Dave from Blazersedge puts his finger on something important ...

[Nikolokolus]

For a little while now, I've been increasingly dubious about the Blazers long term prospects for ultimate success, but I could never quite place where this creeping doubt sprung from, and after reading Dave's article today I think I figured it out.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/3/16/1375288/stories-and-edges-olympics

This is one of the big questions I have about the Blazers in the coming years. Portland will be talented. I believe Portland will find excellence. Somewhere along the line the Blazers are going to compete for the highest rewards their sport has to offer. But the talent and excellence only get them to the door right alongside three or four other teams, all trying to be the first through that door in order to slam it on the others. Will the Blazers have the will, attitude, fire, and refusal to succumb to gravity that's necessary to really be in that first position or will they watch the door get slammed in their faces?

In some ways the early signs we've seen from this team have been encouraging. People have made much of their talent. I think they might have been overestimated a tad in that department. Much of that assessment was based off of their depth. We're seeing on a night-to-night basis that not everyone on a deep roster can perform to full capacity, inhibiting expression of said talent. Plus Portland's talent has been incredibly young and inexperienced prior to this season. And now, in the season where they were finally supposed to grow together and start playing like veterans, they can't keep a team healthy and on the floor. Despite all of this, from the very start of the Brandon Roy era, the Blazers have won more than projected...this season perhaps more than can be believed. They have lost but they've never lost for long. They haven't let losing get to them. Instead they've kicked it out like a lingering in-law no matter who they had to beat to accomplish the eviction. That's a great sign.

On the other hand the team as a whole still approaches the game carrying briefcases instead of playing like hard-cases. We see smooth excellence, flashes of brilliance, even sustained runs of excitement. But you can still see the difference between Portland and clubs like Houston last year or Denver this year. Those teams are good. Those teams are accomplished. Those teams are also going to rip the win away from you in ways the Blazers haven't dreamed of yet. If excellence, brilliance, and excitement can win a game then the Blazers are going to win it. But what about those games that take more? I don't see Portland there yet.

Talent is certainly important, and KP has shown an ability to draft or otherwise bolster the roster with 'talented' guys, but I think it's fair to ask if he's found guys with a take no prisoners, 'refuse to lose' mentality.

Again, we're talking about high-level stuff here...the finishing touches on a talented, focused, practiced team that provides that extra .01% edge that differentiates gold and silver. Portland doesn't have to worry about that edge soon. Someday, when facing the LeBron Jameses (or, if you prefer, Kevin Durants) of the world it's going to be important. Right now finishing second in the Conference Finals, let alone the NBA Finals, would be a cause for riotous celebration. That won't always be the case.

Clearly this results of the playoffs this season won't matter much one way or another and this question of 'edge' becomes much more of an issue in subsequent years. But of the existing roster who is going to have that nastiness and stone cold killer mentality that pushes good teams to greatness?

I see Brandon with a budding killer instinct, I think Nic has ice water in his veins, but beyond those two (and possibly Dante) who else on this team do you think is capable of creating a win at all costs mentality on this team? Or are we still waiting for our Mo Lucas or Buck Williams to be added to this roster?

 

[OddEnormous]

Hi.

Head coach with no fire = Team with no fire

Glad to help.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Team of nice guys built on character = no swagger.

 

[Minstrel]

I see Brandon with a budding killer instinct, I think Nic has ice water in his veins, but beyond those two (and possibly Dante) who else on this team do you think is capable of creating a win at all costs mentality on this team? Or are we still waiting for our Mo Lucas or Buck Williams to be added to this roster?

Bayless? Miller? The first seems like a hard case, the second seems like a willing to go all-out for wins.

Plus rotating veterans like Howard and Camby. They won't be around for long, but they'll be replaced with others.

I think too much is being made of the Blazers being "nice guys." It's just a narrative for fans to handle disappointment...Aldridge didn't play well, so he's a gutless softie who doesn't really "want to win." Rudy has regressed...probably due to being a heartless softie who doesn't really want to win. Etc.

Yes, some of the players aren't the rugged, enforcer types. Very few teams have ever been composed entirely of those sorts. Portland has a perfectly viable mix of intense, aggressive players and "merely" skilled players.

 

[OddEnormous]

Team of nice guys built on character = no swagger.

I don't believe that.

Any fire this team has (I think a lot of the players on this squad have it in them) is extinguished by the man on the sideline.

They will never ever never ever never ever never ever win anything with him on the sideline.

The only one who lacks fire IMO is LMA and you can easily carry a guy or 2 with none if the rest have it. He reminds me of Duck in this regard.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Yeah, I guess Rudy has that swag. Nate is a sargeant.

 

[ABM]

I'm hopeful that Howard, Camby, and/or Miller can yet instill a sense of Mr. Mean into these guys.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Bayless? Miller? The first seems like a hard case, the second seems like a willing to go all-out for wins.

Plus rotating veterans like Howard and Camby. They won't be around for long, but they'll be replaced with others.

I think too much is being made of the Blazers being "nice guys." It's just a narrative for fans to handle disappointment...Aldridge didn't play well, so he's a gutless softie who doesn't really "want to win." Rudy has regressed...probably due to being a heartless softie who doesn't really want to win. Etc.

Yes, some of the players aren't the rugged, enforcer types. Very few teams have ever been composed entirely of those sorts. Portland has a perfectly viable mix of intense, aggressive players and "merely" skilled players.

Miller has it, but he's a short timer, Bayless is intense, but ... I'm not sure it's that kind of calculated cold blooded killer intensity that Dave talks about in his article.

In any case I don't think it's a narrative at all, I can't quantify it, but I've certainly 'felt' it when I've watched this team play (and I get a different vibe from teams like Utah, OKC, Denver, LA and Cleveland to name a few)

 

[andalusian]

I am not buying this thing at all. This year was a model for toughness. You have that many injuries, people will either start to play for themselves or fold down.

Let's look at a tough team, with a tough coach. The Utah Jazz. They are tough, right? Last year, their top-6 players, through an 82 games season lost 91 games - tons of games, they finished the year with 48 wins.

This year, the soft Blazers, with their soft coach, have lost 162 games from their top 6 players (not including injuries to Rudy or Travis or Blake or Bayless), through 69 games - and they are on pace to win 48-49 games.

If this team is not tough, I have no clue what tough means. Not buying this stuff. This team will rip out wins they should not. They might not be pretty wins, they might have long ugly sections of games where they are not looking good - but at the end of the day, these guys rip out wins no-one imagined they could.

Go to Dallas, lose Joel, and win? Done. Go to SAS, no Roy, no Oden, no Travis, no Joel and win? Done.

Give me a break. This is a tough team. Just because they do not act like thugs or have crazy tatoos does not mean they are not tough.

This team has been tough from the get go - 2nd youngest team in the league, last year, won 54. How the hell did they do it? Through playing pretty and soft? Not buying this.

 

[ironcrotch]

The difference that last years team was a young team and the teams they're being compared against were veteran teams. I believe the team now as it it's built up contains that swagger with Camby and Miller. I also think we've seen it transform when we've seen this team close out close games and doing what it takes to win.

 

[Minstrel]

(and I get a different vibe from teams like Utah, OKC, Denver, LA and Cleveland to name a few)

Why are those teams the model? All good teams, but do you really consider Utah, Denver (and Houston, mentioned in your first post) clear-cut title contenders? I don't. They're a few good teams who play differently than Portland.

As for OKC, I think they're behind Portland both in talent and the development curve and I have no idea why you view them as significantly more rugged, tough or intense than Portland. Westbrook is, at best, as intense as Bayless or Miller. Durant and Roy are similar in terms of both wanting the ball in their hands to close out games. Green seems even less rugged than Aldridge.

I understand that you're making a subjective evaluation here, but I still don't see how this rises above "narrative." What does Portland actually not do, to win games, as a consequence of this "missing vibe?" They've been one of the best rebounding teams in the game when healthy, they've been one of the best offensive teams when healthy and not incorporating new key players and, prior to Oden going down, they were actually one of the top defensive teams. Defense and rebounding are usually viewed as the hallmarks of intensity and effort, and Portland seems to be at least solid in both respects when healthy.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Why are those teams the model? All good teams, but do you really consider Utah, Denver (and Houston, mentioned in your first post) clear-cut title contenders? I don't. They're a few good teams who play differently than Portland.

As for OKC, I think they're behind Portland both in talent and the development curve and I have no idea why you view them as significantly more rugged, tough or intense than Portland. Westbrook is, at best, as intense as Bayless or Miller. Durant and Roy are similar in terms of both wanting the ball in their hands to close out games. Green seems even less rugged than Aldridge.

I understand that you're making a subjective evaluation here, but I still don't see how this rises above "narrative." What does Portland actually not do, to win games, as a consequence of this "missing vibe?" They've been one of the best rebounding teams in the game when healthy, they've been one of the best offensive teams when healthy and not incorporating new key players and, prior to Oden going down, they were actually one of the top defensive teams. Defense and rebounding are usually viewed as the hallmarks of intensity and effort, and Portland seems to be at least solid in both respects when healthy.

In the end maybe it's really more about Portland's still pretty porous perimeter defense and what I see as an over reliance on perimeter shots ... this is not what I would call a physical team.

Whatever; clearly most people aren't seeing it the same way, and I get the feeling this is a more emotionally charged topic than I thought it would be (and no, I'm not saying you are responding emotionally).

 

[ABM]

In the end maybe it's really more about Portland's still pretty porous perimeter defense and what I see as an over reliance on perimeter shots ... this is not what I would call a physical team..

I hear ya on that. For that matter, so does Charles Barkley.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I think the question of whether or not this team is "tough" or not will be answered quite clearly in the next month.

 

[noknobs]

I don't think for one minute that nice guys=no swagger, and I think this team does have mental toughness. But the fact remains that for whatever reason, this team doesn't appear to have a killer mentality yet, as evidenced by all the big leads they've blown. They build a lead and lose it. I think it starts with Roy/Aldridge, since they're the leaders on the team.

I don't think we can overestimate what Joel Pryzbilla meant to this team.

 

[MAS RipCity]

Or we can find a way to get Carl Landry from Sacto this offseason and our toughness problem is solved!

 

[HailBlazers]

I don't think we can underestimate what Joel Pryzbilla meant to this team.

Oden/Camby tandem will own the paint. It's hard to play with swagger when your paint is being abused

 

[hasoos]

I don't believe that.

Any fire this team has (I think a lot of the players on this squad have it in them) is extinguished by the man on the sideline.

They will never ever never ever never ever never ever win anything with him on the sideline.

The only one who lacks fire IMO is LMA and you can easily carry a guy or 2 with none if the rest have it. He reminds me of Duck in this regard.

I am not so sure it is all on Nate. What this team is lacking is players who will be a total fuckhead to the other team, and not give a shit about how the other team feels about it. We don't have anything close to that right now, besides the one guy who is down at the end of the bench (pendergraph). The only other guy who I think might get that type of attitude over time is Bayless.

 

[Tince]

I would go out on a limb and say most coaches who have won championships recently have little "fire", so to blame Nate's lack of fire on this team not winning it all is comical.

What coach has the "fire" to take us to the promised land?

Jerry Solan has a ton of fire and that's help him lead his team to how many championships? Phil Jackson sleeps through games. Mike Brown often thinks he's got a front row seat. Doc Rivers, is a peer not a coach to half of his team.

 

[SpanishFly]

IMO Oden is a lot "hungrier" than most think, I think especially after the injuries and with all the doubters he wants it REALLY BAD. The only caveat is of course whether he can stay healthy.

 

[bobf]

It's not really lack of fire. It's lack of defense at the guard positions. When your defense is porous it's hard to get fired up.

 

[hasoos]

I would go out on a limb and say most coaches who have won championships recently have little "fire", so to blame Nate's lack of fire on this team not winning it all is comical.

What coach has the "fire" to take us to the promised land?

Jerry Solan has a ton of fire and that's help him lead his team to how many championships? Phil Jackson sleeps through games. Mike Brown often thinks he's got a front row seat. Doc Rivers, is a peer not a coach to half of his team.

1. It isn't Sloans fault the Jazz ran into MJ in the finals.
2. One of the coaches mentioned in the rest of your paragraph is not like the others. Guess which one, and guess who doesn't even deserve to be in the discussion?
3. Phil and Doc both are fiery. They will get T's to protect their team. They will take a 25k fine to get their point across to the officials. They will dig on their players, publically if necessary to get them to play the right way. Has Nate ever done any of that?

 

[Cake]

Team of nice guys built on character = no swagger.

= San Antonio = several championships.

 

[gatorpops]

I am not so sure it is all on Nate. What this team is lacking is players who will be a total fuckhead to the other team, and not give a shit about how the other team feels about it. We don't have anything close to that right now, besides the one guy who is down at the end of the bench (pendergraph). The only other guy who I think might get that type of attitude over time is Bayless.

I think that what we need is that the players start feeling and knowing that they are good and headed toward gratness. I believe this team is going to know this this month. With healthy players and pracitice time they are going to gel and the woes of the coach and the porus defense will disapear and they are going to know they are really good. The only thing keeping this from happening sooner this year has been the injuries of the past. With the addition of Canby we are already progressing in the last four games and with that aditional practice time we are going to be dangerous to anyone on the docket.

"THE ALTER MIXUM" me some Blazers!!!!!!!!

 

[Nikolokolus]

= San Antonio = several championships.

= Bruce Bowen, one of the dirtiest nastiest defensive players in the past 20 years.

 

[tlongII]

LOL! What the hell have these Houston and Denver teams won? Dave is reaching big time here.

 

[oldmangrouch]

In the end maybe it's really more about Portland's still pretty porous perimeter defense and what I see as an over reliance on perimeter shots ... this is not what I would call a physical team.

Whatever; clearly most people aren't seeing it the same way, and I get the feeling this is a more emotionally charged topic than I thought it would be (and no, I'm not saying you are responding emotionally).

FWIW, I think you raise a valid issue. As was mentioned in a previous thread, the Blazers aren't a team that picks up many floorburns. The old guys - Miller and Howard - are more likely to dive after a loose ball than many of their younger team-mates. Physically, Camby is no more gifted as a rebounder than LMA....but his aggression is on an entirely different level.


They are "tough" in the sense that they didn't just give up in the face of injuries - but not in the "that loose ball is MINE and I will kill you if you get in my way!" sense. That's one of the areas where losing Joel really hurt.

 

[oldmangrouch]

= Bruce Bowen, one of the dirtiest nastiest defensive players in the past 20 years.

They also had Ferry, who was arguably the most hated player in the league.

More to the point, Duncan/Robinson didn't get in their team-mates faces in public (like Kobe or KG), but they were outspoken in the locker-room. They both had plenty of fire in their belly.

 

[e_blazer]

The Blazers overachieved last year to get 54 wins. They've overachieved this year to be in the playoff hunt despite all the injuries. I think this whole thing about not having fire is pure bunk.

 

[Tince]

1. It isn't Sloans fault the Jazz ran into MJ in the finals.
2. One of the coaches mentioned in the rest of your paragraph is not like the others. Guess which one, and guess who doesn't even deserve to be in the discussion?
3. Phil and Doc both are fiery. They will get T's to protect their team. They will take a 25k fine to get their point across to the officials. They will dig on their players, publically if necessary to get them to play the right way. Has Nate ever done any of that?

Phil is fiery? You've got to be kidding me. The Zen Master?

It seems like people are confusing getting a technical as being fiery. I would all but guarantee that Nate yells and screams way more than Phil.

Based on your criteria, we need a coach that gets tech and calls out his players publicly. Sounds like you think Don Nelson would be a perfect fit.

How is it Nate's fault that we have a collection of softer players?