You make a lot of great points tbpup. The one I would argue with is Nic. I can not give him the lowest grade on the team. (Besides Robinson) Granted it was not by much, but still....not with those all around stats. They all disappear offensively at times because there are so many other offensive options. How can you ding a guy for trying to get more assists on a team with so many scorers. If we lacked offensive production these last 10 games then maybe I could agree with passing up the open shots. But right now i would have to give him the same grade as the other starters. Anyway it was a great post, but I needed to nitpick.
Meh, I think grades based on your own expectations are much more reflective of your own understanding of the team and the NBA than they are a reflection of player performance. If you foolishly think Aldridge will suddenly fall apart, should he get an A when he doesn't? If you think Aldridge will be the exact same player once again that he's been for the past 4 years, should you punish him with a bad grade when he is? Why? If you had a teacher who thought you were pretty smart at Calculus, but you got one question wrong on the test, should the teacher give you a worse grade than the next student who got the same question wrong but the teacher thought was generally more stupid? Seems kind of silly. I think it makes much more sense to grade players in terms of overall ranking compared to other NBA players, and factor in positional strength and years in the league and impact on your team winning. So far I think you have to give Lillard and Aldridge and Stotts grades of A, because they are the guys really driving the success of the team. They are generally playing like the very best players at their position in the league in their current roles. Frankly, at this point I think you'd have to dish out a lot A's and B+'s on this team, at least until you get deep into the bench. The system is working and generating wins. It's acing the test (given the talent on the roster) and the players who are creating this success should be recognized.
You're the only person handing out grades to the players that I give an "A" to. Everyone else is in the B- to fail range.
The question I ask is why are the three point shooters getting open looks? I think it comes from LA and DL running the pick and roll and LA posting up. It might take a couple of passes before getting to the open man, but it starts with the defense having to react to a move made by them. LA is also playing at a higher level earlier than he usually does.
That's what I was noticing too! In years past, it would take about 2-3 months before you started seeing this type of production from Aldridge. He was usually a slower starter. I can't imagine what our team would look like if he improves like he normally does in 2-3 months. He could get to a 25/12 type player! <== One can dream can't they?
TBPup..all in all a great post.. The only part I would even challange is this Coaching - Stotts seems like the 'Mad 3-pt Scientist' but it is working so far on the offensive end. They really haven't played many tough teams so it will be interesting to see what happens when they start playing more quality competition. The points-in-the-paint problem is one of monumental disbelief but for the most part they have hit enough 3's to cover up that large deficit. Cover it up but certainly not make it go away. B- Given an 8-2 start, which most fans if they are honest did not have the Blazers at, there is reason for optimism even if it is just a matter of beating weaker competition for the most part so far. After watching so many coaches attempt to implant their imprint on the team with various degrees of success, it is a pleasant change to see these guys willingly embrace and begin to achieve rewards in the form of wins. Where we are at odds is the percieved lack of competition. At the start of the season we all would have been happy with 5 and 5, even taking into account playing the Kings twice.
