Event Was the 99/2000 team wrongly maligned all these years? (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

julius

Living on the air in Cincinnati...
Staff member
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
46,349
Likes
35,465
Points
113
(for @THE HCP, maligned means to speak about (someone) in a spitefully critical manner.)


We've had 25+ years to let that 99/2000 team stew in our hearts, and it got me thinking about a few things. Some of what Damon Stoudamire said resonated with me.

First though, I'd like to clarify things. I always preferred the 99 team over the 99/2000 team, but I think common sense and logic has prevailed that the 99 team massively over achieved. Especially given it was a weird ass year. That was the year that cemented Brian Grant as a fan favorite. The hustle and grit of that 99 team should be spoken of when speaking of Blazer teams that we admire. The 99/2000 team though, for some reason, seemingly doesn't get the respect or adoration it deserves. Be it unfairly comparing it to the 77, 90-92 teams, or weirdly assigning the term "Jail Blazers" to that team when that was far more evident in subsequent seasons.

Yes, Trader Bob tinkered with that team and it careened straight into a buzzsaw that was the Lakers of 2000-01 (having only lost 1 game in the playoffs that year). Yes, that loss in 00 was arguably one of the most painful experiences we've had as Blazer fans. But I'd argue that most of the things that get lumped onto the 00 team (in retrospect) isn't fairly dumped onto them.

I don't think we should blame the 00 team for the actions of 00 and onward, especially since if you look back at those teams, the teams post 2000 just were a clusterfuck of TB trying desperately to cling onto the magic of the 00 team. Not necessarily in keeping the players, quite the opposite actually (they added lots of players that were underwhelming at best).

Looking back on the post title teams, and the post 90-92 teams, those teams were aging and lacked a lot of oomph. I think it's why a lot of people don't really look back on the 93-96 Blazers fondly. Same thing was true with the 01-04 teams. But I think a lot of the stupid shit that the 01-04 teams did are saddled onto the 99-00 teams reputation.




*caveat* I know that the 99-00 team wasn't perfect, but most of the "Jail Blazer" reputation shit comes from after that team. So I don't consider that team part of the "Jail Blazer" era.
 
I'm fully with Antonio Harvey's comments during the TV broadcast... if the officials had called the PDX v LA series straight up, Portland wins and goes on to best the Pacers with ease. The better team was vilified (look it up @THE HCP) all season by the media and predictably lost to the one that got much better ratings. That was maybe the best Trailblazer team ever and I'll always remember them as such.

STOMP
 
I'm fully with Antonio Harvey's comments during the TV broadcast... if the officials had called the PDX v LA series straight up, Portland wins and goes on to best the Pacers with ease. The better team was vilified (look it up @THE HCP) all season by the media and predictably lost to the one that got much better ratings. That was maybe the best Trailblazer team ever and I'll always remember them as such.

STOMP

Agreed, top to bottom, there was probably not a team with more talent. I remember the joke being that the 2nd five would probably win 45 games as starters.
 
I think the 90-91 team was better. We kicked the Bulls ass in the regular season.
 
if the 1977 Blazers championship team was playing today, under today's rules, they'd be giving OKC a run for the money
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top