Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Skip Bayless actually saying something I can agree with:

Embedded Tweet

mrpd21 wrote:

Duck07 wrote:

duckduckgoose wrote:

StevensTechU wrote:Down 15 with 7-8 minutes to go and unable to stop OKC (namely, Paul George who killed Portland during the regular season) at the defensive end, I had already settled on this going to 6 games. The comeback had absolutely everything you want. It had contributions from role players. Marquee defensive plays. Big shots by your best players (CJ's bank shot and jumper were clutch). And then an all-timer by a Blazers all-timer. Wow.

Kinda wonder why he didn’t get a bit closer? If he missed I bet the coach would have been asking him about it. It was definitely at the limit of his jump shooting ability though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because he's shooting better than 50% from beyond 30 feet in the series. He was 4/6 in that game alone from beyond 30.

With the situation being what it was and coming back from down 15, you want that final shot to be the last play whether it goes in or not so that at worst you go into OT and at best you create a stream of Meme's all night long.

Kind of my thought as well. Dame was ready to shut them up and shut them down with one shot, after all of their BS antics and trash talking. It was a huge proverbial middle finger, and it was GLORIOUS.

In the post game interview, Georhge said it was a bad,"Lucky" shot that they'll live with going in. Interesting, as Jalen Brown pointed out this morning was that the first basket of the series was a 3 by Lillard from about the same distance at the other end of the floor. Bye bye, Thunder.

So much of basketball is spin. A few seasons ago, averaging a triple-double was considered one of the holy grails of basketball. Westbrook's triple-double last night was an afterthought. Westbrook has always been considered a better player than Lillard when people assemble such lists, and now after one series, everyone is singing Lillard's praises and bashing Westbrook. I think it could be argued either way. After losing Durant and since then repeatedly getting bounced in the first round despite playing his guts out night in and night out, I think it's possible that Westbrook is starting to feel the invisible ceiling at 30 years old and it frustrates him. His play in this series certainly manifested frustration and even recklessness. I don't know if it is legitimate to judge his career based on this series. All I know is, it was very satisfying to watch Lillard get the last laugh. Probably because I am a Blazer fan, and I ignore all the times when Lillard taps his invisible watch and instead focus on the awful other team that rocks the baby.

I don't believe that either Lillard or Westbrook are guys who can be the star of a championship team; they both need to be part of a team with other great players. The playoff failures of both players more or less demonstrate that their teams make a mistake in settling for only them as leaders and letting career 43% shooters take 20 shots per game. Lillard was fortunate that in this series, he faced another team with the same problem. We'll see how they do against Denver.

Phalanx wrote:So much of basketball is spin. A few seasons ago, averaging a triple-double was considered one of the holy grails of basketball. Westbrook's triple-double last night was an afterthought. Westbrook has always been considered a better player than Lillard when people assemble such lists, and now after one series, everyone is singing Lillard's praises and bashing Westbrook. I think it could be argued either way. After losing Durant and since then repeatedly getting bounced in the first round despite playing his guts out night in and night out, I think it's possible that Westbrook is starting to feel the invisible ceiling at 30 years old and it frustrates him. His play in this series certainly manifested frustration and even recklessness. I don't know if it is legitimate to judge his career based on this series. All I know is, it was very satisfying to watch Lillard get the last laugh. Probably because I am a Blazer fan, and I ignore all the times when Lillard taps his invisible watch and instead focus on the awful other team that rocks the baby.

I don't believe that either Lillard or Westbrook are guys who can be the star of a championship team; they both need to be part of a team with other great players. The playoff failures of both players more or less demonstrate that their teams make a mistake in settling for only them as leaders and letting career 43% shooters take 20 shots per game. Lillard was fortunate that in this series, he faced another team with the same problem. We'll see how they do against Denver.

I don't know of a championship team, save Lebron James with the Cavaliers the first time against the Warriors the first time, that don't have other great players. I don't know how the series against Denver, or San Antonio will go. But, win or lose, I won't use it to indict Lillard. Barkley never played on a Championship team. It is unfair to make a judgment on players after one series, but I would take Lillard over Westbrook.

Westbrook is a really great player but, I have to question his basketball IQ sometimes. When your stats tell you that you're only shooting 29% from behind the arc in your career, maybe you should share the ball instead of hoisting up bricks. Plus his attitude towards reporters is fairly childish, not to mention his constant crying to the refs. If I was picking players in a pick up game, Lillard would be my choice over Westbrick every time.

Last nights stats in a do or die game for OKC and to a lesser degree for Portland:

Westbrook- 45 minutes, 11-31, 4-11 on threes, 29 points on 31 shots, PPS-.93, +/- -4

Lillard- 45 minutes, 17-33, 10-18 on threes, 50 points on 33 shots, PPS 1.52, +/- +15

Merganzer wrote:

Phalanx wrote:So much of basketball is spin. A few seasons ago, averaging a triple-double was considered one of the holy grails of basketball. Westbrook's triple-double last night was an afterthought. Westbrook has always been considered a better player than Lillard when people assemble such lists, and now after one series, everyone is singing Lillard's praises and bashing Westbrook. I think it could be argued either way. After losing Durant and since then repeatedly getting bounced in the first round despite playing his guts out night in and night out, I think it's possible that Westbrook is starting to feel the invisible ceiling at 30 years old and it frustrates him. His play in this series certainly manifested frustration and even recklessness. I don't know if it is legitimate to judge his career based on this series. All I know is, it was very satisfying to watch Lillard get the last laugh. Probably because I am a Blazer fan, and I ignore all the times when Lillard taps his invisible watch and instead focus on the awful other team that rocks the baby.

I don't believe that either Lillard or Westbrook are guys who can be the star of a championship team; they both need to be part of a team with other great players. The playoff failures of both players more or less demonstrate that their teams make a mistake in settling for only them as leaders and letting career 43% shooters take 20 shots per game. Lillard was fortunate that in this series, he faced another team with the same problem. We'll see how they do against Denver.

I don't know of a championship team, save Lebron James with the Cavaliers the first time against the Warriors the first time, that don't have other great players. I don't know how the series against Denver, or San Antonio will go. But, win or lose, I won't use it to indict Lillard. Barkley never played on a Championship team. It is unfair to make a judgment on players after one series, but I would take Lillard over Westbrook.

I would argue Kyrie was "star" worthy in 2016 -- he averaged 25 points a game in the playoffs that year, and 27 points a game in the Finals. And he's the one who hit the dagger in Game 7. LeBron certainly did a lot of the heavy lifting, but I don't consider that Cav team a one-man show.

There are three one-star-or-less champions this century, in my opinion -- Dirk's Mavs in 2011, the 2004 Pistons (I know Ben Wallace was an All Star that year, but the Pistons won with one of the most beautifully constructed/balanced lineups I've ever seen), and then you've got the quagmire that is the Spurs dynasty. Tim Duncan is a Top 10 player all time, but I've seen many internet fights break out arguing whether or not Tony Parker or Manu Ginobli were "stars."

None of what I wrote has anything to do with the larger point (Lillard/Blazers/Westbrook), forgive my indulgences.

Thurston wrote:

Merganzer wrote:

Phalanx wrote:So much of basketball is spin. A few seasons ago, averaging a triple-double was considered one of the holy grails of basketball. Westbrook's triple-double last night was an afterthought. Westbrook has always been considered a better player than Lillard when people assemble such lists, and now after one series, everyone is singing Lillard's praises and bashing Westbrook. I think it could be argued either way. After losing Durant and since then repeatedly getting bounced in the first round despite playing his guts out night in and night out, I think it's possible that Westbrook is starting to feel the invisible ceiling at 30 years old and it frustrates him. His play in this series certainly manifested frustration and even recklessness. I don't know if it is legitimate to judge his career based on this series. All I know is, it was very satisfying to watch Lillard get the last laugh. Probably because I am a Blazer fan, and I ignore all the times when Lillard taps his invisible watch and instead focus on the awful other team that rocks the baby.

I don't believe that either Lillard or Westbrook are guys who can be the star of a championship team; they both need to be part of a team with other great players. The playoff failures of both players more or less demonstrate that their teams make a mistake in settling for only them as leaders and letting career 43% shooters take 20 shots per game. Lillard was fortunate that in this series, he faced another team with the same problem. We'll see how they do against Denver.

I don't know of a championship team, save Lebron James with the Cavaliers the first time against the Warriors the first time, that don't have other great players. I don't know how the series against Denver, or San Antonio will go. But, win or lose, I won't use it to indict Lillard. Barkley never played on a Championship team. It is unfair to make a judgment on players after one series, but I would take Lillard over Westbrook.

I would argue Kyrie was "star" worthy in 2016 -- he averaged 25 points a game in the playoffs that year, and 27 points a game in the Finals. And he's the one who hit the dagger in Game 7. LeBron certainly did a lot of the heavy lifting, but I don't consider that Cav team a one-man show.

There are three one-star-or-less champions this century, in my opinion -- Dirk's Mavs in 2011, the 2004 Pistons (I know Ben Wallace was an All Star that year, but the Pistons won with one of the most beautifully constructed/balanced lineups I've ever seen), and then you've got the quagmire that is the Spurs dynasty. Tim Duncan is a Top 10 player all time, but I've seen many internet fights break out arguing whether or not Tony Parker or Manu Ginobli were "stars."

None of what I wrote has anything to do with the larger point (Lillard/Blazers/Westbrook), forgive my indulgences.

If we can't satisfy our indulgences here, where can we? Of course back in the day, Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant player the NBA has ever seen. He won a Championship with Philly early, and then, in a considerably different role, on the 72 Lakers. Walton is the only HOF Trail Blazer from the 77 Championship team, and he always says it was the TEAM that won it.

Regarding the spin, I think for some it's reactionary, and for others it's a clear-as-day data point to what other folks have been saying for years that Westbrook is overrated. I don't think this series as as big of an indictment on his career as his inability to win it all with a team of him, Durant, and Harden. In this series, Paul George's +/- was +4, while Wesbtrook's was -43. The team was literally better with Russell on the pine.

I agree that Lillard isn't so incredible that he could win a championship as the lone all-star, but who is left that is? A Steph Curry-led bunch of role players would lose to the Warriors who have Curry, Durant, Thompson and others, as would a Durant-alone team and every other combo. Lebron made it happen with 2 all-stars (Kyrie and Love). Lillard has done at least as much with as little in Portland as any player in the league not named Lebron.

"Spin" is a good word for some of the flavor-of-the-month NBA trends, too. Phalanx is right, averaging a triple double in 2017 was big news... then Westbrook did it again in 2018, and wasn't even 1st Team All NBA for his trouble. He averaged a trip-dub again this year, and he's probably not even going to make the 2nd Team. We (fans, media) value and devalue certain things so quickly.

MVP criteria seems so selective year-to-year, too. We live in a world where Steve Nash doubles up Kobe Bryant in MVPs. Now, I loved Steve Nash's game (don't get me wrong) and as a long standing Laker hater I'm far from a Kobe apologist, but... that seems weird, right?

Well that's the best NBA game I've ever been to.

What a way to finish off the Thunder! Round 2, let's go!!

Dame was 8-12 on 30 + footers in the seires, but that was a bad shot. How many of those 12 3s were from 37 feet? The percentage of him making that would be close to 5% if that I would guess, just cause he made it doesn't mean it wasn't a bad shot.

thomas time wrote:Dame was 8-12 on 30 + footers in the seires, but that was a bad shot. How many of those 12 3s were from 37 feet? The percentage of him making that would be close to 5% if that I would guess, just cause he made it doesn't mean it wasn't a bad shot.

Let's have a vote.

Who thinks thomas time is wrong?

I.

StevensTechU wrote:

thomas time wrote:Dame was 8-12 on 30 + footers in the seires, but that was a bad shot. How many of those 12 3s were from 37 feet? The percentage of him making that would be close to 5% if that I would guess, just cause he made it doesn't mean it wasn't a bad shot.

Let's have a vote.

Who thinks thomas time is wrong?

I.

Ditto. Especially about the 5% estimate.

Tray Dub wrote:

StevensTechU wrote:

thomas time wrote:Dame was 8-12 on 30 + footers in the seires, but that was a bad shot. How many of those 12 3s were from 37 feet? The percentage of him making that would be close to 5% if that I would guess, just cause he made it doesn't mean it wasn't a bad shot.

Let's have a vote.

Who thinks thomas time is wrong?

I.

Ditto. Especially about the 5% estimate.

I second that vote.

I second that vote.

https://deadspin.com/they-are-all-good- ... 1834268598

Damian Lillard pulled up from 37 feet and waved goodbye to the Oklahoma City Thunder. We all saw it. We all lost our minds, and perhaps in a fit of jubilation (or despair, depending on where you live) did or said something we regret this morning. Nobody handled the aftermath of one of the greatest shots in playoff history quite as poorly as Paul George.
Also, George isn’t even correct. According to NBA.com statistics, Lillard shot 4-of-4 in the series on shots that were 30-34 feet from the basket. He made 48 percent of all his shots that were more than 24 feet away, and in Game 5 alone he made three shots from beyond 30 feet, including the incredible buzzer-beater. Such absurd accuracy from long-distance wasn’t specific to this series, either. During the regular season, Lillard shot 34 percent on shots between 30-34 feet, which is what a good deal of professional NBA players would be happy to shoot with their toes on the line.

On the season and playoffs hes now something like 28/63 from 30-40 feet which is 44%.