I really like the versatility our team has with the extra rotation player. That said I can't get too excited about a 14.3 PER guy. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...n.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=sg If I had to give the acquisition a grade, it'd be B-. We'll still need Nolan Smith to be worthy of some minutes and we didn't get Carl Landry or any other big.
We signed Craig Smith to be our backup PF instead of Landry at a WAY cheaper cost. We couldn't outbid NO who had cap space. As for Crawford not being "that good" the team was limited in its choices. Based on the limitations I think it was a good move. They needed a player that wouldn't obliterate their possible cap space next summer and beyond. They needed a player who could create their own looks. They needed a player who was experienced. They needed a player who could backup the point guard position in a pinch. (it is too much to ask for all the prior requirements to be met and have them be a real PG, those guys are rare and expensive). What other guard qualified for all that who is better? I mean, come on, Marcus Thorton got $31 mil for 4 years. JJ Brea got $19mil for 4 years. Would you have been excited about Mike Dunleavy? Delonte West? How about Telfair? Who?
the other thing about his shooting is that he does some of it off the dribble which is something Portland's other wings don't do well at. He'll probably get the their top end of the clock/game guy from day one. Very good signing STOMP
I see it similarly. Reminds me of the Drexler era team, once they gave in to age and injuries. We'd sign guys like Strickland and Elie, hoping richer depth would compensate for eroding talent at the top. I like that it's a 2 year deal though. Still, Elliot Williams is maybe our most promising young player, and this probably buries him on the bench. Unless, they think Crawford can play some 3 and we unload Wallace.
Ellie and Strickland were bad? Ellie was intsrumental with the Rockets in their championship run. We should never of let him go. I am not sure how you can use that era as an argument. That philosophy got them back to the WCF a couple of times with in 4-5 years. And they got young guys like Wallace, O'Neal, Grant, JR Rider. They built it in the right manner IMO, and when they got some boneheads like Rider they traded them out. (Rider for Smith. ) They made lots of mistakes at the time. but I think the philosophy was sound.
People seem to forget that certain players equalled other players. Just like No Sam Bowie = no buck williams. Yeah it would have been nice to have Jordan, but even Bowie netted us a great PF.
Oh no, I think you missed my point, or I didn't make it clear enough. Adding depth definitely helped keep us competitive, but it couldnt offset the deterioration in our stars' games. And so we never saw the Finals again and steadily saw our wins decrease until the Wallace era. This seems a similar situation with Oden/Roy deteriorating/gone and bringing in vets to counter the loss of top talent with improved depth. I mean, it will probably keep us competitive for now, but I'm skeptical we can ever play as well as those Roy teams. The Wallace era you reference was built opposite. We traded aging guys for younger players with big upside (Strickland for Wallace). Signed free agents in their primes or entering (Anderson, Grant). But for the remaining Petrie years, we sorta band-aided it hoping the aging stars could suck it up for one last run.
I'm beginning to think that too many sports fans are obsessed with "winning a championship". Your team may win one once ever 30 years, but in the NBA, with all the repeats, it's more like a once in a lifetime affair. Are you really going to get rid of, or pass up the opportunity to get good players just so you can suck, and hopefully draft good players, or develop young scrubs into stars? I think it's best to just put the best team you can together every year, regardless of age. I like what the Blazers are doing.
I had an idea when I was listening to the interview with Crawford so I'll throw it in here where no one will read it because I know it will never happen. Anyway he mentioned he actually played some good defense for a year or two when he was being coached by Larry Brown. If I was Blazers I hire Brown as a "consultant"; maybe one million dollars for six weeks. He is actually a great teacher and I think most of our roster needs some teaching, especially on some of the little details of basketball fundamentals; he could instruct individual players during breaks in games and in one on one sessions. He could also just be an observer of how things are done in Portland and offer a report with suggestions when he is done.
I think you give yourself the best chance by trying to put together the best team possible. Often fans of "good" teams want to tear them apart simply because they are not championship material. It is a longshot, but sometimes teams full of good players do win. Dallas did it last year, with one star, the Blazers almost did it a few years ago, there's the 2004 Pistons. But I think we all know, that the NBA has it's "superstars" that it protects, and it's hard to win a game when the other team has such a a player, that will get to the line at the end of the game no matter what you do. The NBA will never bestow that type of honor on a Portland Trailblazer.
I agree that "constant pressure" in the playoffs can yield good things... meaning if you have a team that's in the playoffs every year and has a chance to advance, eventually you're going to get lucky and have a really good season. I want a team that is good and has a prospect or two that might, someday, develop into something special. That's what the Blazers had under Whitsitt every year but poor drafting the last three years or so has really undermined the current team's prospects pool. Ed O.
The problem is, unless Aldridge truly has changed, we do not have a "got to" player on this roster. As much as I like Aldridge and Wallace, I don't think etiher of them are the kind of guy that you can expect to put on his back and carry the team when you need buckets. Roy was that guy. Perhaps Crawford can fill that void for a year or two, but I would like to see the team make a big push to try to obtain another star, either through the draft or free agency.
The difference in the long range forecast for the Blazers between now and 3 years ago is startling. By mid season we were watching The Big 3 play well, plus exciting youngsters of Batum (starting as a rookie!, the sky is the limit) and Rudy was impressive as a rookie (a star in the making!) and we still had Bayless and several intriguing stashed Euro's. We were young AND deep - a fantastic combination that only needs a little time. Now. Roy is gone. Oden is still out of commission. Aldridge has exceeded most expectations. Batum is not a more impactful player than in his rookie year yet, so the chances of him being an All-Star are reduced. Rudy had that one good year in the NBA at that was it. We didn't strike gold with Bayless or any of the stashed guys either. Then add 3 bad drafts in a row. From team of the future to team meh. The development of Aldridge into All-Star caliber and picking up Wallace for peanuts are the only things keeping the team from having had a historic collapse in fortunes.
I never understood that problem though. If you have an efficient offense, why not just run your offense? We had Roy who could be a one man show, but we still never got out of the 1st round. Aldridge is a guy that is hard to guard one on one though, and teams usually double him down low.
Re: Crawford has a 14.3 PER last year, Masbee writes... Very good points, except for one thing. The fans here expect Crawford to be an above average player. And now he's shown his colors - he's a below average player (probably with an above average usage). Right now his PER for this year is 15.1 - better than last year, and the fans are worried.
