RealGM

Why do the Blazers lose so many games?

Lillard looks great. Batum is starting to fulfill his potential and LMA is LMA? Yet they got thrashed by the Kings at home.

ComboGuardCity wrote:Why do the Blazers lose so many games?

Lillard looks great. Batum is starting to fulfill his potential and LMA is LMA? Yet they got thrashed by the Kings at home.

Batum had a hurt back and tried to play with hurting. He shouldn't have been out there in the first place. Matthews hurt his hip and still played through it and then hurt it again and was forced to leave the game. Aldridge was in foul trouble most of the game. It was just one of those games.

ComboGuardCity wrote:Why do the Blazers lose so many games?

Lillard looks great. Batum is starting to fulfill his potential and LMA is LMA? Yet they got thrashed by the Kings at home.

#1 is depth. Especially last night, Blazers made an incredibly dumb judgement call, we sent our only reserve wings (besides the scrub Pavlovic) down to the D-League when Matthews and Batum were both nursing injuries. So there was almost no production from the 2 and 3. So because of the lack of depth, players are asked to play more minutes than they should, which reduces their effectiveness on the court and also has a snowball effect of causing more injuries than there should be. God the end of the year could be rough for Blazer fans, I am just waiting for that shoe to drop, which we already start to see since all three of Matthews, Batum and Aldridge are nursing nagging little injuries.

#2 is defense, especially from the center position. Hickson's too short and doesn't provide the needed effort, so big men can just have their way with Portland. We need to be developing Leonard, I don't think he is getting enough minutes, but if he's not going to be a big plus defensively (still too early to make that call, but its looking less and less like he is) then Portland needs to refocus on that position. Lillard's defense has also been pretty bad, so letting the point guards and centers have their way is no way to win ball games.

As a Batum fan, I have been hesitant to say he's taken the next step. I've even cautioned against it in several instances. A lot of people seem to be hyping that, but I still haven't seen anything new from him this year. Granted at the moment he has some health issues (a sore back combined with a head cold or something), but I still need to see greater consistency to say he is coming into his own. He hasn't regressed like some players do on a big new contract, but the step forward he did take was pretty darn small and still insufficient to earn that contract.

If anyone has regressed, it's LMA. I think it's mostly the new coaches system isn't as tailored to him (for all of McMillian's flaws, he could tailor a game plan to his best player), and maybe a little bit of his realizing this year is not going to mean much in the long run. Of course, if LMA has realized that, then why hasn't Stott's and why are we still seeing him, Matthews and Batum out there for too many minutes?


Sorry, this post was off topic of rookies. ComboGuardCity made an interesting point, it seems that with Lillard the Blazers should have a decent core, but that they are underachieving.

DeBlazerRiddem wrote:

ComboGuardCity wrote:Why do the Blazers lose so many games?

Lillard looks great. Batum is starting to fulfill his potential and LMA is LMA? Yet they got thrashed by the Kings at home.

#1 is depth. Especially last night, Blazers made an incredibly dumb judgement call, we sent our only reserve wings (besides the scrub Pavlovic) down to the D-League when Matthews and Batum were both nursing injuries. So there was almost no production from the 2 and 3. So because of the lack of depth, players are asked to play more minutes than they should, which reduces their effectiveness on the court and also has a snowball effect of causing more injuries than there should be. God the end of the year could be rough for Blazer fans, I am just waiting for that shoe to drop, which we already start to see since all three of Matthews, Batum and Aldridge are nursing nagging little injuries.

#2 is defense, especially from the center position. Hickson's too short and doesn't provide the needed effort, so big men can just have their way with Portland. We need to be developing Leonard, I don't think he is getting enough minutes, but if he's not going to be a big plus defensively (still too early to make that call, but its looking less and less like he is) then Portland needs to refocus on that position. Lillard's defense has also been pretty bad, so letting the point guards and centers have their way is no way to win ball games.

As a Batum fan, I have been hesitant to say he's taken the next step. I've even cautioned against it in several instances. A lot of people seem to be hyping that, but I still haven't seen anything new from him this year. Granted at the moment he has some health issues (a sore back combined with a head cold or something), but I still need to see greater consistency to say he is coming into his own. He hasn't regressed like some players do on a big new contract, but the step forward he did take was pretty darn small and still insufficient to earn that contract.

If anyone has regressed, it's LMA. I think it's mostly the new coaches system isn't as tailored to him (for all of McMillian's flaws, he could tailor a game plan to his best player), and maybe a little bit of his realizing this year is not going to mean much in the long run. Of course, if LMA has realized that, then why hasn't Stott's and why are we still seeing him, Matthews and Batum out there for too many minutes?


Sorry, this post was off topic of rookies. ComboGuardCity made an interesting point, it seems that with Lillard the Blazers should have a decent core, but that they are underachieving.

Thanks for the clarification. Great post. It looks like injuries, bench depth and defense are the main problems. Maybe further along the line we'll see a few key guys get shut down early and see a run for Nerlens Noel. Filling out a decent bench around a good core.

ElectricMayhem wrote:I'm a Pistons fan, but there's enough Drummond talk already, so I'll switch over to my Spartan homerism.

Draymond Green!
His stats won't usually wow you, but he usually ends up on the better end of the +\- for all the little stuff he does. In GS' win over Brooklyn:

3/9
6 pts
10 rebs
4 off reb
3 assists
3 steals
2TO
+17

It's the way he screens, boxes out, does all the dirty work that nobody notices. He makes your good players better. The guy is the most beloved Spartan since Magic Johnson and it's because he puts it all out there. I thought his first year situation would make or break his career and I'm happy to see he's getting his chance and making the most of it.

The highest compliment Warriors rookie Draymond Green has been paid this season – and he has collected quite a few – came from Indiana Pacers forward Tyler Hansbrough, who asked Green to meet him at the Pacers’ team bus after the game.

What prompted the invitation? “I told him he was soft,” Green said.

[...]

Pacers point guard George Hill saw some of himself in Green as well. “I noticed him because he made an impact,” Hill said. “He made what we call the scrum plays – get the loose balls, rebound, make stops, bring energy. As a rookie in San Antonio, that was my job.”

http://www.csnbayarea.com/warriors/gree ... gy-defense

Great player to have on the rooster.

Doormatt wrote:

Johnlac1 wrote:To all the "experts" on this and other forums I'll repeat: Steve Nash didn't become Steve Nash until about his fifth year in the league. I'm continually amazed at people on this forum who declare certain players busts because they're not superstars one month into their rookie seasons.

well steve nash is one of the most unique superstars in history. hes an outlier not the norm. not many great players have a similar career arc to him.

but yeah to call anyone a bust this early is pretty premature.

Quite a few good to star players in the league had poor or mediocre rookie years. And given the fact that many rookies came out after their freshman year in college and are around 19 or 20, I'd think it would be best to hold off judgment on most of them until they've been in the league a year or two. It seems many fans panic if their no 1 pick isn't immediately productive. It doesn't matter if Nash is an outlier. He's not the only player who has taken more than a few years. But he proves players can develop.

Whats unique about Nash is he was borderline allstar and perennial starter but then he went to Phoenix and exploded.

Andrew Nicholson is a beast

Nicholson is great offensively but really bad on defense. Best case is an Al Jefferson/Carlos Boozer type if he works on his body.

Andrew's defense is improving every week.

Nicholson had a lot of career-highs: 19 points, 9-of-11 shooting, 9 rebounds, and 4 steals.

Anybody think Lillard and Stephen Curry are going to be pretty similar?

They are putting up pretty much exact numbers per 36 minutes from their rookie year

ComboGuardCity wrote:Why do the Blazers lose so many games?

Lillard looks great. Batum is starting to fulfill his potential and LMA is LMA? Yet they got thrashed by the Kings at home.

They only care about offense.

Kid can play!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJTsXzRRTUM&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

sir G Wallace wrote:Anybody think Lillard and Stephen Curry are going to be pretty similar?

They are putting up pretty much exact numbers per 36 minutes from their rookie year

That was probably the most common comparison during the draft - largely because they are both shooters from small schools.

I thought Lillard would be a little more physical (Westbrook/Rose) but so far the Curry comparison looks apt.

Andrew Nicholson is Robert Horry

Thorpe Rookie Rankings:
1. Lillard
2. Drummond
3. MKG
4. Jonas V
5. Shved
6. Roberts
7. Nicholson
8. Sullinger
9. Henson
10. Davis

Its just the immediate impact that Drummond has when hes in the paint that gets him so high on this list. He really changes the tone of the game when he’s in there. Hes only 19 and makes mistakes but he has to be allowed to play through the, it in the few games it seems Frank has upped his MPG now if we could just get him in there along side Monroe.

Moose10Fan wrote:Its just the immediate impact that Drummond has when hes in the paint that gets him so high on this list. He really changes the tone of the game when he’s in there. Hes only 19 and makes mistakes but he has to be allowed to play through the, it in the few games it seems Frank has upped his MPG now if we could just get him in there along side Monroe.

It really is something to see,put drummnd in the game we sart wining,take drmmond out for long stretches and we start losing.

kurtis48239 wrote:

Moose10Fan wrote:Its just the immediate impact that Drummond has when hes in the paint that gets him so high on this list. He really changes the tone of the game when he’s in there. Hes only 19 and makes mistakes but he has to be allowed to play through the, it in the few games it seems Frank has upped his MPG now if we could just get him in there along side Monroe.

It really is something to see,put drummnd in the game we sart wining,take drmmond out for long stretches and we start losing.

Have Drummond and Monroe been on the court together yet?

I don't know what Lawrence Frank is doing not starting Drummond already. It's not like they're going to make the playoffs, so what good is it doing to keep him coming off the bench?