesting thought

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Portland2014

Portland2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
658
Likes
843
Points
93
This quote was referring to Zach LaVine, but it could also be used for our guards...

But we have a lot of evidence that score-first, no-defense types who serve as second or third options are perhaps the easiest high-profile players to replace in the NBA.

I anticipate Blazers fans who are ready to say "so you are saying that we would be better without both Dame and CJ", it's obviously not that... But what Isaac Ropp said wasn't that far from reality so if a well respected writer like Lowe says the same thing (even if he wasn't directly referring to our guards) maybe we should consider the fact that the foundation of the post Aldridge era are not that solid...

I know that this will be labeled as another troll thread but I thought that it was interesting what Lowe said related to out situation.
 
Portland2014 said:
This quote was referring to Zach LaVine, but it could also be used for our guards...

But we have a lot of evidence that score-first, no-defense types who serve as second or third options are perhaps the easiest high-profile players to replace in the NBA.

I anticipate Blazers fans who are ready to say "so you are saying that we would be better without both Dame and CJ", it's obviously not that... But what Isaac Ropp said wasn't that far from reality so if a well respected writer like Lowe says the same thing (even if he wasn't directly referring to our guards) maybe we should consider the fact that the foundation of the post Aldridge era are not that solid...

I know that this will be labeled as another troll thread but I thought that it was interesting what Lowe said related to out situation.
Click to expand...

It's more labeled as we have had threads about this all season, so it's just another one.
 
Portland2014 said:
This quote was referring to Zach LaVine, but it could also be used for our guards...

But we have a lot of evidence that score-first, no-defense types who serve as second or third options are perhaps the easiest high-profile players to replace in the NBA.

I anticipate Blazers fans who are ready to say "so you are saying that we would be better without both Dame and CJ", it's obviously not that... But what Isaac Ropp said wasn't that far from reality so if a well respected writer like Lowe says the same thing (even if he wasn't directly referring to our guards) maybe we should consider the fact that the foundation of the post Aldridge era are not that solid...
Click to expand...
But Dame, the player you most routinely critique, serves as the first option, so that Lowe quote doesn't really apply to him. And CJ, who is our second option, would be a first option on half the teams in the league, so it doesn't really apply to him either.

The reason that Blazer fans want to give this pairing a chance is because they're a cut above the easy-to-replace players to whom you're comparing them.
 
All I know is I'd much rather have a good defender who can shoot a little than a good shooter who can defend a little.

Bruce Bowen type
 
Comparing LaVine to CJ or Dame makes no sense.

The TWolves are a better team when LaVine misses games.
With LaVine on the floor this season, the TWolves are 16-31. When LaVine has missed games, the TWolves are 12-7.

Comparing LaVine to Crabbe makes more sense. Both are decent backups and border line starters. Neither is any where near the CJ or Dame level of talent.

LaVine would be very easy to replace, CJ or Dame would not.
 
oldfisherman said:
Comparing LaVine to CJ or Dame makes no sense.

The TWolves are a better team when LaVine misses games.
With LaVine on the floor this season, the TWolves are 16-31. When LaVine has missed games, the TWolves are 12-7.

Comparing LaVine to Crabbe makes more sense. Both are decent backups and border line starters. Neither is any where near the CJ or Dame level of talent.

LaVine would be very easy to replace, CJ or Dame would not.
Click to expand...

Not going to get a response from OP.
 
images
 
Portland2014 said:
This quote was referring to Zach LaVine, but it could also be used for our guards...

But we have a lot of evidence that score-first, no-defense types who serve as second or third options are perhaps the easiest high-profile players to replace in the NBA.

I anticipate Blazers fans who are ready to say "so you are saying that we would be better without both Dame and CJ", it's obviously not that... But what Isaac Ropp said wasn't that far from reality so if a well respected writer like Lowe says the same thing (even if he wasn't directly referring to our guards) maybe we should consider the fact that the foundation of the post Aldridge era are not that solid...

I know that this will be labeled as another troll thread but I thought that it was interesting what Lowe said related to out situation.
Click to expand...

Never in that quote is a first option (Dame) mentioned. Dame would not be easy to replace. You will be hard pressed to find replacement guards at Dame or CJ's level in this league. Most guards that come into the league never play up to that level.
 
I always like when people who claim they aren't trolling a forum, basically follow the trolling text book (taking things out of context, using fallacious logic and feigning anger when called on it).

The next time this poster posts a post that isn't obviously a trolling attempt, will be the first time.

Im not sure why it's worth responding to though. Hell, Im not sure why I responded.
 
Mediocre Man said:
All I know is I'd much rather have a good defender who can shoot a little than a good shooter who can defend a little.

Bruce Bowen type
Click to expand...

Bowen was basically a 3 & D guy. If you had that type as your starting SG then you would need a SF who could create his own shot.
Ideally of course we want all our guys to be two way players, but it's not easy to find. And since we already have two very good back court scorers in Dame and CJ, maybe the best solution is to have our third guard be what you described. Tony Allen in his prime was not good enough to help get the Grizz past the 2nd round more than once. But if they had a scorer like CJ who splits the minutes... maybe they go farther? Who knows but I think this is the route we take. A better version of Crabbe or ET.

Get a ball hawk who puts so much energy on the defense side that playing only plays 28 minutes a game is about all he can handle. (especially if by playing aggressive D he gets into foul trouble) That still leaves 35 minutes for Dame and 33 for CJ. I admit we need more defense but I don't think CJ and Dame are so horrible on D that with a better defensive scheme they couldn't be successful surrounded by a 3 and D SF, Nurk, and a yet to be determined PF.

CJ s so good at creating his own shot I don't think it is smart to lose him. I have no problem with him coming off the bench but then again I also like the idea of bringing a ball hawk off the bench too. Either way there are enough minutes to go around, and it can vary depending on the match ups.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Bowen was basically a 3 & D guy. If you had that type as your starting SG then you would need a SF who could create his own shot.
Ideally of course we want all our guys to be two way players, but it's not easy to find. And since we already have two very good back court scorers in Dame and CJ, maybe the best solution is to have our third guard be what you described. Tony Allen in his prime was not good enough to help get the Grizz past the 2nd round more than once. But if they had a scorer like CJ who splits the minutes... maybe they go farther? Who knows but I think this is the route we take. A better version of Crabbe or ET.

Get a ball hawk who puts so much energy on the defense side that playing only plays 28 minutes a game is about all he can handle. (especially if by playing aggressive D he gets into foul trouble) That still leaves 35 minutes for Dame and 33 for CJ. I admit we need more defense but I don't think CJ and Dame are so horrible on D that with a better defensive scheme they couldn't be successful surrounded by a 3 and D SF, Nurk, and a yet to be determined PF.

CJ s so good at creating his own shot I don't think it is smart to lose him. I have no problem with him coming off the bench but then again I also like the idea of bringing a ball hawk off the bench too. Either way there are enough minutes to go around, and it can vary depending on the match ups.
Click to expand...
Jae Crowder would be the perfect SF for our team. Also ET once he got inserted into the starting lineup started playing much better D, and well just much better overall. I'm really intrested to see what the starting unit of Dame/CJ/ET/Vonleh/Nurk does defensively.
 
This thread is pointless. First, Zach LaVine isn't MIN's 2nd option on offense. He's third, by a long amount. Townes is first at 24.3 ppg, followed by Wiggins at 22.9 ppg with LaVine a distant 3rd at 18.9 ppg. So, the OP is starting his anti-Dame/C.J. "argument" with a false premise. No surprise there. It's a common trolling tactic. Confidently spout something that isn't true and hope no one notices. Guess what, we noticed.

So, the correct comparison would be how easy would it be for MIN to replace Andrew Wiggins.

As far as the LaVine/McCollum comparison goes, other than they play the same position, they are VERY different players. C.J. is a much better shooter and much better at creating his own shot. C.J, is also much better i the half court and LaVine is better in the open court. LaVines game is highly dependent on his freakish athleticism, which he uses to his advantage (until it disappears - injuries have a way of robbing players of their explosive athleticism). C.J.'s game relies on skill, including a wicked handle. It's not at all dependent on otherworldly athleticism and should age much better.

C.J. is 14th in the league in scoring. LaVine is 36th. LaVine is a good 3rd option. C.J. is the 4th best 2nd option in the league behind only Demarcus Cousins, Kyrie Irving and Steph Curry.

Now, @Portland2014, you tell me who is easier to replace.

BNM
 
Last edited:
Anyone else find it weird that the OP has some sort of fascination with Isaac Ropp? He seems to consider the guy who got fired from Talkin' Ball as some sort of basketball savant. That's weird. I thought Ropp was all about baseball and college football. When did he suddenly become a go to source for basketball knowledge?

Is it just a coincidence that both Ropp and @Portland2014 seem to have an ax to grind with Blazer's management.

Welcome to As the Forum Turns...

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Anyone else find it weird that the OP has some sort of fascination with Isaac Ropp? He seems to consider the guy who got fired from Talkin' Ball as some sort of basketball savant. That's weird. I thought Ropp was all about baseball and college football. When did he suddenly become a go to source for basketball knowledge?

Is it just a coincidence that both Ropp and @Portland2014 seem to have an ax to grind with Blazer's management.

Welcome to As the Forum Turns...

BNM
Click to expand...

I have not listened to Isaac Ropp, or if I have, he did not make enough of an impression for me to remember his name. Is it possible Ropp can play this dumb?

My impression is, we are dealing with someone in the media. His plan is to post ridicules scenarios to topics, and then let the forum members give him valuable feedback he can use in later articles or shows.

Or, it could be someone that likes to take his morning dump on S2.


Whatever the reality is, we are dealing with a lot of smelly crap. Maybe the best option is to just ignore him from now on.
 
oldfisherman said:
I have not listened to Isaac Ropp, or if I have, he did not make enough of an impression for me to remember his name. Is it possible Ropp can play this dumb?

My impression is, we are dealing with someone in the media. His plan is to post ridicules scenarios to topics, and then let the forum members give him valuable feedback he can use in later articles or shows.

Or, it could be someone that likes to take his morning dump on S2.


Whatever the reality is, we are dealing with a lot of smelly crap. Maybe the best option is to just ignore him from now on.
Click to expand...

Didn't there used to be a rule that Mixum could only start one thread a day? Maybe we should just give the troll one thread a day and we all agree not to respond. He'll lose interest and move on. He hasn't posted anything original. Just starting new threads about topics already being discussed elsewhere and picking at old scabs to provoke a reaction.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
I think you left of a zero.

BNM
Click to expand...
Just like you left off an "f"? Lol.

For real though, I don't know why people think that those who have a platform are intelligent about what they're talking about.

It's like that stupid young blonde chick on Fox News, that old republicans listen to.
 
That's interesting, because when I think of the "score-first, no-defense, 2nd or 3rd option" type I think of Kyle Korver, JJ Redick, Jamal Crawford, Bradley Beal, Courtney Lee, etc. Those guys are usually in pretty high demand by championship teams. If you want to go back a couple of years this is Heat-Ray Allen and Mike Miller.
Other than maybe Beal and closer-to-prime RayRay, those guys don't hold a candle to CJ, much less Dame.
 
It makes you wonder how valid the pre-injury Jabari/Lillard talks were.

Does Neil & co. value CJ over Dame?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Natebishop3
Zach Lowe and Amin Elhassan think we don't make the playoffs
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
dviss1
dviss1
Blazer Freak
BS Report: 12/23/14 w/ Zach Lowe
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
julius
julius
KeepOnRollin
Bill Simmons and Zach Lowe discuss Dame
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Minstrel
Minstrel
BigGameDamian
Lowe: Capped-Out Blazers Are Free Agency Losers
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Phatguysrule
Phatguysrule
trailblazer18
Zach Lowe 10 Things (Noah Vonleh, showing stuff)
Replies
24
Views
4K
Driew
Driew

Users who are viewing this thread

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