Anybody with iNsider?

[Sean.ivity]

Blazers on the NBA front page on ESPN.com with this headline:
Pretenders?

Once thought to be a threat to L.A.'s crown, the Blazers have fallen hard from their lofty perch. What went wrong?

I would like to know what is said in the article, thanks.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Blazers on the NBA front page on ESPN.com with this headline:
Pretenders?

Once thought to be a threat to L.A.'s crown, the Blazers have fallen hard from their lofty perch. What went wrong?

I would like to know what is said in the article, thanks.

It's just the word "Injuries." repeated 5000 times to get it up to article length.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's just the word "Injuries." repeated 5000 times to get it up to article length.

That's what I figured.

 

[julius]

I don't know if we fell, as much as we slipped on freshly waxed floor, and hit our head on the throne.

It is funny how final the implication is. "Once thought"...as if we're done for for the rest of time.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't know if we fell, as much as we slipped on freshly waxed floor, and hit our head on the throne.

It is funny how final the implication is. "Once thought"...as if we're done for for the rest of time.

Oden is down.... season is over....

 

[Shapecity]

Here you go

And then there's Portland. If there was one team I thought could provide a legitimate threat to Laker hegemony in the Western Conference, it was the Trail Blazers. They were young, they had size and they seemed to match up well against L.A.

But at the one-quarter mark of the season, the aspirations in Portland are no longer the sugarplum dreams of reaching the Finals but the less lofty concern of making the playoffs. The 14-9 Blazers are a far cry from the squad that won 54 games a year ago and boasted the league's best scoring margin after the All-Star break, especially at the offensive end.

So what happened to Portland? Let's break it down:

Injuries: Yes, the Blazers have taken some serious blows here. Losing Greg Oden for the season last week was a huge setback, and Travis Outlaw, Nicolas Batum and Rudy Fernandez all are out for at least the next month. With rookies Patrick Mills and Jeff Pendergraph also hurt, the Blazers are down to nine healthy bodies and are using Juwan Howard as the first big man off the bench.

Frontcourt depth: We can't say they didn't try. The Blazers chased after Hedo Turkoglu, Paul Millsap and Lamar Odom with their free-agent dollars last summer before settling on Andre Miller; any of the three could have helped soak up some of the frontcourt minutes now going to Howard and rookie second-round pick Dante Cunningham. Portland also drafted Pendergraph to add a blue-collar element, but he's injured, too.

Pieces fitting: The Blazers have struggled to incorporate their one prominent new face in Miller, with Brandon Roy especially resistant to the idea of Miller replacing Steve Blake at the point. Incorporating Oden into the attack proved equally difficult, as his post game removed some of the spacing that had made this offense so potent a year earlier.

Expectations: One wonders if Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge are trying too hard, if that's possible, and are vexed that things aren't quite as easy as they were in the second half of last season. Roy clamors to have the ball in his hands on nearly every play, which is one reason he prefers Blake to Miller. Meanwhile, Aldridge appears to have leveled off at a sub-All-Star level -- a bad sign considering he just signed a $65 million extension.

OK, that takes care of all the big-picture issues. Now let's get to the nitty-gritty.

 

[THE HCP]

I'd post it, but Minstrel would delete it. By the way, can somebody please post a link so I can break FCC rules and illegally watch the game!

 

[KingSpeed]

For me, what really hurt about losing the Houston series was that we didn't get to play the Lakers in the first round. I would've taken the #8 seed if it meant we got to play the Lakers. I really like how we match up with them when we're healthy. They can't stop Outlaw who always brings his A game against them. Blake torches them from outside. And Oden would've outplayed Bynum head to head, I know it. It sucks that we won't have all our weapons when we go up against them next month. Hopefully a trade will help even things out. And is there a chance Travis could return around March? If we don't make a trade then we are REALLY going to need Outlaw down the final stretch of the season and playoffs.

 

[Sean.ivity]

Here you go

Thanks!

 

[yakbladder]

I'd post it, but Minstrel would delete it. By the way, can somebody please post a link so I can break FCC rules and illegally watch the game!

Don't forget that if you record the game on Tivo or otherwise you're technically breaking the law as well.

And don't even get me started on those bastards who tear the tags off of mattresses.

 

[KingSpeed]

You know, I'm pissed about that headline. Pretenders? That would refer to a team with all their weapons not playing well, but FOUR of our key players are out. We're depleted and certainly not pretenders. At least give us the chance to show what we can do without Oden. We're 2-1 so far and our overall record of 14-9 puts us only 1.5 games out of the third spot in the West.

Fuck man, we were 8-3 before Outlaw went down. Best start since 99-00 season. And we probably would've been even better if Batum was healthy (perhaps Nic would've had more success on Melo and we would've won the Denver game?) This team is fucking deadly, like #1 seed deadly, when healthy. We'll just have to wait til next year to see how that unit plays for a whole season.

 

[KingSpeed]

Don't forget that if you record the game on Tivo or otherwise you're technically breaking the law as well.
.

Are you? I believe it's only illegal if you then distribute it. If it was actually illegal, wouldn't Tivos and VCRs have been outlawed years ago?

 

[Wheels]

And don't even get me started on those bastards who tear the tags off of mattresses.

 

[THE HCP]

Here you go

Minstrel, you were slow on this one!

 

[Wheels]

I didnt know a moderator could edit an owners posts lol.

 

[THE HCP]

Ya, they just don't make as much money!

 

[drexlersdad]

I didnt know a moderator could edit an owners posts lol.

Right? WTF he owns the fucking site, maybe let him take his own chances? Lol

 

[Shapecity]

Right? WTF he owns the fucking site, maybe let him take his own chances? Lol

I put everything in my momma's name.

 

[Minstrel]

I didnt know a moderator could edit an owners posts lol.

*shrug* Denny has always said to moderate him like anyone else, I assumed that went for all the "blue people." I generally try to moderate the same no matter who is making the posts. If someone higher up the chain feels I should handle it differently, they can feel free to PM me about it. In fact, any poster can PM me to discuss my moderation, if they have concerns.

 

[jlprk]

All you left was the introductory, least interesting part. Here is the article's core of analysis. These are excerpts, not a wholesale copy. I already edited out large (less interesting) pieces.

The entire difference between this season's Blazers and last year's group is at the offensive end. The Blazers actually are a bit better on D, but Portland ranked second in the league in Offensive Efficiency last season and this season they're 11th...

Last season the Blazers won by taking shots. Lots of them. Because of a slightly below-average turnover rate and a league-leading offensive rebound rate, Portland launched more shots per 100 possessions (100.1) than any other team in the league ("shots" being defined as field goal attempts plus 0.44 times free throw attempts). The Blazers were relatively accurate, too, ranking eighth in true shooting percentage, but the real story of their season was one of quantity rather than quality.

This season? Portland's accuracy hasn't changed at all; the Blazers' true shooting percentage is nine points ahead of the league average, just like it was a year ago. The problem is that they're generating fewer attempts. Portland takes 96.7 shots per 100 possessions, barely beating the league average of 96.3.

More than three shot attempts per game have simply vanished into the ether. The causes are that the Blazers' turnovers have increased, while their offensive rebounding has declined in roughly equal proportion. The Blazers rank only fourth in offensive rebound rate at 29.6. While that's still an impressive figure, the drop hurts -- so much of their attack was built on second shots. That number is likely to decrease further in Oden's absence. He led the league in offensive rebound rate a year ago and was threatening to defend his title...

If there's good news, it's that the turnovers are likely to diminish. Oden was one of the league's most turnover-prone players, so his absence will improve Portland's numbers in that area. So will the loss of Fernandez, who had become a wild turnover machine in his second season for reasons that aren't entirely clear. Alas, if the decline in turnovers matches the dip in offensive boards, the Blazers won't be any better off, and will go through the rest of the season without those three shots a night from a year ago...

 

[handiman]

Does it strike anyone else as a bit loopy to talk about shots per 100 possessions and offensive rebound rate as if they are not effectively one and the same? If you're grabbing more offensive rebounds (and not subsequently throwing the ball away), you're getting up more shots per possession and thus increasing the shots per 100 possessions stat. Actually, it makes me think that "shots per 100 possessions" could become a very meaningless stat without the proper context.

 

[axs88]

Does it strike anyone else as a bit loopy to talk about shots per 100 possessions and offensive rebound rate as if they are not effectively one and the same? If you're grabbing more offensive rebounds (and not subsequently throwing the ball away), you're getting up more shots per possession and thus increasing the shots per 100 possessions stat. Actually, it makes me think that "shots per 100 possessions" could become a very meaningless stat without the proper context.

That's the thing though, it's affected by both offensive rebounding and turnover rate.

 

[handiman]

That's the thing though, it's affected by both offensive rebounding and turnover rate.

That's putting it mildly. It's more like an averaging of the two. Basically a fluff stat.

 

[Nikolokolus]

And if you think about that analysis of our "offense" you start to realize that it really isn't an offense at all. Any system that is mainly predicated on not turning the ball over and grabbing offensive boards to generate points really underscores Nate's whole plan to win games, "Just scrap, we need more scrappiness" That isn't to say they shouldn't try to get offensive rebounds, because they are important.

The real issue for me isn't shots per 100 possessions, but having an offense that generates more points per 100 possessions than it currently does -- and for me that means higher percentage shots and getting at least 10 fast break points per game or making an attempt to score inside

 

[handiman]

The real issue for me isn't shots per 100 possessions, but having an offense that generates more points per 100 possessions than it currently does

Agreed. The shots per 100 possessions thing seems to bastardize the importance of maximizing possessions and points, rather than just prolonging possessions.

 

[Ed O]

Don't forget that if you record the game on Tivo or otherwise you're technically breaking the law as well.

I don't think you're right.

The Sony decision, as far as I know, allows time-shifting of television broadcasts.

"Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs, and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use."

Ed O.

 

[THE HCP]

I don't think you're right.

The Sony decision, as far as I know, allows time-shifting of television broadcasts.

"Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs, and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use."

Ed O.

Oh Ed, you and your fancy links and quotes!