Blazers to Play @Utah on Christmas Day (Chris Haynes)

I contend that we call rebounds GMTS - Give me that shit.

How many GMTS did Nurk get? 10.

He got a double double! 12 points 10 GMTS's!

Perfect.

 

Here's the thing. Almost every stat out there strongly suggests that Seth, Nik and Wade ARE better than the backups at the guard spot. I realize that Ed wasn't a guard, but the league is guard/wing driven. One of the biggest issues with this team last year (and the year before) was lack of shooting from the bench. Turner and Davis can't shoot for shit. Shabazz, Pat, Moe and to a lesser degree Aminu aren't really consistent shooters, and NONE of these guys can successfully run an offense OR create for themselves efficiently enough to be deemed an actual threat on offense.

Curry is a better shooter than Pat was and Shabazz was. At worst, CousCous is a replacement for Pat. Baldwin has better shooting skills and PG skills than Shabazz, and he's a much better defender than Pat and Shabazz are.

Ed was a nice player, and I appreciated what he brought to the game. But he's the modern defensive version JJ Hickson, minus the ability to actually score from more than 3 feet out. By that I mean in 2018 he is an offensive liability much like JJ was a huge defensive liability.

Especially given Stotts offense, you NEED to be able to shoot outside shots, otherwise the defense can just lay off the player and double CJ and Damian, or force other players to create the offense, because they *know* no one will be able to make a shot or create offense for himself or the team. And with Ed Davis on the court, the team was always playing 4 on 5 offensively. His lack of shooting ability put a hamper on the teams ability to spread the floor successfully.

That's not to say that Curry, CousCous and Alec Baldwin are studs (I think Baldwin has the best chance to be a solid contributor of the 3). I realize Curry is coming off of an injury and we don't know how he'll be (but that is the same for Roberson on the Thunder, but apparently people think he'll instantly be back to form). He also has a semi small sample size, but he's started more games and produced a lot more impressive #'s in his time than Shabazz has, in the games he has played.

CousCous wasn't anything spectacular and Baldwin has a very small sample size. But here's the big point it seems to be missing, it's not so much that those 3 are guaranteed to be better, as much as it's just that Pat and Shabazz were just not that good to begin with.

For whatever reason, Stotts offense can make players who can shoot but are overall so-so players, look decent. Pat and Shabazz were those players last year. Crabbe was that player before.

Look at Crabbes stats from his Portland days to Brooklyn. Sure, he scored more, but his FG% dropped and his 3 FG% dropped like a stone (still better production than what the team got out of Pat and Shabazz mind you).

 

What's our record on Christmas day for the team we have now?

Because none of the other games on christmas day for this franchise matter.

Stats like this are just silly.

 

Many injuries? Who besides Gobert was out?

Mitchell missed 2 games during the stretch you mentioned (Utah went 1-1).
Favors missed 3 during this stretch (Utah went 1-2, but I don't think is lack of playing is why they lost @ Cleveland and @ Houston).
Rubio missed 1 game (0-1)

Why did you pick game 47? Gobert had been back for 3 games by that point.You should've picked game 44. So, Imma do both scenarios, because I'm bored and can't sleep.

after 47 games, Utah was 19-28 and finished the year 29-6. After 44 games, Utah was 18-26, and finished the year 30-8.

By comparison, after 47 games Portland 25-22 and finished the year 24-11. After 44 games, Portland was 23-21 and finished the year 26-12.

For full disclosure, over 82 games that's between 65 and 67 games for Utah and 56 for Portland. Obviously a better record for Utah.

It was impressive, but while Utah got healthy, Portland got injured.

Admittedly, Moe was almost a complete non factor for the first 50+ games. But after game 47, Moe missed 13 games (including the last 9 regular season game). Because he was almost a non factor in the first 50+ games, his missing games 45-47 don't really matter to me.

But over the last 9 games, the Blazers went 4-5 in the games he missed. Realistically losing 3 games they should have won (Memphis twice and San Antonio). Even if you take out the San Antonio game from the hypothetical win column, 2 more wins would mean the Blazers would have gone 26-9 (24-11 to 26-9) with your start date, and 28-10 in mine (26-12 to 28-10).

Over 82 games, that's going from 56 wins to 60 based off of their record after 47 games (same #'s for my scenario too)

So Utah going 29-6 (or 30-8 after game 44) is awesome and means they'll be dominate next year, whereas 24-11 (or 26-12 after game 44) while missing a starter for 9 of those games (and potentially going 26-9 or 28-10) means nothing?

I'm not saying that Moe is on par with Gobert, he isn't. Not even close.

I also understand that one could argue that if Gobert was healthy all year, they would have won more games. But I'd just counter by saying had Moe not sucked shit for most of the year (until the end)...my aunt would've been my uncle.
I'm just pointing out that the grass is greener.

Of course, as with anything, circumstances matter. If Moe sucks again, it won't help matters. Or if Gobert gets hurt. Or something unexpected happens (Trent, Curry, Simons or Collins have a significantly unexpected boost in production)...

 

why do they need a pacific coast team all the sudden? Why not the last few years?

 

wait, their game is the 7:30 game? Sheeeeit. That's like 8:30 Utah time.

I'd hate to have to go to games that start that late.