I think Stotts has given more players chances than any recent coach in Blazer history. It's a competitive bench for minutes and will be even more so when Rolo and Freeland return.
People on this board were so wrong about Mills. It was obvious that he was the second best outside shooter on the team even with his limited minutes and they still made fun of him. As I recall his PER was not high enough. (The most worthless stat when evaluating a young player who gets inconsistent minutes.) Jack also showed promise with the Blazers, and again many fans were too impatient.
I think many fans have an exhaggerated idea of how steep an NBA players improvement curve is. If you look at the good players around the league, most of them were doing well by their 2nd year. Guys that take years to develop are relatively rare.
Patty was a fan favorite but out of shape..he is a different player after shedding the pounds and getting ripped in SA. He's a guy I've wanted back, Elliot Williams is another one I'd welcome back.
That's a big party everyone somehow ignores. It's either the genius of pop or the stupidity of us, while ignoring that patty was tubby here and got himself in great shape going there.
A fan favorite? Not on this message board. Even out of shape he showed he had a sweet shot. He showed it in college and internationally before Pop got a hold of him. That's why Pop picked him up. He saw the potential, something our fans.... did not. Hell even Paul Allen saw it and got shit for forcing us to draft him.
Not sure I agree with you, especially with positions like center and PG. Players that can contribute right out the gate are usually slashers, jump shooters or rebounding bigs. Mark Gasol took 4 years to be even considered above average. Wall took 5 years. I can think of so many more too. I do agree about SGs, SFs and PFs. I look back and usually all of them can contribute at some point out of the gate. But the reason is because a SG and SF normally don't handle the ball and the PF isn't necessarily the defensive anchor.
It happens but usually you have a very good idea what you have in a player by the end of their 2nd year. Most players don't turn into suprises 3+ years into their career. Just think about the Blazers for example, players that you've followed as a fan. Of the hundreds of Blazers how many late developing suprises did we get? Jermaine O'Neal and Drazen Petrovic are two exxamples, but most of of rookies that came in and had little impact ended up out of the league never to be heard from again.
Hmmm let me give it a shot: 1.) Joel took many years before he was good 2.) LMA took 4 years to develop his game 3.) Bayless didn't pan out for us but has done well around the league. 4.) Trout was absolutely terrible for 4 years before he actually was decent. 5.) Blake wasn't great for his first 3 years, then panned out to be solid 6.) Webster was such a hit and miss for a long while. Look, I get what you are saying, but sometimes, especially when our team is stacked as it is, for players to really develop. I think our current youngsters need a bit more time. Especially ones that have been injured for more than half their career.
Just this year, how about Jeff Green and Wilson Chandler? I think we've all been talking about those guys, right? Should we look at where they were 60 games into their career and the amount of polish they got in college?
Hmm... maybe not such a good idea. Chandler played 35 games his rookie year, so the first 25 games here make his first 60 games... http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chandwi01/gamelog/2009/ 10+ points 20 times, 20+ points 4 times.
I wouldn't say it's time to eat crow on Nards. He had a decent 10 game stretch last year also. He still has plays(minutes) where you go wtf (is)was that. He's playing well right now and that's all that matters. We'll see if this level of play for Nards lasts longer than it did last year.
Leonard will turn into a better defender the day he realizes he's 7'1 and doesn't need to leave his feet that much.
