Is Damian Lillard the greatest Portland Trail Blazer of all time?

This comment won't look so funny when we meet at Mt. Tabor.

 

Hmm, Dame is rapidly approaching Clyde's longevity, so I don't see that being the distinction. The key difference is playoff success.

I heard Kersey was quite bad, as well. Maybe that's what the current Blazers are lacking: stingy tipping leads to stingy defense!

 

Basketball reference lists 52 Portland Trailblazer career leader categories. Of those 52 categories,



Drexler - 19
Lillard - 6
No one else more than 3


Lillard may be more lovable, loyal and project to be the greatest, but right now, Clyde is clearly the greatest Blazer of all time

 

Easily.

 

Without question for me. Even if he's not now he will most certainly be when his Blazer days are finished.

Walton probably peaked the highest of anyone but he only played like an equivalent of 2 whole seasons for us. His MVP and ring are hard to overlook but Dame's longevity and body of work has firmly placed him above Bill, IMO.

Clyde is a bit closer because he played for us even longer than Dame, but as an individual player Dame is just so much more potent and explosive than Clyde offensively and the numbers seem to back that up. Clyde's size and athleticism enabled him to do things like rebound and defend more effectively than Dame, but he was hardly an all-league player in those areas.

Clyde is also a guy who to me I felt was never truly in love with the game like some other great players were and definitely didn't have the drive to improve like Dame does. And he definitely was not the ice-cold killer that Dame is. I wouldn't say he exactly struck fear in the heart of opponents when the game was on the line. If Clyde had Dame's mentality I would be willing to bet that we'd be sitting on a couple more rings right now and Clyde would be much more highly regarded from a historical standpoint.

 

True, Drexler is the all-time leader in the majority of the Blazers stats categories, but a few of those 52 stats categories I wouldn't consider an indicator of the all-time greatest Blazer -



Keep in mind, Drexler played in 224 more Blazers games than Lillard has to date (34.8% more games). The key to many of these stats records is longevity. Drexler stayed relatively healthy and productive for 12 seasons. Lillard is just into his 9th season as a Blazer.

Only 7 players played 9 or more seasons as a Blazer: Drexler (12), Kersey (11), Porter (10), Lillard (9), Aldridge (9), Paxson (9), and Steele (9).

And sometimes greatness isn't measured by stats alone...

 

You have to be an all time great to lead in bad stats too. Jordan leads the Bulls in missed fg’s and turnovers also

like I said, if Dame stays a few more years he’ll be the greatest, but he’s not right now....imo

 

Objectively you cannot discount Clyde's success against some of the greatest players & teams assembled. Back when defenders could defend and bigs could be bigs, and a lot less emphasis on the 3 ball.
He led us to two finals. And a number of playoff series wins in virtually the same amount of time Dame has been here 1/2 season less.
Take a trip down memory lane.




PREVIEW


4:39
Clyde Drexler's Best Trail Blazers Highlights
YouTube · Portland Trail Blazers
Jun 22, 2020

 

IMO, the league now is better than it's ever been. Both offenses and defenses are more sophisticated than at any other time in league history, largely driven by athletes that mesh size and skill in a way that hasn't been seen before aside from maybe a few outliers. That's created versatility that's allowed for much more schematic creativity.

I liked Drexler as a player and I'm all for appreciating his game, but not on the basis that he played in a more challenging league.

 

Drexler gets negative points for demanding a trade, and then basically ignoring his time in PDX.

 

You don think that defenders back them had an advantage with being able to use arm's and hands and no zone D?
Defenders now imo have a disadvantage.

 

No zone D was a disadvantage to defenders back then. Defenders now can use zone defense, which makes up for less hand checking. In fact, from what I've read, it more than makes up for it--being able to use zones have allowed for tougher defensive schemes. So, defense is less physical, due to limitations on hand checking, but more complex.

 

Do you think and guy's like Joe Dumars, GP, Stockton would allow guys to launch three's like they do now? I think they would have pressed, hand checked and fronted them and frustrate the shooters now.

 

All the stars today have counters to being fronted and pressed at the three point line. As I said, defenses were more physical in the 1980s, but they were also more simplistic. If you go back and watch actual 1980s basketball, the defense was not better, it was worse. There were tons of wide open layups and jumpers. There's a nostalgic mystique about how much better defense was in the 1980s and 1990s, but it really isn't accurate, IMO.

 

Very, very true. The fact that the post up game has virtually vanished is a great example. In the old days everything ran through the post because double teams were so much harder to execute effectively. 1999 Spurs basketball was sooooo.....fucking....borrrring.

They made a rule that was basically called the Charles Barkley Rule that you can't back a guy in the post over 5 seconds because that shit is dull. That rule still exists, and it gets called maybe twice a season on a team. Not because refs don't see it, it's because defenses just don't really allow it anymore.

 

Great point. Similarly, opening up defenses via zones vaporized offenses based solely around iso-ing your best player. Teams still sometimes do it on single-possession basis, especially when there's only one possession left and no full shot clock, but that's like the Bears' old 46 defense in football: while teams will sometimes use it strategically in limited fashion, no team runs it as their full-time defense. Not because it's not allowed to be run, but because teams have learned how to exploit it, so it really only works as a rare change-up.

Any 1980s or 1990s team, no matter how good, that was teleported forward and played the way they did in their heyday (with both hand checking and zone defenses allowed) would get crushed by the best teams of today, IMO. The game has evolved.

 

I want to see the “Most Heart” category for the Blazers. Drexler has never been anywhere near that list, while Dame has led it since his rookie year. After 50 years of Blazer fan hood, Clyde makes my Top 10 but in all the categories that count, Dame is far and away #1. Dame is about Portland and the Blazers. Clyde was about Clyde.....

You nailed it when you said, “And sometimes greatness isn’t measured by stats alone”. I’ll take Dame consistently and proudly representing our city and our fan base with class and dignity over a “good for one year” championship any day of the week.

 

Ironically, I view Houston's two titles as asterisks while Jordan was playing baseball, but that team would fare very well in today's era. Very few current centers would be able to slow Olajuwon, and their offense was already built around kicking it out for 3's.

 

well, transport teams from today back to that era and they'd get crushed too. It works both ways

besides that, the idea that Jordan's Bulls, or Magic's Lakers, or Bird's Celtics would get crushed today is a bit loopy. Take all those guys from that era, and have them go thru high school and college in this three point era, and then land in the NBA today, and they are dominant teams still. The idea that guys like Jordan, Pippen, and Kerr/Armstrong or Magic, Worthy, and Cooper, or Bird, DJ, & Ainge wouldn't make for deadly, excellent passing, perimeter cores makes no sense