Important stats you ignored: Felton 10-11 11-12 FG% 42.5% 37.1% 3p% 35.3% 20.0% PER 16.6 11.2 Crawford 10-11 11-12 Min/g 30.2 24.7 FGA/g 11.5 12.7 FG% 42.1% 35.5% 3p% 34.1% 31.3% Usage 23.4% 29.1% What did we expect? From Felton--decent shooting and at least average overall efficiency. But at least while he's shooting worse, he's also shooting less. Crawford has a higher usage rate than Aldridge--by far the highest of his career--while simultaneously putting up the worst shooting percentages of his career. If you don't see a problem with that, then you're not paying attention.
Yes I've noticed Crawford's usage rate before, that is terrible. Having a higher usage rate than LaMarcus is a joke.
Look, I don't think anyone should have a problem with Crawford...He is what he is.. He is a streaky, volume shooter, with a propensity to get to the line.....When he is on he can absolutely carry\propel a team to victory...when he is off, he is not much good out there on the court... Having ONE type of this boom\bust scorer coming off your bench is fine, I would say can even be good... The problem with POR is that outside of Aldridge, they have a ROSTER full of boom\bust players....Crawford, Matthews, Wallace, Batum, Felton...There you have 5 players, 3 starters and 2 of your top reserves who you have NO IDEA what you are going to get from them night to night....You cannot be a consistently GOOD NBA team with a roster full of players like that, no matter how much they hustle (and they do) or how well they get along.... ANY coach worth his salary would tell a player guarding Wallace to lay off him on the perimeter, let him shoot, if he hts 30 on you then you shake his hand and say well done, but I guarantee you most nights Wallace shooting jumpers is not going to be good for POR....Matthews\Batum\Crawford are all Jekyl & Hyde one night can be really good, the next night awful and Felton, well he has been just plain awful more times than not.... At this point, if this continues POR would be WISE (not that thye will be) to let Crawford & Felton walk and either deal Wallace (preferably) or let him walk if he opts out....resign Camby if you can for cheap, otherwise let him walk as well and start to rebuild...or "retool" to some of you who have fits when the word rebuild is mentioned, around Aldridge...Do it now before he gets to old to make it feasible...
I definetely think this could be a real possibility. Thats why I really like the idea of maintaining salary flexability until the off-season. No Wallace extension, no Batum extension, no trade for Nash if we have to bring back Josh Childress' contract. No adding Okafor for Camby's expiring deal. That way we can see how this group performs the rest of the year and retool completely around LaMarcus/Wes if we want to go in that direction. Or bring back a couple of Batum/Gerald/Felton/Crawford/Oden if that looks like a better direction. On July 1st we'll have a better idea of what targets (Deron Williams, Hibbert, Eric Gordon) we have a chance at grabing and which of our own free agents make the most sense to try and retain. Maybe we get to the WCF and bring back everyone for at least two seasons or maybe we miss the playoffs and can renounce more of our guys.
You ignored some stats as well, such as the fact that Crawford's PER this year is higher than last... And I'm confused why you'd expect decent shooting by Felton when he's averaged 41% FG and 32.7% from 3 over 6 years. But the fact is, I wouldn't have written, "That said, I can't for the life of me figure out why Elliott gets less time than even Babbitt... He really seems like he can score, but Nate seems upset with his flashy play and wants him to play the 'right way' -- which from what I can tell is to shoot poorly, make horrible turnovers, and allow your man to consistently give you a head-cold as they run by... Hopefully Elliott will learn to play like that soon." if I didn't think our guard play has been disappointing so far... I just think in typical message board fashion everyone is going overboard and not taking into account the circumstances. And I think they'll improve over the season. Sorry that opinion makes your butt hurt.
I know, I know, it was against Phoenix's scrubs, but Elliot looked good. He is athletic and can really get up. That block was pretty impressive (maybe a foul). But his ability to dunk and hit the outside shot, I could see him being in our future plans. I'd like to see more of him in real minutes though before I make any real judgements.
This post made me think, and I came to the opposite conclusion of yours. I will remember this. I now have a new way of thinking. How does a team get a go-to player? It forces one player to become that leader. The coach picks one guy and develops most plays to funnel the ball to that player. If that player isn't a clutch 4th quarter player, and Aldridge is not, then the coach picks the 2nd-most talented player to center his offense around. If that guy doesn't produce, the coach makes the 3rd-most talented player the star. Everyone else is there to fill in the cracks left by the designated star. On occasion, one of them will be the star of the night when the designated star doesn't produce. The normal designated star will have to serve as decoy in that game to distract the defense. We have several players who can be the season's designated star. Our problem is that we are hung up on making that person Aldridge, and he is unable to lead when the game is on the line. If you think of our offense as an arrowhead, the problem is that our point is made of sand, not metal. We need to place the sand behind the metal. We need to design all the plays to funnel the ball to a different designated star. We have several players mentally tougher than Aldridge willing to step up to fulfill that role.
I will also happily say that Crawful had a very good game against Phoenix. They are terrible, but he really did a good job of facilitating the offense
Crawford's PER is driven by his high usage rate; if he were consuming shots like he did last year, his PER would probably be in the 12s. 41% & 33% from Felton would qualify as decent to me. If you consider poor shooting, horrible turnovers, and matador defense to be within the realm of expectation for newly acquired guards, you're undoubtedly on an island there. And if you're going to ask what was expected, don't be surprised when someone actually answers. I'm not sure exactly how you would define the term "butt-hurt", I generally wouldn't think that providing legitimate statistical support to a reasonable position would qualify.
I'd like to see him get more playing time too. But now Batum may be getting minutes at backup SG, so where does that leave Williams? Elliot looks a lot better so far than any of the other bozo's we've drafted recently.
agree, Ewill has game and we are overloaded at SG. Would not mind trading Wes for a piece like Varajeo or similar, and use Nic at SG more more with Jamal backing up PG and SG and giving Ewill more minutes
I like how small sample sizes prove a player is a "wasted" pick for some fans. Like someone said, if the lineup you are playing with isn't very talented or is full of other players trying to prove themselves, it skews things. I don't know if Smith is going to be a decent PG or not (same with Williams). give him minutes with players who can help bring him in, not 4 other unprovens. I think that's one of Nates biggest flaws, he doesn't cultivate players with starters helping but throws them into the game with no safety net
Your are so funny. In the exact same thread you make some testimonial that you ""have literally never seen a more selfish player in your life" you then comment on JC's next game saying he did a good job distributing the ball. The same player who you have listed as the top most selfish player you have ever seen play the game of basketball is capable of having game where he does a good job facilitating the offense? Does this the very next day you declare him most selfish player to play the game? Most selfish player you have ever seen play got how many assist in that game? Most selfish player you have ever seen play in your entire life? Literally?
I don't quite understand your agenda? Crawford is a really selfish player. He did a great job in one game of trying not to be and succeeded.
No agenda. I found it funny that the day you declare JC the most selfish player to play the game, he goes out and has a game like that. Do you still think he is the most selfish player you have ever seen play? Just having fun on a sunday morning on one of your overstatement . . . admit, it was funny you make that statement and the JC puts on literally the best offensive performance in the history of the NBA.
Wow. Arenas, Stephen Jackson, Iverson, Francis, Marbury, Al Thorton, Coleman, JR Smith, JR Rider . . . personally I can start thinking of a load of players that are more selfish, but maybe it is the way you define selfish. Surprised you really think JC is the most selfish player you have ever seen play . . . but OK . . . hope he changes your mind, that is a terrible person to have on a team you root for.
That's entirely your opinion......when in fact he "may" be encouraged by his teammates to play his game, relax, don't hesitate to shoot the rock, and other such comments of the same ilk. Point is, Crawford is a scorer. It's the reason he was brought to Portland. It isn't like, suddenly, this is a new style/game for him. From what I've seen, he has the same leopard spots as before.
