# Dixon's Defense...



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I know some people are very happy with the recent play of Dixon, but I'd still rather he wasn't on the court. It seems to me that every game he gives up a ton of points, almost always more than he scores. The numbers below are what SG's have done against Dixon in the past handful of games. Sadly, these stats don't account for all the time he (and Blake) got burnt so bad on defense that someone helped out and gave up an open jumper.

I know Dixon is short for his position, but tonight he got beat down the court a number of times and that can't happen when you're already a poor defense like Dixon.

Wade: 31pts, 7asts 
Dixon: 10pts, 1asts -21/-6

Synder: 22pts, 1asts 
Dixon: 27pts, 4asts +5/+3

Ginobili: 15pts, 2asts (off the bench)
Dixon: 12pts, 2asts (-3/0)

Daniels: 4pts, 2asts
Dixon: 13pts, 4asts (+9,+2)

Cassell: 22pts, 7asts
Dixon: 24pts, 4asts (+2/-3)

Miller: 23pts, 1asts
Jones: 15pts 2asts (I should count both, but I won't)
Dixon: 11pts, 6asts (-12/+5)

Korver: 24pts, 3asts
Dixon: 18pts, 3asts (-6/0

Overall Dixon is getting outscored by his opponent just less than 5 points per game. These stats don't tell the entire story, and could be slightly misleading in both directions. However, watching the game I can't tell you how many times Portland's defense is broken down because Dixon (or Blake) can't keep their man in front of him.

I know people think we need Dixon's offense, but what good does it really do if his guy is going to score even more? Outside of Daniels, in the past 7 games the opponents SG has scored more points than he's averaged over the season. 

We got rid of a 5'10" SG for a 6'1" SG who isn't near as good of a passer.


----------



## ThereIsNoTry (Oct 23, 2005)

I say were doing pretty good at the SG positon! If you think about it..If Webster was starting he would be getting what, 8 points a game? Most of those people on that list would still be getting the same amount of points.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

You're implying that Damon passed??? That's funny.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

TP3 said:


> You're implying that Damon passed??? That's funny.


 Damon's apg last year: 5.7
Dixon's apg this year: 2.3

Nothing funny about a guy who gets less than half the assists shoot-first Damon got. 

This thread isn't comparing Webster to Dixon, it's pointing out that Dixon isn't doing a good job at SG yet he's getting priase from people on this board.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Dixon also plays shooting guard, not point guard. So his assist totals versus Damon's are moot

I like Dixon. I think he's a reasonably solid shooter and an outstanding character guy. That said, Quick's recap was quite telling:



> Dixon, who is often undersized against opposing shooting guards, has recently been exposed by the likes of Philadelphia’s Kyle Korver (24 points), Memphis’ Mike Miller (23 points), the Clippers Cuttino Mobley (23 points) and the Hornets’ Kirk Snyder (career-high 22), and on Sunday, Wade.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Overall Dixon is getting outscored by his opponent just less than 5 points per game.


Considering SG was (and still is) by far our weakest position coming into the season, I'm pretty darned happy that we're keeping it that close.

Dan


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Juan Dixon is just too skinny. I know it's easier said that done but Dixon needs to do more weight training. There is no reason for him not to get stronger.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Juan Dixon is just too skinny.


Rip Hamilton and Tayshawn Prince are skinny and they're both having excellent careers.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

How do you know Dixon isn't strong enough, other than by looking up his weight? He takes hits as well as anyone on this team not named Ruben, and his style of play is a [very] poor man's Allen Iverson, who no one would accuse of being weak or fragile.

Dan


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

dkap said:


> Considering SG was (and still is) by far our weakest position coming into the season, I'm pretty darned happy that we're keeping it that close.
> 
> Dan


Agreed. He's our best option. I don't think anyone is going to argue that he's above average but right now he's doing enough on the offensive end to keep us in it. He's one of the few guys on the team who can consistently score, which is pretty important.

By the way, aren't Korver and Miller SF's?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Would it be illogical if not a little insane to suggest starting Viktor at SG one game? He brings height, hustle, and defense. Scoring would drop off a little, but if Zach, whomever is at the SF, and PG could pick up the slack it might be worth a try.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

dkap said:


> Considering SG was (and still is) by far our weakest position coming into the season, I'm pretty darned happy that we're keeping it that close.
> 
> Dan


 That's not the point.

First off, if Dixon were only responsible for costing us 5 points per game, that would still be a lot. The 5ppg doesn't take into account all the times Joel and Theo have to leave their man to help out, leaving a center wide open for an easy bucket or an offensive rebound. We're not a horrible defensive rebounding team because of Joel and Zach, it's because those two are foced out of rebounding position thanks to the horrible defense of Dixon (and Blake).

And for whoever said Dixon is a SG so you can't compare assist numbers with Damon, you're forgetting the the majority of Damon's minutes last year were at SG.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> That's not the point.


Sure it is. If we didn't have Dixon, we'd be getting outscored by 10-15 a game at the position. He's the lesser of two (or three or four) evils right now.

Dan


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tince said:


> And for whoever said Dixon is a SG so you can't compare assist numbers with Damon, you're forgetting the the majority of Damon's minutes last year were at SG.


I take issue with that. Damon was starting as a SG for the last 27 games of the season. Before that, he was point guard.

I think for a great deal of his minutes he was one of two point guards on the floor (with NVE or with Telfair), which could imply that he was playing SG primarily, but I think that he did his fair share of running the offense (into the ground), playing alongside an even bigger gunner in NVE and a rookie who often deferred to him in Telfair.

Either way though, I think it's fair enough if you feel like comparing Damon's assist numbers to Dixon's. I'm just not sure what value you think you're getting from it. Dixon getting less assists doesn't necessarily imply that he is more or even equally selfish.

They are very different players who had different roles. Damon ended up with a lot more assists because he handled the ball a lot more and was often expected to be the setup man... Dixon is one of two players on the team who can consistently score and probably has a green-ish light from the coach.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

dkap said:


> Sure it is. If we didn't have Dixon, we'd be getting outscored by 10-15 a game at the position. He's the lesser of two (or three or four) evils right now.
> 
> Dan


 I don't know how you come up with that number, but I certainly don't think that's the case. If I could just make up numbers, I would say Dixon costs us 15 points a game based on the big men having to leave their man (as explained earlier).


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I take issue with that. Damon was starting as a SG for the last 27 games of the season. Before that, he was point guard.
> 
> I think for a great deal of his minutes he was one of two point guards on the floor (with NVE or with Telfair), which could imply that he was playing SG primarily, but I think that he did his fair share of running the offense (into the ground), playing alongside an even bigger gunner in NVE and a rookie who often deferred to him in Telfair.
> 
> ...


 I see where you're coming from, and while I don't agree, we can agree to disagree on if Damon was the SG or not. 

The fact of the matter is, everyone hated how much Damon hurt us on defense last year (including myself) and would discount his 16ppg because he was getting lit up on the other end. While I fully agree with that, I don't understand why Dixon isn't getting bashed for the same things, especially when the same things are happening.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I don't know how you come up with that number, but I certainly don't think that's the case. If I could just make up numbers, I would say Dixon costs us 15 points a game based on the big men having to leave their man (as explained earlier).


So would anyone else we could put at that position, unless you want to move one of our SF's (Ruben or Darius) and give up on the idea of perimeter offense. Dixon's about as good a defender as any of our SG options, and he's by far the best offensive contributor. I don't see that there can be any question that Webster/Jack/Monia/whoever starting in his spot would average 5-10 points per game less at this point in time, and they'd probably give up just as much. That's how I came up with the number...

Dan


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

dkap said:


> So would anyone else we could put at that position, unless you want to move one of our SF's (Ruben or Darius) and give up on the idea of perimeter offense. Dixon's about as good a defender as any of our SG options, and he's by far the best offensive contributor. I don't see that there can be any question that Webster/Jack/Monia/whoever starting in his spot would average 5-10 points per game less at this point in time, and they'd probably give up just as much. That's how I came up with the number...
> 
> Dan


 Charles Smith is by far a better defender. I would also say that Monia, Jack, and Webster are all better defenders.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I've yet to see any of those guys do much more than matador defense. Smith is the only one of the group with defensive potential, but he seems too sheepish to do anything assertive. Monia and Jack have decent to good size, but neither moves their feet or plays position D well enough to slow down good SG's. Dixon at least disrupts the passing lanes with quickness.

Dan


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tince said:


> The fact of the matter is, everyone hated how much Damon hurt us on defense last year (including myself) and would discount his 16ppg because he was getting lit up on the other end. While I fully agree with that, I don't understand why Dixon isn't getting bashed for the same things, especially when the same things are happening.


I think a lot of it comes from different levels of expectation.

Damon was the hometown guy who won ROY, played in Portland for almost a decade and was making 10 times the salary that Juan is... meanwhile Juan, while similarly undersized, is at least 6" taller, is very new to the team, and seems to have a much better overall attitude - even if he does jack it up.

If they were paying Juan 15 million for what he was doing, I guarantee he'd be just as villified as Damon was - or at least close.

That's what I think anyway, and I feel that it is perfectly reasonable to measure the two with slightly different rulers...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

If Nate puts Dixon on Kobe tomorrow, you can just forget about it. Normally in a situation like this you'd see the coach switch defensive assignments of the SG and SF. However, the Lakers have 6'10" Odom playing SF, so we have nowhere to hide Dixon.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of Victor and Ruben tomorrow night...at least that's our only chance of winning/slowing down Kobe.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I didn't see enough of the game to know who guarded whom (my impression was Blake got much of the Kobe duties), but Dixon had a career game while having nowhere to hide, so it ain't all bad. And we even held Kobe under 45!

Dan


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

dkap said:


> I didn't see enough of the game to know who guarded whom (my impression was Blake got much of the Kobe duties), but Dixon had a career game while having nowhere to hide, so it ain't all bad. And we even held Kobe under 45!
> 
> Dan


Blake and Ruben guarded Kobe, and for what it's worth, they didn't do bad. Kobe got a few fast break points that helped him to 13 field goals, but the Blazers kept him to 3-13 from 3-point land.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I know that Dixon gets abused when he is playing a taller oponent, but Dixon does something that none of the other canidates for the SG position have. He can "create" his own shot and is good at getting around his defender. 

This opens up the floor for Zack and others to have more operating room. This adds points to the "team" im my opinion. He is the best we have as of now. So.....

gatorpops


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Would you rather a starting SG scored 15ppg and gave up 25ppg or one that scored 10ppg and gave up 15ppg?

I think it's great that Dixon can score, but we get outscored at the SG position as more than any other. Clearly, the goal is to have each position player outscore his opponent on average. SF and PF are the only position on Portland where I'm confident we're outscoring our opponents. The center position is probably fairly close to even, and the PG and SG position we're getting dominated at. 

So even if you are convinced Dixon is the best for Portland this season, is he really what's best for Portland long-term? Why are we giving him critical minutes when he always has been and always will be a SG who scores less points than he gives up? Wouldn't it be better to have someone like Monia or Webster take their lumps and learn the ropes in order to speed up their learning curve? This season Nate said playing time will be based on defense, yet we're having our worst defending SG play the majority of minutes. Basically he's sending the message that if you can score 15ppg its ok to get torched on the other end.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Would you rather a starting SG scored 15ppg and gave up 25ppg or one that scored 10ppg and gave up 15ppg?


That's an unfair question, as this thread has already pointed out that Dixon is only giving up 5 a game, not 10.

Dan


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

With respect to Dixon, all the great defensive teams have a big man presence in the middle. The Spurs have Duncan, the Pistons have the Wallace's. During the Heat days when they were a great defensive team they had Alonzo Mourning, we only have Theo Ratliff  .


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

dkap said:


> That's an unfair question, as this thread has already pointed out that Dixon is only giving up 5 a game, not 10.
> 
> Dan


 Dan-

If you've read through this thread, you'll notice I believe Dixon costs us 10-15ppg due to him getting beat by his man, Joel/Theo/Zach helping out and a big man finishing. The 5 points only comes directly from the scoring of Dixon and the opponents SG. 

Now if Dixon can continue to score at a 25ppg clip and shoot 60% plus from the field, I'll shut up and take his horrible defense.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

SolidGuy3 said:


> With respect to Dixon, all the great defensive teams have a big man presence in the middle. The Spurs have Duncan, the Pistons have the Wallace's. During the Heat days when they were a great defensive team they had Alonzo Mourning, we only have Theo Ratliff  .


 You someone forgot our starting center, Joel Przybilla. Joel and Theo are both considered great defenders around the league, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. 

You could have the best defensive player in the league and if your PG and SG can't stay with their men, he'll be near worthless.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> If you've read through this thread, you'll notice I believe Dixon costs us 10-15ppg due to him getting beat by his man, Joel/Theo/Zach helping out and a big man finishing.


We have a team full of lousy defenders, including Theo and Zach, so there's no way that can be refuted or supported. Purely conjecture, so I don't see any point in factoring it into the discussion.

Dan


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I think Juan Dixon is already better than anything DA ever was in Portland.

I wonder if DA is blaming the rockets GM for him being injured.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

dkap said:


> We have a team full of lousy defenders, including Theo and Zach, so there's no way that can be refuted or supported. Purely conjecture, so I don't see any point in factoring it into the discussion.
> 
> Dan


 Theo has finished top 5 in defensive player of the year voting multiple times. To me that's pretty good.

You may think my point is conjecture, but just comparing ppg between two SG doesn't tell the full story. I've watch all but 3 games this year and I'm very confident when I say Dixon costs us 10ppg at the SG position.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Theo gets defensive praise because of his highlight material shotblocking, not because he's average or better at guarding people. He's actually quite awful defensively. Jordan went from being heavily criticized for his defense to being first-team, and the only thing that changed was he brought attention to it. Those honors are all about perception.

Dan


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Tince said:


> You may think my point is conjecture, but just comparing ppg between two SG doesn't tell the full story. I've watch all but 3 games this year and I'm very confident when I say Dixon costs us 10ppg at the SG position.


I've seen all but a few games, too, and I think Nate McMillan's fine choice in fashionable ties have contributed to at least three Blazer victories through improved morale. Excuse me, I'm _very confident_ that the tie choice made a significant impact.  

The over-under for Dixon and his opponent would probably be best measured by looking at Dixon's net contribution to the game vs. whomever was in the game the most during Dixon's minutes on the floor. Sure, Dixon might require other players to help on D, thus opening up scoring opportunities for other players. But Dixon might be (and probably is) creating some of the same openings at the other end. And those numbers aren't going to show up in the assist column necessarily, either, because Dixon's passes could get swung to other players - and likewise for Dixon's man at the other end. 

Is Juan Dixon a great SG? No. But he is pretty good - and considering he held his own with the opposing SG, he's decent. And while I know the word "intangible" got driven into the ground during Scottie Pippen discussions some years back, I think that word applies to Juan Dixon, for his ability to create shots for himself and teammates late in games. 

Rather than finding someone else to play SG, I think the team as a whole needs to play better defense. If the Blazers could stop yielding 100+ points on 50%+ shooting, their chances of wins out ought to rise considerably.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tince said:


> Would you rather a starting SG scored 15ppg and gave up 25ppg or one that scored 10ppg and gave up 15ppg?


Gonna agree that this isn't a fair question for a couple of reasons.

First - what other SG do we have on the team that has averaged 10ppg in a starting role? I haven't seen one, let alone one that could hold opposing SG's to 15ppg. We have a wealth of SG's who are average to awful at offense and defense, IMO. Dixon is a player who is above average at offense on a team with only one other player who you can definitely say that about - Zach.

Second - in your numbers you're inflating the opposing SG's ppg by factoring in the pressure that Dixon's man puts on the team defense. Well, why not factor in the pressure that Dixon beating his man puts on the opposing team defense. Or perhaps even more important, the improved spacing that comes from having a shooter on the floor like Dixon to allow others (especially Zach) room to create on offense.

Ultimately, I understand where you're coming from, and I don't think that Dixon as he is currently is a long-term answer as starting SG for a contending team. I think in order to be that player, he would have to get better at staying in front of his man and getting steals to make up for the height and size he gives up. But the 18 year olds aren't the only ones with potential, and Dixon might be able to improve that area of his game yet... even if he doesn't though, I think he might be well worth keeping on this team long-term as a sparkplug off the bench, because the guy is fearless and he can flat out score. You need guys like that on your team, I think...


----------



## ArenasOwnsAll (Jan 14, 2006)

dixon has always been doubted...this is nothing new. and you can bet juan dixon is gonna improve his defense because if you knew juan...thats all he does is work on his game. hed rather do nothing else. juan is an average or below average on ball defender...however hes considered an excellent off the ball defender who will get you steals and force turnovers. your also discounting that most SGs score a lot of points...so no matter who starts at the SG spot they will get outscored. juan does more than score...he opens up a lot for others...which you didnt factor. juan can start at SG on a contending team...but only if hes playing along a bigger PG. but i think its silly to say juan should go back to the bench when the team clearly plays better with him in their. juan and steve are pretty young in experience too...and have never been full time starters...they will only get better as well.


----------



## jmk (Jun 30, 2002)

How many starting 2's are holding their counterparts to 15 ppg (and I guess that's including those imaginary forced points)? My guess would be not many, if any.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

According to Yahoo! only 15 SG average over 15ppg. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Dixon is probably top 3 worst defending starting SG in the league. 

I could be wrong, but I don't think Dixon playing major minutes is what's best for this Portland team. I don't see a team with Dixon as their starting 2 being a top team in this league. Dixon may win us a few more games this year, but he may be costing us games in the future by preventing Webster a Monia for learning the game, and other young players from getting a feel for what its like to play in a solid defensive unit.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Dixon may win us a few more games this year, but he may be costing us games in the future by preventing Webster a Monia for learning the game, and other young players from getting a feel for what its like to play in a solid defensive unit.


I don't think so. I've been saying that a team full of young guys in prominent roles will not develop, and I think we're starting to see the flip side of that with them doing better in support stints (like Telfair's last game) behind our version of veterans' leadership. Throw a bunch of young guys out there together and all they learn to do is lose, convincingly and regularly.

Dan


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Well, just for fun, I looked up what the average starting SG scores in the NBA. According to my numbers its 15.66 points... that doesn't include guys like Lebron, McGrady, Iverson or Pierce who you might think of as SG's but are technically playing SF or PG according to NBA.com.

Maybe someone could run through the games Dixon has started and be similarly honest about who was actually playing SG according to NBA.com and what the average score is over that period. Also, look at Dixon's average during that period...

For the season he is scoring 12.5, but over that period I bet it's 15+


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Well, just for fun, I looked up what the average starting SG scores in the NBA. According to my numbers its 15.66 points... that doesn't include guys like Lebron, McGrady, Iverson or Pierce who you might think of as SG's but are technically playing SF or PG according to NBA.com.
> 
> Maybe someone could run through the games Dixon has started and be similarly honest about who was actually playing SG according to NBA.com and what the average score is over that period. Also, look at Dixon's average during that period...
> 
> For the season he is scoring 12.5, but over that period I bet it's 15+


82games.com is supposed to be able to tell us that kind of information, but I have no idea how to read it.

Although I do know how to read the -+, and iirc, telfair and blake are basically the same.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Uh oh.

So I averaged Dixon's scoring for the games he's started vs. the opposing team's starting SG, and we have...

Dixon: 17.9 ppg
Opp SG: 17.3 ppg

So, he's actually scoring more than he's giving up!

Unless of course you factor in some selective intangibles...


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

I don't know why some of you are criticizing Juan Dixon. When Darius Miles went down, didn't most of us think we would have a tough time scoring enough points to even compete in games (let alone try and win a few)?? Nate toyed with Monia and Webster, and both of them clearly aren't ready to consistently produce offensively. Dixon is the closest thing we have right now to a guy who can knock down shots from the perimeter AND create his own shot, and he's played well IMO. Does his game have deficiencies? Yes. Is he a complete player? No. Is he a guy you would say is the future SG of this franchise? Probably not. But he's a good offensive player. At 6'1", you would like to see him coming off the bench as a second unit "spark" type of guy. But we're a lottery team with holes all over the place, AND our 2nd best player is injurred. I like having Dixon on our roster. Even the "Bad Boys" Detroit Pistons had little Vinny "microwave" Johnson coming off the bench hitting jumpers. It really takes the pressure off of your starters when you have a scorer like that in the 2nd unit. That is where I'd like to see Dixon in the future. For now, I don't see anybody on our roster that would help us win more games at starting at SG.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Unless of course you factor in some selective intangibles...


Nah, let's not factor in something as silly as team defense.

I was very happy with Dixon two games (prior to tonight) and if he continues to shoot 70% from the field I can deal with him giving up tons of points.

I still haven't heard anyone mention how Juan Dixon would be great to have as a SG for the future. While people are happy he's scoring, nobody seems to think that this 6'2" SG who can't play defense will ever be a starter on a quality NBA team. Because of this, I don't know why we're giving Dixon these minutes from the young players that could use this valuable game experience.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tince said:


> Nah, let's not factor in something as silly as team defense.


Or team offense...



> I still haven't heard anyone mention how Juan Dixon would be great to have as a SG for the future. While people are happy he's scoring, nobody seems to think that this 6'2" SG who can't play defense will ever be a starter on a quality NBA team. Because of this, I don't know why we're giving Dixon these minutes from the young players that could use this valuable game experience.


If they're going to play for Nate, they've gotta earn it, and I like that. If the young guys can't beat out Dixon and Blake, then they have a lot of work to do - and it's good to send them that message. Apparently they're sending a couple guys down to the NBDL?

Anyway, who's to say that Dixon couldn't use the valuable game experience? While he is older and more experienced than a lot of these guys, he is really getting his first shot to make a mark in the NBA and it seems like his game is improving greatly because of it. I say let him play, see what happens and let other guys eat up some of his minutes when they're ready. No matter what, I think Juan has the potential to be on this team, playing a major role for a long time, so it's worth playing him to develop his game as well...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Or team offense...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 How many championship contending teams have had a SG 6'3" or under who's a horrible defender? I can't think of any, but I'm sure there is one or two. If the goal is win championships, not just be an 8th seed and get knocked out in the first round, I'm not sure why we're wasting our time with Dixon. 

Ringbearer, I'm not going to trash Dixon's offensive talents, because he's done a good job for the majority of the year. But I've said it a million times, and nobody has made a case otherwise, that Dixon is one of the worst defending SG in the league. It's not just that he gets beat and forces the bigs to help him out, but also that teams are shoting near 45% from the field on their jump shots! 45% on jumpshots is so high. Even with Dixon and Blakes good shooting, we're around 41% on our jumpshots.

I want Portland to be in game 7's of the western conference finals again. If I wanted them to just make the playoffs I'd be all for Dixon playing the majority of minutes this year. Maybe my expectations are too high, but I always feelin your ultimate goal should be winning the championship. If I was a Dallas fan a few years ago, that would have been tough for me considering they were a great regular season team, but weren't built to win championships come playoff time.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

^^If in the next couple of years Webster and Telfair arent good enough to take Blake and Dixons starting spots you arent going to get to the finals with them either. Dixon should be good enough to sit Webster on the bench. I always thought Dixon would get the start.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tince,

I totally understand where you're coming from. I'm picking up that you would really like to see the guys who you think have the strongest chance at their position playing now in place of the guys with shorter ceilings. And I think that's a philosophy that certainly has a lot of merit, and one that I would agree with in many cases.

And the reason you're not seeing anyone, or at least myself, make a case for Dixon being a good defender or a potential championship starting SG is because it's probably not in the cards. But I think a lot of us might see him as a guy who could really make a difference on a good-to-great team, coming off the bench for a big-time scoring punch.

And while he might not need as much playing time to develop as the younger guys, he still needs it to elevate his game to that level. He hasn't had consistent PT for any extended period in his career before now and I think we're seeing him improve as a player. 

Let me just make a quick list of reasons why I think it's good to play Dixon in the near term...

1 - Develop Dixon's game such that he could be a strong contributor to a great Blazer team

2 - Raise Dixon's value, such that he could improve our team overall talent level by helping us net a better player than we could have at his summer value.

3 - Improve overall offensive flow by being a consistent threat to stick outside shots - better spacing, giving others room to roam, perhaps helping to better develop their offensive game

4 - Teach the younger guys that if they want to start or to get significant PT, they need to work hard in practice, produce in games, and help get wins

5 - Win games

I'm not saying that you couldn't put together a solid list of negatives, but just thought I'd share why I think this is a good decision despite the excellent arguments that you raise against it...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Fair enough...I guess it's time to let this thread die.

Go Blazers! Rip City!!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Tince said:


> How many championship contending teams have had a SG 6'3" or under who's a horrible defender? I can't think of any, but I'm sure there is one or two. If the goal is win championships, not just be an 8th seed and get knocked out in the first round, I'm not sure why we're wasting our time with Dixon.


how many guys on our current squad would realistically still be around on our next championship team? 

the Spurs cycled through all but two players between their first and second championship. why on earth would we expect most of our current guys to still be in Portland when (if?) we some day win it all? 

we are playing Dixon right now because we hope he gets recognized as so good (and as of now so cheap) that we can trade him for something else. and odds are we'll trade the guy we get for him, too, long before we win a championship. 

rebuilding is all about building player value from scratch, drafting and signing guys you may one day use or trade for something better. Dixon easily fits in with that plan.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> how many guys on our current squad would realistically still be around on our next championship team?
> 
> the Spurs cycled through all but two players between their first and second championship. why on earth would we expect most of our current guys to still be in Portland when (if?) we some day win it all?
> 
> ...


I'd bet, AT BEST, we'll have three of the following players IF we ever do make it to a title team.

Telfair, Jack, Webster, Viktor, Joel, and Zach.

And I'm not even that sure about 2 of them. 

Who we have on this team, shouldn't be judged by who would be on a title team.


----------

