Our Franchise Direction?

[mcaponi2]

To be honest I really don't think Lillard potential ceiling is much higher than where he is right now. if that was the case wouldn't he have been higher on draft boards and people would be talking about him in his freshman year of college as opposed to his senior? Don't get me wrong lillard is a very good point guard but just as is Kemba, Lillard is a shoot first point guard that got the luxury of playing on a very good ball club that fell to the lottery because of injuries late in the season. With very little changes to lillard's team mainly the starting five i don't see much improvement in his APG and he doesn't have that many more minutes he can take one to bloat those stats. His defense is marginal at best and he isn't going to always blow you away with his speed. The only stat I really see increasing is the PPG may increase a little.

[fatlever]

Lillard played better than Kemba last season (something you admit), and he should only get better this season.

are you referring to my admitting i ranked lillard at 14 and kemba at 15? thats a flip of the coin type ranking. i put lillard one spot higher due lillard appearing more advanced in the pick and roll having the luxury of playing next to one of the best pick and roll partners in aldridge. now that kemba has zeller and jefferson, that could very well change. then again, if kemba doesnt improve in the pick and roll this year despite having better bigs, that would be a cause for concern. conversely, if lillard doesnt drastically improve defensively this year, that could also be a cause for concern.

again, the main point to be made here is that kemba and lillard are so close statistically and in age and experience, that its virtually impossible for anyone to confidently say which one is better.

nothing left to be gained by going around in circles in the summer. im out.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1180147&start=30

here is the pg ranking thread, page 4. as you can see, i stated kemba vs lillard was a coin flip, which it is.

[Durins Baynes]

It's very easy to say which one is better, because you're comparing rookie Lillard (who most people have ahead by some margin, even you) to Sophomore Kemba. If we were comparing rookie Kemba to rookie Lillard it would be a laughable walkover. The idea Lillard won't get better is silly. In addition he has tools to improve that Kemba lacks, like crazy athleticism and length.

[mcaponi2]

It's very easy to say which one is better, because you're comparing rookie Lillard (who most people have ahead by some margin, even you) to Sophomore Kemba. If we were comparing rookie Kemba to rookie Lillard it would be a laughable walkover. The idea Lillard won't get better is silly. In addition he has tools to improve that Kemba lacks, like crazy athleticism and length.

How is it silly? What has been done to ensure his stats will get better? All this talk of rookie season stats is not even a fair comparison considering Lillard played 39 mpg (lead the league) and kemba only played 25 mpg his rookie campaign. Your arguments are nothing more than false fallacies that rely on too many what ifs and biased assumptions. Like fats said its too close to call who is better right now, but make arguments that don't make sense and have no proof or facts behind them dont help you very much. Just because you say its very easy to compare doesn't mean that is fact. it is merly an opinion you are trying to make a fact. You may no like advanced statistics but they do tell a lot, If you look at them they show just how close these to players are.

[Durins Baynes]

Kemba only played 25mpg because his play was dreadful. Before Austin Rivers, Kemba was held out as the nadir of rookie campaigns. It's not like Lillard needs to even improve much, but the idea he won't improve at all is silly. It's exceedingly rare for a rookie not to improve at all, and even then there are usually circumstantial reasons to explain it.

[Eoghan]

How about the fact that Lillard was a rookie, and (like almost all rookies) should see a substantial improvement in his 2nd year? That's why people are so impressed with Lillard. Not just that he looked so good, but that he looked so good as a rookie, and has the tools to be even better.

Well duh, he averaged almost 39 mpg(!) compared to Kemba's 35 (27 mpg his rookie year), of course he's going to look better. That's the real reason why Lillard ran away with the ROY. He played a ton of minutes, was able to put up solid numbers, and his team didn't suck that bad. That guy wins ROY every year, more or less.

[HornetJail]

Kemba only played 25mpg because his play was dreadful. Before Austin Rivers, Kemba was held out as the nadir of rookie campaigns. It's not like Lillard needs to even improve much, but the idea he won't improve at all is silly. It's exceedingly rare for a rookie not to improve at all, and even then there are usually circumstantial reasons to explain it.

Kemba also had significantly worse teammates than anyone else in the league. When all you get to do is jack up bail out shots for your teammates, that's a nice recipe for suckitude.

And no, don't compare Kemba's rookie year to Rivers. Rivers was historically bad. He had a PER of 5.6 Kemba nearly tripled that in his "dreadful" rookie season.

[Durins Baynes]

Lillard earnt his minutes, he contributed to the team winning. The only thing keeping the Blazers out of the playoffs was the fact that they play in the West (and Aldridge missing 8 games). Kemba failed to earn minutes on the worst team in history in his rookie season. To act like they showed something similar in their rookie seasons is laughable.

[mcaponi2]

Its funny because i looked at the PC board thread on this and it is pretty much a toss up with the concensus that lillard was on a better team. He most certainly does need to improve. Being content with your play is one of the most dangerous traits in a player. I can name plenty that havent improved off their their rookie campiagn. Blake Griffin, Tyreke Evans, Johnny Flynn, Michael Beasly. It actual pretty common for a lot of players to regress becasue now people know their style of play. You still haven't given me facts as to why he will definitely improve. Did the team hire a coach for him to work on his defense? Get him a shooting coach? etc.

[JMAC3]

3 v.s 4 years of college isn't really any sort of meaningful difference. Once you've been to college for 3 years you've got it down pat. It's when a guy is a freshman that people talk about how his game needs a lot of polish and fundamentals added.

So what does this mean for MKG? who was the youngest player in the league.

Next, when it comes to comparing Lillard vs Kemba, I think you have to first take a look at their situations like many people have already stated.

Lillard plays on a team where assists are much easier to gather. He plays with one of the best pick and pop bigs in the nba, who can also score on post fadeaways off the catch. Plays that do not really show how great of a passer Lillard is by any means. Next he is surrounded by catch and shoot perimeter players like Batum and Matthews, who keep the defense honest leaving Lillard tons of room to operate and if he draws even the slightest amount of help he has an easy high percentage kick and shoot opportunity. Lillard is often times rewarded with wide open three point attempts due to the double teams his teammates are drawing.

Kemba however, plays on a team void of talent from the frontcourt, with no real offensive threat, so he essentially has to beat two defenders on every pick and roll play. Next he is not rewarded easy assists by perimeter jump shots, because Henderson and Mkg are not spot up shooters, who force defenders to stay at home. This leaves Kemba very little room when operating because defenders can risk helping more often. He does not have a great finisher in the paint as well to drop the ball off on drives.

I think when it comes down to comparing them isolated based on skills and potential it is very close. To me Lillard has the advantage with three point shooting, but I think Kemba is better at creating his shot especially in the midrange game. Lillard has better size and strength, but Kemba is much quicker and has better ball handling. I think their playmaking skills are similar as well as their age and experience level. Kemba played less minutes and less games (due to lockout) his rookie year when compared to Lillard. Lillard by no means has the athleticism however to develop into a Westbrook or Wall.

When it comes down to it, I would probably take Kemba over Lillard due to his competitive nature and history of being a clutch performer. It is really close and I think they will be in the same tier at least until one has success in the playoffs.

[Durins Baynes]

Its funny because i looked at the PC board thread on this and it is pretty much a toss up with the concensus that lillard was on a better team. He most certainly does need to improve. Being content with your play is one of the most dangerous traits in a player. I can name plenty that havent improved off their their rookie campiagn. Blake Griffin, Tyreke Evans, Johnny Flynn, Michael Beasly. It actual pretty common for a lot of players to regress becasue now people know their style of play. You still haven't given me facts as to why he will definitely improve. Did the team hire a coach for him to work on his defense? Get him a shooting coach? etc.

Tyreke Evans is the sole example there, and it's one I was thinking of myself when I was posting (a lot of people think the circumstances he's in- being totally misused by the Kings- explain that). Flynn and Beasley didn't get worse, so much as the fact they were never good in the first place, and once people gave up on giving them unearned minutes (to "develop them") they put up worse stats. I think the argument Kemba's minutes were unearned in his rookie year is a lot more compelling than the argument Lillard's were on last years Blazers team. Blake Griffin is a silly example, he definitely got better (see the huge leap in FG%), he just wasn't asked to do as much because the rest of his team got massively better after his rookie campaign. That, and the team rested him a bit so he didn't have to play through his niggling injuries... cos, you know, good teams can do that.

So what does this mean for MKG? who was the youngest player in the league.

It means he'll improve. But the degree of improvement isn't going to be enough to justify being taken #2 overall.

[Eoghan]

Lillard earnt his minutes, he contributed to the team winning. The only thing keeping the Blazers out of the playoffs was the fact that they play in the West (and Aldridge missing 8 games). Kemba failed to earn minutes on the worst team in history in his rookie season. To act like they showed something similar in their rookie seasons is laughable.

I would hope that a #6 pick would start over a gimpy Eric Maynor, Nolan Smith and Ronnie Price. Earned his minutes my ass. The fact that he averaged nearly 39 mpg is testament to the fact that the Blazers had a tire fire for PG depth this year, no team wants to log a rookie that many minutes.

Kemba otoh, did actually earn his minutes his rookie year by beating out the team's starter in DJ Augustin (who admittedly does suck but still, politics and business rule) who in year 3 had to be given minutes to see if he was worth resigning or not. So despite Kemba's awful FG% (already dutifully explained above, i.e. bail out shots), he still pushed out a starter in his contract year.

[mcaponi2]

Its funny because i looked at the PC board thread on this and it is pretty much a toss up with the concensus that lillard was on a better team. He most certainly does need to improve. Being content with your play is one of the most dangerous traits in a player. I can name plenty that havent improved off their their rookie campiagn. Blake Griffin, Tyreke Evans, Johnny Flynn, Michael Beasly. It actual pretty common for a lot of players to regress becasue now people know their style of play. You still haven't given me facts as to why he will definitely improve. Did the team hire a coach for him to work on his defense? Get him a shooting coach? etc.

Tyreke Evans is the sole example there, and it's one I was thinking of myself when I was posting (a lot of people think the circumstances he's in- being totally misused by the Kings- explain that). Flynn and Beasley didn't get worse, so much as the fact they were never good in the first place, and once people gave up on giving them unearned minutes (to "develop them") they put up worse stats. I think the argument Kemba's minutes were unearned in his rookie year is a lot more compelling than the argument Lillard's were on last years Blazers team. Blake Griffin is a silly example, he definitely got better (see the huge leap in FG%), he just wasn't asked to do as much because the rest of his team got massively better after his rookie campaign. That, and the team rested him a bit so he didn't have to play through his niggling injuries... cos, you know, good teams can do that.

So what does this mean for MKG? who was the youngest player in the league.

It means he'll improve. But the degree of improvement isn't going to be enough to justify being taken #2 overall.

For one the Trail Blazes weren't a good team. if this were the case they would have made the playoffs. As for tyreke. Thats his fault for not putting in the effort to get better. All those players I listed had good to great statistical rookie years and have seen their production drop since so you can't tell me I don't know what I am talking about there. i have given fact after fact to prove you wrong and all you can say is the difference in their rookie campaigns. you clearly do not understand this game and are to biased to discuss this game with, maybe you should proved facts and stats like everyone else has instead of going off opinions. You never did make an argument for kemba not getting many rookie year minutes so there is nothing compelling to what you said their.All you said was he had a bad season with nothing to back it up with. If you want to convince someone show me stats and show me facts.

[Durins Baynes]

There is a big difference between getting minutes on a bad team because they're developing you, and getting minutes on a good team. Lillard got minutes and was one of the best players on a team who would easily have made the playoffs in the East. To talk about bums like Beasley and Flynn as analogies is to misunderstand basketball. If anything it's Kemba who has to prove he can contribute to a good team, not the other way around. Now of course, Lillard would have gotten a certain number of minutes no matter how bad he played (see the rookie campaigns of Kemba and Rivers as eg's of this), but if he had sucked like those guys did in their rookie campaigns, the Blazers would have sucked (like those guys teams sucked), instead of being an above average team. Not complicated.

[JMAC3]

I mean if you want to argue that Lillard is the better scorer, sure because he is a bit more crafty and is a better overall shooter, but if you want to talk about being a complete player and who I want to run the Point Guard for my team then its Kemba.

Kemba averaged 2 steals a game and Lillard average .9, and it is widely assumed Kemba is the better overall defender. Kemba averaged more rebounds, but who really cares about boards from your point guard. He averaged the same amount of assists per 36, while having a much worst team. Averaged less turnovers and got to the free throw line more often. All leading to him having a higher PER, which is considered an evaluator of overall effectiveness in a game, not just points. Idk how you can come in here supporting SRS, but downgrading PER, which is a much more used statistic.

[JMAC3]

There is a big difference between getting minutes on a bad team because they're developing you, and getting minutes on a good team. Lillard got minutes and was one of the best players on a team who would easily have made the playoffs in the East. To talk about bums like Beasley and Flynn as analogies is to misunderstand basketball. If anything it's Kemba who has to prove he can contribute to a good team, not the other way around. Now of course, Lillard would have gotten a certain number of minutes no matter how bad he played (see the rookie campaigns of Kemba and Rivers as eg's of this), but if he had sucked like those guys did in their rookie campaigns, the Blazers would have sucked (like those guys teams sucked), instead of being an above average team. Not complicated.

It really seems like you are using a crutch argument that simply because Lillard plays on a better team, then that makes him the better player.

[mcaponi2]

Kemba's rookie season isn't even comparable to rivers. Two both Beasly and Flynn and pretty good rookie seasons. This the blazers weren't a good team last year so I don't know why you were implying this. If they were thwy would uave made the playoffs. They had no choice to start lillard they had no point guards to start. Once again you are trying to compare 2 different seasons. We are comparing the year 2013 not 2013 for pillars and 2012 for kemba. Pillars didn't earn his minutes they were given to him for lack of a veteran and depth. He was not the best player on that team and its not a close race. Like I've been saying stats say they are both very similar players and are almost identical. I've given the proof.

[Durins Baynes]

You keep saying that Lillard wasn't really good, but that he was simply on a good team. In reality though this is revisionist history on a grand scale. The 2012 Blazers had tried to make the playoffs, just like they did in 2011. This started well, opening the season 20-23, but eventually the locker room tensions were too much, the coach got fired, and the team finished 8-15. Nate McMillan got a lot of criticism over the years for the Blazers, a lot of which was unfair. He had his flaws as a coach, but he got his teams to win more than they probably should have. I think he had to go, because the players started to tune him out, and his time there had just run out, but he was a good coach.

During that offseason, the Blazers looked headed for a tank job. They'd ditched their winning coach in favour of the notoriously mediocre Terry Stotts (who in 5 seasons as a head coach for 3 teams has never once had a winning record). In addition the roster was massively downgraded. They lost Felton, Gerald Wallace, Crawford, Camby and Kurt Thomas, and replaced them with... um, nobody. Just Lillard. And before anyone plays down the 5 guys I just named, they were all solid to excellent role players at the time. The Blazers came into the 2013 season with no bench, and 3 players worthy of being starters outside of Lillard. And yet, they had virtually the same win % last season as the one before.

Observers were agreed on why. It was because Lillard was making them good, not because the Blazers were good.

[HornetJail]

^ Aldridge was injured at the end of the season and had surgery, Felton and Crawford were hot garbage for the majority of the year.

[ball teacher]

Lillard is legit, but there's some aspects of his game I just don't like. I think he settles for the 3pt shot too much, I think he turns the rock over too much and he doesn't make alot of plays for others. These are the only parts of his game I don't like, he is a legit PG with all star potential and he will only get better.