Buck Williams was a great role player, but he was on a team with an All-NBA player in Drexler. Clyde also had two multi-time all stars around him in Terry Porter and Kevin Duckworth. The examples of a role player, putting a team with one all star over the top is going to be limited. Certainly far less that a team with 2-3 all star level players reaching the finals. I'm not saying Collins can't be on a team that wins the finals. I'm saying he's not going to be THE difference maker. If we have Dame, plus 2 all-stars (like Clyde did), I could believe that Collins would be effective as our Buck Williams.
that "the Blazers were 8-3 with Zach last season" is one of dumbest-most-meaningless-often-repeated stats around here besides that painfully obvious anomaly, on the team Zach ranked: * 12th in PER * 11th in TS% * 18th in FT rate * 8th in rebound rate * 9th in assist rate * 16th in turnover rate * 14th in winshares * 11th in winshares/48 * 10th in offensive box plus/minus * 15th in defensive box plus/minus * 11th in box plus/minus now, before anybody yells "sample-size", the sample of the assertion in the OP was 11 games. That's how Zach did in those 11 games. It's the full sample I'd say it's pretty obvious that the Blazers went 8-3 in spite of Zach, not because of him
last thing first: no way will Zach ever have anything close to the impact Buck did Buck was a lot more than just a role player. He was an all-NBA defender who transformed the Blazer defense from mediocre to top-5; and transformed an average rebounding team to the best in the league. He also changed the tone of the Blazers...they became one of the most physical teams in the league after Buck arrived his impact was not that of a role player unless guys like Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman and Rudy Gobert were/are just role players
Not saying you are wrong here at all. Tired of Melo. Throwing Giles into the fire might help him grow?
I agree with your assessment 100%. Buck >>> Collins. Neither had the ability to take a team over the top when combined with only 1 all-star player.
there you go spouting bullshit again edit: I'm going to back off in the aggression level of my post there....I've been watching the happenings in DC and my blood was running hot when I posted but you're wrong. What I was valuing was rational thought; logic and reason. If Zach had any any significant contribution to that 8-3 record, we would not have seen him register so poorly in all those stats I listed that gauge impact. but go ahead and make your case....explain how it was that Zach was a major factor in those 8 wins
This isnt accurate. Neither porter or duck made the all star team until after buck arrived. Clyde was the only all star until 91’. Whos to say with a healthy collins, Nurk and cj are good enough to make the all star game with dame?
obviously buck at the stage he was traded is better than the collins we have seen so far so of course buck would look better at glance. Clyde all star years: 86’, 88-94, 96-97 porter all star years: 91’,93’ Duck all star years: 89’, 91’ buck traded to portland in 89’. Buck was traded to us the same year we had two all stars. However the previous and following year, only Clyde made it. How do we k now buck arriving helped duck make the all star team in 89’? Then in 91’ we had three all stars. my point being sometimes that role player elevates others into all star contention, like a guy who may be close like cj may then make it because of that situation, but wouldn't without the right role player next to him. How do we know collins doesnt make others better, good enough to be an all star? or become good enough to do so? we dont. And we probably never will because the op jinxed his ass.
Well stats don't tell the whole story of the player. Zach did little things that help us win and plus he was very good making people miss around the rim and yes sometimes he was call for a foul but he did what he supposed to do and contest shots. Covington and Jones are good help defender but Zach is to but he also pretty good on the ball defender. Is Zach the answer no but he really miss a guy that will contest someone at the rim. But until Dame and CJ is help accountable for there defense then you probably won't be very good defense team. Yes Melo and Kanter can't play defense we already know this there both offense players. But until we change how we play both ends both ends we continue to come on the wrong side of things. I hate to tell you guys the ways we play under Stotts have caught up to us. You just can't change coach you also have to change some of the players to be able to run a different system we must separate Dame or CJ because there going change they play with a different coach because there already sit in there ways.
I must have worded my response poorly or I don't understand your original point. Are you suggesting that a healthy Collins can turn two current players on our roster (CJ and Nurk) into all-stars by him being such a great role player? The 89-92 Blazers basically had 3 all-stars on it, plus Buck & Kersey. The 2021 Blazers have 1 all-star. My opinion is that a role player won't "put a team over the top" unless is has multiple all-stars. This is based off of the roster of a large majority of NBA championship rosters.
I like your post and where you're going. I have a hard time giving Buck credit for TP or Duck being all-stars, but you could very well be right that he did (we'll never know). Appreciate you helping me understand your point better and willingness to challenge mine with respect!
Props. I don't have to explain it. He was present, the team won at a high rate. It's up to you to explain how his presence didn't affect the outcome. Measurable stats can't be the crutch here. Ever heard of a glue guy? That's basically the definition of someone whose presence affects the outcome more than his measureables. Intangibles are an accepted fact in team sports.
That view would be in line with the argument that Collins was overrated because he wasn't a starter in college or HS. Problem is, he's a proven winner. The stats have a hard time capturing why. So no, not correctly. I liken it to the CJ argument. When Dame is out, CJ alters his game and the team plays faster. The outcome ends up being pretty similar to with Dame. Everyone plays a little different with or without a specific component around them, and sometimes that has a big effect.
