2nd best in the west!

[magnifier661]

And don't overlook their 17-2 run against the Thunder that gave them the win in OKC in Game 3.

Nik and the other "realists" on the board have some valid points that the Blazers' roster isn't where we'd like it to be in order to be considered true contenders. That said, I'd be more than willing to bet that a look on a few Mavs message boards around the web would reveal plenty of other Maverick fan "realists" dogging the Mavericks' chances in getting out of the first round this year.

The way I see it, some of us here suffer from an overly-rosy view of the Blazers, ignoring shortcomings in our players, coaches and management, while others seem to only be able to see and talk about the negatives. We fans are a bit crazy, but I guess as long as we're all pulling for the team to do well, we ought to be able to get along together.

I am homer by fault. I don't deny it one bit. Probably effects my "realistic views".

 

[Nikolokolus]

Honesty I think it was the Brandon Roy quarter that kind of kicked the Mavs' asses into gear; ever since then the Mavs have been playing like a real championship caliber team ... and even then I'm not sure they're going to have enough to get past Miami.

Which brings me to my point. Does anybody realistically think that this team is even close to being able to edge Miami out in a 7 game series anytime soon? Because when people talk about this Blazers team being close, that is what it's going to take as the Heat continue to add complimentary pieces to Lebron and Wade. We have an ancient point guard coming up on the last year of his deal with no clear successor, our starting center is 37 with one year left on his deal and although Greg might conceivably be able to take up his production, I don't trust him to stay healthy ... certainly not for 100 games a year (which is what a championship team must play to win it all).

That leaves us with LMA who looks like a top fifteen stud now, a severely diminished Roy whose knees are not going to get better, only worse, Wallace who looks like he might have peaked physically two years ago (he's still really good however). So like any "pretty good" team it doesn't look like we're that far away at first glance until you start to look at the way the roster is put together and how narrow the team's options are to dramatically improve it to the point where you should feel good about its odds to make a run. This isn't a bad team, they're a pretty good team in fact, but that's not the same as being a legit title contender ... or being close.

This isn't a "schtick," I'm not needling anybody, this is how I see the team's situation. I'm sorry if that is a huge buzzkill for some of you.

 

[oldguy]

As it is hillarious that you make a blanket statement like this, but you can't make statements like this when you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

Yeah, nobody ever makes statements without iron clad evidence here. Nobody ever says that Nate is an ass clown. Or, that the team will never win anything with him as a coach.

How about some hard evidence that Portland is not and will not be a contender without a re-build?

Go Blazers

 

[PapaG]

I think that's a bit of a chicken/egg issue. Are MVP candidates what leads a team to contention or are they created by the media as a team pushes itself into contention? If LaMarcus puts together a full season of what he delivered for a couple of months this year and the Blazers end up with 55 wins next season, would he not then be an MVP-level player?

If LMA puts up a season with a 24+ PER, sure, that's an MVP-level player. He didn't do that all season, though. He would also need decent players around him even if he does it. Add 2008-09 Brandon Roy to this year's team, plus new LMA, and I think you've got a contender. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. The next hope is LMA explodes into an elite player, and that Oden stays healthy and is dominant on the boards are defense.

2004 Detroit didn't have an MVP-level offensive player, but Ben Wallace had one of the better defensive seasons of the past 20 years, which offset the lack of an MVP-offensive threat.

 

[PapaG]

Gimme a break. Did you watch Dallas come back from 15 points down with 5 minutes to play in the 4th quarter? Let's ignore their miracle comeback while pointing out ours just to keep the "I'm so level headed and the only fan who can view this team objectively" shtick going.

How does Nik's point about Roy's 4th quarter ignore Dallas' comeback against OKC? That makes no sense. I'll go as far to say that if Cho had been able to suspend Roy, the Blazers get swept by Dallas.

Quite the leap in logic.

 

[oldguy]

...

Which brings me to my point. Does anybody realistically think that this team is even close to being able to edge Miami out in a 7 game series anytime soon? Because when people talk about this Blazers team being close, that is what it's going to take as the Heat continue to add complimentary pieces to Lebron and Wade. We have an ancient point guard coming up on the last year of his deal with no clear successor, our starting center is 37 with one year left on his deal and although Greg might conceivably be able to take up his production, I don't trust him to stay healthy ... certainly not for 100 games a year (which is what a championship team must play to win it all).

I thought we were talking about the Blazers being a contender, no? If edging out Miami in the finals is your standard to be a contender, does that mean the team has to win the title to be a contender in your eyes? Seems to me that, if the Blazers are playing Miami in the post season, they are by definition, a contender.

Go Blazers

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think Portland is the second-best team in the West. I think they have a good core, but the idea that they're "close" is deceptive. They have just about everything they need...except a superstar. They have a wonderful #2 in Aldridge, a very good #3 in Wallace, a very good and smart point guard, some good complimentary players in Matthews and Batum.

But, obviously, the one thing they're lacking is far and away the hardest thing to acquire--a franchise star/superstar who is a legitimate #1 option.

There are two current chances for Portland's core to "complete": 1. That Oden is healthy and continues his ascension (glimpsed in the one season, combined, that he's played) to a franchise player or 2. That Aldridge didn't merely break out but jumpstarted his development and will get even better next season and become a franchise player.

Both of those are much likelier to bear fruit, IMO, than trying to tear down to the foundations and start the process of finding a new franchise player, a great secondary star, an excellent quasi-star and good complimentary players.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I thought we were talking about the Blazers being a contender, no? If edging out Miami in the finals is your standard to be a contender, does that mean the team has to win the title to be a contender in your eyes? Seems to me that, if the Blazers are playing Miami in the post season, they are by definition, a contender.

Go Blazers

First of all, I don't see the Blazers getting to the finals anytime soon barring a lot of luck and/or some fairly big breaks. Secondly a contender to me means that your team has a realistic shot at winning a title, if you don't have a realistic shot then you are not in "contention" you are an "also ran" or a "rest of the field" team. Maybe I'm breaking this whole argument down to semantics, but to me the word "contender" gets thrown around way too liberally in sports and basketball in particular, which isn't particularly prone to upsets (like football or other single elmination playoff formats)

 

[Mediocre Man]

I thought we were talking about the Blazers being a contender, no? If edging out Miami in the finals is your standard to be a contender, does that mean the team has to win the title to be a contender in your eyes? Seems to me that, if the Blazers are playing Miami in the post season, they are by definition, a contender.

Go Blazers

This could be part of the issue. Many of us might have very different opinions on what contending is. Some might think that contending means playing for the title, while others might think contending means making the playoffs. In theory, Indiana was a contending team even though they only won 37 games. They made the playoffs though and had a point differential against the Bulls of only 27 total points in 5 games. On the other hand, the Blazers had a point differential of 31 points in 6 games. Does that mean the Pacers were bigger contenders for the title than us? Does it mean they are closer? Portland won 1 more game than them in the playoffs, so does that make Portland bigger contenders? Or is it that you have to make the conference finals to be considered a contnder? Does that mean the L*kers weren't? I think it's really a gut feeling everyone has, and it will vary from person to person.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I thought we were talking about the Blazers being a contender, no? If edging out Miami in the finals is your standard to be a contender, does that mean the team has to win the title to be a contender in your eyes? Seems to me that, if the Blazers are playing Miami in the post season, they are by definition, a contender.

Go Blazers

This was a double post, so I will just add Go Blazers!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i think it is wide open next year, as long as we add some talent, which im sure the brass will do anything to accomplish, and i have high hopes for oden still

like bring in monta ellis/devin harris/elton brand/etc, something will get done im sure

 

[Mediocre Man]

Sure, if the roster improves, Portland has a chance to get out of the first round.

 

[blazerboy30]

How does Nik's point about Roy's 4th quarter ignore Dallas' comeback against OKC? That makes no sense. I'll go as far to say that if Cho had been able to suspend Roy, the Blazers get swept by Dallas.

Quite the leap in logic.

Part of the premise of this thread is the fact that Dallas is now in the Finals, playing for a championship. Without their miracle comeback against OKC, they wouldn't be in this position, and this thread likely wouldn't exist (yet).

 

[PapaG]

Part of the premise of this thread is the fact that Dallas is now in the Finals, playing for a championship. Without their miracle comeback against OKC, they wouldn't be in this position, and this thread likely wouldn't exist (yet).

Well, they'd be at 3-2 instead of winning 4-1. I still don't understand how Nik pointing out the Blazers' own miracle win is a bad thing. He didn't start this thread.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, they'd be at 3-2 instead of winning 4-1. I still don't understand how Nik pointing out the Blazers' own miracle win is a bad thing. He didn't start this thread.

It's not a bad thing. But if you take away the great moments from a team, every team can be made to look worse. Portland was a great quarter from Roy from losing in 5. Dallas was a (somewhat unreasonable) free throw parade in Game 1 away from a tied series going into game 7. It's not at all logical to "take out" the best performances or unexpected happenings as outliers, in a situation like this. Basketball games are concatenations of "outlier" runs, positive and negative.

 

[PapaG]

It's not a bad thing. But if you take away the great moments from a team, every team can be made to look worse. Portland was a great quarter from Roy from losing in 5. Dallas was a (somewhat unreasonable) free throw parade in Game 1 away from a tied series going into game 7. It's not at all logical to "take out" the best performances or unexpected happenings as outliers, in a situation like this. Basketball games are concatenations of "outlier" runs, positive and negative.

I agree. I just don't see how Nik failing to mention a Dallas win against OKC is worthy of attacking his post for it. The fact is the Blazers lost 4-2 to the Mavs. Opinions on how or why that happened vary, as we've seen in this thread.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i think people get a little miffed at the doom and gloom crowd, no surprise there... i usually prefer to see the team as it is, and how i hope it will be. realist for the present, optimistic towards the future

 

[Minstrel]

I agree. I just don't see how Nik failing to mention a Dallas win against OKC is worthy of attacking his post for it. The fact is the Blazers lost 4-2 to the Mavs. Opinions on how or why that happened vary, as we've seen in this thread.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that Portland was a "miracle quarter from Roy away from losing in 5 games" from a descriptive point of view. That's pretty factual (though incomplete if that is all you said about the series). The issue I'd have with that was Nik's fairly explicit conclusion that, therefore, the Blazers weren't really as good as the series score indicates (taking the Mavericks to 6 games). I think that's an extremely shaky conclusion, more akin to already believing something and trying to interpret the results to support that pre-existing belief, rather than making a neutral analysis.

 

[handiman]

I think that's a bit of a chicken/egg issue. Are MVP candidates what leads a team to contention or are they created by the media as a team pushes itself into contention? If LaMarcus puts together a full season of what he delivered for a couple of months this year and the Blazers end up with 55 wins next season, would he not then be an MVP-level player?

The four teams that made the conference finals this year have 6 of the top-10 players in the league among them. I'd say one or two MVP-caliber players is damn near essential to making it deep into the playoffs.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i think oden wil be our mvp type

 

[Nikolokolus]

I agree. I just don't see how Nik failing to mention a Dallas win against OKC is worthy of attacking his post for it. The fact is the Blazers lost 4-2 to the Mavs. Opinions on how or why that happened vary, as we've seen in this thread.

Exactly. The only reason I even brought up the Roy Miracle (TM) wasn't to denigrate what they did but it was to bring a counterpoint to the gist of this thread which seemed to suggest that because we played Dallas to a six game series versus the 4 and 5 game series they had afterward, that the Blazers were somehow superior to the teams that Dallas faced (ergo the Blazers are the 2nd best team). A moment here or a moment there and the complexion of any series can turn out dramatically differently in terms of the number of games a series can go to (but almost always the better team does in fact win).

Success in the playoffs is about mastering matchups and being able to beat a succession of varying styles, not just drawing a team that you match up favorably against -- which is what many people thought Dallas would be for the Blazers -- Ultimately, the Blazers competed against the Mavs, that's good and that's something I guess, but I don't think there's anything to be read into the team's overall standing in the league based on their performance in that single series.

 

[PapaG]

Exactly. The only reason I even brought up the Roy Miracle (TM) wasn't to denigrate what they did but it was to bring a counterpoint to the gist of this thread which seemed to suggest that because we played Dallas to a six game series versus the 4 and 5 game series they had afterward, that the Blazers were somehow superior to the teams that Dallas faced (ergo the Blazers are the 2nd best team). A moment here or a moment there and the complexion of any series can turn out dramatically differently in terms of the number of games a series can go to (but almost always the better team does in fact win).

Success in the playoffs is about mastering matchups and being able to beat a succession of varying styles, not just drawing a team that you match up favorably against -- which is what many people thought Dallas would be for the Blazers -- Ultimately, the Blazers competed against the Mavs, that's good and that's something I guess, but I don't think there's anything to be read into the team's overall standing in the league based on their performance in that single series.

What I read into it is if Brandon Roy plays at an All-Star level, like he did in Games 3 and 4, then the team can compete and win against the best the West has to offer. Since that's never going to be the norm again, I'd say the two Blazer wins were an aberration, and that the 4 losses are more indicative of where the team is at right now. Brandon Roy caught his past lightning in a bottle for a couple of games. A couple of quarters, if you really want to narrow it down. That Brandon Roy is not one that can be relied upon, so either LMA needs to become that elite/MVP-level guy, or Oden does, or the Blazers need to find one somewhere else.

I thought your post was an accurate reflection on the Blazers of the past versus what we see right now. Right now, the 4 losses are more representative of reality than the 2 wins, IMO.

 

[Rhal]

While we have some decent pieces everyone seems to have it right were our big flaws are. Two starters are both very old and there age is catching up fast with no clear replacements for them. We have decent wings but are missing a true backup PF and a few young unproven talents at the Guard spot with a very big ?? with our big man Oden.
Going into next season are we going to stay mostly pat and see if our two Guards in Williams/Armon who are both very unproven can take over for Miller or are we gonna try and make a swing for a PG. If we make a swing for one it'll most likely cost us Batum and who do we have for a backup 3 then Babbit?
Do we move Roy back into the starting lineup and move Mathews into the second unit were his lack of ball handling will be very evident or do we keep a very diminished Roy coming off the bench. Is there gonna be an amnesty clause and will we use it on Roy?
Are we going to be able to get a backup PF/C so we don't constantly have to go small and play LMA at center and make him play 42m a night. Do we resign Jeff so he can play that 10-15m or how about the Vanilla Gorilla for 10-15m. Are those two even that viable for what we need in backups and what backup big men can we really get our hands on. Do we bring Freeland over?
I'm a very optimistic person and think Greg will come back healthy and we'll keep him for a long time and that will fix a lot of our problems but there are still a lot of unanswered questions to be asked and very little information to provide the answers for said questions.
Those are just a few of the huge questions i'm seeing for this off season. When you have so many questions and not many answers you are not the second best team in the west and going into next season without much if any change we are defiantly not contenders and we would be risking everything on the knees and legs of two very injury prone players (Roy/Oden).

 

[KingSpeed]

OTOH, we were close to winning the first game and if we had done that I think we would have won the series.

I do like Mavs doing well I think it does make the loss a little easier to take,,,not much, but a little.

Meaningless. Lakers and Thunder were "close" to winning games too. Being close means nothing.

 

[Minstrel]

Just another input on where the Blazers stand in terms of competitiveness:

But right now, the greatest short-term challenge [for the Heat] figures to come in the round that follows during these next two weeks, with the clearly sustainable success of Western Conference teams such as the Oklahoma City Thunder, Memphis Grizzlies, Portland Trail Blazers and the still-relevant Los Angeles Lakers, San Antonio Spurs and Mavericks.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miami-heat/sfl-ira-nba-column-s052911,0,1934039.column

The context was that no Eastern Conference team seems well situated to challenge the Heat over the next few years.

Ira Winderman is a South Florida writer, so it's hard to imagine a pro-Portland bias. In addition, he writes general NBA columns for MSNBC Sports, so it's not like he's focused purely on the Heat and Magic.