Im pretty sure Portlandites would much prefer a Blazing Blazer who might toss joints into the crowd than a mutt that pisses on every leg of every chair in the 100 level.
Hit 'em where they ain't. We aren't going to out-GS GS. By the time we got close, there would be a new flavor of the month to chase. Then another. Better instead to try to make our team a match-up nightmare for them, make them adjust to us. Moreover, because big man stocks are out of favor is exactly the reason to stock up on value assets while we are in rebuilding mode. That goes for big men and potentially undervalued players at any position. I'm in the 'it's going to be hard to draw a top free agent to Portland' camp. So, we need to tee up a lot of balls and see if any of them make it over the fence. Or something.
Gimmicks don't win championships, talent does. Trying to emulate the Warriors when you don't have the same type/level of talent is foolish. Assemble the best talent you can, however you can, and try to develop it. If there was no salary cap, Paul Allen would just go out and buy up all the best players and we'd be set. Given that there is a salary cap and limited opportunities to improve your talent through the draft, trades and free agent signings, Olshey is buying low. He's accumulating young lottery-level talent on cheap contracts. In the process, that will most likely lead to better draft picks for the next couple years while that young talent develops. Aren't you one of the "blow it up, tank, the only way to build a contender is through high lottery picks" kind of guys? If you are, you should be ecstatic about Olshey's direction. While going big may be bucking the trend of the most recent championship, the most successful franchise over the last 20 years just went big by signing LaMarcus Aldridge to play beside Tim Duncan. So, in spite of the author's assertion, maybe going big isn't actually saying "Fuck it, let's do the opposite of successful". BNM
We have this special one year window before teams have any clue how to game plan for us. When they do, Stotts just changes the lineup and frustrates them again. I think our bench will be a tough matchup for a lot of teams
Or maybe it is. The rules have made this a perimeter gaurd and wing league. But it is nice to know you are right there with a comment to, in your opinion, correct one of my posts
I think that whole copy-cat thing is such bullshit. I see it in the NFL too. Teams try to copy the last winner, as though they've discovered some brilliant new tactic. There's more than one way to win.
But yeah, that article is kind of stupid too. Olshey didn't "go big". He just did his best to replace 2/3rds of the roster, which we lost. We're no bigger than last year.
Sounds good to me. I am good with a Dame, CJ, Henderson, Vonleh and Leonard lineup to close out games on offense. Crabbe will fit in with that philosophy as well. The writer made some good points, but Neil hardly went big this summer. Especially if they play Davis as the back up center. Seems to me they have gone smaller and quicker with their bigs so they can cover the stretch 4's.
If a lot of the league is moving one direction and you acquire a lot of assets that are counter to that direction, you are being a contrarian. Even if those assets are in the same mold of assets you had last year. One can be internally consistent and still contrarian--see Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul.
I don't think of this of looking at what's successful and going against it. The game evolves, but it often evolves because organizations have to find ways to succeed with the whoever the best guys are they can put together. Would Shaq or Wilt or Olajuwon be any less forces if they played in today's game? I think they'd be just as dominant if not more so. It's just harder to find that kind of talented big than it is a talented guy who is between 6-4 and 6-6. It's like the Oakland A's did in baseball. Recognize market inefficiencies. Find players who have winning traits that just aren't being recognized yet by other teams. And then find ways to be more dominant at your position of strength than your opponent is at theirs. Had the Blazers kept LA and signed Monroe to go along with Aminu and the Henderson trade, I think this was a team being build specifically to deal with the Warriors, because you had terrific defenders to put on the Splash Brothers and guys who could score at the 4 and 5 that the Warriors couldn't match. I don't think that's what Olshey is doing now. When it became apparent that LA wasn't coming back, I think Olshey just tried to collect as much young talent as he could find and then give them all a chance to play and let their performance sort things out. If even one of them turns out to be star level to go with Lillard and then you end up drafting high enough that you can land another star-level player, you are set for a while, especially if some of those other young guys turn out to be reliable rotation players.
I think you are right in that he went looking for the best young prospects he could find, regardless of position (aside from PG). I think guys like Davis, Plumlee and Vonleh were available, though, because of recent NBA trends. 10 years ago getting a legit NBA level PF/C 25 or under who could walk and chew gum at the same time was really expensive. The fact that we got 3 such guys while only really giving up Batum really says something.
I don't know why and it has no logic behind it, but I really fucking hate blaze. He sucks as a mascot.
No you're not. We lost our starting PF, C and SF, so we obviously had to replace them. Would any GM have replaced them with 3 guards?
