Chicago Trib: Blazers a "lot less formidable" without Bayless and Webster

[Shooter]

Ha. These out-of-town sportswriters can be quite amusing . . .

The Portland Trailblazers are taking on Bulls tomorrow night, and even though their roster looks a lot less formidable without Martell Webster and Jerryd Bayless, both who were traded, still, don't sleep on them.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/hoops-in-view/2010/10/pistons-out-the-way-blazers-on-their-way.html

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ha. These out-of-town sportswriters can be quite amusing . . .



http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/hoops-in-view/2010/10/pistons-out-the-way-blazers-on-their-way.html

Once again, your thread title leaves out a couple small but significant words. He specifically says that the "roster looks less formidable," not that the team as a whole is less formidable.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[Shooter]

Once again, your thread title leaves out a couple small but significant words. He specifically says that the "roster looks less formidable," not that the team as a whole is less formidable.

And you really think that's a major distinction? Please tell me how.

 

[Natebishop3]

Ha. These out-of-town sportswriters can be quite amusing . . .



http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/hoops-in-view/2010/10/pistons-out-the-way-blazers-on-their-way.html

Yeah, and Minnesota's roster looks a lot less formidable without Martell Webster as well haha

 

[HailBlazers]

ahahaha.... Guess their trying to pump themselves up, gonna need it tonight!


Our roster probably does "look" less formidable, but we all know the truth. Best unit since 1999.

 

[SnakeOiler]

And you really think that's a major distinction? Please tell me how.

The quote is actually "even though their roster looks a lot less formidable ". "Even though" and "looks" suggests they are about to contradict themselves. Your quote suggests they are actually a worse team without the two marginal players. Its a complete and intentional misquote. Its also a weak way to get some attention.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

And you really think that's a major distinction? Please tell me how.

Webster was a #6 overall pick, perceived as a dangerous deep threat. Bayless was a viewed as a top-5 talent who could attack the rim relentlessly and get to the line at will. People (who didn't know any better) would see those players on our roster and view them as dangerous players giving us great depth--firepower off the bench. They have been replaced by an unheralded 2nd-round rookie and an undrafted 2nd-year player. On paper, the roster looks weaker, especially to those unfamiliar with the deficits in Bayless and Webster's games. In reality, their replacements are better fits, and the team is actually better.

So yes, to me that's a major distinction. The Yankees' roster looks better than the Rangers', but it isn't. The 49ers' roster looks better than the Seahawks', but it isn't. The Blazers' roster looks weaker this year than last year's, but it isn't.

 

[MARIS61]

ahahaha.... Guess their trying to pump themselves up, gonna need it tonight!


Our roster probably does "look" less formidable, but we all know the truth. Best unit since 1999.

Nonsense.

Our pre-blowup team would manhandle this squad, unless you are counting Oden which is pretty delusional at this point.

 

[J~Rush]

The quote is actually "even though their roster looks a lot less formidable ". "Even though" and "looks" suggests they are about to contradict themselves. Your quote suggests they are actually a worse team without the two marginal players. Its a complete and intentional misquote. Its also a weak way to get some attention.

I agree with this post.

 

[Natebishop3]

Webster was a #6 overall pick, perceived as a dangerous deep threat. Bayless was a viewed as a top-5 talent who could attack the rim relentlessly and get to the line at will. People (who didn't know any better) would see those players on our roster and view them as dangerous players giving us great depth--firepower off the bench. They have been replaced by an unheralded 2nd-round rookie and an undrafted 2nd-year player. On paper, the roster looks weaker, especially to those unfamiliar with the deficits in Bayless and Webster's games. In reality, their replacements are better fits, and the team is actually better.

So yes, to me that's a major distinction. The Yankees' roster looks better than the Rangers', but it isn't. The 49ers' roster looks better than the Seahawks', but it isn't. The Blazers' roster looks weaker this year than last year's, but it isn't.

The Niners roster IS better..... except for quarterback. The coaching and ownership sucks balls.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Once again, your thread title leaves out a couple small but significant words. He specifically says that the "roster looks less formidable," not that the team as a whole is less formidable.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

Roster and team are pretty much synonymous here ... in fact not "pretty much,' but "exactly much"

 

[Nikolokolus]

The quote is actually "even though their roster looks a lot less formidable ". "Even though" and "looks" suggests they are about to contradict themselves. Your quote suggests they are actually a worse team without the two marginal players. Its a complete and intentional misquote. Its also a weak way to get some attention.

Shooter states in the opening line of his post that he thinks the out of town writers are funny for writing this, which suggests he finds it amusting that a Chicago sports writer saw Webster and Bayless as pivotal figures to the team's success and indeed the writer does imply that.

 

[Shooter]

The quote is actually "even though their roster looks a lot less formidable ". "Even though" and "looks" suggests they are about to contradict themselves. Your quote suggests they are actually a worse team without the two marginal players. Its a complete and intentional misquote. Its also a weak way to get some attention.

Huh? It's very clear that the Chicago writer is suggesting the Blazers have been weakened by the subtraction of Webster and Bayless. Period. That's the point. I happen to think the writer is full of crap, which I thought was clear from my post.

 

[Shooter]

Webster was a #6 overall pick, perceived as a dangerous deep threat. Bayless was a viewed as a top-5 talent who could attack the rim relentlessly and get to the line at will. People (who didn't know any better) would see those players on our roster and view them as dangerous players giving us great depth--firepower off the bench. They have been replaced by an unheralded 2nd-round rookie and an undrafted 2nd-year player. On paper, the roster looks weaker, especially to those unfamiliar with the deficits in Bayless and Webster's games. In reality, their replacements are better fits, and the team is actually better.

Exactly. What the hell? Is that not my original point??

 

[RayDavies]

Shooter, as usual you are using a mis-attributed quote in your sig line. Maybe you should take a look at this: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4053

 

[Shooter]

Shooter, as usual you are using a mis-attributed quote in your sig line.

I'll check into it. In the meantime, what other quote in my sig line was mis-attributed?

 

[Ed O]

Huh? It's very clear that the Chicago writer is suggesting the Blazers have been weakened by the subtraction of Webster and Bayless. Period. That's the point. I happen to think the writer is full of crap, which I thought was clear from my post.

No. He's NOT saying that they are weaker.

He is saying that they APPEAR weaker to someone who might not be paying attention.

He then says, "Don't sleep on them," which means, "Don't be fooled."

Commenting on the perception of the strength of the team is different than commenting on the strength of the team.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

More odd is the first paragraph of the article/column/post:

"Chicago Bulls took the floor against Detroit Pistons yesterday for their home-opener at the United Center, and were expected to bounce back from what should have been a gimme in Oklahoma City three nights before."

Is he saying that the Bulls should have won in OKC? And that it should have been a "gimme", no less?

Wow.

Ed O.

 

[Nikolokolus]

More odd is the first paragraph of the article/column/post:

"Chicago Bulls took the floor against Detroit Pistons yesterday for their home-opener at the United Center, and were expected to bounce back from what should have been a gimme in Oklahoma City three nights before."

Is he saying that the Bulls should have won in OKC? And that it should have been a "gimme", no less?

Wow.

Ed O.

Yeah, that's pretty strange.

 

[Shooter]

No. He's NOT saying that they are weaker.

He is saying that they APPEAR weaker to someone who might not be paying attention.

I don't think so. He's saying that even though they are weaker, they are still formidable. I think he actually thinks the subtraction of Webster and Bayless is significant--if he didn't, I doubt he would even mention it.

 

[Minstrel]

I'll check into it. In the meantime, what other quote in my sig line was mis-attributed?

You had an "Abraham Lincoln quote" at one time that was a fake:

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

You took it down when people pointed out it was fake.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't think so. He's saying that even though they are weaker, they are still formidable. I think he actually thinks the subtraction of Webster and Bayless is significant--if he didn't, I doubt he would even mention it.

Whatever, dude. The point is that you're still speculating on what you think he meant, and rather than post the actual quote in your thread title, you posted a title based on your interpretation.

For the second time in a week.

 

[Shooter]

Whatever, dude. The point is that you're still speculating on what you think he meant, and rather than post the actual quote in your thread title, you posted a title based on your interpretation.

For the second time in a week.

No, I posted exactly what the guy said. A "roster" and a "team" are the same thing. I realize this gets in the way of your little diatribe against me, but tough luck.

 

[MickZagger]

No, I posted exactly what the guy said. A "roster" and a "team" are the same thing. I realize this gets in the way of your little diatribe against me, but tough luck.

Another misquoted, or just flat out wrong post by Shooter.

Nothing new.

 

[Ed O]

I don't think so. He's saying that even though they are weaker, they are still formidable. I think he actually thinks the subtraction of Webster and Bayless is significant--if he didn't, I doubt he would even mention it.

Actually, he would if my interpretation is correct: that perception is that the team is weaker. The loss of those two players impacts perception.

Your interpretation does not makes his use of "looks" rather than "is" sloppy at best.

Which doesn't mean that he's not a sloppy writer, but it's smarter IMO to go by the plain language of what someone writes.

Ed O.

 

[Shooter]

Another misquoted, or just flat out wrong post by Shooter.

Nothing new.

And another totally worthless post by you. Thanks!

 

[barfo]

Ow! Ow! Ow!

Oh, wait, that wasn't the right quote.

barfo

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No, I posted exactly what the guy said. A "roster" and a "team" are the same thing. I realize this gets in the way of your little diatribe against me, but tough luck.

Way to miss the point (not that I'm surprised). The differentiation is not between "roster" & "team"; rather it is between "looks" & "is" (as Ed has also pointed out). One is exact quote; the other is interpretation. If you can't figure out the difference, then there's nothing more to say.

 

[zeded]

Once again, your thread title leaves out a couple small but significant words. He specifically says that the "roster looks less formidable," not that the team as a whole is less formidable.

But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.

You left off the 'even though'.

"Portland Trailblazers are taking on Bulls tomorrow night, and even though their roster looks a lot less formidable without Martell Webster and Jerryd Bayless, both who were traded, still, don't sleep on them."

That article did have a couple of moments of what appeared to be elevated Bulls expectations, not the least of which was the 'gimme' vs. OKC. That was a little odd.

The author didn't do a good job of explaining why the reader shouldn't sleep on the Blazers, which includes replacing the PT of Bayless and Webster with Johnson, Matthews and more minutes for Rudy. All of whom appear to more than make up for the lost guys imho. Perhaps his as well but he didn't spell it out so it leaves us to guess. Not exactly in depth analysis.

BUT, I'm tending to agree more with Shooter on this one since his (the Chicago blooger's) full quote above shows that he's thinking that the roster is looking weaker. It's got more of a definitive tone with 'even though the roster looks' than the 'roster looks'. You guys parse words worse than some lawyers I know.

Is it cloudy and rainy in Portland today or something? Sunny and warm here. Too nice to get in a pissing match over implied meanings from some blogger in Chicago.

 

[Minstrel]

I can't believe I'm typing this, but...I agree with Shooter. To me, it seems clear that "it looks" was meant as "my observation is that" rather than "it appears, despite not really being the case."

The "Still, don't sleep on them" very much cements that interpretation (and any reading of communication is, at some level, an interpretation) for me. "Still, don't sleep on them" denotes that the previous comments were a possible reason to sleep on them.

In the end, though, the bigger question is: who cares?