The optimism (this season) about the Blazers is ludicrous

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Oh come on, making a thread like this is stupid. We're all fans of the Blazers, that's why we're posting here, and we're excited to see a new season with young talent and a style of play that is supposed to differ from what we've seen for six years.
So what if some of us have higher expectations then others, that's why we discuss things here. This is the first season in the last 4 that we really don't have playoffs in our sights and we're not waiting for/players to come back and finally be healthy. It's a season because we don't have expectations to meet any good thing that happens is awesome.
Even if we really suck were gonna have a high draft pick and a shot at a franchise changing player.
To clarify my ramblings I have no problem with you posting this but making a new thread for it and giving it a title that seems to be calling out people for being optimistic just seems a little extreme given we haven't even seen a preseason game never mind it's 20 days from actual tip off
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
 
MARIS61 said:
crandc's avatars are all of gay men. Not the average normal looking out of shape gay guys, nor the flamboyantly exhibitionistic gay guys.

I suspect she only uses the studly athletic model type gay guys in an attempt to give you an unwanted and embarrassing erection. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Damn, Maris, this alone is reason to never put you on an ignore list. Pure gold. I did not want to make the leap that all her guys were gay, but I had suspected as much, with the pride she shows for her community. LOL thanks for the laugh!
 
The playoffs are not ludicrous. Many times you only have to be .500 to make the playoffs, half the teams in the NBA make it. No one on the Blazers starting 5 is really a below average starter. And who knows what Batum and Lillard are capable of?

The bench may not be as bad as some of you think. Freeland, Claver, Barton, and Leonard can all score from inside and out.
 
Last edited:
blazerboy30 said:
I'm not so sure. I think there is something to be said for having a near-superstar on the team. It isn't often that a team with a superstar finishes worst in the league.
Click to expand...

What about a team with a 'near' superstar?
 
McGrady was playing at a superstar level the year the Magic finished with the worst record in the league. They got the #1 pick and drafted Dwight Howard. Then they traded McGrady to Houston.

Paul Pierce was playing at a very high level with the Celtics the year before they formed the big 3. That team was atroucious and in the running for one of the top draft picks. Pierce may not have been one of the leagues superstars that season but he was better than our one time All-star LaMarcus.
 
Minnesota with Love 2 years ago?
 
Kevin Durant's 2nd year in the league?
 
HCP said:
This is why not one person in this place likes you one bit! You bring up some very valid points, it's just the way you type them. Take a step back and breathe and quit comin' on here all crazy style. You'll get these people respect if you just tone it down a tad.
Click to expand...

C'mon HCP, he's a total rookie. It's spelled m-o-r-o-n.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
have been a fan long enough to take the ups along with the downs..
Click to expand...

That's an oddly fitting half glass empty way of looking at the life of a Blazers fan. Shouldn't we be taking the downs along with the ups?
 
Last edited:
Mods please edit. The thread should read...
The threads (this season) about the Blazers are ludicrous
 
RR7 said:
25 and 6, and arguably #2 SF in the league. I'd say as good if not better.
Click to expand...

The advanced stats are close, but clearly in Aldridge's favor. [comparison link]

Aldridge last year vs. Durant in his second year--Aldridge's PER, eFG%, RB%, TO%, Ortg, Drtg, and WS/48 were all better than Durant's.
 
Weird, the original poster made a very inflammatory post, and didn't respond or post again...
 
PtldPlatypus said:
To be fair, Brand missed 20 games due to injury that year, Maggette 18, Odom 33, Richardson 23, Olowokandi 46--that Clippers team may have been more snakebitten by injuries than any Blazer team.
Click to expand...

He asked. And I do think Brand was a top 15 player.
 
Last year Kobe, Nash and Howard were on different teams, meaning there were 3 different teams that were a tough out for a rebuilding team like Portland. Before that Bosh, Wade and LeBron were also on different teams. That's 6 teams that were once much more competitive consolidated down to 2. (7 if you recognize that in any just world Pau Gasol would not be a Laker.)

Because of the consolidation of talent into superteams, I just don't feel like the NBA is as competitive overall as it once was. Sure, we'll get spanked by Miami, Lakers and Thunder, but so will everyone else.

I tend to be on the optimistic side of the fanbase, thinking we can squeak in to the playoffs if things roll the right way. But part of my thinking is that there are just a lot more mediocre teams in the league than there use to be, so a mediocre team like ours has a better chance.
 
Denny Crane said:
He asked. And I do think Brand was a top 15 player.
Click to expand...

Note that I didn't dispute that about Brand.

Taking the discussion all the way back to its nascent stages, BlazerBoy was initially asking about Carlito's claim that this is a 25-win roster as is, which is what prompted the question about when a team with a top-15 player finished in the bottom 5. Yes, the answer is technically correct, but an injury-riddled example like the '03 Clippers isn't really relevant to the initial claim and question, which is why I brought up that point. Had that roster not been beset by injuries, they would probably have been closer to a .500 squad--similar to what can be said about this year's Blazers, IMO.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Note that I didn't dispute that about Brand.

Taking the discussion all the way back to its nascent stages, BlazerBoy was initially asking about Carlito's claim that this is a 25-win roster as is, which is what prompted the question about when a team with a top-15 player finished in the bottom 5. Yes, the answer is technically correct, but an injury-riddled example like the '03 Clippers isn't really relevant to the initial claim and question, which is why I brought up that point. Had that roster not been beset by injuries, they would probably have been closer to a .500 squad--similar to what can be said about this year's Blazers, IMO.
Click to expand...

My take is the Blazers have a nice starting 5 if Lillard is truly NBA ready at PG. PG is a position where guys who are excellent take a few years to get to that level. If he doesn't, the offensive chemistry could be shaky at best.

It's the bench that's going to make it tough to win over the long haul, IMO.

If the team is healthy and the starters log a lot of minutes, I can see a near .500 team.

If one of the starters misses 20 games, I think it's going to be a long tough season.
 
Denny Crane said:
My take is the Blazers have a nice starting 5 if Lillard is truly NBA ready at PG. PG is a position where guys who are excellent take a few years to get to that level. If he doesn't, the offensive chemistry could be shaky at best.

If the team is healthy and the starters log a lot of minutes, I can see a near .500 team.
Click to expand...

I think this a tad overly optomistic. Of the current projected starting 5, only LA is remotely above average as a player. I think if we stay healthy we win no more than 32 games.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
I think this a tad overly optomistic. Of the current projected starting 5, only LA is remotely above average as a player. I think if we stay healthy we win no more than 32 games.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Batum and Hickson are both above average as players, and Matthews is actually very good compared to other SGs around the league.

If Lillard gets you at least 15/6 and can stay in games for starters' minutes, the starting lineup would be solid.

As I said, it's the bench that looks thin. You want a guy on the bench who can step in for an extended period and not be a significant drop off in talent.

If you have to play Nolan Smith 20 games at PG, or start Babbitt or Jeffries, yikes!
 
Now I'm laughing!

I bet Minnesota Viking Chris Kluwe, my current avi, (don't you recognize him? Of course, you're probably used to seeing him in cleats and helmet) would be surprised to learn he's gay. He is arguably the LGBT community's favorite NFL player but he's not gay.

Neither is Chris Dudley, whose photo in swimsuit graced my avi list.
Or the Dutch Olympic speed skater, wearing skates. Just skates. He's also straight.
Santiago Holmes is straight.
So is the Estonian married male ballet dancer Tiit Helimets, who graced my avi in scanty Apollo costume. And aggressively straight ballet dancer Ethan Stiefel, posed on his motorcycle.

For that matter, my niece's Bat Mitzvah cake was way too girly to be gay.

Ah, assumptions....

And games are decided on the field/court. Not in message boards, not in the offices of sports pundits. While it may be a safe guess that the Heat will be good and the Kings bad, overall, sports predictions are very often wrong. With a team like the Blazers it's hard to predict, they good be good, struggling or mediocre - I honestly don't think they'll be dreadful, though.

Go A's. And Go Blazers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ABM
File Under: Most Ludicrous Idea Of The Year
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Jade Falcon
Jade Falcon
GrandpaBlaze
Is this how?
Replies
5
Views
641
craigehlo
craigehlo
MIXUM
The depth the blazers once had is gone and canzano agrees
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Shooter
Shooter
MIXUM
Blazers are pure speculation at this point
Replies
4
Views
512
Nate Dogg
Nate Dogg
Natebishop3
This is the difference...
Replies
18
Views
760
shamelessblazer
S

Users who are viewing this thread

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