Blazers season previews a bit concerning

[MIXUM]

Ive read/watched quite a few season previews for the blazers and it seems a lot of these guys think roy is still hurt. It went on to say roy has lost his explosiveness and will never be the same guy from 2008-2009. After this pre season i wonder if thats true. They also write that we just dont have the right chemistry. They seem to think playoffs but some say top 9 in the conference. They also are all starting to feel we will get off to a rocky start without joel and greg. Sounds like they are putting lots of stock to pre season.

One of them says la, thunder, and dallas are locks to be top 3... after that


Mike Prada of SB Nation.com has re-compiled his NBA Watchability Scale, which ranks the thirty teams in the NBA in terms of how much fun they are to watch. Prada explains, "Winning is not necessarily the main determining factor. There are bad teams that are eminently watchable, and there are good teams that are really tough on the eyes."

In that vein he has ranked the Portland Trail Blazers 27th out of 30 teams in terms of watchability, docking points for their slow-down offense and misfit pieces.
------------------------------------
As good as Andre Miller was down the stretch, we still don't know if he can fit in with Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge and all the rest of the pieces when they're all healthy. We have no clue what to expect from Greg Oden, if he plays at all. The two saving graces are Roy and dynamic small forward Nicolas Batum, but it's hard for me to believe that Roy will ever get back to his 2008-09 level after dealing with yet another knee injury. He might be good, but he's no longer the same athletically-gifted guy that burst onto the scene two years ago.

That leaves Batum and his chasedown blocks as things to enjoy. They're fun - but they don't happen often, and you can just watch highlights of them anyway.

 

[HailBlazers]

Yes the scouts are predicting us 5th in the West:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ian_thomsen/10/21/scouts.picks.nba.season/index.html

It's nice to come in under the radar, but it sure won't last long.

 

[MIXUM]

and okc is 14-1 odds and we are fucking 30-1?????????????????

http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/10/21/1765926/portland-trail-blazers-odds#storyjump

 

[HailBlazers]

It's hard to gamble on health. But everyone knows that if proved healthy, were the only one's to challenge the Fakers.

 

[MIXUM]

thats true but thats a huuuuge difference 14 to 30 for a team with no bench??????


i am beginning to think that theres some inside talk about roys knee or just that he gas peaked

 

[DeanMoriarty]

I like it. People were overrating us last year and rightfully so, but they never predicted the injuries and so when the team went beyond projected expectations, it really surprised a lot of people.

Every year, we go and surprise people by going into the unknown. And as cliche as this is going to sound, that's what the definition of a 'trailblazer' is.

 

[MIXUM]

whats concerning though is what they are saying bout roy. seems like they think hes a shell of former self

 

[RR7]

Vegas odds shift based off of what people are betting. 14-1 versus 30-1 quite easily shows that OKC is getting hyped more, and thus, vegas needs to adjust the odds down. But yeah, I think using Vegas odds to show the better team is a great way.

 

[MIXUM]

but still..... its like the thunder ARE A LOCK FOR TOP 3? I mean i know the blazers have issues but is it me or is the thunder lacking major depth and vet presence?

 

[RR7]

They said the same thing about us before last season. Did you think when they said it last season how we were a lock for the top 3, that it was true, or did you point out perceived flaws in their thinking? Of course, you took the negative when we were the lock, but now they all know what they are talking about, and of course OKC with absolutely no inside presence what so ever is a lock for the top 3, but because of injuries to our big men, we could be 9th. Got it.

 

[Ed O]

but still..... its like the thunder ARE A LOCK FOR TOP 3? I mean i know the blazers have issues but is it me or is the thunder lacking major depth and vet presence?

Yes and yes... and they had nearly perfect health last year. It seems unlikely that they will get that again, even though they SHOULD get more production out of their younger guys as they mature.

Ed O.

 

[hasoos]

There are several aspects to this conversation. Every team goes into the off season looking to get better. Some get better. Some get worse. IMO this year the western conference is the weakest I have seen it since about 1998. So the few teams which are pretty good, should win a lot of games. I pretty much expect 4 teams to separate themselves from the pack really fast. Is Portland one of them? I don't think so. I see them struggling early in the year unless rebounding is brought in. Even if rebounding is brought in, unless it brings a paint presence to score with, the Blazers will be a jump shooting team. The only upside of that is that I think we have better jump shooters now than last year. Jump shooting teams don't win in the playoffs. So if the Blazers are still a jump shooting team by end of season, I fully expect another 1 and done. If they solve that problem and find some efficient scoring in the paint, then they will have a shot at advancing.

 

[mook]

I think nearly all of the Thunder hype stems from the performance of Westbrook and Durant in the World games. They both did look really damned good. I agree though that they aren't likely to win much more than 52 if they get even an average number of injuries.

These odds are fantastic. I never gamble, but I'm putting a couple hundred on various aspects of the Blazers.

Hell, I even like the 30/1 odds of the Blazers winning a championship. I wouldn't say the odds that Roy/Miller/Batum/Aldridge/Oden are healthy and rolling by the time the playoffs come around should be 30/1. It's not a sure thing, mind you, but at worst I'd give it 3/1.

And if those guys are really clicking at that point, then I'd say it's a 4/1 shot they win it all. So I guess I give them a 12/1 shot, right? A 12/1 real chance with 30/1 returns seems like a great bet.

So where do I go online to place bets? Actually, it'd be kind of fun to start an "online gambling thread" where we could discuss putting our money where our mouths are.

 

[MIXUM]

yeab but is the west that much weaker?????

okc = same

lakers = better

rockets = much better

suns = little worse

kings = much better

twolves = improved

dallas - same

sa = better

grizz = better

clips = better

warriors = better

jazz = ???

i think the west has gotten better... and denver is solid IF they keep anthony.

 

[Schilly]

Sooo most previews I have read also pin Portland in the same rang around 5... With the note that if they stay healthy most teh season the Blazers are the team in the WC that LA should worry about.

 

[mook]

yeab but is the west that much weaker?????

okc = same

lakers = better

rockets = much better

suns = little worse

kings = much better

twolves = improved

dallas - same

sa = better

grizz = better

clips = better

warriors = better

jazz = ???

i think the west has gotten better... and denver is solid IF they keep anthony.

I bet if somebody did a statistical analysis of the term "The West is Better" on basketball boards, they'd find it grossly outweighs "The West is Worst" around this time of year. Because teams always look at their very best right now, compared to their very worst at the end of the season.

Nobody is disgruntled. Nobody is injured. All the miscast pieces aren't visible. All the creaky old guys who were barely hanging on last year haven't had a chance to show how completely broken they are now. The top draft picks are mega-hyped. The bad eggs identified last year haven't been re-signed.

The beginning of the NBA season is as pretty as it gets for virtually every team (except the contenders), and consequently it looks better for both conferences.

With that in mind, yes, the West looks tougher than it did at the end of last season. But let's talk again a month from now about that.

 

[hasoos]

yeab but is the west that much weaker?????

okc = same

lakers = better

rockets = much better

suns = little worse

kings = much better

twolves = improved

dallas - same

sa = better

grizz = better

clips = better

warriors = better

jazz = ???

i think the west has gotten better... and denver is solid IF they keep anthony.

I don't. Dallas was getting old at the end of last year, and so was San Antonio. I really don't care who they added, because the players that make those teams tick are the guys that are getting old. Not the role players who don't matter.

Yao will be limited in minutes per night. I also don't think the chemistry between Kevin Martin and the rest of that team will go well in the end. That guy is a chucker, and nobody likes a chucker on their team.

The Twolves somehow improved by losing Al Jefferson and adding Martell Webster?

Grizzlies are the same. What have they done to improve anything? They won't surprise anybody this year.

Clippers will be better if Griffin stays healthy. It might not matter though if Baron Davis head isn't in the game.

The Kings will be better. I agree with that. Cousins will be the most physical center in the western conference very soon.

PHX will be much worse. They are going to turn into Golden State with an aging Nash at the PG spot.

The Jazz got worse IMO. They lost Mathews. They lost Boozer. Al Jefferson is not Boozer.

 

[Ed O]

yeab but is the west that much weaker?????

okc = same

lakers = better

rockets = much better

suns = little worse

kings = much better

twolves = improved

dallas - same

sa = better

grizz = better

clips = better

warriors = better

jazz = ???

i think the west has gotten better... and denver is solid IF they keep anthony.

In all honesty, can you do a rundown of the Eastern conference, too? I bet it'd be pretty easy to say that most of them have gotten better, too... because most of us associate changes with upgrades, while the reality is that many teams are going to be worse than they were last year because of things we cannot foresee.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

I think the discrepancy between the better teams in the west and worst teams in the west has gotten smaller - so in that sense, the West is better - there are going to be less easy, walkover wins. The T-Pups are better, they will not see the playoffs - but they will play harder when you do play them, the Kings will likely be better, the Clips will likely be better, Memphis was starting to round into shape last year - they either continue this year or completely fall off - but overall, I think the West has not really got better, but might have got a little harder to play against game in, game out.

 

[MIXUM]

exactly.... not many slam dunk wins like last few years

 

[andalusian]

exactly.... not many slam dunk wins like last few years

But, this is true for all other playoff contenders in the West. It's not just the Blazers that enjoyed easy games against the bottom of the conference teams. So did the Thunder, the Lakers, the Jazz, the Nugs, the Spurs, the Suns...

In other words - I do not think the West got better compared to last year as far as it being harder to get into the playoffs if you are a good team.

 

[Minstrel]

Most people said the Spurs had gotten better (some even felt MUCH better) with the addition of Richard Jefferson. This infuriated Blazers fans who felt RLEC should have been flipped for Jefferson.

The truth was Jefferson was past his prime and not much of a difference-maker (as some did predict) and the Spurs were, at best, no better and probably worse.

As far as I'm concerned, the Spurs are still constructed around Duncan, Ginobili and Parker and those three determine, in the main, how good the Spurs are (unless and until they acquire a new star-level player). Only one of those guys is likely to remain stable or improve over last year--Parker. I doubt the Spurs will be as good as last year and I think they may well be worse.

The wild card, I guess, is Splitter. But until I see him perform in the NBA, I'm definitely not going to assume he's a significant difference-maker.

 

[andalusian]

The wild card, I guess, is Splitter. But until I see him perform in the NBA, I'm definitely not going to assume he's a significant difference-maker.

While this is generally true - I think Splitter is a very big upgrade for them. In the last 5 years or so they had one good big - Duncan, who was declining every year. With all due respect to wonder-boy Blair - this did not change at all last year. Having Duncan play next to another "live" big - even if he is not an immediate star in the NBA - is a big deal for them. I expect them to be better than last year, even if not significantly so.

 

[LOTBfan]

I think the teams that got better didn't get good enough, and the good teams that troubled us for the last few years either didn't improve, or slid back a little. while there are less assured wins, there are also less assured losses.

 

[Nikolokolus]

It's hard to gamble on health. But everyone knows that if proved healthy, were the only one's to challenge the Fakers.

So if the two time defending champs are "Fakers" what does that make the Blazers?

 

[THE HCP]

SHILLY IS IN THE HOUSE!

 

[julius]

So if the two time defending champs are "Fakers" what does that make the Blazers?

Going on alphabetical order here, F being 7 letters before L, I think it would make the Blazers Ulazers.

 

[Shooter]

whats concerning though is what they are saying bout roy. seems like they think hes a shell of former self

Link?

 

[XXPrimusXX]

Link?

http://sportstwo.com/threads/171597-What-s-wrong-with-Roy

 

[HailBlazers]

^^^^

Link?

Come on now, your not that gullible are you? I guess when people feel strongly about something, they see/look for it everywhere.