2010-11 NBA Preview: Portland Trail Blazers (OpposingViews.com)

[ABM]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/2010-11-nba-preview-portland-trail-blazers

The Blazers are deep and talented. If you don’t agree, then you can explain to me how a team that lost their starting Center and his backup for the season, while their All Star Shooting Guard played in only 65 games – a lot of those with nagging injuries – and the guy they call a PF also played through nagging injuries. I mean, when you have to trade for Marcus Camby halfway through the season, you have to wonder if you’re not tempting fate at the Center position, but now the Blazers are looking at being two-deep in every position.

Of course, that often translates into fantasy mediocrity across the board, since it’s likely that no one on the roster is going to get enough playing time to do any serious fantasy damage. Of course, with the injury history of the players on the Blazers, the only guy who isn’t about to let someone take over his fantasy value is Andre Miller (who’s seen 82 games in more seasons than most of the Blazers have seen in the league). Even if all the starters decide to take some time off, the youngest of the young guys will still have plenty of time to cross the river to get some Vancouver escorts. How far back are they? Well, look at this depth chart for the Blazers and see that “depth” really applies in this case..................

 

[julius]

The Blazers are deep and talented. If you don’t agree, then you can explain to me how a team that lost their starting Center and his backup for the season, while their All Star Shooting Guard played in only 65 games – a lot of those with nagging injuries – and the guy they call a PF also played through nagging injuries. I mean, when you have to trade for Marcus Camby halfway through the season, you have to wonder if you’re not tempting fate at the Center position, but now the Blazers are looking at being two-deep in every position.

Did anyone else have a headache trying to read that?

especially the part where the writer goes "if you don't agree, then you can explain to me how a team that lost their starting C..." etc...without saying "and still did" to prove his point.

It's like he wrote the whole thing, deleted part of it and didn't think of having it make sense.

I expect that out of someone on here (hell, I do it myself. I mean, how else do you explain).

 

[Nhawz]

Yeah! This fuckin guy talks to much

 

[jlprk]

When I couldn't understand it, I just skipped down to the next post, expecting to figure it out from the context of what you guys said. This usually works, but not this time.

 

[Draco]

I think we've all got dumberer

 

[jlprk]

He's trying to convince us that the team is deep, so he says

Even if all the starters decide to take some time off, the youngest of the young guys will still have plenty of time to cross the river to get some Vancouver escorts.

whuhh?

 

[bigbailes]

He's trying to convince us that the team is deep, so he says



whuhh?

i'm guessing that is a vancouver b.c. establishment, but being at work i couldn't bring myself to click on the link. other than that....it seemed like a junior in high school trying to write a term paper. all over the place and REALLY wordy.

 

[jlprk]

Oh, there's actually an article with links. I had been just reading off of ABM's excerpt. And now even after leaving the site, the Escorts cookie is giving me dirty messages...ahh, I deleted the cookie.