Mike Barrett: Oden's injury "doesn't sound too serious"

[SodaPopinski]

Take it for what it's worth.

-Pop

 

[B-Roy]

His knee injury didn't sound "too" serious at first. Then boom, MF. GG

 

[RoyToy]

No point in speculating until the MRI imo. It'll just drive you nuts, or lead you to a huge letdown.

 

[maxiep]

His knee injury didn't sound "too" serious at first. Then boom, MF. GG

His knee injury wasn't serious. He tore some cartilage. MF is a preventative surgery. A decade ago they would have trimmed the damaged cartilage and he would have played a few weeks later. MF takes a year to heal.

 

[PapaG]

His knee injury wasn't serious. He tore some cartilage. MF is a preventative surgery. A decade ago they would have trimmed the damaged cartilage and he would have played a few weeks later. MF takes a year to heal.

That's what happened to me. If memory serves, that is what you had as well, no?

 

[Nikolokolus]

His knee injury wasn't serious. He tore some cartilage. MF is a preventative surgery. A decade ago they would have trimmed the damaged cartilage and he would have played a few weeks later. MF takes a year to heal.

Precisely.

 

[B-Roy]

His knee injury wasn't serious. He tore some cartilage. MF is a preventative surgery. A decade ago they would have trimmed the damaged cartilage and he would have played a few weeks later. MF takes a year to heal.

It was more serious than they originally had thought though, right? Which is why they opted for MF surgery to extend his career.

 

[tlongII]

I think Greg will be fine. I still think Nate screwed up on changing the starting lineup though. I still like Nate, but he effed up.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

I love Mike Barrett, I really do. He's a homer but he isn't over the top about it like Rice (or senile like Rice either). But whenever he talks about injuries and how it doesn't sound too serious there is always a knot in my stomach. Because it seems whenever he says it doesn't sound too serious it actually is serious. So while I love Mike Barrett, I do not like the Mike "doesn't sound too serious" Barrett.

 

[illmatic99]

Mri > mb.

 

[maxiep]

That's what happened to me. If memory serves, that is what you had as well, no?

Yep. MF was to extend his career, so that he plays 15-18 years instead of 8-10.

 

[maxiep]

It was more serious than they originally had thought though, right? Which is why they opted for MF surgery to extend his career.

Not really, it was in an area where losing the cartilage would be bone-on-bone, so they took the safe route.

 

[alex42083]

I think Greg will be fine. I still think Nate screwed up on changing the starting lineup though. I still like Nate, but he effed up.

Agreed, though we need to find out if Outlaw can ever be a starter in this league. And I think we've found that answer.
Even though Travis had a good stat line, he still looks better coming off the bench.

 

[bodyman5001]

Agreed, though we need to find out if Outlaw can ever be a starter in this league. And I think we've found that answer.
Even though Travis had a good stat line, he still looks better coming off the bench.

He would look even better playing for the Clippers. I don't know if I would even like it if he scored fifty a game in the herky jerky was he plays.

 

[KingSpeed]

Agreed, though we need to find out if Outlaw can ever be a starter in this league. And I think we've found that answer.
Even though Travis had a good stat line, he still looks better coming off the bench.

What are you TALKING about? Travis was the only one out there who could make shots. Without him in the starting lineup, we would've got schooled. And this whole thing about not wanting Travis to play with the starters is ridiculous. He played with the starters in every 4th quarter last season and he made all the big shots to help us win games.

What on EARTH did Outlaw do poorly tonight? Nothing. He got burned by Kobe a couple times, but who doesn't? He actually had some good defensive stands against the MVP.

 

[B-Roy]

What are you TALKING about? Travis was the only one out there who could make shots. Without him in the starting lineup, we would've got schooled. And this whole thing about not wanting Travis to play with the starters is ridiculous. He played with the starters in every 4th quarter last season and he made all the big shots to help us win games.

What on EARTH did Outlaw do poorly tonight? Nothing. He got burned by Kobe a couple times, but who doesn't? He actually had some good defensive stands against the MVP.

Just because he made them, doesn't mean he should have taken them in the first place. There were all challenged and tough shots and Outlaw chose to take these bad looks because he's....well he's Outlaw. You love him now, but in the next game he'll take the same shots but he'll miss them this time. The 4/15 he'll get won't look too great then.

 

[KingSpeed]

Just because he made them, doesn't mean he should have taken them in the first place. There were all challenged and tough shots and Outlaw chose to take these bad looks because he's....well he's Outlaw. You love him now, but in the next game he'll take the same shots but he'll miss them this time. The 4/15 he'll get won't look too great then.

Those were the ONLY shots ANYONE could get against the Lakers' SWARMING defense. Thank goodness we had someone who could make them.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

Zach could make those shots too sometimes. Of course he had to take many of them but he also contributed rebounding which Travis doesn't really do too well. And this never really got us very far. Well it did end up essentially getting up Rudy Fernandez so I guess there is a plus that came out of that.

 

[KingSpeed]

Just because he made them, doesn't mean he should have taken them in the first place. There were all challenged and tough shots and Outlaw chose to take these bad looks because he's....well he's Outlaw. You love him now, but in the next game he'll take the same shots but he'll miss them this time. The 4/15 he'll get won't look too great then.

Also, he hit a couple wide open threes when no one else was hitting anything. And what is wrong with taking "challenged shots" when that is all the Lakers are giving you??? Sometimes, you have to take them and make them.

 

[alex42083]

What are you TALKING about? Travis was the only one out there who could make shots. Without him in the starting lineup, we would've got schooled. And this whole thing about not wanting Travis to play with the starters is ridiculous. He played with the starters in every 4th quarter last season and he made all the big shots to help us win games.

What on EARTH did Outlaw do poorly tonight? Nothing. He got burned by Kobe a couple times, but who doesn't? He actually had some good defensive stands against the MVP.

Dude, I know you love jumping to conclusions after a game (ie Jarrett Jack last season, and the Jack is so much better than Devin Harris stuff).
But once Brandon, LaMarcus and (hopefully Greg) get going again, those shots aren't going to be available for Travis and all training camp and preseason, it was all about keeping the second unit (Sergio, Rudy, Travis, Frye and Joel) in tact.
Without Travis in the second unit, our bench really lacked any punch other than Rudy.

And this whole "without him in the starting lineup, we would've got schooled"? We did get schooled. We lost by 20 and were down by double digits all night.

 

[CelticKing]

He looks like an injury prone player though.

Hopefully its nothing serious.

 

[tlongII]

What are you TALKING about? Travis was the only one out there who could make shots. Without him in the starting lineup, we would've got schooled. And this whole thing about not wanting Travis to play with the starters is ridiculous. He played with the starters in every 4th quarter last season and he made all the big shots to help us win games.

What on EARTH did Outlaw do poorly tonight? Nothing. He got burned by Kobe a couple times, but who doesn't? He actually had some good defensive stands against the MVP.

Baloney. Travis was 1 for 2 in the 1st quarter. That is hardly preventing us from being schooled. It's not the point anyway. Nate showed a lack of confidence in the team by changing the lineup right before the game. That kind of thing seeps into the heads of young players. That is my opinion anyway.

 

[PapaG]

Baloney. Travis was 1 for 2 in the 1st quarter. That is hardly preventing us from being schooled. It's not the point anyway. Nate showed a lack of confidence in the team by changing the lineup right before the game. That kind of thing seeps into the heads of young players. That is my opinion anyway.

Tells me he should have been shooting more in the first quarter. Perhaps he read all the "experts" on this board who were telling him to pass up shots?

 

[BrianFromWA]

He may have shot more had he, you know, been moving without the ball.......or not been standing around watching people get rebounds. He had a good cross-court skip pass out of a double team that should have been picked off, but he got an assist, so that's good.

 

[PapaG]

He may have shot more had he, you know, been moving without the ball.......or not been standing around watching people get rebounds. He had a good cross-court skip pass out of a double team that should have been picked off, but he got an assist, so that's good.

Yet it wasn't, and he tied LMA in rebounds.

I don't understand the hatred for Outlaw.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Nothing against you PapaG, but I wish you wouldn't take things to the extreme and answer the question.

I don't hate Travis. In almost every one of my posts, I've gone out of my way to say that, pragmatically, the results he had last night were ok. I pointed out when he had passes (which he doesn't normally do), I pointed out that he made over half his shots (though he only had, iirc, one layup attempt). I pointed out that yes, he went 2-4 from 3, but there were all from the corner, which is where he was making them last year, and I didn't see any improvement in his range or versatility. I pointed out that he had 2 offensive boards, but MOST OF HIS 35 minutes were spent watching other people get rebounds (as evidenced by his rebound rate and R/40 min stats being 2 less than his averages last year, when most experts said he wasn't adding much rebounding). I pointed out that his true shooting percentages and FG% were well below league averages, in the face of people in here telling me he's a good shooter. I pointed out the pass he made as good for being an assist, but being very risky. Sergio made a pass like that, got intercepted by Lamar Odom, and didn't play again.

If Nate's using the "Pragmatism Rule" (if it works to get points, it's good), then he should be fired. I don't think he is, or should be. I've asked this multiple times now, and NO ONE has responded....what did Travis show you tonight to show that he improved one iota from last year?

Oh yeah, and in an unscientific sampling of looking at his game logs, Travis had 9 games last year where he shot 60% or higher. He had 13 games where he shot 30% or lower. So yes, this game was, from a points outlook, successful. From an outlook of him improving? No. As long as he's playing like this, he's setting himself up for this volume streak shooting. And that's not the mark of a good player.

 

[jwhoops11]

Really, the only problem with Travis in the starting line-up is he's a black hole with the ball. Anytime it's in his hands the ball movement stops and Travis dribbles, dribbles, dribbles and shoots a tough angled shot. I like Travis, and I think he has a place on this team, but the Blazers have better options on that starting unit, and Trav has a hard time getting them the ball.

 

[hasoos]

I don't hate Outlaw, but I agree with a lot of what is said. Basically with Outlaw it is like this: Either he is making shots, and useful on the floor, or he is a waste of Oxygen. Because if he isn't making shots, he sure isn't a defender, he sure isn't a good rebounder. He isn't much of a facilitator. But when he is making shots, sometimes he can get on a pretty good roll, which is valuable in itself.

Now that being said, I really missed Webster last night. He would have been one of those guys that moves without the ball that the Blazers needed in the lineup last night, and the outside shooting was atrocious. The Blazers only had one guy who was moving well without the ball last night, and his name was Rudy.

 

[PapaG]

Nothing against you PapaG, but I wish you wouldn't take things to the extreme and answer the question.

I don't hate Travis. In almost every one of my posts, I've gone out of my way to say that, pragmatically, the results he had last night were ok. I pointed out when he had passes (which he doesn't normally do), I pointed out that he made over half his shots (though he only had, iirc, one layup attempt). I pointed out that yes, he went 2-4 from 3, but there were all from the corner, which is where he was making them last year, and I didn't see any improvement in his range or versatility. I pointed out that he had 2 offensive boards, but MOST OF HIS 35 minutes were spent watching other people get rebounds (as evidenced by his rebound rate and R/40 min stats being 2 less than his averages last year, when most experts said he wasn't adding much rebounding). I pointed out that his true shooting percentages and FG% were well below league averages, in the face of people in here telling me he's a good shooter. I pointed out the pass he made as good for being an assist, but being very risky. Sergio made a pass like that, got intercepted by Lamar Odom, and didn't play again.

If Nate's using the "Pragmatism Rule" (if it works to get points, it's good), then he should be fired. I don't think he is, or should be. I've asked this multiple times now, and NO ONE has responded....what did Travis show you tonight to show that he improved one iota from last year?

Oh yeah, and in an unscientific sampling of looking at his game logs, Travis had 9 games last year where he shot 60% or higher. He had 13 games where he shot 30% or lower. So yes, this game was, from a points outlook, successful. From an outlook of him improving? No. As long as he's playing like this, he's setting himself up for this volume streak shooting. And that's not the mark of a good player.

I'll take the opinion of Nate and KP over the opinion of "Brian from WA" or whatever. I'm not the one taking this to an extreme. Outlaw played a solid game last night, and you are one of the primary people bashing him.

Your bias is duly noted.

 

[Ed O]

If Nate's using the "Pragmatism Rule" (if it works to get points, it's good), then he should be fired. I don't think he is, or should be. I've asked this multiple times now, and NO ONE has responded....what did Travis show you tonight to show that he improved one iota from last year?

Another, similar question might be this: What did Outlaw do to earn a second Nobel Prize last night?

Your question is silly.

How can we look at one game where, almost to a man, the Blazers sucked and judge Outlaw and his progress from last year? Even if we CAN do so... why?

Ed O.