Are we? It’s been done before: 1989 Blazers got swept in first round. Blazers traded for Buck and drafted Cliffy. 1990 Blazers go to NBA Finals.
Again, we were 8-3 with Zach this year. Give Zach one full year at starting PF before passing judgement.
Even if that were true, the clock is ticking on Dame's prime. What if it doesn't work? That's another year of Dame's prime wasted. We know that any number of the guys that were picked behind him would have been starters on this team already.
I think that 8-3 'stat'...that you constantly post, is completely meaningless. It sure as hell is without context. Those wins weren't registered because Zach has some transcendental impact on Portland that can't be measured in numbers or seen with the eyeball. Those wins might have happened because Dame was averaging 40 points, not because Zach was glaring at the official after another foul call
Man, do you have a Debbie Downer stat or take for all occasions? Zach will be whatever he’s going to become as a player based on talent, coaching, hard work and health. It isn’t likely to be impacted by who thought he was a bust vs who thought he had room to improve. As long as he’s a Blazer, I’ll root for him to succeed.
No it's your job to monday morning QB your ass off at EVERY available chance. It's easy to be right 3 years after the fact isn't it? Find me that link of your 2017 DAY OF draft analysis please.
what you cal debbie downer I call realistic. People keep saying how good Zach is going to be while excusing how good he isn't. I'm looking at what he's done and basing my opinion on that. The number of young Blazer players that never come close to the upside many people forecast is legion. So yeah, I'm not a big fan of potential.
This is the way it plays out in my head when wizenheimer sees some poor ignorant poster say something positive about a Blazer player other than Dame: "What? DEFCON 4! Some idiot just said something good about a Blazer player other than Dame! I've got STATS! I'll show that lame brain six ways from Sunday that he is WRONG!!!" Mrs. wizenheimer: "Now calm down dear, it's just a message board." "Screw that! These guys will never get it. How can you say something good about a player based on POTENTIAL? Potential my ASS. Realism is all that counts! I'm pulling up my spreadsheet of basketball minutiae and I'll pound some sense into his head!" Mrs. wizenheimer: "Look, someone said that Terry has done pretty well taking the team to the playoffs seven straight seasons." "OMG!!! After all these years he can't even figure out how to beat a simple trap on Dame!!! HE'S HOPELESS AND HE HAS TO GO!" Mrs. wizenheimer: "But didn't you just say that all of the Blazers players are bad except for Dame? Isn't getting to the playoffs good considering that?" "ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL ME?? Next thing you'll be saying Olshey is a decent GM!" Mrs. wizenheimer: "But dear, if you don't like the players, or the coach or the GM, or really anything about the team, why do you care so much?" BECAUSE I'M A F'ING BLAZER FAN!!! Now let me deal with this idiot on the board.
Look, the jury is still out on Zach. This should have been the year that he had the opportunity for a breakthrough season. That was one of the things I was most looking forward to seeing almost a year ago when this misbegotten season began. Injuries stole his season not once, but twice. I don’t put a lot of stock in prior year stats for a young big like Zach. Guys like him often blossom three or four years into their careers. Until I get to see him next season now, I don’t know whether he’s a starter or a role bench player. I guess I put more stock in potential than you do, but ultimately what difference does it make? He’s got to show his worth on the court and next season is put up or shut up time.
I don't really disagree with any of that. I'm just not sold on Zach's upside as much as some. He did do better last season so that would probably be the better platform for gauging upside something else....I see it said quite often that bigs take longer to develop. You mentioned 4 years in. I'm wondering how many really do that or if it's more myth than reality? I'm truly not sure. I mean, it was said repeatedly about Meyers but that never panned out. It didn't for TRob either. Nurkic was certainly showing a lot more earlier in terms of per/possession and advanced stats, but maybe he's an unfair comp for Zach Jaren Jackson is well ahead of Zach and he's 2 years younger...but he was a 4th pick. Domantas Sabonis has certainly been more developed at similar career points than Zach, and you could see pretty early what his upside was I'm trying to think of a good comp for Zach; somebody tall and fast but light with a core strength issue. Maybe Clifford Robinson. He came in at 23 and made a pretty sizable jump between his 3rd and 4th season. But that was a jump more due to increased minutes rather than a major leap in efficiency
Good question. Just for fun I looked at Kevin McHale’s career stats. McHale was a #3 pick and a much more gifted player than Zach. He had the advantage of 4 years at Minnesota where Zach only played 1year at Gonzaga (and didn’t play much). Look at how much McHale improved in most stat categories between his first and fourth season. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mchalke01.html I don’t think anyone expects Zach to come close to McHale’s career, but I do think it shows that there is hope for improvement.