Best team of the McMillan era?

[Shooter]

One of the Denver announcers stated last night that this Blazer team may be the best McMillan has ever had in Portland. I was taken aback, but now I'm not so sure he's wrong. We don't have marquee players, but we certainly have great depth. What think ye? Is this the best Blazer team we've seen in the last 6 or 7 years?

 

[Natebishop3]

It's possible. It's still too early to tell.

 

[Blazinaway]

One of the Denver announcers stated last night that this Blazer team may be the best McMillan has ever had in Portland. I was taken aback, but now I'm not so sure he's wrong. We don't have marquee players, but we certainly have great depth. What think ye? Is this the best Blazer team we've seen in the last 6 or 7 years?

a work in progress but based upon only 3 games I think it has a good chance to be. I really like the "team" approach and that so many guys can score and hurt the other team, there is not just one focus, take something or someone away and we can hurt you somewhere else. Plus I think we are and will develop a very good chemistry which is often the X factor. So far so good.

 

[Mediocre Man]

It could be, but it will be hard to tell because the style of play is so different

 

[Shooter]

It could be, but it will be hard to tell because the style of play is so different

Winning is the only thing that matters. I don't care if we run the other team to death, or pound the ball inside--as long as we win.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Cool. I never said anything about that. If you are strictly going by winning % then good for you. Don't take into account that the league is different from year to year. You need to go by talent of the actual team.

 

[Shooter]

Cool. I never said anything about that. If you are strictly going by winning % then good for you. Don't take into account that the league is different from year to year. You need to go by talent of the actual team.

No, you don't. Talent doesn't mean anything. It's the record that counts. Give me a team that wins, versus a team that looks like it should win on paper.

 

[SantaDora]

I believe it is. It is close offensively to the 2008-2009 Blazers - but tons better on defense.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Well in that case, since the most any team in the McMillan era here has done is win two playoff games, I guess we know what'll have to happen to answer the question, right?

Personally, I think that our current team (if we add anything from Oden) would destroy any team we've had since Nate's been here, including the 2nd-Team All-NBA-Roy-led 2009 team. We're deeper and more veteran at PG and the bigs. We're balanced enough that you can't just double-team Roy and dare 2009 LaMarshmallow, Blanky and Troutlaw to beat you. We have enough defenders that Blake or Roy don't have to guard someone like Jason Richardson as he's going off.

Better offense, better defense, more balanced, more veteran...yeah, this team has a shot to get to the 2nd round (and much farther, based on what I've seen so far from the rest of the West).

 

[Mediocre Man]

No, you don't. Talent doesn't mean anything. It's the record that counts. Give me a team that wins, versus a team that looks like it should win on paper.

No, No No. It's talent of the team. You can't go by record because the league changes every year.

 

[Sinobas]

I think this team has better chemistry, defense, and overall IQ than the Roy lead teams. That team was full of weak perimeter defenders, and soft outside jump shooters.

We also have a more diverse offense that can run, and multiple people that can score inside and out.

 

[Pinwheel1]

This team has a long ways to go. They are fun to watch, but turnovers issue must be improved. Which was predictable with all the new parts thrown together in a short time span. I think the pace is great in all, but they need to learn to back it out a lot more when there is nothing there. I would like to see some more secondary fast breaks.

But all in all it is just too early to tell. They have not played one game on the road yet. How will they finish games on the road when they are tired from the new pace? How will they respond to injuries? I like this team though and was encouraged in the 4th quarter last night with Crawford.

 

[Draco]

No, No No. It's talent of the team. You can't go by record because the league changes every year.

Who decides which team has more talent?

 

[HailBlazers]

One of the Denver announcers stated last night that this Blazer team may be the best McMillan has ever had in Portland. I was taken aback, but now I'm not so sure he's wrong. We don't have marquee players, but we certainly have great depth. What think ye? Is this the best Blazer team we've seen in the last 6 or 7 years?

Without a Doubt. I've been saying it since the fan-fest, this is the deepest and most well rounded team we've had yet. We've have talent at every position and role. It also helps that McMillian has loosened the reigns, it will spell great things for this team.

 

[SantaDora]

The 2008-2009 team had better overall offense (marginally), better clutch play (duh), better long-distance shooting, better half-court execution (because of - ) a superstar that you absolutely had to adjust to and much better rebounding.

This team has more varied offense, better distribution of offense, much more experience, worlds better defense. I still say it is the best McMillan Portland team, at least the most rounded - and defense wins when it counts - so, yes, best team for this coach, I believe.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Give me the facts!!

 

[Mediocre Man]

Who decides which team has more talent?

I don't think it can be done. personally.

 

[HomerLovesKoolAid]

At least it has the best depth of players that can play the same style.

They can be good if recognition and decision-making gets better.

 

[jlprk]

The reason we're better is so simple. We have experience.

Pritchard's cake baking is dead. We got rid of the Pritchard philosophy that veterans are an evil influence on youngsters, and youngsters are all that matter. Did it ever occur to him that youth can be a bad influence on veterans?

The definition of "depth" has changed. It was, how much potential do these punks have, who have never accomplished anything? Wow, we have the most depth in the league with all these promising 2nd round steals!

Now, the definition is, what skills do our players possess right now, in the here and now?

 

[Draco]

I don't think it can be done. personally.

So perhaps comparing win loss records is the next best solution in an imperfect world.

 

[Draco]

The reason we're better is so simple. We have experience.

Pritchard's cake baking is dead. We got rid of the Pritchard philosophy that veterans are an evil influence on youngsters, and youngsters are all that matter. Did it ever occur to him that youth can be a bad influence on veterans?

The definition of "depth" has changed. It was, how much potential do these punks have, who have never accomplished anything? Wow, we have the most depth in the league with all these promising 2nd round steals!

Now, the definition is, what skills do our players possess right now, in the here and now?

I somewhat agree with this. How many of these late draft picks actually pan out, 4% maybe? So you're using up limited roster spots to try and hit a home run on a mediocre prospect. Then if you're finally lucky enough to get the prospect to develope, by the time they're actually ready to fully contribute you'll have to pay them big money as a restricted free agent.

If we can send out two more future firsts and get another Gerald Wallace at the trade deadline I think this team should seriously consider it.

 

[magnifier661]

I think it has more to do with the overall "feel" of this team. The defense isn't stellar statistically, but seeing it first hand leads you to believe it is. Our defensive rebounding is much improved as well; something that we've lacked for some time. Denver is one of the top rebounding teams in the league, yet we out-rebounded them by 20. That says a lot to me. Offensively, we aren't there yet; which also they may have took into consideration. Because if the D holds up and all players play to their career averages; this team could be very very scary.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Is this the most talent? I don't think so. However, I think the pieces fit better than they have in years past ... it also helps that Nate seems to have had an epiphany about loosening the reins on Wallace, LMA, Felton, Crawchuck (couldn't resist ) and Nicolas ... and I think it also helps them knowing that they can move forward from the uncertainty surrounding Roy and the drama that his "will he, won't he?" routine caused (a small affect, but an affect all the same).

 

[Shooter]

The reason we're better is so simple. We have experience.

Pritchard's cake baking is dead. We got rid of the Pritchard philosophy that veterans are an evil influence on youngsters, and youngsters are all that matter. Did it ever occur to him that youth can be a bad influence on veterans?

The definition of "depth" has changed. It was, how much potential do these punks have, who have never accomplished anything? Wow, we have the most depth in the league with all these promising 2nd round steals!

Now, the definition is, what skills do our players possess right now, in the here and now?

I think you nailed it. Count me as a believer.

 

[magnifier661]

Is this the most talent? I don't think so. However, I think the pieces fit better than they have in years past ... it also helps that Nate seems to have had an epiphany about loosening the reins on Wallace, LMA, Felton, Crawchuck (couldn't resist ) and Nicolas ... and I think it also helps them knowing that they can move forward from the uncertainty surrounding Roy and the drama that his "will he, won't he?" routine caused (a small affect, but an affect all the same).

AGREED...

I would like to add another angle to your opinion as well. New York is a perfect example of having a lot of talent, yet not being successful because you don't have the right mix of players. Hell the Jordan/Pippen Bulls didn't have a considerable amount of offensive talent, but they found the perfect pieces to compliment the two stars.

Yes we aren't the Bulls of 90's; just using them as a reference.

 

[magnifier661]

The reason we're better is so simple. We have experience.

Pritchard's cake baking is dead. We got rid of the Pritchard philosophy that veterans are an evil influence on youngsters, and youngsters are all that matter. Did it ever occur to him that youth can be a bad influence on veterans?

The definition of "depth" has changed. It was, how much potential do these punks have, who have never accomplished anything? Wow, we have the most depth in the league with all these promising 2nd round steals!

Now, the definition is, what skills do our players possess right now, in the here and now?

Repped buddy... Good take.

 

[Nikolokolus]

AGREED...

I would like to add another angle to your opinion as well. New York is a perfect example of having a lot of talent, yet not being successful because you don't have the right mix of players. Hell the Jordan/Pippen Bulls didn't have a considerable amount of offensive talent, but they found the perfect pieces to compliment the two stars.

Yes we aren't the Bulls of 90's; just using them as a reference.

Please don't add any angles to my opinions. I spent all morning rounding the corners off just so.

 

[magnifier661]

Please don't add any angles to my opinions. I spent all morning rounding the corners off just so.

LMAO!

 

[jlprk]

Well since you enjoyed that, I'll expand it.

Of our top 9 players, the least experienced are Matthews (3rd year) and Batum (4th year). But most of their time in the league has been as starters, so they're more experienced than they seem.

C
Marcus Camby
Kurt Thomas
F
LaMarcus Aldridge
Gerald Wallace
Nicolas Batum
Craig Smith
G
Raymond Felton
Wesley Matthews
Jamal Crawford

It's easy to "fit the pieces together" when the pieces have years of experience. Instead of saying that these guys fit together, it's simpler to say that they are experienced veterans. Compatibility usually follows, at least more so than the youth with which Pritchard saddled McMillan.