Good win or bad win?

[Rodolfo]

You could see the fear in the Hornets eyes after he went out. The Blazers smelled it and took full advantage. GOOD WIN!

 

[Da_O]

I think he could score 20 ppg, but All-Star, who knows. He's still an elite PF in the league, and should've been enough for New Orleans to hold onto a 20-point lead in a quarter.

He's right on the edge of being a 20 ppg scorer with Paul creating a lot of offense for him. If he was the focal point of the offense I just can't see him doing that.

 

[KingSpeed]

Great win. Travis was huge, as was Bayless. Two of my favorite players. I loved it.

 

[ehizzy3]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nikolokolus again."

co-sign

 

[Darkwebs]

You could see the fear in the Hornets eyes after he went out. The Blazers smelled it and took full advantage. GOOD WIN!

Like a shark smelling blood. This win will be one of the most memorable of the season! Loved it. I didn't even think of turning off the TV even when we were down 20. I was prepared to suffer through a bitter blowout. But the Blazers were like Houdini, pulling off a death-defying escape. The miraculous comeback made the win extra sweet- a sweetness that can't be compared from just beating the other team or blowing the other team out.

So my final answer is, like many others have said, Good Win!

 

[bigbailes]

i'm sorry but west is an all star because of Paul. everyone on here (since it was on KGW) saw what their offense looked like once CP went out and it was putrid. should they have lost this game? nope, they are all NBA players that should be able to make shots but you could physically see the emotion drain out of them.

at the end of the season no one is going to care that CP went down in this one or that we played utah without boozer and AK. a win is a win is a win, i just hope nate doesn't let these guys think they played a great game, they played a great quarter and luckily that was enough.

 

[crandc]

Maris, I actually do see your point, but this is a good win. I think it showed the character of the two teams. When their leader went down, the Hornets got totally discombobulated. Not just they missed his playmaking, a given, the effort, the intensity, was gone. The Blazers saw an opportunity to snatch a victory from the jaws of what looked like sure defeat and grabbed it, even though their best player was having a very off night. Other guys - Aldridge, Outlaw, Bayless - stepped up.

I don't think getting blown out is good for a team, really. I think this kind of win gives a young team a lot more confidence than a tongue-lashing by Nate.

And the result is Portland now holds the #4 spot, at least for the moment.

 

[mook]

Paul is a great offensive player (and an okay defender) but he doesn't mean that much to their defense. Portland ripped them apart offensively in the fourth quarter, and I'm not sure that had much to do with Paul's injury. Had Paul played the fourth quarter, New Orleans may have scored enough to hang onto the win, but Portland was a whirling dervish in the fourth quarter.

A big reason Portland was trailing by so much in the third quarter was because they had underperformed on offense pretty significantly up to that point. Paul getting hurt was the turning point for New Orleans' offensive night, but they could have survived that. What killed them was that that coincided with Portland finally waking up on offense. They couldn't survive both things.

I don't really agree with you here. What I saw last night was the same thing I saw last time we played the Cavs: As long as their superstar was in the game, we were getting beat down. The superstar would go out for a few minutes to catch a break, and next thing you know we're a juggernaut. Then the superstar comes back in and it's back to beatdown.

It really was The Chris Paul Show, with special guest appearance by the Portland Trail Blazers. Had he been able to continue to play, I think we lose by 25.

Chris Paul, Lebron, Steve Nash a few years ago....there aren't many guys who create such a crushing advantage when they are on the court, and create such a desperate vacuum when they are off.

BTW--It was stunning to see David West go from All Star to third best power forward (behind Aldridge and Outlaw) in the game after Paul went out. Makes you wonder how Zach Randolph would be viewed if he got to lace up in David West's sneakers every night.

 

[BrianFromWA]

More like Bayless showed why he is in the team's future while Sergio's weaknesses were magnified by Chris Paul. Would Paul have set an NBA assist record if Sergio had guarded him all night?

The funny thing about assists...if you make a fancy pass to someone who's guarded, (so they can't just dunk easily) or to a shooter with a hand in his face, you don't get assists.

How dare Sergio allow dunks or lose track of cutters. IIRC Paul had 12 pts in the entire game.

EDIT: Someone in this thread said Sergio gave up one point to Paul. I'd have to re-look at that. But Oden was guarding Paul almost as much as Sergio in the 1st, due, I'm sure, to "emergency" switching on P&Rs.

 

[MrJayremmie]

It was a good win, borderline great win.

Our guys showed heart, got a win on the road vs a team that was right ahead of us in the standings and moved up into HCA territory and now split the season series w/ them...

Also, I hate to see anyone go down, but if Paul is out for a significant amount of time, NO will fall pretty low which will also help us.

Edit - oh and we shut those idiot commentators up!

 

[hasoos]

The thing that concerned me the most about this game was the fact that this was an important game and the team came out flat. Part of that reason being, Roy was flat. We all pretty much know, that for a big part, this team goes a Roy goes. Or that is how it has been in the past. Travis and Aldridge barely kept Portland in the game until late. The PF were the only ones who had anything going. That is when Bayless came in. Where a lot of the other Blazers are followers, Bayless is not. Bayless has tremendous confidence in his game, and doesn't really depend on anybody else in order to get his game rolling. The more I watch his game, the more he reminds me of an "ahead of schedule" Chauncy Billups. Chauncy took years to get really rolling. Bayless looks to me like a Chauncy in about year 3.

 

[e_blazer]

Great win.

Sure, had Paul not been injured the Blazers would have lost, probably by double digits. But they took advantage of the situation and notched a huge comeback win. I think this gives the team a positive situation from which to look back on this game and learn a little more about what it takes to be a contending team. A loss would have given Nate teaching material, but this gives him more, IMO. It's proof that you don't give up, no matter what the scoreboard says. It demonstrates that playing with aggression can turn things around quickly. And it gives an opportunity to look at what was going wrong for the first three quarters of the game and talk about how to avoid those pitfalls in future games. Most importantly, it's a win over another Western Conference playoff team and, at the end of the season, that's what counts.

 

[mook]

One thing that disappointed me about this game was the Batum wasn't used on Paul much. I would've liked to see what he could do.

Maybe that's a look that McMillan is saving for the playoffs?

 

[hasoos]

One thing that disappointed me about this game was the Batum wasn't used on Paul much. I would've liked to see what he could do.

Maybe that's a look that McMillan is saving for the playoffs?

I think that's because they were trying to use him on Peja to try and hold him down. Peja has killed us in the past.

 

[noknobs]

Paul is everything to New Orleans because he's not just their best player he's the guy that controls their entire offense and sets everyone else up. Losing an important player during a game usually makes the entire team shell-shocked for awhile. The Lakers were that way when Bynum went down, but were able to regroup at halftime.

But coming back from 20 that late in the game is impressive, regardless of who's in the game. If the roles were reversed, and they have been, those POS announcers and that POS Byron Scott wouldn't care what the circumstances were, so neither do I. Man they were acting like a bunch of assholes.

I think we saw why it's good to have guys with the mentality of Bayless. That guy really hates to lose and when the team is down instead of folding or getting discouraged he gets mean, he gets pissed, and he doesn't back down.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Paul is everything to New Orleans because he's not just their best player he's the guy that controls their entire offense and sets everyone else up. Losing an important player during a game usually makes the entire team shell-shocked for awhile. The Lakers were that way when Bynum went down, but were able to regroup at halftime.

But coming back from 20 that late in the game is impressive, regardless of who's in the game. If the roles were reversed, and they have been, those POS announcers and that POS Byron Scott wouldn't care what the circumstances were, so neither do I. Man they were acting like a bunch of assholes.

I think we saw why it's good to have guys with the mentality of Bayless. That guy really hates to lose and when the team is down instead of folding or getting discouraged he gets mean, he gets pissed, and he doesn't back down.

Totally agree, but I think it goes even deeper than that, his attitude is infectious ... imagine being everyone else on the court when he got those steals or received a pass and went streaking down the court for those thunder dunks or his crazy and-1 layups, it puts the opposition on their heels and boosts his teammates psyche -- he's like a combo of Jarret Jack's fire with the talent and physical tools to back it up.

 

[RW#30]

Barrett said something about 7 assists for Paul with 6 minutes left in the first quarter. I thought he must have meant for the entire team, but no, Paul had a few baskets plus 7 assists in that time period.

Damn he's good...

Thank you John Nash.. Every time we play Paul I hate John Nash a bit more...

 

[mook]

lol. Has Nash even had an NBA job since he got canned?

He'll forever be branded as the guy who thought Martel Webster and Jarret Jack were better than Chris Paul.

 

[mook]

lol. Has Nash even had an NBA job since he got canned?

He'll forever be branded as the guy who thought Martel Webster and Jarret Jack were better than Chris Paul.

Huh. I looked it up and he's the GM for the Sixers. Go figure.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't really agree with you here. What I saw last night was the same thing I saw last time we played the Cavs: As long as their superstar was in the game, we were getting beat down. The superstar would go out for a few minutes to catch a break, and next thing you know we're a juggernaut. Then the superstar comes back in and it's back to beatdown.

Hmm, do you really feel that New Orleans loses their spirit to even play defense without Paul? I'm not asking facetiously, I'm really curious as to your opinion.

It really was The Chris Paul Show, with special guest appearance by the Portland Trail Blazers. Had he been able to continue to play, I think we lose by 25.

Honestly, I think you're overreacting to three quarters of play. Portland has played against superstars like Paul and won before. Portland's offense was underperforming pretty clearly to me; Paul is great but not that great, that he can single-handedly hold down opponents' offenses. Paul was directing great offensive play by New Orleans, but Portland was making it uncompetitive by failing to play their characteristically efficient offense.

Had both teams played representative games (and Paul not been hurt), I think New Orleans wins by single digits.

Paul getting hurt bailed Portland out for playing a poor game, and then some.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

Thank you John Nash.. Every time we play Paul I hate John Nash a bit more...

Food for thought in a round about way Nash is responsible for us getting Roy, Aldridge, and Oden.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Food for thought in a round about way Nash is responsible for us getting Roy, Aldridge, and Oden.

You could also say that in a roundabout way Hitler was responsible for the Berlin wall coming down ...

 

[Minstrel]

I asked someone else this, but it might be interesting to get more opinions.

Assuming Chris Paul makes the Blazers too good to have the draft pick that landed Aldridge and certainly too good to have the draft pick that landed Oden, but assuming Pritchard could still have dealt Telfair for the pick that landed Roy, would you rather the scenario in which Nash selected Paul? Bear in mind that Jack (a player Portland received in the deal for the Chris Paul draft pick) was the price of swapping draft picks with Indiana to get Bayless.

So the scenario swap boils down to this:

Chris Paul and three generic first round draft picks (in 2006, 2007, 2008) for Oden, Aldridge, Webster and Bayless

The first round picks are "generic" because we don't know where the team would have selected in those years, but first round picks are still valuable.

We'd currently have Paul and Roy as our core stars, with Rudy, Batum and Outlaw as the best complementary players/prospects. Plus whoever Pritchard ended up drafting in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with lower draft slots.

Oden could be a once-a-decade center. Paul is a once-a-decade point guard. Aldridge is a near-star big man, Bayless is an excellent prospect, Webster is a decent reserve player. Could Pritchard have found players to approximate the value of those three players with the different first round picks he'd have had?

 

[MARIS61]

I asked someone else this, but it might be interesting to get more opinions.

Assuming Chris Paul makes the Blazers too good to have the draft pick that landed Aldridge and certainly too good to have the draft pick that landed Oden, but assuming Pritchard could still have dealt Telfair for the pick that landed Roy, would you rather the scenario in which Nash selected Paul? Bear in mind that Jack (a player Portland received in the deal for the Chris Paul draft pick) was the price of swapping draft picks with Indiana to get Bayless.

So the scenario swap boils down to this:

Chris Paul and three generic first round draft picks (in 2006, 2007, 2008) for Oden, Aldridge, Webster and Bayless

The first round picks are "generic" because we don't know where the team would have selected in those years, but first round picks are still valuable.

We'd currently have Paul and Roy as our core stars, with Rudy, Batum and Outlaw as the best complementary players/prospects. Plus whoever Pritchard ended up drafting in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with lower draft slots.

Oden could be a once-a-decade center. Paul is a once-a-decade point guard. Aldridge is a near-star big man, Bayless is an excellent prospect, Webster is a decent reserve player. Could Pritchard have found players to approximate the value of those three players with the different first round picks he'd have had?

Although I'd rate Webster as starter material and Bayless as a decent prospect, I certainly wouldn't trade Oden or Aldridge for Paul even straight across as I doubt he and Roy would co-exist or even complement each other. We have more young talent than any team in the league, and they mesh quite nicely. We're not missing the playoffs for many, many years again, and they will only continue to get better.

Bake it!

 

[B-Roy]

Although I'd rate Webster as starter material and Bayless as a decent prospect, I certainly wouldn't trade Oden or Aldridge for Paul even straight across as I doubt he and Roy would co-exist or even complement each other. We have more young talent than any team in the league, and they mesh quite nicely. We're not missing the playoffs for many, many years again, and they will only continue to get better.

Bake it!

Would you trade Sergio for Paul? Straight up? Assuming we add guys like Ike and Frye as fillers.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I asked someone else this, but it might be interesting to get more opinions.

Assuming Chris Paul makes the Blazers too good to have the draft pick that landed Aldridge and certainly too good to have the draft pick that landed Oden, but assuming Pritchard could still have dealt Telfair for the pick that landed Roy, would you rather the scenario in which Nash selected Paul? Bear in mind that Jack (a player Portland received in the deal for the Chris Paul draft pick) was the price of swapping draft picks with Indiana to get Bayless.

So the scenario swap boils down to this:

Chris Paul and three generic first round draft picks (in 2006, 2007, 2008) for Oden, Aldridge, Webster and Bayless

The first round picks are "generic" because we don't know where the team would have selected in those years, but first round picks are still valuable.

We'd currently have Paul and Roy as our core stars, with Rudy, Batum and Outlaw as the best complementary players/prospects. Plus whoever Pritchard ended up drafting in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with lower draft slots.

Oden could be a once-a-decade center. Paul is a once-a-decade point guard. Aldridge is a near-star big man, Bayless is an excellent prospect, Webster is a decent reserve player. Could Pritchard have found players to approximate the value of those three players with the different first round picks he'd have had?

Interesting question. My quick take on the matter.

Bayless: with Paul, not essential
Webster: we already have 2 guys better than him who were drafted in the 20s.
LMA: love the guy, but c'mon.....he isn't irreplaceable.
Oden: this is the tough part. If he is the next Shaq/Robinson/Hakeem, we are probably better off with him. If he is the next Mutombo (my opinion), then I would rather have Paul.


Let's split the difference. If we had drafted Deron Williams, his shakey rookie year would have left us pretty much where we were for the Roy/LMA draft......so our core would be pretty much the same, except for who we would have drafted in place of Oden. If KP worked his magic and got the right guy (Horford?) our future would still be very bright.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Would you trade Sergio for Paul? Straight up? Assuming we add guys like Ike and Frye as fillers.

Heathen! Tear your tongue out!

 

[Natebishop3]

I asked someone else this, but it might be interesting to get more opinions.

Assuming Chris Paul makes the Blazers too good to have the draft pick that landed Aldridge and certainly too good to have the draft pick that landed Oden, but assuming Pritchard could still have dealt Telfair for the pick that landed Roy, would you rather the scenario in which Nash selected Paul? Bear in mind that Jack (a player Portland received in the deal for the Chris Paul draft pick) was the price of swapping draft picks with Indiana to get Bayless.

So the scenario swap boils down to this:

Chris Paul and three generic first round draft picks (in 2006, 2007, 2008) for Oden, Aldridge, Webster and Bayless

The first round picks are "generic" because we don't know where the team would have selected in those years, but first round picks are still valuable.

We'd currently have Paul and Roy as our core stars, with Rudy, Batum and Outlaw as the best complementary players/prospects. Plus whoever Pritchard ended up drafting in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with lower draft slots.

Oden could be a once-a-decade center. Paul is a once-a-decade point guard. Aldridge is a near-star big man, Bayless is an excellent prospect, Webster is a decent reserve player. Could Pritchard have found players to approximate the value of those three players with the different first round picks he'd have had?

Paul for Oden, Aldridge, Bayless, and Webster? No.

 

[Minstrel]

Paul for Oden, Aldridge, Bayless, and Webster? No.

Paul plus three first round draft picks.

 

[Natebishop3]

Paul plus three first round draft picks.

I need more info Minstrel. Put that brain to use. Give me some possible guys we would have drafted