Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I agree the article is bs, but he did say in a few years so I'm surprise people think us kicking them now means anything relative to his article.
 
mgb said:
I agree the article is bs, but he did say in a few years so I'm surprise people think us kicking them now means anything relative to his article.
Click to expand...


His overriding point was that Durant was a "superstar". Nic Batum just shut down a "superstar", while OKC had to double ordinary player Brandon Roy.
 
PapaG said:
Well, one reason may be because Bucher basically said Durant was a "superstar" and didn't give Roy the same stature. OKC doubled Roy out top. A Blazer rookie shut down Durant straight up.

So that's why.
Click to expand...

Did he say Durant was a superstar now?
 
RoyToy said:
There's more than just players that make a winning franchise. Coaches, GM, owner. Portland has the edge in all of these, and probably will in the future.
Click to expand...
Sam Presti hasn't done too bad for himself, considering the Sonics/Thunder have had like 20 picks in every draft since he took over.
 
PapaG said:
This thread is about Bucher and his opinion on why OKC will be better than Portland. If you want to give your own opinion that differs from his, I'm all eyes.
Click to expand...
*Mel Gibson lethal weapon voice* Its just been hijacked.
 
Last edited:
mgb said:
Did he say Durant was a superstar now?
Click to expand...

Ya, rereading it I guess he pretty much did say that Durant was better than Roy at this point. Wonder how he'll feel after this game?
 
LeBron was always a monster, build wise - so for him to become a good defensive player is an awful lot easier than it is for Durant - who is nowhere near as strong as most opponents he plays against. In comparison - LeBron is almost always stronger than the guys he plays against.

I just do not think Durant has what it takes to become a great defensive player. He has the length and the wingspan - he does not have the lateral speed or strength. That's why I am certain that Nic Batum will always be a better defender than him. Durant is great as a complimentary scorer. When he is your #1 player - you are just not going to go anywhere significant.

The earlier OKC realizes they go as far as Westbrook takes them - the better it is for them.
 
mgb said:
I agree the article is bs, but he did say in a few years so I'm surprise people think us kicking them now means anything relative to his article.
Click to expand...

Because tonight was the perfect illustration of exactly what OKC is lacking to become a serious contender - a dominant rebounder/interior defender. The Blazers just tore them apart on the glass (57-32) and killed them in the paint (46-26). They have no one on their roster with any chance of becoming the type of big man they will need to contend. They got 2 points and 2 rebounds out of their starting center. Their PG was their leading rebounder. If Channing Frye played for them he'd be their best big man - by far.

And here's the thing about great big men... they don't come around very often. Even half-way decent centers are hard to find. The Sonics spent years wasting draft picks on guys like Swift, Sene and Petro and none of them panned out. Until they address this need, I don't see how anyone can consider them to be a potential contender. It's simply too glaring a weakness to gloss over.

Bucher TOTALLY overlooked this obvious flaw in his "analysis", but he seems to think the Blazers can't improve their PG between now and whenever it is he thinks OKC will be a contender. As it stands now, the Blazers PG situation is a total non-issue compared to what the Thunder are lacking.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Because tonight was the perfect illustration of exactly what OKC is lacking to become a serious contender - a dominant rebounder/interior defender. The Blazers just tore them apart on the glass (57-32) and killed them in the paint (46-26). They have no one on their roster with any chance of becoming the type of big man they will need to contend. They got 2 points and 2 rebounds out of their starting center. Their PG was their leading rebounder. If Channing Frye played for them he'd be their best big man - by far.

And here's the thing about great big men... they don't come around very often. Even half-way decent centers are hard to find. The Sonics spent years wasting draft picks on guys like Swift, Sene and Petro and none of them panned out. Until they address this need, I don't see how anyone can consider them to be a potential contender. It's simply too glaring a weakness to gloss over.

Bucher TOTALLY overlooked this obvious flaw in his "analysis", but he seems to think the Blazers can't improve their PG between now and whenever it is he thinks OKC will be a contender. As it stands now, the Blazers PG situation is a total non-issue compared to what the Thunder are lacking.

BNM
Click to expand...

I like this.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Because tonight was the perfect illustration of exactly what OKC is lacking to become a serious contender - a dominant rebounder/interior defender. The Blazers just tore them apart on the glass (57-32) and killed them in the paint (46-26). They have no one on their roster with any chance of becoming the type of big man they will need to contend. They got 2 points and 2 rebounds out of their starting center. Their PG was their leading rebounder. If Channing Frye played for them he'd be their best big man - by far.

And here's the thing about great big men... they don't come around very often. Even half-way decent centers are hard to find. The Sonics spent years wasting draft picks on guys like Swift, Sene and Petro and none of them panned out. Until they address this need, I don't see how anyone can consider them to be a potential contender. It's simply too glaring a weakness to gloss over.

Bucher TOTALLY overlooked this obvious flaw in his "analysis", but he seems to think the Blazers can't improve their PG between now and whenever it is he thinks OKC will be a contender. As it stands now, the Blazers PG situation is a total non-issue compared to what the Thunder are lacking.

BNM
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Steve Blake, our under-appreciated point guard, completely outplayed Westbrook.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Because tonight was the perfect illustration of exactly what OKC is lacking to become a serious contender - a dominant rebounder/interior defender. The Blazers just tore them apart on the glass (57-32) and killed them in the paint (46-26). They have no one on their roster with any chance of becoming the type of big man they will need to contend. They got 2 points and 2 rebounds out of their starting center. Their PG was their leading rebounder. If Channing Frye played for them he'd be their best big man - by far.

And here's the thing about great big men... they don't come around very often. Even half-way decent centers are hard to find. The Sonics spent years wasting draft picks on guys like Swift, Sene and Petro and none of them panned out. Until they address this need, I don't see how anyone can consider them to be a potential contender. It's simply too glaring a weakness to gloss over.

Bucher TOTALLY overlooked this obvious flaw in his "analysis", but he seems to think the Blazers can't improve their PG between now and whenever it is he thinks OKC will be a contender. As it stands now, the Blazers PG situation is a total non-issue compared to what the Thunder are lacking.

BNM
Click to expand...

Forward this to Ric and I'm sure you will see him cry.
 
LOL!!!

Bulletin board, baby!

About an hour before tipoff, LaMarcus Aldridge sat in front of his locker with his headphones over his ears, lost in thought. He appeared a little more serious than usual. A little more intense. There was little doubt he was focused.

So what was up, LaMarcus?

Aldridge nudged a headphone off one of his ears and reached for a piece of paper.

"Did you see this?" Aldridge said.

It was a photocopy of a story in the Oklahoma City newspaper, which trumpeted how a writer for a national publication was preparing to publish a story saying the Thunder had a brighter future than the Blazers.

Two paragraphs were underlined in red ink: One said the Blazers didn't have a superstar; the other said the Blazers didn't have a point guard.

On Friday, they had both.
Click to expand...

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/04/trail_blazers_trounce_thunder.html
 
PapaG said:
Clearly someone on the coaching staff used this article for motivation. Nate had to approve it, I'm sure, so I really think you have to give Nate credit for using Bucher's idiocy as motivation.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I heard MB say that he and the other broadcasting staff did it. Am I wrong?
 
Concerning Durant vs. Roy and which, if either, is a "superstar".

The most notable stat where Durant holds an advantage is PPG. He's a high volume scorer on a team with few other options. Prior to tonight's game, Durant was averaging 25.8 PPG to Roy's 23.0. Not a huge advantage, but a definite edge to Durant in this one particular stat. Of course, the Blazers play at a much slower pace than OKC and this accounts for most of the scoring differential. Durant attempts 19.1 FG per game to Roy's 17.3. If Roy attempted 19.1 FG per game,. he'd be averaging 25.4 PPG. So, still a slight edge to Durant, but it's very slight.

However, there's more to offense than scoring and more to basketball than offense. In terms of PER, which is heavily biased towards offensive play, Roy has a significant 24.2 to 21.1 advantage over Durant. In terms of win shares, Roy again has a significant advantage 11.5 vs. 7.6. Rather than using the often misunderstood +/- stat, which is really more of a measure of team performance, when looking at a players net effect on his team, I like to use Offensive Rating minus Defensive Rating, or ORtg - DRtg. This is the difference between how many points a player scores per 100 possessions vs. how many points he allows his opponent top score per 100 possessions. For Brandon Roy, the numbers are 123 - 110 = 13. So, his net impact is a positive 13 points per 100 possessions. Durant's numbers are 111 - 109 = 2. So, his net contribution is a positive 2 points per 100 possessions.

Now, tell me again, which one's the superstar?

BNM
 
Wow you really gotta give props to the Nate/coaching staff for always finding these extra motivators before the games for the players, whether it's a speech, or highlight mix to pump the guys up, or showing them articles to piss them off. Great work
 
e_blazer said:
Not to mention that Steve Blake, our under-appreciated point guard, completely outplayed Westbrook.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone falls in love with flashy play and "upside" but when it comes right down to it, right now Steve Blake is a better PG than Russell Westbrook.

Westbrook had a slight edge in PER (15.2 vs. 14.8) going into tonight's game. After Blake totally outplayed Westbrook tonight, the gap will be even more narrow (probably something like 15.1 vs. 14.9). But consider this:

ORtg - DRtg:

Blake
119 - 111 = +8

Westbrook
100 - 110 = -10

Blake produces 8 more points than he gives up per 100 possessions. Westbrook gives up 10 more points than he produces.

Yes, Westbrook is young and very athletic, and will likely improve as he gains experience but right now, today, Blake will win more games for his team than Westbrook. Westbrook scores more, but Blake is a much more efficient scorer. Westbrook also turns the ball over more than twice as much as Blake. Blake's AST/TO ratio = 3.125. Westbrook's AST/TO ratio is an unimpressive 1.5.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Now, tell me again, which one's the superstar?
Click to expand...

Neither.

Durant is over four years younger than Roy, and I think he's got a much larger chance of becoming a top 5-10 NBA player than Roy, which is a pretty good definition of a superstar, I think.

Ed O.
 
In many* aggregated stat sets, Roy's #7 in the league... which puts him in the top 10. So neither is not exactly the most correct of answers by your own criteria.

*many may actually only be Hollinger... it's late and I'm delerious. :D
 
Ed O said:
Neither.

Durant is over four years younger than Roy, and I think he's got a much larger chance of becoming a top 5-10 NBA player than Roy, which is a pretty good definition of a superstar, I think.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Roy is currently 7th in the league in PPG, 7th is total points, 7th in PER, 4th in Offensive Rating, 3rd in Offensive Win Shares and 7th in Total Win Shares. Sounds like he's already a top 10 player to me - and still getting better.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Roy is currently 7th in the league in PPG, 7th is total points, 7th in PER, 4th in Offensive Rating, 3rd in Offensive Win Shares and 7th in Total Win Shares. Sounds like he's already a top 10 player to me - and still getting better.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't think he's a top 10 player, and I don't think many people would agree with you.

I love stats and all, and I love Brandon, but I think it's a stretch to think that he's one of the 10 best players in the NBA.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
Neither.

Durant is over four years younger than Roy, and I think he's got a much larger chance of becoming a top 5-10 NBA player than Roy, which is a pretty good definition of a superstar, I think.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

I would humbly submit (and since All-NBA teams haven't been published yet, I could be wrong) that through various places in the print, television, radio and online universe Roy's about as consensus a #7-9 MVP candidate as you'll find. Second- or Third-Team All-NBA, depending on how they divvy up the guard positions (if they put K*be #1 SG and Wade #2 SG, rather than K*be and Wade as First-Team guards...then Paul and Roy, then the rest.)

Since Roy's already Top 5-10, I don't think Durant has a "much larger chance" of being a top 5-10 since 100% is about as good as you can get. If you say that Durant's chances of winning an MVP are higher, I'll give you that, though I think I could debate that as well. If Top 5-10 is "superstar", Roy's there.
 
Ed O said:
Yeah. I don't think he's a top 10 player, and I don't think many people would agree with you.
I love stats and all, and I love Brandon, but I think it's a stretch to think that he's one of the 10 best players in the NBA.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Huh? The StatHead refutes that actual stats?

Roy is a Top 10 player in the NBA right now, and to think differently by any matrix is laughable.
 
Ed O said:
Yeah. I don't think he's a top 10 player, and I don't think many people would agree with you.

I love stats and all, and I love Brandon, but I think it's a stretch to think that he's one of the 10 best players in the NBA.

Ed O.
Click to expand...

Well then, we're just going to have to disagree.

I clearly stated the basis for my opinion. What's yours?

What if Roy makes 2nd team all-NBA or comes in within the top 10 in MVP voting? Will that change your opinion? If either of those happen, it will clearly show that "many" people agree with me.

BNM
 
Ed O said:
Neither.

Durant is over four years younger than Roy, and I think he's got a much larger chance of becoming a top 5-10 NBA player than Roy, which is a pretty good definition of a superstar, I think.

Ed O.
Click to expand...
so you don't think roy is currently a top 5-10 nba player? because he is. absolutely no doubt about it.

oh and i guess i should have read the rest of the thread as you addressed the point on this page. you are wrong though. roy is definitely a top 10 player.
 
Last edited:
rocketeer said:
so you don't think roy is currently a top 5-10 nba player? because he is. absolutely no doubt about it.
Click to expand...

Ed is a simple contrarian. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to back his claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top