im not sure using the blazers history of talent pool is an accurate barometer? is chris webber a generational talent? Some say he was the best king ever. i thought we were discussing nba generational talent? Not the Blazers generational talent? Of course Dame is generational talent if only considering Blazer players.
the Kings/Royals are poverty franchise. ours isn't. And Oscar Robertson is their best player ever. Webber isn't even close considering how few seasons he played there.
okay… so is oscar robertson a generational talent? also seriously man. Dont pick and choose my quotes to you that you respond to and then complain conversing with me is exhausting. If you are going to respond to this you can respond to my question asking you to define generational..
that is not defining generational talent. That is explaining why you think Dame is. There is a difference in my opinion.
i would say he was. But not for Sacramento. More so for the bucks? Didn't he play mostly there and win there? kinda getting off track but seemingly proving my point that the team shouldn’t matter. It should be the player vs the nba. Not other players on the team. I think it just comes down to a different opinion of the definition of generational. I take it as once in a generational. Nothing else like it, type of definition.
While he won a championship as a Buck, that was largely Alcindor's doing. The first 10 years of Oscar's professional career (ages 22-32) were with the Cincinnati Royals. STOMP
Karl Malone vs Charles Barkley John Stockton vs Isaiah Thomas vs Magic Wilt vs Russell David Robinson vs Hakeem Duncan vs KG vs Dirk All those players played at the same time against each other and I would consider them generational talents.
NOw you lost me. Lol your post was responding(quoted me asking if Dame is a generational talent) I asked this: dame is a generational talent? you then said yea because he is the best Blazer?
As framed by the post I responded to, our choices for what sort of category Dame belongs in are... A. generational talent B. really good asset C. serviceable ... given those choices, I went with A as really good asset is selling him way short in my subjective opinion which you're free to disagree with. Part of my point was that judging this draft today is bound to be errant. I also think the three choices aren't nearly enough shades of grey. STOMP
Did some posts get deleted? I dont recall an a, b,c thing? no biggy. Just not following you but i get your point even if i don't understand where it came from.
this back and forth has become very tedious. The post I responded to was post #121... you liked it STOMP
Agree 100% - I have been right there with ya...fan since day 1 in 1970 pretty much and this last stretch by far (sitting Nurk) has been the most miserable, barely watchable unit ever. We were sitting at a play in spot - and if you want to give young guys experience, then get them to at least a play-in game. Tanking is not going to improve anything as some things are the luck of the draw (lottery odds) anyhow. And for those of you people who keep say "well, don't watch then" some of us here have paid our hard earned money to either go to the games or pay for it to watch on TV (in advance might I add...no turning back) so re-think some things before knocking people who are upset about having to watch 30 point losses night after night. BBango - you are spot on and it is disgraceful especially since this organization has prided itself on overcoming obstacles to win. peace out, daddylogan
I think of Dame as (and this will age me), a Walt Frazier type player. Very good and among the best at the time but not generational.
