Shem wrote:Walton1one wrote:Shem wrote:So making up reasons to hate on him that are illogical is the way to go?
Whose decision was it to bench both players, even though they had been playing well (Scoot in particular)?
It's called rotations.Walton1one wrote:Whose decision was it to bench Sharpe for lackluster defense, yet no repercussions for a worse defender in Simons?
I'll give that one. However, just note that just about every head coach in the league plays politics when it comes to rotations when it comes to star players. When you get that huge contract after you graduate from your rookie contract, the rules change for those types of players. It takes a lot more to get yourself out of the rotation. Changing coaches won't solve that league wide issue.Walton1one wrote:Whose decision was it to play Scoot with 3 fouls in the first half, which led to him picking up his 4th before halftime?
But you were the one complaining about his 4 points. Scoot still fouled in in 13 minutes no matter how much you want to spin this.Walton1one wrote:Whose decision was it play, yet again, heavy minutes to Grant (34) & Simons (32), while Sharpe played 24?
and you bring up Sharpe shooting 3-11 as reason for fewer minutes, yet Simons goes 0-9 and plays 30min, 3-12 & plays 32min. etc...
Again, you blamed Billips for Sharpe only scoring 7 points. I pointed out he shot poorly is why. Now you're expanding the argument to the amount of minutes even though Sharpe didn't play that well. Had Sharpe played better, he would have gotten more minutes. That's how it goes. Like how he got 33 minutes against the Bulls even though he came off the bench. And it's because he played well.Walton1one wrote:If you like Billups and Simons so much, then just admit it, but don't go saying I am "making up reasons", especially when the evidence is there for all to see, if you just bothered to open your eyes
I like how he connects with the players. In a rebuilding era, tensions are high when there is a lot of losing. Angry and frustrated players come with the territory. Many will start tuning out the coach and eventually lose the locker room. That hasn't happened in the case. The players love him. That's hard to replace and why he hasn't been fired yet. Meanwhile, it's going to take another year or so before the winning happens if the Blazers draft well. In the meantime, you want a coach that the players listen to.
As someone who has played basketball at the college level, I can tell you I've seen so many of the good and the bad when it comes to locker rooms. This is why I can appreciate someone like Billips in the situation the Blazers are in.
The problem with a lot of people is they overvalue the roster of their team. When the team doesn't perform to the expectations of the fan, they think you just change the coach and all of a sudden the team will be the winners they believe they should be.
Let's just put it this way, Phil Jackson couldn't make this roster a playoff team. Look at Popovich. The Spurs have missed the playoffs the last 5 straight years. Before that, the Spurs only missed the playoffs 4 times in 43 seasons. Let's not forget that the Spurs blew the most 10 point leads in the NBA last year (sound familiar)? Do you blame Pop for that? Think about how far back this team would be set had they not landed the Wemby pick? Just a reminder that some of the the rebuilding success has luck behind it.
I can guarantee if Popovich's started coaching in 2020 with the Spurs, people like you in the fan base would have been calling for his head. The only reason Pop gets a pass is because of his past success with very talented teams. Did you know that the year the Spurs won the title in '99, Pop almost got fired that year. They started out slow and there was a game where if the Spurs had lost again, he would have been fired. Fans were calling for his head. Instead they won and he kept his job and rest is history.
All due respect, Shem...I think you're missing the temperature of the posts.
A group of us DOESN'T WANT Billups, or Jackson, or Pop to make this team overachieve.
What they want is the young players to play and develop under a coach that will give them minutes with an actual identity...we're not overvaluing the roster, we understand that in order to get a cornerstone piece out of Sharpe or Scoot it's going to take real game minutes. AND in order to have the BEST chance at achieving a cornerstone piece, it's going to take not allowing Ayton, Grant, and Simons to secure wins and kill any chance of that.
Now last night's game was a bit of an anomaly. Scoot in early foul trouble, the whole team playing defensively out of their minds, and Orlando playing weird-fitting and bad with players coming back after injury. Also, the game was allowed to be played very physical on both ends, but especially on Portland's end.
Last thing I'll say is that I sorta understand about the Sharpe benching. Sure, there is some talking-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth, if Billups is benching Sharpe for lack of effort on defense, yet Simons runs free...
Simons is in his 7th season and is 25 years old. That zebra isn't changing his stripes, no matter how much he's benched.
Sharpe is 21 years old. 4 years younger than Simons. He still has a chance to learn a lesson or two about what a good NBA player is on both sides of the ball.
Do I think it was a good idea? Hell no. Do I EVER want Sharpe's minutes to go to Simons, even if Sharpe is playing bad? Hell no. But I can at least understand the principle that may be at play with Sharpe's benching--you don't give advice to someone who already has their mind made up, you give advice to someone you believe has an opportunity for change.
