The Golden Future Syndrome has always dominated Portland fans, especially during the Pritchard Era. Homers string along for years, arguing for big player raises based on false potential. As opposed to the Here and Now Philosophy, also known as the What You See Is What You Get Dogma. It says that by the 2nd year, a player shows 90% of what he will ever be. If he's not a star by then, he never will be.
Yes, it seems that other teams are much quicker to give up on their young talent. It's hard to imagine the Blazers ever trading away one of their lotto picks as soon as we've seen other teams have (and many were traded to us). I think it has to do with how Allen was bitten by the Jermaine O'Neal trade. On the bright side, this may be paying off with Meyers Leonard. But most of the time, it doesn't.
Like Aldridge and Outlaw, Meyers Leonard is still just a gimmick shooter, depending upon his height to fool defenders into thinking he will be a quality conventional tall player, then living far from the hoop. Just because coaches find ways to circumvent a player's many deficiencies, doesn't mean that the player no longer has them. It's the same as if I fool a realtor into selling me a house far beyond my means. Homers say, "Congratulations! You had us worried, but we waited patiently for years. You were poor but now you're rich." No, I'm a con man.
I would agree with this, but with an asterisk. IF a player is given a legit chance and time then by his second year, yes, we have seen what we have. But if he has been riding the bench behind all stars ( See Meyers) and or hit the injury bug early on ( See CJ), then they deserve to not be lumped in with the above criteria. Some of our recent acquisitions are also under this same asterisk category. We are the exception to the rule.
I'm just a Homer patiently waiting for riches beyond my poverty stricken present state! jlprk has solved my identity crisis! Just thought I'd mention Chauncey Billups as a guy who didn't blossom until a few years into his career..just to rub it in about player development and youth..if you don't get minutes, you don't become that allstar..actually Jermaine O'neal is another prime example of a rookie who sat on our bench too long only to move on and become an allstar.
But Meyers has a better shooting percentage from all over the court than Travis ever did. Last year for example Meyers shot 58.6% from 2pt range. When Outlaw was 22, he only shot 45% from 2. Outlaw and LA are also chuckers, whereas Meyers takes better shots. Meyers is also a much better rebounder than either of them. He may never be a big time volume scorer, but it's great to have someone that can score 15-16 per game so efficiently.
I think that's generally true too, you usually know what you have in a player by the 2nd year. It's hard to find examples of players who's suddenly become much more talented after their 2nd year. The biggest example of late bloomer I can think of is Gerald Wallace. But if you look at all the all-stars in the league, everyone knew they were really good by the 2nd year. We all knew Dame, Roy and Rasheed were going to be good by their 2nd year.
I think we could be very good defensively too. I hope Stotts splits up the minutes, so guys play less minutes but play harder, as a contrast to how hard he rode the starters in prior years.
I think now that the 5 starters are pretty much gone, he kind of has to play as many as he can. He played the 5 starters so much because we had no bench. Now, we have a bench but not 5 quality starters.
The drop off from starters to bench players, leads to more minutes for the starters, and contributes to a lot of the slacking we see throughout NBA games. The Blazers should take advantage of our dirth of quality starters by expending max energy on defense, lots of player movement on offense, and rotating fresh bodies into the games. If we can't out talent the other team lets out hustle them and wear them out.
Nope, I disagree. If he's going to be really good, we all know it by the middle of Year 2, even if he's playing behind an All-Star. What are his stats per foul? Too bad Basketball-Reference and NBA.com don't have that. He's unable to play a full game.
Really? So in 1 1/2 years, he's supposed to be an all-star or he's done? Why did Jermaine O'neal even try? He should have just hung it up.
After 1 1/2 seasons, if he truly will become a star, he will be wowing us with his moves, spurts of star-level play, and 90% of realized potential. There are rare exceptions (O'Neal doesn't count since shy 18-year-old high schoolers aren't allowed anymore), but Blazer Golden Future fans believe that awful Year 2 players are the rule, not the rare exception, for future stars.
I'm sorry, I just do not agree with this. There are still 19 year olds that are rookies, so you're saying by 20 1/2 they should be all star potentials? I mean, I think Vonleh will be an all star in 5 years... but if he sucks next year, then that's it? Write him off? This is not an easy game to be a pro at, and I don't even play and I know that. You don't either, so cut 19 year olds some slack. It's not only basketball they are worrying about, but culture shocks, travel, maturing on the fly (literally and figuratively). Meyers sucked his first 3 years... so, he's done? He should stop trying? That argument, IMO, holds no water.
Stats per foul? That would be a bit of a nonsensical metric to track, but easy to figure out if you wanted to. But Meyers averages almost 5 fouls per 36 minutes. That's definitely high but to say he is unable to play a full game is hyperbole, and doesn't negate how effective he is when he is on the floor. He averages about the same amount of fouls as Shawn Kemp did for his career.
Everyone agrees that Vonleh has "it." He has already shown it, early in his career. Homers don't need to argue that we should wait 5 years. Get it? The question was, how many years do we have to wait before we stop waiting with baited breath for a player to have starter ability before we develop some certainty. Look who's #22! http://bkref.com/tiny/X1rH8
