Paul Allen, Neil Olshey stood pat in draft, but wasn't inactive

still seems superior talent lost and the bench/role players carried the day because they were in a system other than san Antonio's that allowed them to.

 

dirk beat Miami. Not with the 3. but with the worst shot in the nba. the turnaround fadeaway 2 pointer.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2011_finals.html

 

"individual talent, personalities, vagaries of refereeing and play calling and dumb luck"

"who wins is less than 100% predictable"

Did you even read my post?

Do you even lift, bro?

 

I'm sorry, I don't find your counter-arguments compelling. I'll respond to this, and then that's it unless you have something compelling.

Comparing Stotts to Nate doesn't support the idea that Stotts developed Lillard. You're setting up false parameters that have nothing to do with Dame's development. But, yes, it's entirely possible that Lillard would have done equally well - and entirely probable that he would have won rookie of the year - under Nate. Nate really liked to ISO the ball, and Dame would have been the one ISOing which means he'd have been scoring a lot of points.

Robinson never got much of a chance his rookie year, from what I've heard. (Also, SAC is the most dysfunction team in the league.) In his second year he got playing time, so he produced. But was his game more developed than it was at Kansas?

 

Yup. This. Particularly like the mentioning of luck/superhumon effort. That's what I've been hitting on with us beating HOU. It was GREAT, but it relied on both of those items.

 

Developed? Maybe, maybe not. Disciplined? Extremely.

 

individual talent: LeBron-wade-bosh>>>>>>>nowitski-terry-marion you might make for the bosh-nowitski case but no how no way on the others
personalities would seem to go into the "team" scheme concept
play calling is most assuredly scheme system that overcame superior talent
dumb luck and play calling could just as easily be argued for the spurs loss in the finals the previous year

heavy lifting means inclusion not exclusion

 

Well, at least you're amusing.

Dallas caught Miami at the right time.

Pop made a dumb move that cost the Spurs a championship.

I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore.

 

in the iso nate schemes dame would never had as many open "3"s or the opportunities to shoot them at his record pace. packed paint would have negated his impact in my opinion. this is my reasoning for dames excellent performance under stotts. very doubtful a point guard who averaged less than 6 assists/game would have been allowed to play through his turnovers under nate. just supposition on my part but if past performance is indicative I am comfortable with this conclusion.

trob certainly improved during the season and to dismiss that as only pertaining to more playing time and not coaching... not a compelling argument brah

 

Congrats on pulling the conversation off-topic to suit your "arguments". None of which pertains to my original point that holding up the Spurs as a shining example of what we can become if we stand pat is silly.

You know another thing I hate? Using individual examples to prove a point. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule. They often fall into the luck/superhuman effort BC mentioned. While of course I would love to win a championship by any means possible, I'd rather give ourselves the best shot at one rather than hoping we stumble into one. I think we have a better shot at "Mavericking" our way to a championship, than "Spuring" our way to one. Again - I'd take it, but I don't want to be the Mavs as I don't think it gives us a good chance at winning a championship.

 

Olshey just knows what we dont. Lebron coming to portland as free agent. Paul allens couch gets muddy because he can buy a new one.

 

[video]http://youtu.be/JcJkhSUSnek[/video]

 

Having our team win a championship is a nice goal. In the end, I'm wanting entertainment. Spurs team style of basketball entertains me and I would be ecstatic if our team achieved that in the near future.

 

the can't develop players in quotation marks is your post brah

 

I don't think that anyone is advocating or expecting that the Blazers are going to stand pat. They need a solid bench that can make consistant contributions. Adding more young players through the draft isn't the best way to do that quickly. Filling the two vacant slots with experienced vets, maybe making a trade to get another vet, and letting guys like TRob, Barton, and CJ mature through another summer and training camp to grow their games is the route that makes the most sense. If a trade comes along that can upgrade the starting five, great, but that's not likely and shouldn't be relied upon at the expense of building the bench.

 

I'm in full agreement with this. I don't think we're going to stand pat, and I'm not advocating for (or against) more rookies. I just think that using the Spurs as support for the idea of standing pat is cheap and thoughtless (not in the "you thoughtless bastard" way).

 

Yeah, and I stand by it. But it wasn't the point I was making - it was only one small off-hand remark.
Are you Mags?

 

your reasoning for not emulating the spurs model and I will quote you on "but it all starts with the coach" and then assert that he can't develop players.
I really think that the added quotation marks negates any attempt on your part to trivialize that as a small off hand remark but rather a major component of your thesis.

 

So you're suggesting that Stotts can compare favorably to Pops?

 

Sup Debbie?