..says that the Blazers are a model that many teams will follow after. Said that the Blazers have done all the right things in re-building this franchise. Said that the Blazers are not quite ready for prime-time, but are definitely on, or ahead of, the right pace. All in all, a good interview. Very encouraging. I asked Wheels what Scout's real name is, but he said if he told me he'd have to kill me afterwards.
that shit cracks me up. "the model we should follow is to be horrible and have multiple high draft picks, and then draft all star level players with a few of them". we could have easily had tyrus thomas and adam morrison in 06, and corey brewer in 07. then i doubt ANYONE would want to follow in those footsteps.
Well, clearly the model we are following isn't: "Draft super athletic, basketball challenged guys too high" or "Draft slow white guys high" So I would say it is a good model to follow. Primarily the drafting super athletes, and hoping they eventually become something. That could work better for good teams, because they won't be looked to as much. On, say, SA, Tyrus Thomas might be a lot better, because he would be allowed to do one or two things really good, and come along slowly on everything, whereas the Bulls needed him, or wanted him, to do everythig good, or else just not play. They couldn't afford to have him be completely inept on offense, so he would get benched. If you are going for a complete rebuild, starting with a guy in a ROy, Granger type of mold probably makes a lot mroe sense than Tyrus Thomas sort of mold.
If I'm looking for a player to draft to build around, Griffin is choice 1 (obviously), and then probably Harden. I'm not sold on Rubio/Jennings/Aminu/anyone else being a guy who you can build around.
Well... I agree with you. Of course every team should simply not fuck up their draft picks. That's the model to follow. It doesn't hurt to -- luck into the top three twice, including the #1 pick overall -- be able to buy extra first rounders whenever you want -- have really low expectations in the city so your coach can go well under .500 for his first several years without any danger of losing his job The Blazers are looking really good for the future, but I don't know that there's much of a model that any other team can follow with any confidence of success. Ed O.
I think the model is also about drafting players whoose character fits with the team. For Ptd, that means not going for the bling-bling kind of player but a down to earth, stay out of trouble, team first kind of player. And to find 2-3 stars and build role players around those stars . . . not the Bob model of accumulate as much talent as possible and hope it all fits together.
I think he was talking about a mix of very talented players that are also quality people. No gangstas!
Whitsitt was never OPPOSED to getting 2 or 3 stars. He just never was in a position to get a single star because the team was in the playoffs every year and was expected to be. He added as many sub-star players as he could, hoping that depth could overcome the NBA system that favors superstars so heavily. He was almost right in terms of winning a title and he was unquestionably correct in terms of consistency of success over the course of a decade or so. And I don't think passing on "bling-bling" kind of players or on guys with bad attitudes or with poor college production would have anything to do with passing on a player like Adam Morrison. The reason Portland would pass on a player like Adam is because (a) they know more than other teams, or (b) luck. Does anyone really think that being luckier and smarter than opponents is something that anyone can build a franchise around? Ed O.
I don't think you can have a replicable and alienable system that says, "We're going to be smarter than our opponents." That's like saying, "We're going to have a system where we win more basketball games." Being smart is the input into a process (or, from another perspective, the result of one)... not a process in and of itself. Some individuals are smarter than other individuals, but every franchise that is interested in winning is trying to be smarter than everyone else. It's a question of how and why the franchise is smarter. Ed O.
If the Spurs management had interviewed a GM candidate a year before they won the DRob lottery, and he had come in saying, "We're going to be smarter and luckier than everyone else. That's my plan." ... would that have been reasonable? Should they have hired that person? Clearly the Spurs did many things right, but every decision they've made, and every success they've had, was augmented by the incredible luck of winning two of the best lottery top picks in NBA history. Ed O.
well of course not. but to say that being smarter than other teams isn't something to build a franchise around isn't correct either.
I think drafting Tony Parker with the last pick of the first round and Ginobili with a LOW second rounder took a little smarts...
It's a useless thing to say. It's like saying you're going to build a franchise around having a better team. Ed O.
Wait. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Are you talking about a system of having smarter PLAYERS than other teams? Like some teams might value intelligence more highly relative to other considerations (height, shooting, youth/experience, etc.?) If you're saying that, I agree that it's a viable strategy and part of a system that could be used as a blueprint by other franchises. I am talking, though, about making smarter decisions in the front office. Every franchise tries to make the best possible decisions, so having a "system" where the front office (and franchise as a whole) is smarter would be rather uselessly defined one. Ed O.
no, i'm talking about what you are talking about as well. though obviously having smarter basketball players is generally a plus too.
How can you create a system where the system is based on making better decisions? Honestly, how would that work? What system does not bake in "being smart" as part of the system? Ed O.
For whatever reason, This Article came to mind. I realize it was a long time ago, but I wonder how the Blazers might have fared had they not drafted Wicks?
