When healthy, we will have zero weaknesses.

[KingSpeed]

Now that Pendergraph has shown that he can be the rugged backup PF we've been looking for, we now have all the pieces we need. Honestly, where is the hole? We're stacked! No trades please.*



*unless it's Andre Miller for Antawn Jamison

 

[dreamcloud]

It's really all about putting Egos aside when all healthy. If that happens, we already have everything we need to win a championship. Hopefully this season can be a big learning experience for us.

 

[Driew]

Its not a question of when...its a question of if really....

 

[Entity]

Maybe if we can have them all at the same time they'll go out there with something to prove rather than feel the weight of expectations. People are calling Oden a bust after his injury, some people will probably call our whole team a bust the way things are going.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Anybody who honestly believes this team has zero weaknesses when healthy is smoking something.

 

[tlongII]

Anybody who honestly believes this team has zero weaknesses when healthy is smoking something.

Every team has weaknesses in some areas. I think our team has less weaknesses than any other in the NBA if we're healthy. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

 

[MIXUM]

"when" being the key word and IF we can ever stay healthy.

its the same as saying IF he doesn't hit the miracle three.. we win the game. on paper yes we are deep but in reality we are injury prone so it means nothing.

 

[anonymous gambler]

our weakness will still be perimeter defense- especially against speedy point guards.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I disagree. Without any trades we are begging for conflict. We have way too many good NBA players, with a rotation that shouldn't really exceed 9 players. A consolidation trade, IMO, is necessary -- we have some serious logjams. This depth is nice if we have major injuries like this year, but it isn't good for chemistry when fully healthy, which is what we will need for a title run.

We also still need many players to develop including Batum and Bayless (who will be huge for us) and Oden.

And then, we also have to get healthy, which is definitely an "If" instead of "When"... I agree with a previous poster there.

Go Blazers.

Edit - I also agree with the previous poster... perimeter defense. Though Batum back will greatly help our wing defense... hopefully Bayless develops into a very solid PG defender, but we don't have on now.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Every team has weaknesses in some areas. I think our team has less weaknesses than any other in the NBA if we're healthy. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

Too much finesse, too many jump shooters, not enough points in the paint, not enough toughness, not enough easy buckets, no second 'star', not enough perimeter defense, too many question marks at center about longevity/reliability, too many rookie scale or young guys who are still chasing their first big contract ... should I continue?

This is a 'nice' team that will probably continually post 'nice' regular season victories by utilizing its depth, it is not however even remotely constructed like a championship team, that is built to play playoff basketball.

 

[MIXUM]

kp needs to trade if we are gonna take another step.

1. get a scoring sf who can post up. batum can back up.

2. get a banger pf/center who scores in paint.

3. find out what kind of pg can play best with roy. its not miller.bayless? maybe but i think hes a backup.

 

[southnc]

I also disagree.

With everyone healthy, there will be a battle royal for minutes. I'm not surprised the team has been playing better lately. Since everyone is getting minutes, there is a lot less stress on players; everyone knows they'll be playing and will be more consistent. Minutes are everything to a player.

When everyone is back, they will need to make a trade and / or shed some of the current players.

 

[MIXUM]

it will be interesting to see where rudy fits when he comes back. im guessing sf

 

[tlongII]

Too much finesse, too many jump shooters, not enough points in the paint, not enough toughness, not enough easy buckets, no second 'star', not enough perimeter defense, too many question marks at center about longevity/reliability, too many rookie scale or young guys who are still chasing their first big contract ... should I continue?

This is a 'nice' team that will probably continually post 'nice' regular season victories by utilizing its depth, it is not however even remotely constructed like a championship team, that is built to play playoff basketball.

Too much finesse? - We have Oden, Przybilla, and Pendergraph. Those are 3 tough mofo's. I have no problem with our toughness.

Too many jump shooters? - This is a valid criticism, but we do have Roy, Bayless, Oden, and Aldridge who can take it to the rack.

Not enough easy buckets? - Last year we were the most efficient offensive team in the league. That would argue against your point.

Longevity/Reliability at center? - I can't argue this point. However, I would point out that the premise in my original post was that we be "healthy."

Too many rookie scale/young guys? - I disagree with this completely. Rookies and young guys are as likely, and possibly more likely, to buy into the team concept. Look at Pendergraph and Cunningham this season.

There is NO QUESTION that this team has all the pieces it needs to win a championship. All they need is health and a little luck.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Too much finesse? - We have Oden, Przybilla, and Pendergraph. Those are 3 tough mofo's. I have no problem with our toughness.

Too many jump shooters? - This is a valid criticism, but we do have Roy, Bayless, Oden, and Aldridge who can take it to the rack.

Not enough easy buckets? - Last year we were the most efficient offensive team in the league. That would argue against your point.

Longevity/Reliability at center? - I can't argue this point. However, I would point out that the premise in my original post was that we be "healthy."

Too many rookie scale/young guys? - I disagree with this completely. Rookies and young guys are as likely, and possibly more likely, to buy into the team concept. Look at Pendergraph and Cunningham this season.

There is NO QUESTION that this team has all the pieces it needs to win a championship. All they need is health and a little luck.

You really don't get it.

 

[shamelessblazer]

Buy Low (and consolidate): Diaw - looking bad this year, Rubio - won't ever come to Minn

Blake/Outlaw for Diaw - they just get out of his contract, he's a very fundamentally sound player, but it's not working for him next to Capn Jack for some reason. One of those guys who's a great passer and high IQ, but plays passive when not relied upon. Could help and raise our court IQ at the 4 position mainly, with spot minutes at 3 and 5.

Bayless for Rubio - Minnesota aint gonna wait forever for Rubio, and Bayless has raised his stock this year. Having him with Roy is duplication that causes all our shots from 1 or 2 and no movement in the offense whatsoever. He could be a very valuable tool (in the Arenas model) under the right coach, but not Nate.

next year:
Miller/Mills/Koponen (with Roy and Rudy getting the main backup minutes at 1)
Roy/Fernandez
Webster/Batum/Cunningham
Aldridge/Diaw
Oden/Pryzbilla/Pendergraph

with Rubio waiting in the wings (as Miller expires). That roster is much more balanced, and is very versatile IMO.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

Not enough easy buckets? - Last year we were the most efficient offensive team in the league. That would argue against your point.

It does not argue against the point.

An efficient offense has nothing to do with easy buckets, it is about making the most use of each possession. How many open layups to Blazers get? Open/easy short jumpers? Not very many. They are built on jump-shooting and, it seems, relatively little movement. IIRC, the Jack Ramsey teams were built on movement and ended up with quite a few relatively easy buckets because defenses would regularly lose their guy. Nate's offense is more ISO oriented which is often not a good indicator of easy buckets.

Not enough easy buckets. Yes. Efficient, sure. Not mutually exclusive.

Gramps...

 

[tlongII]

It does not argue against the point.

An efficient offense has nothing to do with easy buckets, it is about making the most use of each possession. How many open layups to Blazers get? Open/easy short jumpers? Not very many. They are built on jump-shooting and, it seems, relatively little movement. IIRC, the Jack Ramsey teams were built on movement and ended up with quite a few relatively easy buckets because defenses would regularly lose their guy. Nate's offense is more ISO oriented which is often not a good indicator of easy buckets.

Not enough easy buckets. Yes. Efficient, sure. Not mutually exclusive.

Gramps...

They are not mutually exclusive, but efficiency is definitely an indication that you are getting good shots.

 

[illmatic99]

our weakness will still be perimeter defense- especially against speedy point guards.

Nic coming back should help in that regard.

 

[tlongII]

Nic coming back should help in that regard.

As does Bayless when he gets minutes.

 

[Nikolokolus]

They are not mutually exclusive, but efficiency is definitely an indication that you are getting good shots.

It can be, but because offensive rebounds don't create another possession, but are part of the original possession, you can shoot a very middling field goal percentage but still post a high efficiency. If you want to see if a team is getting good high percentage shots, just look at team field goal percentage and points in the paint (which can come in transistion or on post ups). Right now (and even last year when they were so "efficient") they had a very mediocre field goal percentage and have always been close to dead last (or dead last) in points in the paint and transition buckets.

Part of this can probably be attributed to Nate, but the other part of the equation is that the players for the most part are not good ball handlers in traffic (aside from a couple of guards) and there are very few guys (aside from a couple of guards) who are adept at finishing at the rim or finishing through contact.

 

[andalusian]

It can be, but because offensive rebounds don't create another possession, but are part of the original possession, you can shoot a very middling field goal percentage but still post a high efficiency. If you want to see if a team is getting good high percentage shots, just look at team field goal percentage and points in the paint (which can come in transistion or on post ups). Right now (and even last year when they were so "efficient") they had a very mediocre field goal percentage and have always been close to dead last (or dead last) in points in the paint and transition buckets.

I am not buying this one bit. If you have good 3P shooters - giving them open 3P shots is an easy bucket. If you have players that are good in ISO situations, giving them the system where they can do that is getting good shots.

Just for an example, if we look at Portland's TS% - this year, with all the turmoil, we sit at a 54.5% - which is 12th in the league. If you look at our TS% from last year, and put it in the list for this year (I do not have TS% for the entire league from last year, so I calculated it for last year for the Blazers and put it in the list of this year's teams) - last year's Blazers TS% would put them 7th in the league.

Last year's team had 6 rotation players with TS% over 55% - which is fantastic (S-Bo also had more than 55%, but I eliminated him from the list). There is just no way so many rotation players had such high TS% if they did not get easy shots. These might not be easy shots in the "Shaq, 1ft from the basket with Frye guarding him" type - but if non contact drawing players like Blake, Rudy and Nic had over 55% TS% - they were getting easy shots.

If you look at our rotation players with over 1000 minutes last year, only one of them had a TS% of less than .500 (He is now a member of the Kings, for those who do not know it). For the record, LMA and Travis, which are the other 2 rotation players under 55% were not bad as well, with Travis at .541 and LMA at .529

Just as a comparison, the LAL, your NBA champions last year, had only 5 players over .55 in TS%, if you remove the 2 non rotation players (arbitrarily set as 1000 minutes) - they are down to 3.

This team gets enough easy shots. Sure, it would be nice to get some more back to the basket shots - but Greg's improvement helps in this regard, and JB's attack with no mercy attitude is another thing that will help this team.

Conclusion, the high efficiency offense was an indication that the team got enough easy shots. The problem is, and was, more on the defensive end of the court - and last year in the playoffs, their inexperience and a tough matchup exposed some of the obvious issues they had. But, they are clearly on the right track, health permitting, to be a contender - as far as the roster is concerned.

 

[DaRizzle]

[video=youtube;sX161ulHrSA]

I think Im just gonna start posting this clip in every KS thread

 

[Nikolokolus]

I am not buying this one bit. If you have good 3P shooters - giving them open 3P shots is an easy bucket. If you have players that are good in ISO situations, giving them the system where they can do that is getting good shots.

Just for an example, if we look at Portland's TS% - this year, with all the turmoil, we sit at a 54.5% - which is 12th in the league. If you look at our TS% from last year, and put it in the list for this year (I do not have TS% for the entire league from last year, so I calculated it for last year for the Blazers and put it in the list of this year's teams) - last year's Blazers TS% would put them 7th in the league.

Last year's team had 6 rotation players with TS% over 55% - which is fantastic (S-Bo also had more than 55%, but I eliminated him from the list). There is just no way so many rotation players had such high TS% if they did not get easy shots. These might not be easy shots in the "Shaq, 1ft from the basket with Frye guarding him" type - but if non contact drawing players like Blake, Rudy and Nic had over 55% TS% - they were getting easy shots.

If you look at our rotation players with over 1000 minutes last year, only one of them had a TS% of less than .500 (He is now a member of the Kings, for those who do not know it). For the record, LMA and Travis, which are the other 2 rotation players under 55% were not bad as well, with Travis at .541 and LMA at .529

Just as a comparison, the LAL, your NBA champions last year, had only 5 players over .55 in TS%, if you remove the 2 non rotation players (arbitrarily set as 1000 minutes) - they are down to 3.

This team gets enough easy shots. Sure, it would be nice to get some more back to the basket shots - but Greg's improvement helps in this regard, and JB's attack with no mercy attitude is another thing that will help this team.

Conclusion, the high efficiency offense was an indication that the team got enough easy shots. The problem is, and was, more on the defensive end of the court - and last year in the playoffs, their inexperience and a tough matchup exposed some of the obvious issues they had. But, they are clearly on the right track, health permitting, to be a contender - as far as the roster is concerned.

This team is built for the regular season right now. That's all those stats tell me. Without an ability to generate points in the paint, living and dying by the jumper and the three pointer is going to continue to be an issue for this team when matched up against the good defensive teams in the league who are adept at taking away a team's strength and making them beat you some other way in a seven game series. I would have thought the Rockets series last spring would have taught us that much.

 

[andalusian]

This team is built for the regular season right now. That's all those stats tell me. Without an ability to generate points in the paint, living and dying by the jumper and the three pointer is going to continue to be an issue for this team when matched up against the good defensive teams in the league who are adept at taking away a team's strength and making them beat you some other way in a seven game series. I would have thought the Rockets series last spring would have taught us that much.

That team did not have Oden playing anywhere as well as he did before he went down, it did not have JB playing anywhere as well as he does now - and it had a bunch of inexperienced kids that ran into a bad matchup. I am willing to bet that Travis, LMA would look better when they have a chance to go at it for the 2nd time, same is probably true for Rudy. Add JB attacking and whatever we do with Miller (be it him or whoever he is traded for) instead of Sergio/Blake playing all those minutes - and this team does not look anywhere as bad as it did.

There is something to be said about drawing conclusions from small sample sizes. We have a tiny one about this team in the playoffs - and when you consider the matchup and the inexperience... I would not be ready to proclaim them dead in the water, at all.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Anybody who honestly believes this team has zero weaknesses when healthy is smoking something.

We had a pretty stacked roster at the beginning of the year, and has multiple weaknesses.
Unless you think Nate would've played JP over Outlaw.

I agree that all the pieces are there. But they were there in October (Batum aside--and I'm counting Webster as an almost-equal replacement for Nic's production). I won't bring up my opinion why, but MM probably has some thoughts...

 

[Pinwheel1]

To me it comes down to Bayless. If Bayless is our guy next to BROY then we are set (When/IF healthy) If he proves to be the guy, then that means he will have succeeded at attacking the basket. With Roy, Greg, and LMA that is enough guys getting "easy baskets".

Bayless being that guys also means that Batum, Webster and Rudy can man the three spot.

If Bayless is not the guy then I agree that we need either another PG that can do these things that we hope Bayless is capable of, or we need it from the SF spot.

Needless to say Bayless has this year to prove he is the guy. His teammate's future depend on him too.

 

[KingSpeed]

If Bayless isn't the guy, Mills will be. Patty is averaging 38 ppg, 12 apg, & 1 tpg in the D-League. If he does half of that in the NBA, he's the answer.

 

[BrianFromWA]

He did it in 34 minutes. Jerryd Bayless is averaging 16 mpg. What makes you think patty's getting on the floor enough to score 19?

 

[Kaydow]

It can be, but because offensive rebounds don't create another possession, but are part of the original possession, you can shoot a very middling field goal percentage but still post a high efficiency. If you want to see if a team is getting good high percentage shots, just look at team field goal percentage and points in the paint (which can come in transistion or on post ups). Right now (and even last year when they were so "efficient") they had a very mediocre field goal percentage and have always been close to dead last (or dead last) in points in the paint and transition buckets.

Part of this can probably be attributed to Nate, but the other part of the equation is that the players for the most part are not good ball handlers in traffic (aside from a couple of guards) and there are very few guys (aside from a couple of guards) who are adept at finishing at the rim or finishing through contact.

I agree Nik. Our forwards can't handle the ball (even when at full strength with Batum, LA, Travis, Martell, & Dante) And they don't post up either. Basically, we have 2 guards guys who can attach the basket (B-Roy, JB) off the dribble.

Everybody seems to be calling for a "Motion Offense", but w/o wing ball handlers that's tough. What Motion Offense do we use? a 4 out 1 in? 3-2? Dribble/Drive? I would love to see it, but we need more versatile wings. That's where a guy like Hedo really could have helped.