that could have been accomplished by simply saying it and not posting stats which were obviously lacking some context don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the idea that Layman should get playing time. no surprise that I don't think it was out of context at all if what the poster wanted to say is "we need to see more of Layman", he could have said it without adding all the stats. It's a simple statement and a fairy easy argument to make. Once he added the stats, conveniently editing out the per game box, he was comparing players, SF's in particular, and the difference in sample sizes becomes valid context.
I left out per game box because it’s useless and I never use it to compare players. The only purpose of the stats was to show he at least deserves a further look. Didn’t know some needed it spelled out.
but you did spell it out and you used stats to do it. Pointing out significant sample size differences is valid context for any stat comparison...no?
The fact that Jake may seem to be accepting being completely benched after being so much more efficient even with few/spotty minutes doesn't mean Stotts made the right move. Coach really didn't answer the question that well to me.
Well of course he didn’t answer it well. He was feeling stupid. Think about it, Layman was doing really well starting, then he sits when Stotts man crush Harkless got back. Then right on cue after 5 games sitting Layman wastes no time to kill it. Of course Stotts feels stupid. It’s baffling. Our soft media reporters should straight up hound him why is he sitting
Holdahl and Freeman mentioned on their podcast that Moe is considered a glue guy on the team, and that he needs to start because he said in the past that he needs that to be effective. Well I say, "then bring a consistant motor that actually helps the team win". The Blazers need Jake's offensive. Say all you want about defense, but drained shots win games. I see entirely too much empty play by Harkless in the starting lineup. It puts way too much pressure on the other 4. Jake was doing just fine in the starting lineup, and provided Dame with another quality finisher off his passes. My whole rub with Harkless is that he doesn't bring it every game. He has an inconsistent motor. If he can bring Dennis Rodman energy every game, then the Blazers would have a player, and winning would be a whole lot easier.
on one hand: in the previous 3 seasons, Portland has went on at least one extended hot streak each year. And there have seemed to be two factors involved in each hot streak. One was that Dame was playing in superstar mode; the other was that Harkless was starting and contributing fairly consistently on each end of the floor. I guess that's the "glue" factor on the other hand: Harkless has also been present during Blazer struggles over extended games and he's often been the incredible shrinking man during those stretches. He's 25 years old and in his 7th season so expecting that he'll somehow solve his inconsistency issue may be putting too much hope in a leaky vessel. He's probably going to be inconsistent over his entire career (and, since the combined usage rates of Dame, CJ, and Nurkic hit 81%, there isn't a lot of room for an offensively aggressive 4th player) the problem is, with Harkless and Turner, Portland seems to be weakest where the NBA seems to be strongest: in those 6'5-6'10 wings and stretch-4's. Blazers really need to be able to match-up better in impact with the rest of the league at SF. Compounding the problem is that with the Dame-CJ-Curry-Stauskas rotation in the back court, Portland really needs to have a SF capable of good defense; and that sure doesn't look like a tool in Layman's toolbox. But of course, we haven't really seen what the inside of Layman's toolbox looks like (Layman has a DRPM of +0.80 vs Harkless at +0.41 and Turner at -0.03 I do think this loops around to Olshey. Blazers apparently have to use Turner as a point-SF because Olshey has been so stubborn about not finding a viable backup PG...probably because he still believes, contrary to all evidence, that CJ can be a PG. Olshey also seems to be allergic to adding perimeter defense to cover for that guard tandem he's so in love with. If one of Curry/Stauskas would have instead been a defensively gifted guard, maybe SF defense would not be so important. And maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on defense
Yeah. I am sure if Layman started... "to be effective" it might have a similar effect. But heaven forbid Harkless has to cold start from the bench.
A tall, athletic player who moves well without the ball and has a nice shooting stroke. wHY sHouLD wE giVE ThiS gUy A chaNcE???
The Blazers lost 4 of the last 6 games Layman started. So not really sure you can say that is the issue, they were struggling before they made the switch. The biggest thing that has impacted the team, in my opinion, is that at the start of the year they started the games out feeding Nurk down low. Now they are playing more iso ball with the guards and Nurk out top and not as much with him at the rim.
Y'all should check out the replies to this Nate Jones tweet about Layman. He's starting to get some notice.
What lineup do you think he fits best in? I really like him when the defenders are distracted by Dame and Nurkic. Seemed like something like Dame, (CJ, Curry), Hood, Layman, Nurkic works well. If Nurk keeps the opposing 5 busy on the strong side or high post, and your cover the two guards, then one of Hood or Layman is open, with Layman adding the back door option. Loved that they ran the same play for Layman and Hood down the lane.
Man he made so many plays last night that didn’t show up in the box score. But I think my favorite was on a fast break when he had a pretty good look at a three but passed it to CJ for an even better one. I also liked when he busted out the euro step. He’s got so much in his toolbox I love it.
I play a game where I compare white players of contrasting skill sets with people to see if I can get away with it. As long as you don't compare Scott Skiles to Shawn Bradley, used be amazed what people don't pick up on.