No it's not...this is pure spin. You don't get to the Western conf finals without a shot at a championship and we did that hobbled....the teams that beat us in playoffs became champions...they beat everybody....with health we could have gone further....quantum physics says anything is possible...the limitation is on the student, not the science...string theory 101 Definitions are tricky because they don't take intangibles into account and if the maps say the world is flat....that's what you learn until someone says...wait a minute here. Maybe we won't fall off the edge! Let's keep sailing west!
talk about spin... if it wasn't true Portland wouldn't have been swept by the team that lost the finals (and Durant didn't play that series). And if Portland was a contender, they would have played in more that one WCF over 9 years and would have actually managed to win a game when they did. Hell, even their semi-finals record over the Olshey/Stotts era is 6-11. And their overall playoff winning percentage is .357. Neither of those point to a contender of course, different team each year, so maybe, in the 9th season, Portland might actually graduate from pretender to contender. Anything is possible but if past is predicate, don't hold your breath
Nah we just are willing to look at the scoreboard. Right now the Blazers are 21-14 and in the 5th seed when that was pretty much the expectation without injuries. What do you think the record should be if they were all Healthy? 24 wins? 25? Well 25-10 puts them solid 2nd seed. We don't need to work this "Angle" hard. The Blazers have done that for us. That is what "points at Reality". I rest my case.....
LOL..."rest my case"....good one. You're done commenting then but you see....this is the argument: you guys are pointing at the record and saying "good job Olehey and Stotts". A lot of other people are pointing at that record and saying "where would Portland be without Dame".
So ridiculous somebody bringing up Durant being injured. So was Lillard (Hamstring), Nurk (leg), Collins (shoulder), Kanter (shoulder), Aminu (knee) They were playing Meyers Leonard for gods sakes? What do you expect man. By game three Aminu was down to 12 mins a game. Meyers was starting and Kanter was down to 7 mins a game. That series started with a grand total of 36 hours rest and a flight from Denver to Oakland in the middle. Game 4 with a 2 point loss in OT with Meyers playing 40+ mins and Aminu down to 11 mins because he could barely walk. Harkless gets a grand total of 15 mins and i can't remember why he was out? I'll give Meyers some credit. He scored 30 points. To bring up injuries in this series is a crock. Both teams were depleted but the Blazers were down to 6 serviceable players.
No not done commenting. Just gonna wait until you can come up with at least some kind of coherent response. Again- SCOREBOARD!
@wizenheimer here is the box for game 4. The Warriors had Curry, Thompson, Draymond all playing over 43 mins. https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201905200POR.html
That's not an argument...that's a question.....where would the Lakers be without Lebron?....the Warriors without Steph?.....the Clippers without Kawhi?...the Heat without Butler?... I'll say this....CJ can plug in for Dame easier than you replace a Lebron or Steph on those other teams.....I look at our record and say.....good job Blazers....like every damned team our record is impacted by our best player.....duh....so my question is...why ask what our record would look like without our best player? Maybe just for arguments sake?
You're the one that brought up injuries not me my man. Exactly. You ask where would they be without Lillard? I'll tell you. Lottery. Why? Because they are also without NURK, CJ, COLLINS, and GILES. Here's the next. Where would the Warriors be with Klay, Curry, Draymond and Loony? Guess where they were last year? LOTTERY! Darn straight it's easy. And you still can't come up with a coherent response.
no it wasn't...if it was a question it would have had a question mark. I know the author....it was a rhetorical argument. yeah, just like you guys I can split hairs
You posted ...Where would Portland be without Dame......so you know an author...how does that make your post a non-question? Because you didn't use a question mark?
then why the fuck are you using the record with Dame to argue in favor of Stotts and Olshey? You are explicitly saying they don't have any impact of the record, Dame does. it's ironic that you think your arguments are coherent and mine aren't. I don't think the word means what you think it means I also don't think "I rest my case" means what you think it means
Nothing confusing in my world my friend.....but you post often in veiled absolutes and when called out for them seem to have trouble having that conversation..example...I asked you about Lebronless Lakers, etc....and that just got left out of the mix so you could define me as confused....ok....I am so relieved you're not responsible for my confusion...guess I should seek therapy eh?
This drives me nuts. You can’t have it both ways. How do you blame someone for things when they go wrong but give no credit when they go right? If the team loses five straight after the break do we blame Lillard? If they continue to win 60% do we credit Olshey for building a team that can withstand these major injuries? If they lose though it’s on Stotts? And Neil? It all just seems so “pick and choose-y” to me.
It's why i say he has absolutely no "Coherent" argument. Then he says i don't know what it means. co·her·ent /ˌkōˈhirənt/ Learn to pronounce adjective 1. (of an argument, theory, or policy) logical and consistent. "they failed to develop a coherent economic strategy" Logical and Consistent!
Just stop bro. You cannot look any worse at this point. Go back read the thread again and maybe come back and apologize for your confusion here. Or don't? I don't care. Because yes you are responsible for the confusion. Have a good day. I'm done here.
This right here is the thing. We all see players play. We hear about their work ethic and we get an idea (even if it's a filtered one) of what their character is like. We just don't know those things about up and coming executives and coaches in the league. So it's really hard to speculate who the next GM or coach will or should be. The fact is we need a new perspective running this team. That means Olshey is out. If the hopefully very savvy individual the team picks to run things thinks that Stotts should go then so be it and this new GM better hire a very good coach. We might know who these guy are but we also might not and that is fine, either way. I proposed Shane Battier as GM because he's been under the tutelage of Pat Riley, everyone has great things to say about his front office work and he was considered the smartest player in the league during much of his career. Certain people panned the idea saying that players make horrible GMs despite the overwhelming evidence that that is a false narrative. I recommended Brian Shaw as head coach because he's been a great assistant, won championships as a player and assistant coach, has a year and a half of experience head coaching a bad NBA team and most importantly both holds players accountable and has a great relationship with Dame, that's longer than anyone else's in the NBA. So people said that he failed in Denver with a really good roster. That roster's best player was either Kenneth Farried or Wilson Chandler. Someone had the nerve to list Randy Foye and JaVale McGee as players that made the roster good (quick note: the Nuggets did trade their best player, Iggy, for Foye before Shaw was hired). These two names were just shots in the dark but the only reason why anyone in here is asking for names is so they can shoot them down.
