Do the Blazers suck?

[fumanchu]

The two dates that will clear up this question are December 10th and December 30th.

Let me strap on my homer shades and take a look.

Between now and December 1oth (2 weeks from today) we have 6 home games and 1 away.

Home:
OKC (twice)
Chicago
Kings
Lakers
Knicks

Road:
Clippers

Five of those games are very winnable. That would put our record at 11-14.

Between then and December 30th: 6 home games, 3 away.

Home:
Warriors
Orlando
Minnesota
New Orleans
Lakers
Suns

Away:
Denver
Suns
Jazz

I would say there's six winnable games in there.

That's a 17-17 record at the end of 2019.
With 48 games in 2020, winning at a .600 clip would put the team at 46-36 by the end of the season. Between the 4th and 6th seed most likely.

So that's pretty close to the best case scenario we're looking at.

I have to say upon further review, tanking doesn't sound so bad after all.

 

[PDXFonz]

If we win 3/4 of our games from here on out we will finish at 54-28... Possible? Yes

Probable? Ehhhhh

 

[Strenuus]

Tanking is the way to go.

 

[Hoopguru]

Tanking is the way to go.

How would you go about doing that, realistically?

 

[hoopsjock]

How would you go about doing that, realistically?

There is no realistic answer.

 

[Hoopguru]

There is no realistic answer.

I agree just curious how someone that advocates tanking at this point would approach it? Seems very unrealistic to me.

 

[CupWizier]

I agree just curious how someone that advocates tanking at this point would approach it? Seems very unrealistic to me.

Seems very stupid for anyone to advocate tanking right now as that's a losers mentality. Fortunately the team will keep playing and trying.

 

[Mediocre Man]

No, they don't suck. I'm so fucking tired of this narrative. Lillard is a top 5ish player. CJ is a top 20ish player. If you had King, The HCP and you as the remaining starters, they wouldn't suck......well, maybe then, but you get my point.

Olshey bombed free agency a few years ago, scrambled this year trying to salvage that and came away with talented guys that will need to gel.

Our 2nd or 3rd best player, in Nurk hasn't played.

Re-fucking-lax

 

[riverman]

No, they don't suck. I'm so fucking tired of this narrative. Lillard is a top 5ish player. CJ is a top 20ish player. If you had King, The HCP and you as the remaining starters, they wouldn't suck......well, maybe then, but you get my point.

Olshey bombed free agency a few years ago, scrambled this year trying to salvage that and came away with talented guys that will need to get.

Our 2nd ir 3rd best player, in Nurk hasn't played.

Re-fucking-lax

This all day long

 

[tlongII]

Did the Spurs build a loser's mentality after they tanked in 97? I don't think so.

 

[Blazers1977]

Did the Spurs build a loser's mentality after they tanked in 97? I don't think so.

Popovich is a loser. Yes.

the spurs artificial championships they gained by tanking to win 4 rings with Duncan won’t change that. Either will Kawai carrying his sorry ass before the Pop ran him out of town.

The Spurs are a scrub organization with false valor. Tanking is for scrubs, and Popovich wouldn’t have sniffed a ring without tanking. The Blazers should NEVER tank!

 

[riverman]

Did the Spurs build a loser's mentality after they tanked in 97? I don't think so.

Seems we just beat them....see if Pop tanks this season. Their franchise player was about to retire when they got Duncan...there was luck involved in that draft for them and now there's no guarantee the worst team gets the first seed either

 

[Hoopguru]

Seems very stupid for anyone to advocate tanking right now as that's a losers mentality. Fortunately the team will keep playing and trying.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Tanking is the way to go out of relevance for a decade

FTFY.

How is that way? care to explain?



Make America great again....


Okay.... HOW?



Don't get me wrong. I understand those who want to tank and why. I get it, not my cup of tea, but I get it. But before we say its the way to go, Id like to hear HOW you guys think we can tank with Dame on the team.

Please be realistic. Not some stupid shit like, sit Dame with back spazms all season... cause we ALL know Lillard will not accept that. If he can play, he will play. You want to force Lillard out of town and have him demand a trade? Tell him he needs to sit all season. Then see how well the tank works....

 

[riverman]

Knicks have been tanking since Larry Johnson played for them...how many coaches since then? Even Porzingas is gone....if you want to tank...become a Knicks fan....you'll get to do it year after year after year and see lots of unproven rookies or guys like Melo who can't wait to get out of there

 

[TBpup]

Knicks have been tanking since Larry Johnson played for them...how many coaches since then? Even Porzingas is gone....if you want to tank...become a Knicks fan....you'll get to do it year after year after year and see lots of unproven rookies or guys like Melo who can't wait to get out of there

I'm just going to go ahead and assume we have a better owner and organization than the Knicks. If you believe the Knicks and Blazers are the same, you are certainly welcome to that opinion. Look at what is happening with the Mavs when Cuban basically announced they were tanking a couple years ago.

 

[hoopsjock]

I'm just going to go ahead and assume we have a better owner and organization than the Knicks. If you believe the Knicks and Blazers are the same, you are certainly welcome to that opinion. Look at what is happening with the Mavs when Cuban basically announced they were tanking a couple years ago.

There is a little bit of luck involved too. The Mavs ended up with the 5th pick the year they tanked and were able to find a team dumb enough to trade back so they could get Doncic. Then last year they just happen to have the right amount of expiring contracts to allow the Knicks to cut cap space and get Porzingis from it. We'll see what the results are long term. Plus the Mavs roster was awful that year they tanked, we're not anywhere close to that level of bad.

The Blazers had the worst record in the NBA in 2005-06 and fell all the way to the worst spot of 4th in that draft. The next year they tied for the 6th worst record and ended up winning the lottery. Now though they pick to more spots instead of just the top-3 so that could be good or bad for a tanking team. If you move up it's great but if you tank and fall to 6th, 7th, or 8th while still good it might not be good enough.

 

[riverman]

I'm just going to go ahead and assume we have a better owner and organization than the Knicks. If you believe the Knicks and Blazers are the same, you are certainly welcome to that opinion. Look at what is happening with the Mavs when Cuban basically announced they were tanking a couple years ago.

The comparison is tanking...and the difference to me is the Knicks think it's a go to move and the Blazers don't.....I don't think the knicks and blazers are anything alike at all...and no matter what anyone says....tanking is flopping...if Cuban tanked, fuck him too...I see nothing redeeming in tanking for a risky lottery pick, depressing your players and making intentional losing part of team culture ….people complain about flopping....that's tanking.faking the game..sell that to a kid who scraped together money to buy a jersey and hopefully get to go to a home game...the team insults that kid when they take a dive

 

[Haakzilla]

...does this count

 

[BBert]

Seems very stupid for anyone to advocate tanking right now as that's a losers mentality. Fortunately the team will keep playing and trying.

Tanking would ensure no more Melo, for the Melo averse. Maybe even no more Dame. I don't recommend it at this stage.

 

[kjironman1]

The two dates that will clear up this question are December 10th and December 30th.

Let me strap on my homer shades and take a look.

Between now and December 1oth (2 weeks from today) we have 6 home games and 1 away.

Home:
OKC (twice)
Chicago
Kings
Lakers
Knicks

Road:
Clippers

Five of those games are very winnable. That would put our record at 11-14.

Between then and December 30th: 6 home games, 3 away.

Home:
Warriors
Orlando
Minnesota
New Orleans
Lakers
Suns

Away:
Denver
Suns
Jazz

I would say there's six winnable games in there.

That's a 17-17 record at the end of 2019.
With 48 games in 2020, winning at a .600 clip would put the team at 46-36 by the end of the season. Between the 4th and 6th seed most likely.

So that's pretty close to the best case scenario we're looking at.

I have to say upon further review, tanking doesn't sound so bad after all.

Nah... Ain't gonna happen. This team is not going 12-4 in the next 16. Unrealistic in just about every way you look at it. I could see 10-6 maybe. But even that would be best case. It would certainly be good enough to keep things interesting.

 

[kjironman1]

There is no realistic answer.

Sure isn't. This team right now cannot tank. Now if the unthinkable happens. (You know that thing we don't speak of) then i guess it would be an option.

 

[H.C.]

Did the Spurs build a loser's mentality after they tanked in 97? I don't think so.

First off the Spurs without Robinson didn't have a lot of offensive talent.
Secondly the Spurs played a 37 year old Wilkins 30+ minutes a night that season. He was their best scorer at 18 per game.
Third the Spurs rosters were pretty different from 96-97 to 97-98

Lastly but the most important thing. You knew Duncan was going to be a generational talent coming out of that draft.
This upcoming 2020 draft doesn't have that kind of player. LaMelo isn't a generational talent. He's good, but far from generational.

Portland might be in the lotto this year or they might not be.
But one thing is for certain. Spurs played their best available players 30+ minutes in 96-97.
So they weren't tanking. Just didn't have the ability to score with teams. Being that they averaged 90ppg that year good enough for 27th out of 29 teams.

 

[kjironman1]

There is a little bit of luck involved too. The Mavs ended up with the 5th pick the year they tanked and were able to find a team dumb enough to trade back so they could get Doncic. Then last year they just happen to have the right amount of expiring contracts to allow the Knicks to cut cap space and get Porzingis from it. We'll see what the results are long term. Plus the Mavs roster was awful that year they tanked, we're not anywhere close to that level of bad.

The Blazers had the worst record in the NBA in 2005-06 and fell all the way to the worst spot of 4th in that draft. The next year they tied for the 6th worst record and ended up winning the lottery. Now though they pick to more spots instead of just the top-3 so that could be good or bad for a tanking team. If you move up it's great but if you tank and fall to 6th, 7th, or 8th while still good it might not be good enough.

Well one thing is for certain the Mavs won't be "tanking" any time soon as it stand right now.

 

[tlongII]

First off the Spurs without Robinson didn't have a lot of offensive talent.
Secondly the Spurs played a 37 year old Wilkins 30+ minutes a night that season. He was their best scorer at 18 per game.
Third the Spurs rosters were pretty different from 96-97 to 97-98

Lastly but the most important thing. You knew Duncan was going to be a generational talent coming out of that draft.
This upcoming 2020 draft doesn't have that kind of player. LaMelo isn't a generational talent. He's good, but far from generational.

Portland might be in the lotto this year or they might not be.
But one thing is for certain. Spurs played their best available players 30+ minutes in 96-97.
So they weren't tanking. Just didn't have the ability to score with teams. Being that they averaged 90ppg that year good enough for 27th out of 29 teams.

They tanked. They kept Robinson out after he had plenty of time to get healthy.

 

[H.C.]

They tanked. They kept Robinson out after he had plenty of time to get healthy.

Once they were basically eliminated yes.
Portland isn't eliminated at all.

Care to say anything about the other points I made? Or is that all you got?

 

[tlongII]

Once they were basically eliminated yes.
Portland isn't eliminated at all.

Care to say anything about the other points I made? Or is that all you got?

Already proved my point.

 

[hoopsjock]

Well one thing is for certain the Mavs won't be "tanking" any time soon as it stand right now.

They also owe the Knicks 2 out of their next 4 1st round draft picks.

 

[H.C.]

Already proved my point.

Okay then I'll keep throwing facts while you 'prove your point some more'.
FYI I don't expect you to know who any of these players listed are. But this is factual. read the bold.

Injuries decimated the Spurs, none more so than that of Robinson, who returned from back problems only to suffer a broken foot. The former MVP appeared in only nine games. Chuck Person was even less fortunate, missing the entire season following back surgery. Charles Smith missed 65 games with an arthritic right knee and Sean Elliott missed 43 games with tendinitis in the right knee. The loss of those four players, each among the top six scorers from the 1995-96 team, prompted the steepest one-year decline in NBA history, from 59 wins to only 20.

There are also rumors that Pop(the GM at the time) fired Bob Hill shortly before Robinson was cleared from the back injury so they could make a playoff push. Only to have Robinson break is foot 6 games later.

 

[bobf]

How would you go about doing that, realistically?

I don’t believe in deliberately tanking... it’s unethical to try to lose games. But you can play your young guys much more significant minutes not with the goal of losing games but with the goal of making them better in a season that’s not going anywhere anyway.