Which playoff series do you think we had the better roster and should have won but we didn't?

[wizenheimer]

I'd say 6 franchises have been clearly better the last 9 years and about 20 worse, so that puts the Blazers clearly above mid level mediocrity.

These franchises have been clearly better:
Lakers
Spurs
Warriors
Cavs
Heat
Raptors

Franchises that have been slighty or much worse
Wolves
Nuggets
Jazz
Grizzlies
Pelicans
Suns
Clippers
Mavs
Kings
Bucks
76ers
Hawks
Bulls
Hornets
Magic
Pacers
Knicks
Nets
Wizards
Pistons

About the same:
Rockets
Thunder
Celtics

I'm not sure I agree with your list. I think you have to give some credit to teams who have moved ahead or moved even recently, like the Bucks, Clippers, Nuggets, Jazz, 76ers. Blazers may have the flattest trajectory of that group; certainly, some of those teams have upward trajectories. Move those teams, along with Portland to a 2nd tier, and you're now talking about a dozen teams better or even. Being a perennial pretender instead of a contender smells like mediocrity to me. But we're probably getting a little too semantic

 

[KSF-ERIC]

I'm not sure I agree with your list. I think you have to give some credit to teams who have moved ahead or moved even recently, like the Bucks, Clippers, Nuggets, Jazz, 76ers. Blazers may have the flattest trajectory of that group; certainly, some of those teams have upward trajectories. Move those teams, along with Portland to a 2nd tier, and you're now talking about a dozen teams better or even. Being a perennial pretender instead of a contender smells like mediocrity to me. But we're probably getting a little too semantic

But what about good teams that now suck like Cavs, Warriors, and Raptors? I like having a chance every year and one of these years, we win it all.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

yeah, you're probably right. I didn't follow the thread...just saw Sly ask several questions and bones say he didn't want to engage with people who never watched games. doesn't make much sense the way I first saw it

It's just Bones, he don't like me much.

 

[KSF-ERIC]

It's just Bones, he don't like me much.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Hahahahaha!

 

[BonesJones]

are you saying Sly never watches the team play?

How in the world did you gather that?

Im saying the question/argument he's posting is based entirely off stuff that can be found by simply browsing the internet and not based on anything that you have to watch the team know. I dont understand how you think that means I'm saying he never watches games.

 

[BonesJones]

just saw Sly ask several questions and bones say he didn't want to engage with people who never watched games.

That's not what I said at all.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I'm not sure I agree with your list. I think you have to give some credit to teams who have moved ahead or moved even recently, like the Bucks, Clippers, Nuggets, Jazz, 76ers. Blazers may have the flattest trajectory of that group; certainly, some of those teams have upward trajectories. Move those teams, along with Portland to a 2nd tier, and you're now talking about a dozen teams better or even. Being a perennial pretender instead of a contender smells like mediocrity to me. But we're probably getting a little too semantic

As Eric said there's also title teams that now have no chance.

Yes there's a team or two that you can argue have been or will this year be more successful. However you finish those lists its clear there are more teams with less accomplishments the last 9 years than more accomplisments compared to the Blazers.

So that puts the Blazers above middling.

Look, it's unlikely Neil and Stotts are going to bring a title here in the next few years. But that was true before them, after their time, and irrespective of having Lillard.

There is a chance of a title. Probably need someone like Little to blow up unexpectedly to an allstar or a combo of multiple other guys make huge improvements.

Despite Neil and Terry flaws I'm unconvinced changing them will improve the odds of a title.

I've really enjoyed watching Lillard win the 0.9 series, beat the Clips, destroy OKC, CJ beat the Nuggets, and see the Lillard bubble MVP.

Every one of those moments exceeds the 2000-2013 period, as well as the 1993-1998 stretch of first round exits.

So I don't want to see this franchise throw away the next 5 years of Lillard accomplishments if it's chasing some extremely unlikely chance of a rare improvement leading to a title.

I think many fans are so fixated on title or bust they overlook the other accomplishments that do happen, as well as the rarity, difficulty, and bit of luck it takes to have a title team.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

That's bold.

the person should not have quoted my post and then made changes to “my quote.” THAT was bold!

to predict that the Lakers will not beat this Blazer team in a 7-game series...ya, that’s bold on my part with Lebron and AD nursing injuries and 6 weeks until the playoffs start - I think the Lakers are in a bit of trouble.

 

[wizenheimer]

As Eric said there's also title teams that now have no chance.

Yes there's a team or two that you can argue have been or will this year be more successful. However you finish those lists its clear there are more teams with less accomplishments the last 9 years than more accomplisments compared to the Blazers.

So that puts the Blazers above middling.

Look, it's unlikely Neil and Stotts are going to bring a title here in the next few years. But that was true before them, after their time, and irrespective of having Lillard.

There is a chance of a title. Probably need someone like Little to blow up unexpectedly to an allstar or a combo of multiple other guys make huge improvements.

Despite Neil and Terry flaws I'm unconvinced changing them will improve the odds of a title.

I've really enjoyed watching Lillard win the 0.9 series, beat the Clips, destroy OKC, CJ beat the Nuggets, and see the Lillard bubble MVP.

Every one of those moments exceeds the 2000-2013 period, as well as the 1993-1998 stretch of first round exits.

So I don't want to see this franchise throw away the next 5 years of Lillard accomplishments if it's chasing some extremely unlikely chance of a rare improvement leading to a title.

I think many fans are so fixated on title or bust they overlook the other accomplishments that do happen, as well as the rarity, difficulty, and bit of luck it takes to have a title team.

ok...that's all fair and a valid perspective

I just don't share it; or maybe it's better said that I'm coming at this from a different angle

and that angle starts when I was in college at the UofO. My first year there was also the first year of the Blazers. 7 years after that they won a championship, and after that title year, they were cruising along as the best team in the league when injuries derailed everything.....and the Blazers had to start over. About 10 years after that, Portland was a contender again with the Drexler-Porter teams. That team was derailed by bad timing as they got smacked by the last year of that great Piston's team, and the first year of the Bulls' dynasty. So, the Blazers had to reset the roster....

....and 7 years after that, they were a contender again with the Pippen/Sabonis teams. And a disastrous, bad luck, brain-fart 4th Q against the gawddam Lakers kept that team from winning rings

so then, if you're keeping track, that's less than a decade between contenders. Three legitimate contending teams in 30 years including a championship. And it's now 20 years later; two decades instead of less than one; and I haven't seen a contender in that time. Just a whole lot of acceptance of not having a real shot at a championship. Focus on the little things and lower the goals....maybe next year is the motto. It's not impossible to build a contender. Portland did it three times in 30 years. But it sure seems impossible for current management. This front office surfs on a tsunami of excuses, all while perhaps the greatest Blazer of all time burns thru his prime. I'll be 70 next year; I'd like to see another Blazer championship before I'm dust again. I know it's not impossible. So I'm not patient with Portland trotting out pretenders, year after year

sure....maybe it will be different this year. There is always some faint hope....until there's not

 

[e_blazer]

ok...that's all fair and a valid perspective

I just don't share it; or maybe it's better said that I'm coming at this from a different angle

and that angle starts when I was in college at the UofO. My first year there was also the first year of the Blazers. 7 years after that they won a championship, and after that title year, they were cruising along as the best team in the league when injuries derailed everything.....and the Blazers had to start over. About 10 years after that, Portland was a contender again with the Drexler-Porter teams. That team was derailed by bad timing as they got smacked by the last year of that great Piston's team, and the first year of the Bulls' dynasty. So, the Blazers had to reset the roster....

....and 7 years after that, they were a contender again with the Pippen/Sabonis teams. And a disastrous, bad luck, brain-fart 4th Q against the gawddam Lakers kept that team from winning rings

so then, if you're keeping track, that's less than a decade between contenders. Three legitimate contending teams in 30 years including a championship. And it's now 20 years later; two decades instead of less than one; and I haven't seen a contender in that time. Just a whole lot of acceptance of not having a real shot at a championship. Focus on the little things and lower the goals....maybe next year is the motto. It's not impossible to build a contender. Portland did it three times in 30 years. But it sure seems impossible for current management. This front office surfs on a tsunami of excuses, all while perhaps the greatest Blazer of all time burns thru his prime. I'll be 70 next year; I'd like to see another Blazer championship before I'm dust again. I know it's not impossible. So I'm not patient with Portland trotting out pretenders, year after year

sure....maybe it will be different this year. There is always some faint hope....until there's not

A healthy Blazers team certainly would have contended for a title with Roy, Aldridge and Oden as a core. That would have maintained your timeline of less than a decade between contenders. Unfortunately, Oden and Roy didn't have a healthy knee between them. You can certainly make a case that the choices of those players wasn't the wisest, but I don't think you can say there was complacency in building that team.

 

[wizenheimer]

A healthy Blazers team certainly would have contended for a title with Roy, Aldridge and Oden as a core. That would have maintained your timeline of less than a decade between contenders. Unfortunately, Oden and Roy didn't have a healthy knee between them. You can certainly make a case that the choices of those players wasn't the wisest, but I don't think you can say there was complacency in building that team.

point taken. although that team was healthy when they lost in the first round to the Rockets. But I never said there wasn't a bit of luck involved (including bad luck). But a team has to be willing to take risks, especially considering if they aren't contending they aren't risking much

I will say I tend to agree with you about that team. I know I was much more optimistic and excited about that team than in any of the Olshey/Stotts teams. Portland winning the lottery in 2007 was an apex of hope; 2 years later the reality of Roy/Oden knees was the nadir of despair

that team never made it to contender level though

 

[e_blazer]

point taken. although that team was healthy when they lost in the first round to the Rockets. But I never said there wasn't a bit of luck involved (including bad luck). But a team has to be willing to take risks, especially considering if they aren't contending they aren't risking much

I will say I tend to agree with you about that team. I know I was much more optimistic and excited about that team than in any of the Olshey/Stotts teams

The Blazers absolutely have to find a way to get a dominant PF. After watching the Bucks game, it's clear that building a team 3-point shooting is great (both teams are), but having a guy who can dominate in the paint is what kicks a team into true contention. In my Blazers dreaming at times I hope that Nurk can regain the Bosnian Beast mode he showed briefly when he first got here, but so far it's looking like the injuries and general happy-go-lucky attitude may keep him from getting back to that level. Unless that happens, trading CJ and picks for the best PF I could find would be my summer quest if I were in Olshey's shoes. I'm hoping that the acquisition of Powell signals that that's the plan.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

ok...that's all fair and a valid perspective

I just don't share it; or maybe it's better said that I'm coming at this from a different angle

and that angle starts when I was in college at the UofO. My first year there was also the first year of the Blazers. 7 years after that they won a championship, and after that title year, they were cruising along as the best team in the league when injuries derailed everything.....and the Blazers had to start over. About 10 years after that, Portland was a contender again with the Drexler-Porter teams. That team was derailed by bad timing as they got smacked by the last year of that great Piston's team, and the first year of the Bulls' dynasty. So, the Blazers had to reset the roster....

....and 7 years after that, they were a contender again with the Pippen/Sabonis teams. And a disastrous, bad luck, brain-fart 4th Q against the gawddam Lakers kept that team from winning rings

so then, if you're keeping track, that's less than a decade between contenders. Three legitimate contending teams in 30 years including a championship. And it's now 20 years later; two decades instead of less than one; and I haven't seen a contender in that time. Just a whole lot of acceptance of not having a real shot at a championship. Focus on the little things and lower the goals....maybe next year is the motto. It's not impossible to build a contender. Portland did it three times in 30 years. But it sure seems impossible for current management. This front office surfs on a tsunami of excuses, all while perhaps the greatest Blazer of all time burns thru his prime. I'll be 70 next year; I'd like to see another Blazer championship before I'm dust again. I know it's not impossible. So I'm not patient with Portland trotting out pretenders, year after year

sure....maybe it will be different this year. There is always some faint hope....until there's not

I'm fine with your or me or fans wanting the Blazers to be a contender, believe me I want it to. I loved the 2000 team with all that talent. The years of no contending chance sucks.

But I think having a legit contender every 10 years might have been spoiled. That isn't what happens with the average NBA franchise. Add to that the advantage big markets have, and once a team is a contender they usually stay at that spot a number of years.

There are teams like the Raptors, Mavs, and Pistons that were considered primary contenders then won a title so it can happen.

I look at it as the Blazers will need a combo of a few smart moves and a lot of luck to contend for a title. It's unlikely to happen, but possible, and I've accepted that.

I think both Olshey and Stotts could be management on a title team, so I don't believe they prevent the franchise from getting a title. I don't believe they are the best GM or Coach in the league, but I do think there are many who are much worse. I do think we have one of the lower basketball IQ owners, so I'm concerned about her or her team of advisors trying to pick a new GM/Coach and ultimately ending up with one that is far worse.

 

[Haakzilla]

Which playoff series do you think we had the better roster and should have won but we didn't?

Memphis?

New Orleans?

One of the complaints about Stotts is that he hasn't coached a team to the finals but I don't see a finals level roster during his tenure.

What do you think?

All of them. /

 

[illmatic99]

This is such a simplification of the question. It's not just winning the playoff series, it's that we're not even competitive.

We have been swept out of the playoffs the last four years in a row. And lost 4-1 to end the season in the three years prior. This team should not be getting swept that many years in a row, even if we were facing GS. I can stomach competitive playoff losses later in series in game 6 or game 7 because that tells you our coaching staff made adjustments and found matchups to exploit, or even manage to get more effort. Instead, we just roll over and die at the first sign of adversity.

And let's not forget that the GS we faced in the WCF was missing KD and starting Alfonso McKinnie and Jordan Bell. No reason to go 0-4 against that squad. Literally the only defense you can implement to take blame away from Stotts is that his players still respect him. That's it. Looking at the playoffs as a way to justify keeping him.... is a fool's errand. His playoff record is a disaster and the eye test only makes is worse. He's a regular season coach who gets you to a .500 record or slightly better. This roster has outgrown his ability.

 

[wizenheimer]

This is such a simplification of the question. It's not just winning the playoff series, it's that we're not even competitive.

We have been swept out of the playoffs the last four years in a row. And lost 4-1 to end the season in the three years prior. This team should not be getting swept that many years in a row, even if we were facing GS. I can stomach competitive playoff losses later in series in game 6 or game 7 because that tells you our coaching staff made adjustments and found matchups to exploit, or even manage to get more effort. Instead, we just roll over and die at the first sign of adversity.

And let's not forget that the GS we faced in the WCF was missing KD and starting Alfonso McKinnie and Jordan Bell. No reason to go 0-4 against that squad. Literally the only defense you can implement to take blame away from Stotts is that his players still respect him. That's it. Looking at the playoffs as a way to justify keeping him.... is a fool's errand. His playoff record is a disaster and the eye test only makes is worse. He's a regular season coach who gets you to a .500 record or slightly better. This roster has outgrown his ability.

in before kingspeed points out that the Blazers won a game in the playoffs last season

IIRC, this is how the last 7 playoffs have ended:

1-4
1-4
1-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
1-4

so then, 4-28 when the Blazers have faced a true contender or bad matchup (Pels)

 

[illmatic99]

in before kingspeed points out that the Blazers won a game in the playoffs last season

ah yes, the token win before anthony davis took his sweats off. how could i have forgotten?

 

[illmatic99]

IIRC, this is how the last 7 playoffs have ended:

1-4
1-4
1-4
0-4
0-4
0-4
1-4

so then, 4-28 when the Blazers have faced a true contender or bad matchup (Pels)

1-4 vs SAS
1-4 vs MEM
1-4 vs GSW
0-4 vs GSW
0-4 vs NOP
0-4 vs GSW
1-4 vs LAL

we got massacred.

 

[wizenheimer]

1-4 vs SAS
1-4 vs MEM
1-4 vs GSW
0-4 vs GSW
0-4 vs GSW
0-4 vs GSW
1-4 vs LAL

we got massacred.

that middle sweep was actually the Pels

 

[illmatic99]

that middle sweep was actually the Pels

right. corrected.