Gonna disagree with you here. Clyde absolutely made other players games better and easier on the court. He was very good on defense and we all know what he did on offense. Unless of course you are Charles Barkley.
I'm strictly going by long-term, historical team results, and a guy who rose to being the 2nd best player in the league behind the GOAT in Drexler, or a guy who won a Title, a Finals MVP and a league MVP in Walton. Dame has yet to approach either of those levels. I hope he does. Would LOVE for that to be the case! Until it is, I take overall, long term results. Of course it's just opinion. But for the love of God, I never said anything about Meyers being as good as Duckwork or Aminu as good as Kersey. The reaching is just laughable and completely #fakenews. All for debate, but the mindreading career is a failure.
oh im sure he did, but that's not the point of contention. Tpup said clyde did more with less then eluded to Clyde making the players around him better. That is basically saying the players around Clyde were less skilled than those around Dame, except Clyde made them better. This is the reach. Not me comparing Meyers to Duck, Collins to Cliffy or Buck. its just a ridiculous assumption that Clyde did more with less because he made them better. Which is essentially what was said.
Can you post defensive matrix for career duration? Meaning how they started out and how they progressed over thier career? Damechas absolutely elevated players. Look at how many players had career years next to him but are now non existent. Aminu Harkless Turner Shabazz Cj looks a bit worse without Dame next to him. Im still not buying your opinion. Was clyde a better defender? Of course. Did more with less? Of course not.
Then can you please explain what you mean by did more with less, then? Because as thst reads, its pretty clearly saying Dame has had better players around him. Which is saying guys like aminu, harkess, collins, plumlee, turner, etc were better than kersey, buck, and porter? This is the reach that doesn't make sense. Please clarify yourself if that isn't what you meant when you said, Clyde has done more with less. not sure how else you think that should be taken?
Yeah i have to admit Dame has made some pretty awful teams look quite a bit better. Both have done their share and i agree it would be very hard to quantify that.
I'm not saying Dame necessarily had better players around him. He did have players that were more highly ranked going into the Draft and Drafted at high positions. That said, it is a bit of a crap shoot although the majority of the time, players drafted in the 1st round round or earlier in the 1st round tend to to better than later round picks. Of course there are exceptions, but that is most often what they are.....exceptions. And it's not all about Clyde.....I've included Walton to. Results mean something. My football team has not been very good for a long time. They finally cut Derek Carr. He is by far the career leader in almost every QB category....except wins and Playoff wins. Is he the greatest Raider ever? Not many Raider fans would think so. Very accomplished stat wise, over a long period of time, but no matter the coach, the players, the GM, the talent, the results didn't arrive. At some point, that has to mean something. There is no way to exactly quantify how much a player developed or how much a player may have impacted that development. But you can see actual results. I get that Dame is current and there is some recency bias and he is a tremendous offensive player. I completely understand the pushback or debate.....that is what we are here for. The way Walton and Drexler left and their subsequent relationship with the city sours their time here....I get that as well. Until Dame actually leads his team to a higher plateau to contender status, (which I really hope he does.....this gets missed in some of the more personal, vitriolic responses), I have a hard time with him being 'the Greatest'. I'm of the fandom who believes the goal is to win the game, then win the championship. Even the early Jail Blazers were more of a contender than this team has ever been. That part kills me, but it is what is. #results
The concept that him not being the GOAT because he hasn't had the post season success while being the best player and leader of the Blazers as Walton and Clyde did is a very legitimate argument that you totally hurt the validity of when you spouted off that bullshit about the teams around Clyde and Walton being less than what Dame has had, which is preposterous.
You are using the draft spot of players as a gauge of whether Dame or Clyde had better talent around them??? Im not gonna explain how flawed that is…. but i will say GM’s misgauge talent in the draft all the time. So many lottery draft pick busts. Are they all because they didnt have players around the em to make them better? Or were they just incorrectly analyzed at the draft? Seriously T, i have mad respect for you, but on this one, i just think you are coming at it all wrong. I know you know many lottery busts are because they were overrated or dont have a gMe that transitions to the nba and has little to do with players around them elevating them. Draft busts are draft busts. Leonard was a draft bust. Just because he was drafted 11th does not mean he had more talent than cliffy or Kersey or buck. Walton was arguably more dominant. For about 2 years. Where are the rest of the results? Systems also play a part. This is a team sport. As much as stars matter in this game, its still a team sport. One guy doesnt win it all. Jordan had Pippen. Kobe had Shaq. Curry had Thomson/Green Duncan had Ginobli and Parker On and on and on.. Dame has had… who? Washed up Melo? Hollow stats Whiteside? what all star caliber player has Dame had to play with? None. So then the only argument is the players we drafted, like you said, Dame not elevating them to be an all star? Do you honestly think players like Harkless, Aminu, Leonard, Crabbe, Collins, etc. would have become stars next to Curry or Embiid? Or Drexler or Jordan? Not me. Not one bit. I totally believe its arguable who is the best. But the reasoning behind you choosing Clyde does not make sense to me. I think what you are mixing up is a Gm’s talent to put a cohesive team together vs players elevating other players games. Cant blame Dame for his GM or coach. Dame has done soo much with soo much less i don't think thats arguable. Best Blazer ever? Def debatable. Done less with more? Not debatable. Clearly incorrect in my opinion.
I'm not going to go into it much more on here because now it seems hashed to death. I shared this with a long-time NBA guy, and so for fun, we started comparing players. Duck vs Nurk Porter vs CJ, Aldridge vs Buck, etc. It was an interesting chat with someone who is very tied to the NBA through relatives, coaches, GM, etc. After that discussion, (and this guy is a huge Dame fan and wanted the Blazers to draft him before people even knew who he was), he also believes Walton's and Drexler's impacts on their versions of teams was underestimated. Walton was an MVP, a Finals MVP, and a massive defensive presence. Clyde was at one point, 2nd to the Goat. Those things elevate players and an entire team.....it can't help but do so because they are a mismatch all over the place. I respect peoples opinions, especially when they can have a legitimate conversation without typing like an angry 9th grader or dealing in absolutes so can enjoy the debate. I will say, bringing up players like Melo and Whiteside seems quite a reach. And I never indicated anything about players like Harkeless, Aminu, Leonard, Crabbe, Collins, etc becoming all-stars. Some of the things implied are no where close to anything I've said. Also, no where have I talked anything about fringe type or washed up players. Like I wouldn't include 6x all-star Walter Davis. I've always referred to the major cogs. I've been surprised at the amount of exception type players that have been brought up in response. Winning breeds all-stars, sometimes over players who are as good or better, but play on teams whose records are not as good. I'll end with this. I'd like to see more winning. That takes more defense and more team play. The Walton Blazers were brilliant at it and the Drexler Blazers were very good. The Dame Blazers......still trying to reach either of those levels but haven't been anywhere close yet. The star/leader gets the credit and also gets the blame. Sometimes fairly or unfairly on both sides.
