How would other teams fair?

[julius]

Oklahoma Shitty?

OKC >>>> Current Blazers....

Homer

that got me thinking..how would other teams handle the same # of losses to their team? And not like the bottom 4, I mean at least 2 starters, and 2 prominent bench players (but not their top two players).

Imagine the Lakers were without Bynum, Odom, Artest and Walton? I know they're not the equals to our missing (it's impossible to make exact comparisons).

How would the Spurs be if they lost 4 rotation players?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Let's get some crowbars, hitch a ride on Blazer One, and find out!

 

[hasoos]

Jalen Rose was talking about this last night. He talked about how it was fairly important that the two guys who have carried the Blazers the last couple of years are still in the lineup. That will keep them in a lot of games. But it will still be tough. I believe his exact words were "These two guy are the two that butter your bread."

 

[STOMP]

another way to look at the significance of Portland's injury woes is that Batum Rudy Greg and Travis combined to play 7,005 of the available 19,680 regular season minutes last year or 36%

STOMP

 

[Minstrel]

another way to look at the significance of Portland's injury woes is that Batum Rudy Greg and Travis combined to play 7,005 of the available 19,680 regular season minutes last year or 36%

And I'd say Batum and Oden were due to play even more minutes this year, had they not been injured. I think Portland lost a good 40-45% of minutes to rotation players.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

nice getting quoted....

I just dont understand some of the hardcore blazer homerism....

 

[julius]

nice getting quoted....

I just dont understand some of the hardcore blazer homerism....

Whats that got to do with this thread?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Whats that got to do with this thread?

Nothing really, just reaffirming my position....

Something wrong?

 

[RR7]

What's homerism about recognizing injury woes?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

What's homerism about recognizing injury woes?

Calling OKC shitty, is being a homer. Why doesn't he just worry about the Blazers...

 

[RR7]

How is that being a homer? I think NJ is shitty. Does that make me a homer? Now we can only have opinions about one team, and to express opinions of any other team makes you a homer?

 

[julius]

Nothing really, just reaffirming my position....

Something wrong?

I think you missed the point of my thread then. I saw your comment, "current blazers", and it got me thinking about how other teams would handle the same # of injuries.

It has nothing to do with Oklahoma City or making fun of them. I just quoted your comment because it's what drew me to the new thread.

Calling OKC shitty, is being a homer. Why doesn't he just worry about the Blazers...

Just so I make sure I'm hearing this right, because I'm quoting a comment you made (by someone else), and didn't delete it in the new thread, all the sudden I'm being a homer?

IF anything, it's just me copying and pasting and being lazy about it. Get off your high horse.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

How is that being a homer? I think NJ is shitty. Does that make me a homer? Now we can only have opinions about one team, and to express opinions of any other team makes you a homer?

Yes you can have opinions, btw, mine is an opinion too

 

[hasoos]

How is that being a homer? I think NJ is shitty. Does that make me a homer? Now we can only have opinions about one team, and to express opinions of any other team makes you a homer?

The first step to dealing with Homerism is admitting your a homer.

Hi my name is hasoos, I am a homer!

 

[RR7]

So your opinion is that if someone judges another team as being inferior to us, that automatically makes them a homer?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

I think you missed the point of my thread then. I saw your comment, "current blazers", and it got me thinking about how other teams would handle the same # of injuries.

It has nothing to do with Oklahoma City or making fun of them. I just quoted your comment because it's what drew me to the new thread.



Just so I make sure I'm hearing this right, because I'm quoting a comment you made (by someone else), and didn't delete it in the new thread, all the sudden I'm being a homer?

IF anything, it's just me copying and pasting and being lazy about it. Get off your high horse.

Do you think OKC is shitty? If you do, and you're making a pro-blazer comment in the same post, i think you're a homer

my opinion

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

So your opinion is that if someone judges another team as being inferior to us, that automatically makes them a homer?

If that said team is clearly not inferior to the blazers

 

[RR7]

Clearly not inferior? So you see it fit to call others names based on your opinion of their opinion? Awesome.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Clearly not inferior? So you see it fit to call others names based on your opinion of their opinion? Awesome.

calling names? are you serious? damn dude...didnt know that calling someone a homer was such a transgression...excuse me

 

[RR7]

sorry, you must have meant it as a term of endearment.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

BTW, the reason i bring up this homerism, is because I am sick and tired of delusional Blazer fan who gets on S2 and on the Radio and explains their love for steve blake and how he is much better than miller and etc etc

And how roy needs the ball in his hands for this team to win and how he needs to be selfish etc.


Those people need to get there heads out of their asses

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

sorry, you must have meant it as a term of endearment.

Dont get butt hurt over it man....seriously

 

[julius]

Do you think OKC is shitty? If you do, and you're making a pro-blazer comment in the same post, i think you're a homer

my opinion

That's majorly flawed logic there. I'm quoting you, not saying it myself.

You were saying that someone said X, and you said "well, X is still better than Y" (Y being us as we currently stand).

SO I went off on the "currently stand" bit.

I'm not saying I agree with it.

You might have noticed that I A: didn't say one fucking word about OKC in the thread and B: brought up how even the analogy I brought up (comparing 4 injured players on a team vs team basis) wasn't easily transferable to other teams.

You made the most idiotic leap in logic I've seen in ages, and are just too stubborn to admit you fucked up by accusing me of being a homer because I quoted you commenting on someone elses' comment (which wasn't my own, nor something I backed up in this stupid thread).

Either that or you just think it's funny.

 

[RR7]

I'm not butt hurt over it at all.

 

[julius]

BTW, the reason i bring up this homerism, is because I am sick and tired of delusional Blazer fan who gets on S2 and on the Radio and explains their love for steve blake and how he is much better than miller and etc etc

And how roy needs the ball in his hands for this team to win and how he needs to be selfish etc.


Those people need to get there heads out of their asses

thanks for derailing the thread.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

That's majorly flawed logic there. I'm quoting you, not saying it myself.

You were saying that someone said X, and you said "well, X is still better than Y" (Y being us as we currently stand).

SO I went off on the "currently stand" bit.

I'm not saying I agree with it.

You might have noticed that I A: didn't say one fucking word about OKC in the thread and B: brought up how even the analogy I brought up (comparing 4 injured players on a team vs team basis) wasn't easily transferable to other teams.

You made the most idiotic leap in logic I've seen in ages, and are just too stubborn to admit you fucked up by accusing me of being a homer because I quoted you commenting on someone elses' comment (which wasn't my own, nor something I backed up in this stupid thread).

Either that or you just think it's funny.

Alright, i never ever mentioned you directly as agreeing with what i deemed to be homerism

When did i say that????

All i said is i dont understand the homerism sometime, not once did i mention or quote you

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

thanks for derailing the thread.

Ok. apologies.

 

[RR7]

that got me thinking..how would other teams handle the same # of losses to their team? And not like the bottom 4, I mean at least 2 starters, and 2 prominent bench players (but not their top two players).

Imagine the Lakers were without Bynum, Odom, Artest and Walton? I know they're not the equals to our missing (it's impossible to make exact comparisons).

How would the Spurs be if they lost 4 rotation players?

Well, to answer the question, I think the Lakers would probably be alright. Looking at other top teams:

Boston, taking the worst of their big 3 away, I'd say you remove Allen. And then Perkins, and two bench players. I think Rondo, Garnett and Pierce is enough to get them through the rough patch better than we will.

I think Cleveland would struggle. I think Orlando would be alright.

Hmm, really, I think the TOP teams could weather the storm, whereas most teams below us and around our level would struggle bad. All of the depth on other teams is a good thing, apaprently. Maybe as constructed, we have too many people concerned about shots, and less about winning, so having "depth" 10 deep is great when 10 guys know their role, but not when it's 10 guys that, while playing for the team, are also playing for themselves some. it's the difficulty of havign 8 guys on rookie scale contracts. Everyone wants to get paid.

 

[julius]

So, in hopes no one tries to continue an argument from an unrelated subject, I'd like to re-start this thread.

1. I don't think OKC sucks.

2. And on a totally unrelated note, I wonder how other teams would handle similar injury issues as the Blazers (like, 2 starters, and 2 bench players).

3. For example, if the Lakers lost Bynum, Odom, Artest and Walton (although the comparison isn't as accurate, but it's two starters and 2 bench players, and if you take away Bynum and Artest (which you could argue), you're not removing 4 rotation players who play a key role on the Lakers team).

4. OKC does not suck.

5. You could even make an argument to limit it to 3 players, since we started the season w/out Batum.

6. OKC does not suck.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

So, in hopes no one tries to continue an argument from an unrelated subject, I'd like to re-start this thread.

1. I don't think OKC sucks.

2. And on a totally unrelated note, I wonder how other teams would handle similar injury issues as the Blazers (like, 2 starters, and 2 bench players).

3. For example, if the Lakers lost Bynum, Odom, Artest and Walton (although the comparison isn't as accurate, but it's two starters and 2 bench players, and if you take away Bynum and Artest (which you could argue), you're not removing 4 rotation players who play a key role on the Lakers team).

4. OKC does not suck.

5. You could even make an argument to limit it to 3 players, since we started the season w/out Batum.

6. OKC does not suck.

The laker comparison is unfair because Roy != Bryant,

I would liken Roy to someone like Dirk....

If Dallas loses Marion, Drew Gooden and Jason Kidd

I think that that Dallas team with Dirk Dampier Howard Terry Barea, is better than this Blazer team