I never saids he was wrong. He can ask any question he wants. Stotts has the choice to answer it anyway he wants as well.
Back on topic before this dude derails a thread again, but I actually kinda empathize with CJ. He is in a massive slump and is at a loss for how to contribute more. There needs to be more leadership from Dame/Stotts/Neil to set him straight. If he can't get better, then move him. Step up for a change and make some tough decisions.
Anyone who has a problem with Stotts cutting off Quick's question would hate to have Pops here...he'll go entire interviews without saying a word at times or he'll say, "You guys figure it out, you always do" Stotts basically said, "Next question" and Stotts was not happy after that game for probably what he considered a lost opportunity.
I was watching this video of Pop and the big 3 a few days back and listen to Pop talk about accountability and leadership. Where is this in Portland? Outside of Dame, we have no one
Watching Oladipo highlights last night made me really think that CJ just needs his own team. I think he would thrive if he wasn't questioning what he should be doing, like when Dame misses games and he takes over.
It's why I want to see what CJ can do under a new coach. There HAS to be a way of maximizing talent to build Dame and CJ into a synergistic relationship.
I don't know if I've ever reported anything to a mod other than spam. I don't use the wussy button, nor does it apply to me.
Exactly and why issues like quick was trying to dig at should be dealt within the team and not with the press. I have seen the press tear teams apart and ruin them in the past.
I actually use to like Quick and then he seemed to get in tight with Canzano and follow in his lead of looking to dig for and create controversy within the team. The national reporters and analyst are typically way ahead of Quick when it comes to news about the team. Quick should do reviews for reality shows or soap operas.
I dunno. We're gonna speak in hypothetical at this point, but say Stotts does say he impacts the game in other ways... how can that then turn into negativity? But the fact Stotts said he wasn't going to go down that line is pretty damning, IMO. It makes me think that Stotts is saying he doesn't impact the game in other ways... because if he was, wouldnt he just say it and squash it? Seems the easier road (and leaves less curiosity) than the way he went about it. Again, all a hypothetical, but still.
uh, scalma claimed I was in his head after I said Quick is a hack. Am I not allowed to have that opinion? I just parroted his ridiculous accusation back at him so maybe you should go back and read it and then call him out as wasn't that trolling by him?
and I saw it as a coach not wanting to get any controversy going on in the locker room.I can almost guarantee you if Stotts continued answering that line of question there would have continued to be follow up questions trying to push the issue and thus the reason Stotts ended it. They should handle those things internally, not in the press IMO.
Your full quote was “quick is a hack, I see why you like him.” If you’re gonna attack me, or anyone else, unprovoked, be prepared for a response, and save the bullshit victimization. Thanks for derailing another thread though!
Honestly, the only other way it goes down a negative trajectory is if he says some non-answer. But if he answered it honestly it goes away. I guess, in the end, it's clear that CJ DOESN'T impact the game in other ways, so him not saying something is damning. I'd rather him say some fluff and we make fun of it for not being true, then him say nothing and we go "How can you not see it?"
To be frankly honest, I'm about to delete all the posts that dont have to do with the thread. We'd be left with about 15 posts, but still! Get it back on topic, there is most definitely a discussion to be had.
I'm starting to like Jason Quick more. But I still dislike the Oregonian editors for hiring shaman Canzano to turn the Blazers into his own personal moralistic church. Quick was the paper's junior wizard. McCollum is a great dribbler, but every team has one. He's a good shooter, but every team has three. His dribbling is wasted if his shooting is off, since he lacks any talent to pass. Most players could still help on defense, but he's a shrimp at his position. He's just not as talented as Olshey fanboys think. I've been saying this since I saw him in his first Summer League game. It was the worst SL team we've ever fielded, because Olshey obtained no PG other than McCollum, to give him PG experience. Olshey fanboys searched for reasons for the summer season's chaos-mayhem-disaster, blindly never considering our new Lillard as the cause despite my attempts. Olshey likes to force a player like Zach Collins to produce by signing no alternative player onto the team, like that SL team. We were a better team last year with Ed Davis and Shabazz Napier filling in when the usual no-shows like McCollum failed. Lillard used to fill in McCollum's cracks, but every year, Lillard gets lazier and crazier at missing unguarded shots. Entropy is evaporating what little discipline Stotts ever imposed. This is why you change the coach, GM, and players every few years. Fanboys cannot fathom the concept of change for the sake of change. They think it's something to ridicule.
