# Call me crazy, but I'm actually optimistic about this team



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I won't yet say I'm optimistic we'll make the playoffs, but I have a good feeling this team will surprise people. Contrary to teams the Blazers have fielded in the past (which arguably have been underachieving), this team is full of players who have points to prove:

- Zach Randolph (coming off knee surgery, skepticism about whether or not he can be the old Zach)
- Ruben Patterson (hell, this guy ALWAYS has something to prove)
- Theo Ratliff (Joel took his job last season - can he be healthy and a shot-blocking force again?)
- Joel Przybilla (last year wasn't a fluke - or was it?)
- Sebastian Telfair (lots of hype, now he's being given the reins - is he worth it?)
- Travis Outlaw (he's had the time on the bench to learn, now is he ready to contribute on a regular basis?)
- Charles Smith (needs to prove he belongs in the league after dominating in Italy)
- Viktor Kryapa (showed flashes last year)
- Sergei Monya (was reeled in over in Europe last year - wants to prove he's still a player)
- Juan Dixon (not appreciated in Washington - now given a fresh start and a chance to lead)

Somebody a lot smarter than me once said "challenges are just opportunities in disguise." My point is that a lot of these guys, while some may look at them as projects, have a chip on their shoulder. They've been given a chance to shine and they have the motivation to go along with it. And I don't think that's necessarily an accident on John Nash's part. Maybe that's what he's shooting for. Bring in guys who are undervalued and have every motivation in the world to prove to the league and the fans they can compete and succeed. Keep in mind that's a stark contrast to the Whitsitt era. We brought in guys who had already been all-stars, who had already won championships. Those guys didn't have anything to prove. And there were a lot of nights where the effort on the floor against weaker opponents left quite a bit to be desired.

Now, we have guys who I think will put the time in on the practice floor. Shooting free throws. Running sprints. Working on their games. Hitting the weights. The work ethic will have to be there, because they know going in that people aren't giving them any credit.

Couple that with a coach who preaches hard work and defending. And that hard work in practice translates to success in games. I think that's a winning combination.

We'll still struggle with teams that have more talent on their bench than we have in our starting five (and there are a lot of teams out there like that), but we won't be outworked. And that's gotta count for something. We'll shock a lot of teams that come in expecting a 48-minute walk in the park for a "W."

Maybe the organization does know what they're doing. Food for thought.

Go Nate. Go Bassy. Go Travis. Go Viktor. Go Martell. Go Ruben. Go Darius.

Give 'em 48 minutes of hell.

Go Blazers.

-Pop


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

That was a great post and it's refreshing to see something like this this time of year seeing as how some posters come out of hybernation to bring the morale of the board down.

:clap:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> I won't yet say I'm optimistic we'll make the playoffs, but I have a good feeling this team will surprise people. Contrary to teams the Blazers have fielded in the past (which arguably have been underachieving), this team is full of players who have points to prove:
> 
> - Zach Randolph (coming off knee surgery, skepticism about whether or not he can be the old Zach)
> - Ruben Patterson (hell, this guy ALWAYS has something to prove)
> ...


Okay, I will call you crazy. There is no evidence that any of these players have "a point to prove." That is pure speculation on your part. However, evidence does exist that shows that the majority of these players are "below average" by NBA standards. It's going to be a looooooong season.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Great post, Soda! I agree 100%.

I'd rather watch a young and hungry kid play his butt off than a so-called "all-star" cruise through yet another game without breaking a sweat (i.e. Rasheed Wallace).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Well there are a couple more factors I think as well....

Jarrettt Jack (wants to prove he should be a starter in this league)
Darius Miles (should be looking to prove he has his head on straight)

But I will also throw a coule other things,

People may overlook Portland and get surprised by the motinon of the offense.
Also A lot of times young players don't realize that they are supposed to lose.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Nice post Soda. The west is going to be tough to call... so heck... anything could happen. We could suprise like Seattle last year.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> I won't yet say I'm optimistic we'll make the playoffs, but I have a good feeling this team will surprise people. Contrary to teams the Blazers have fielded in the past (which arguably have been underachieving), this team is full of players who have points to prove:
> 
> - Zach Randolph (coming off knee surgery, skepticism about whether or not he can be the old Zach)
> - Ruben Patterson (hell, this guy ALWAYS has something to prove)
> ...


Great Post!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I'm optimistic, too. Have been since Whitsitt was booted and Steve Patterson was announced. And my optimism has done nothing but grow with the hiring of Nash, the departure of Bonzi, the departure of Rasheed, the arrival of SAR, the arrival of Theo, the departure of McInnis, the arrival of Darius, the arrival of Telfair, the arrival of Khryapa, the arrival of Joel, the departure of Qyntel, the arrival of Ha, the departure of Cheeks, the departure of Damon, the departure of Nick, the departure of DA, the arrival of Webster, the arrival of Jarrett, the arrival of Nate, and the arrival of Sergei.

PBF


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

after reading this thread....i think i have areap possibility of hooking up with Jessica Alba.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

tlong said:


> Okay, I will call you crazy. There is no evidence that any of these players have "a point to prove." That is pure speculation on your part. However, evidence does exist that shows that the majority of these players are "below average" by NBA standards. It's going to be a looooooong season.


There is no evidence that Theo was injured last year? No evidence that Dixon didnt get much respect from the Wiz? No evidence that Zach had knee surgery? No evidence that Joel had a break out season last year? No evidence that Smith was a stud in Europe? No evidence of hype surrounding Telfair? 


Great post Soda! :cheers:


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

Great post Soda. 

I am not looking forward to a good season from these guys but if they turn in a good one, I'll be pleasantly surprised but not overly shocked.

I am most excited that we have guys that we can look forward to seeing their development and all bickering over who should go, who should stay, who should get more time, etc.

The biggest thing on this team that I look forward to is a crop of exciting new guys who don't have a history of letting us down, a new coach and a ton of potential. Yeah, they won't all pan out, but it should be fun seeing who does/doesn't and seeing how the team gels and grows.

Gramps...


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Okay, I will call you crazy. There is no evidence that any of these players have "a point to prove." That is pure speculation on your part. However, evidence does exist that shows that the majority of these players are "below average" by NBA standards. It's going to be a looooooong season.


First off...excellent post Soda. 

As for the post above it's a total contradiction of itself...Your second to last line shows these players have everything to prove!


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

tlong said:


> Okay, I will call you crazy. There is no evidence that any of these players have "a point to prove." That is pure speculation on your part. However, evidence does exist that shows that the majority of these players are "below average" by NBA standards. It's going to be a looooooong season.


All of these kids have a point to prove... that they're good enough to hang with the big boys in the NBA. It might be a looooooooong season but they're all in it together, all known to have great work ethics, all have the same goal... if nothing else this season is going to give them a bunker mentality and I bet we're going to see some great team chemistry going.

Experience/maturity is going to follow but we've picked up a great coach who can teach them how to be professionals right from the start. I see a ton of potential to be excited about, they are going to be really fun to watch win or lose, and I'm willing to be patient for another season. I believe the wins will come and wouldn't be at all surprised to see them making the play offs in 2007. It takes time to build a champion.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I think as long as Zach stays healthy next season, we will have some very surprisingly good times to a lot of the negative posters here. I'm sure the team will have some bad times, every young team does but I think there will definitly be some fun and exciting times as well. I think if Darius can get on the same page as Telfair and Zach, it's going to be a very fun team to watch. Watch out.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> Okay, I will call you crazy. There is no evidence that any of these players have "a point to prove." That is pure speculation on your part.


Hmmm...do you mean "there is no evidence that any of these players FEEL that they have a point to prove"? 

I would contend that in the minds of fans (including those on this board) and in the minds of the organization, those players do indeed have something to prove.

However, do the players themselves feel that they have something to prove? That's the real question, isn't it? It would appear from quotes and media reports that at least some of them do (for example, Joel's statements on CSMN) and I would certainly hope that they all do. But you're right in one sense - nobody can "prove" that they feel that they have something to prove.

But time will tell, won't it? 

As for myself, I trust this Blazer team to work hard, train hard and try to "prove themselves" more than I have with Blazer teams in recent (ie, 3-4) years.



> However, evidence does exist that shows that the majority of these players are "below average" by NBA standards. It's going to be a looooooong season.


I'm confused by what you're trying to say. Are you saying that (for example) Outlaw can't have a good year because the "evidence" statistically shows that he's been "below average" the last two years? Please elaborate further if you would.

Here's my point in this - NBA players have shown time and time again their ability to "rise above" past performance when they are either given more time to play or a new environment to play in. Granted, there's no guarantee that these young guys will meet their full potential and develop, but you seem to be arguing that being unproven (in the case of Monya for example) or young (in the case of Telfair for example) PROVES that they will not be able to play well this year in the NBA. That's not a valid argument, IMO.

It's one thing for you to say that you don't think the players on the squad will get any better. But for you to insinuate that there is "evidence" that they won't get better is a bit of a stretch in my mind.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

By the way, I'm optimistic that the team will work hard and be entertaining. I'm not optimistic that they will win a lot of games or make the playoffs.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Storyteller said:


> By the way, I'm optimistic that the team will work hard and be entertaining. I'm not optimistic that they will win a lot of games or make the playoffs.


Yep, that about sums up my feelings as well.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> By the way, I'm optimistic that the team will work hard and be entertaining. I'm not optimistic that they will win a lot of games or make the playoffs.


I'd agree with that as well, but I'm nervous that the expected losing will cut into the youngin's confidence and curb their overall growth. Losing can suck the life out of promising players, fans, and a franchise.

STOMP


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I'd agree with that as well, but I'm nervous that the expected losing will cut into the youngin's confidence and curb their overall growth. Losing can suck the life out of promising players, fans, and a franchise.
> 
> STOMP



I know a lot of people have said this, but is it a myth, or is it really true? From from other teams would remind us SAR is a loser because he's never won, but most of us stuck up for him and said it was just the situation. I think it's the players attitude or lack of maturity that sucks the life out of a promising player than wins/losses.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

STOMP said:


> I'd agree with that as well, but I'm nervous that the expected losing will cut into the youngin's confidence and curb their overall growth. Losing can suck the life out of promising players, fans, and a franchise.
> 
> STOMP


While this would be a concern for the Clippers, I do not see that as to big of a concern in Portland. The Clips organization has a losing reputation. Portland has a very competitive reputation. The organization is not used to losing, and that is where the players would learn losing from. The players know their organization is rebuilding, and they are the main attraction. I would expect them to be chomping at the bit to prove they are the "new winning Blazers regime."


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> I know a lot of people have said this, but is it a myth, or is it really true? From from other teams would remind us SAR is a loser because he's never won, but most of us stuck up for him and said it was just the situation. I think it's the players attitude or lack of maturity that sucks the life out of a promising player than wins/losses.


Well my opinion (and yours) on whether winning or losing is contagious are both pretty unprovable. Mine was largely formed through following and even moreso playing sports. In hoops especially I've found that when I go up against players who I've excelled against in the past, that my confidence is high and I usually perform well. I've found the opposite to be true as well. I've found this has little to do with how good my opponent is, it's more about me and what I expect. I've found the same sort of pattern to be true in some gyms as opposed to others... some I'm just used to (and expect to) shooting the lights out in, others drawing iron can be an accomplishment.

While we're all unique beautiful showflakes, it's my belief us humans have a whole lot more in common. Like I said previously, I'm nervous about the losing starting a trend.

STOMP


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

In addition to others posts If I am not mistaken, Zack has had little playing time with Telfair to get him the ball where he needs it. 

Damon and DA were very poor at getting the ball into the post at the right time and place. Zack has not had the luxury of playing with Telfair. 

This is going to be fun if all are healthy. nfire: 

I still say they will win more games than most think (35-40).

gatorpops


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I have a hard time imagining how the Blazers could fail to win more games than last year. I know the team was close to .500 last year before the youth movement, but with all the other factors going on, throwing them to the wolves led to an expected, and acceptible (by me) under the circumstances, result. 

The reasons have been expressed on this thread and many other threads over the past two months, so I'm not going to write a book about it. 

The team has some experienced players back (Theo, Ruben and yes, Joel, Zach and Miles). The team no longer has Damon, Nick and Mr. Loyalty, replaced by Dixon and Smith (a clear upgrade IMO -- notwithstanding that these guys have never been NBA starters). Miles will be given a legitimate chance to earn his spot. 

The team had a lot of injury problems last year -- this year will probably be better in that regard. The young guys got a lot of valuable experience the last part of the season and will undoubtedly be better this year. JMO, but I sense the young guys have good chemistry. JMO, but a lot of our guys seem genuinely driven to succeed and will probably not take many nights off. 

Did I mention we finally have a coach after all these painful years? 

See, not a book, just a ramble. I refuse to be pessimistic about next season or the next. It makes me happier. 

I believe Telfair has the leadership and skills to become a good player for us. I believe Zach and Miles and Joel and Outlaw will love playing with Telfair and will play better with him this year than with any of our guards the last two.

I don't see how we could fail to win 30 games. I wouldn't be surprised if we win 40, although I don't expect it. I do expect the team to be fun and energetic and entertaining and provide buckets of hope.

If we sink to only 20 wins, I'll change my sig to "Mixum was right. I'm a pathetic Homer." (For a week.)

Go Blazers!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

mixum said:


> after reading this thread....i think i have areap possibility of hooking up with Jessica Alba.


*Please refrain from posting these images again. This is baiting.

Thanks.*


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm more optimistic that this team is being built for something positive, than I was with the Sheed/Bonzi era teams doing anything decent in the playoffs (outside of 1 year).

Now, of course the team could flounder, but I think they're building a better group of likeable, hard working and smarter bball players. 

Some redundancy, but that's what trading is for.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I'm nervous that the expected losing will cut into the youngin's confidence and curb their overall growth. Losing can suck the life out of promising players, fans, and a franchise.


Geez, if you're that nervous you better take some Alka Seltzer and lie down . . .

Losing for some 80 years has not sucked the life out of the Chicago Cubs franchise. Their fans are legion and they pack the ballpark every game. Losing has also had negligible effects on the Boston Red Sox, who have an enormous fan base despite their long record of ineptitude. The Blazers were losers for several years before they finally won a title in '77, yet their attendance in those years was outstanding.

Losing also doesn't curb a player's growth--lack of playing time does, or playing with the wrong supporting cast around you. You could argue that because our roster has been cleared of most veterans, many of our young players will develop even faster than they would otherwise. 

Your "confidence" argument is just silly. A player doesn't lose confidence because the team sucks. He loses confidence if he himself sucks, or if he isn't allowed to play as much as he thinks he deserves. Michael Jordan played on a losing Bulls team for several years and it didn't seem to sap his confidence any. Kevin Garnett also played on many losing teams, and still managed to become one of the best players in the game.

Our guys will be fine. They'll enjoy the extra playing time that they wouldn't get on most teams, and they'll see that by playing together and playing hard they can get much, much better.

Best of all, they won't be demoralized by sitting on the bench while some over-hyped and over-paid veteran takes all their minutes.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

I am too, I'm kicking butt with them in NBA Live 2003, and I gave them all very realistic ratings.

I'd say our only real weakness is SG. But I am hoping Miles, Telfair and Outlaw break out this year!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

This Blazer team has two fundamental flaws that I see. They are poor perimeter shooters and they play poor defense. I believe that the defense may improve under Nate as he is a much better coach than Mo. However, their shooting is going to kill them. Martell could be the answer in time, but in the near term they will be a lousy team because of this.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Geez, if you're that nervous you better take some Alka Seltzer and lie down . . .
> 
> Losing for some 80 years has not sucked the life out of the Chicago Cubs franchise. Their fans are legion and they pack the ballpark every game. Losing has also had negligible effects on the Boston Red Sox, who have an enormous fan base despite their long record of ineptitude. The Blazers were losers for several years before they finally won a title in '77, yet their attendance in those years was outstanding.
> 
> ...



TH: I have blasted your opinions on many occasions.......but I agree with this post 100%! Excellent summation.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

tlong said:


> This Blazer team has two fundamental flaws that I see. They are poor perimeter shooters and they play poor defense. I believe that the defense may improve under Nate as he is a much better coach than Mo. However, their shooting is going to kill them. Martell could be the answer in time, but in the near term they will be a lousy team because of this.


That is one of the reasons I expect the team to be really bad during the 1st part of the season.

That still leaves open the question of whether Nate can come up with a decent gameplan (he almost has to be better than Mo!) and how long it takes the team to learn the system.

If the team shows real progress in the 2nd half of the season, I will not be unhappy with the players/Nate.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm not so sure that this team will be as hard-working as some of you seem to think. Darius Miles? Zach Randolph? They have their big contracts and when the playoffs (or even a .500 season) are out of reach, I think there's a real possibility that they will start to glide.

Theo? Ruben? I think that we saw at the end of the year that they were willing to shut it down when the season was lost and/or their minutes were more restricted, and I don't know why this year would be different.

Even if everyone plays hard and everyone stays healthy (which is almost impossible, based on the injury history of the majority of the team) the team simply isn't good enough to win many games.

I didn't hear CMN last night, but if I read the recap correctly, it sounded like Nash expects the team to win 15-20 games. And unfortunately I think that's not too unlikely.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm not so sure that this team will be as hard-working as some of you seem to think. Darius Miles? Zach Randolph? They have their big contracts and when the playoffs (or even a .500 season) are out of reach, I think there's a real possibility that they will start to glide.


You can say that about 90% of the NBA. Big contracts are inevitable if you want your organization to be competitive. There has been no signs of Zach not putting full effort into his game. So that argument goes out the window, I'd like to say the same about Darius Miles but I can't. Hopefully the new coach can correct that, but if not, it's not like guys like Rasheed Wallace and Bonzi Wells didn't do the same thing right? 



> Theo? Ruben? I think that we saw at the end of the year that they were willing to shut it down when the season was lost and/or their minutes were more restricted, and I don't know why this year would be different.


By all accounts Ratliff was injured for the majority of the season, Ruben was competitive til the end. I don't know what games you were watching. 



> Even if everyone plays hard and everyone stays healthy (which is almost impossible, based on the injury history of the majority of the team) the team simply isn't good enough to win many games.


Agreed, it is rare for most teams to be a 100% healthy. As long as we have our best player Zach Randolph, and our other top 2 or 3 be healthy we will finally start to understand where this team might be going in the future. Last year had zero indication of this year, so to compare the last with this year is a bit short-sighted. Last year's record was irrelevant to this year's in my opinion. Our best player was injured for the majority last season, our backcourt was worse off last year than this, we made some upgrades, players gained more experience, worked on their weakenesses, and our starting center SHOULD be healthy this season, last year he wasn't. 

It's okay though, the comparisons of last season to this season won't stop and the future of this team is doomed with the horrible draft picks, trades, signings, and managment decisions. Might as well not even tune in for the games come October guys.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm not so sure that this team will be as hard-working as some of you seem to think. Darius Miles? Zach Randolph? They have their big contracts and when the playoffs (or even a .500 season) are out of reach, I think there's a real possibility that they will start to glide.
> 
> Theo? Ruben? I think that we saw at the end of the year that they were willing to shut it down when the season was lost and/or their minutes were more restricted, and I don't know why this year would be different.


A big difference this year: The head coach.

Maybe this won't make any difference, but I'm hoping it does.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm not so sure that this team will be as hard-working as some of you seem to think. Darius Miles? Zach Randolph? They have their big contracts and when the playoffs (or even a .500 season) are out of reach, I think there's a real possibility that they will start to glide.


which explains why Zach is ahead of schedule on his re-hab, and has lost weight. I mean, he has his contract..



> Theo? Ruben? I think that we saw at the end of the year that they were willing to shut it down when the season was lost and/or their minutes were more restricted, and I don't know why this year would be different.


I give you Theo..but Ruben??

You mean the guy who was asked to leave the team, and when he came back, busted his *** when he played? the guy who played hard in the last game of the season (the epitome of a pointless game)?



> Even if everyone plays hard and everyone stays healthy (which is almost impossible, based on the injury history of the majority of the team) the team simply isn't good enough to win many games.


the injury history of the "majority" of the team?

Theo, Joel (which is questionable if he has a "history") and um...who else?

who is the "majority"? 

Telfair? Nope.
OUtlaw? nope
Darius? Nope
Webster? Uknown
Jack? Unknown
Viktor? unknow and not a big enough sample size (altho coming back well before he was projected to says something)
Sergie? Unknow
Dixon? unknow really
Ha? unknown
Smith? unknown

So, who's the majority? Zach getting a freak injury?

EVEN if you get Theo, Joel and Darius (which is questionable), that's not the majority.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> You can say that about 90% of the NBA.


True, but not relevant. Why not?

First of all, no one's claiming that 90% of the league will play hard. Presumably some Blazers fans are taking solace in the prediction that this team will be scrappy and outwork other teams. I'm CERTAINLY not saying that this is a team with MORE "quit" in them or that they won't work as hard as other teams with other things being equal. But I'm saying that I don't see why they'd have more resilience, backbone, or hunger than most of the rest of the NBA.

Secondly, most of the teams in the 90% you lump together (and with which I don't disagree) aren't coming off of a 27 win season, and few of them are staring another sub-30 win season in the face. It's much, much easier to quit when things are going poorly, and that's something that I think will catch up with several Blazers at the end of another long, tough season.



> By all accounts Ratliff was injured for the majority of the season, Ruben was competitive til the end. I don't know what games you were watching.


Was Ruben working hard when he took off most of March--immediately after Cheeks was fired? Because if he was, I don't recall seeing that.

As for Ratliff's injury: I'm sure he was hurt, but I'm also relatively sure that he'll be hurt again at some point this year (like he has been so many years previously). When the season's lost and his nearly 33 year-old (he'll be 33 before the end of the regular season (barely)) body is aching, do you think he'll continue to plug away as a backup center? 

He might, but I doubt it.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> which explains why Zach is ahead of schedule on his re-hab, and has lost weight. I mean, he has his contract..


I bet he's been hanging out with Shawn Kemp, huh? 

Sorry, I'll believe it when I see it.



> I give you Theo..but Ruben??
> 
> You mean the guy who was asked to leave the team, and when he came back, busted his *** when he played? the guy who played hard in the last game of the season (the epitome of a pointless game)?


Yep, I'm sure that his 3 weeks off immediately after Cheeks was fired had nothing to do with his attitude towards the firing. Yep. Sure.



> the injury history of the "majority" of the team?


Zach (microfracture surgery is not good). Theo (omnipresent injury threat). Joel (appeared in 56% of the games in his 5 year career). Darius (knee injury caused him to miss over 30 games the past three years). Dixon (has missed over 10 games a year all three years in the NBA, and is tremendously undersized for the 2 spot). Charles Smith (pretty consistently injured throughout his NBA career). Viktor (missed over half of last year with a significant foot injury).

That's 7 players. 50% of the team, so not quite a majority. But amongst the players with any significant NBA experience, the Zach/Theo/Joel/Darius group is certainly a majority.

Look at the other side of the coin: what Blazers players have any history of durability in the NBA? Other than Ruben, there are none with a significant history. Telfair stayed healthy last year, but he's the only young veteran that has started and/or played big minutes and stayed healthy.

As for the rookies: who knows? Jack missed summer league because of an injury, and while I'm not claiming that he's injury-prone because of it, he's certainly not off to a durable start. Webster? Who knows.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I bet he's been hanging out with Shawn Kemp, huh?
> 
> Sorry, I'll believe it when I see it.


yah, because now everytime we have a player who's healing, it's either 100% in shape (didn't seem to bother you that Sheed never came into camp in shape) or he's Shawn kemp..



> Yep, I'm sure that his 3 weeks off immediately after Cheeks was fired had nothing to do with his attitude towards the firing. Yep. Sure.


considering he was told to leave, because they didn't want to play him, I don't think it had as much to do with his "attitude" as you're implying. 

he's not 100% team first, but he plays hard.



> Zach (microfracture surgery is not good).


he had the one that wasn't done on a weight bearing part of the knee. that's not bad (not that it's good.



> Theo (omnipresent injury threat). Joel (appeared in 56% of the games in his 5 year career). Darius (knee injury caused him to miss over 30 games the past three years).


Joel also was heavier which had a lot to do with injuries. 

Darius missed time wasn't all his knee. 



> Dixon (has missed over 10 games a year all three years in the NBA, and is tremendously undersized for the 2 spot).


being small has nothing to do with injuries. 



> Charles Smith (pretty consistently injured throughout his NBA career). Viktor (missed over half of last year with a significant foot injury).


Smith hasn't played enough regular minutes to know if he's been "consistently" injured throughout his NBA career. I don't think that he's played enough games to declare that his missed time was actually due to injuries or "injuries".

as for Viktor, he had a freak injury, that he was expected to miss the whole season. I don't see how you can call that a prone thing.



> That's 7 players.


of which you're stretching just a tad with 3 of them (Dixon, Viktor and Smith).



> 50% of the team, so not quite a majority. But amongst the players with any significant NBA experience, the Zach/Theo/Joel/Darius group is certainly a majority.


to me, 1 injury does not a history make.



> Look at the other side of the coin: what Blazers players have any history of durability in the NBA? Other than Ruben, there are none with a significant history.


thats a little bit of a slanted argument Ed. other than Ruben, who on the team has played major minutes? I'm glad you bruoght it up next, but that's still a bit of a bad argument.



> Telfair stayed healthy last year, but he's the only young veteran that has started and/or played big minutes and stayed healthy.
> 
> As for the rookies: who knows? Jack missed summer league because of an injury, and while I'm not claiming that he's injury-prone because of it, he's certainly not off to a durable start. Webster? Who knows.
> 
> Ed O.


he had a bad sprani and he didn't want to further risk the injury to play in the summer leagues, when it's not like that was going to make or break his season. Would yuo rather he had played on an injured foot, just to prove he's not "injury prone" or whatever?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I do think you had a great post Soda.. well done

The year before I predicted 43 wins, and last year I thought 41, and was obviously way off.

BUT

in the last 27 games when the Blazer brass basically mailed it in, if we had it all together and played 500 ball, we could of had another 9 wins. Making it a 36 win season. You then throw out some of the injuries and we may have gotten to 41. But we did not and its now lottery history.

While many measure the last 27 games last year in wins, and others by personal stats..... I wonder what these same people thought in 1988 and 1989. The same posters may have said.. Terry Porter has not proven he belongs in this league, Clyde Drexler has no shot and is all about athleticism, Jerome is a train wreck ready to happen. Jerome and Terry are late draft picks and labeled as below average players in this league by the stat people and have nothing to prove. Sound familiar? Hmmmm it seems to me that all of a sudden that same group of overlooked players developed into a team. I recall those players having put forth a lot of extra effort in the gym and together as a group.

This years group of players, as I have said before reminds me of that late 1980's group of Blazers. It has been noted a few times that Telfair, and Jack are gym rats.

Spending time working on your game is a great trait. Working out in the weight room pays off. Doing specific drills to hone a skill is wonderful. Eventually it pays offs.

I share Stomps concerns about loosing chipping away at our young players confidence. Confidence is certianly a funny thing. But I guess in "Nate I trust"... I never thought Nate would leave Seattle. I even said that just a few days before he was announced as our head coach. Tells you what I know  I hope Nate is much more than a healthy Ray Allen. I hope the things he taught and got the players to believe in and execute in Seattle are still viable here. It worked, and I hope it can still work here.

I have enjoyed reading what I can find on Nate and his style of coaching. He seems to be very good at building team unity. The encouraging of calling other team mates and coming in early to work is also encouraging as well.

I am a firm believer in... any team can beat any team on any given day. I experienced it as a player and as a coach. This is why they play the game and keep score. On paper, we are young, inexerienced, and probably not even remotely talented as some other teams. We have some vets.. some smart, some you question and some you will embelish as a potential leader. I think its going to be interesting to see how they fair this year and if any progress will be seen. But I do think you will see much more of the hustle and effort that we saw in the last 27 games of the season. Hopefully it will pay off in the long run. Hopefully in the next couple of seasons.

Sooner is much better than later 

Sugar is better than vinegar 

and winning is much better than loosing 

Are we gellin'? :banana:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I bet he's been hanging out with Shawn Kemp, huh?
> 
> Sorry, I'll believe it when I see it.




Ok Ed.. How do you know Abraham Lincoln was our 16th president of the good ole US?

Did you actually witness him as our 16th president? or did you believe the middle school text books and eventually accept them as fact?

Well the progress of Zach has been talked about on CSMN more than once this summer... Not only have callers asked or emailed in about his health and progress, IIRC Joel? even talked about it this week. With Barrett, Rice, Nash and some player giving some minimal reports, it is at least something to hang our hats on.

You may want to see it in person... but hey.. gas for the trip in the car from Seatlte is expensive these days... 

I personally do not care so much about his weight as long as he does not go Kevin Duckworth on us. I am more concerned with his ability to run pain free. If he can return to his pre injury status I would be thrilled.

We shall SEE won't we?


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

im optimistic about the growth of our new players...not so much about our record however.

its nice to hear someone feelin good tho. i do think Telfair will be special, and well see a glimpse of that this season.

haters fall back, give us 3 years and we will be back on top. :clap:


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

The only player I'm really optomistic for is Miles, ironicly the one guy off your list.

I'm excited about watching the team, I believe they will be entertaining. Down the road Telfair and Webster could become good starters, but I doubt they can become great starters.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Injuries are part of sports and any physical activity. But there is no question that last year was a freak year in terms of injury for the Blazers; I can't think of anyone who was healthy all year and several players had major injuries, in some cases for the first time in their careers. I don't count missing 5-10 games a year as a problem, that's probably true of most athletes. As I see it there are 3 basic categories
1. Freak injuries, like when Chris Dudley stepped on another player's foot and broke his ankle, out for the year. No one can predict or prevent them and they have nothing to do with being in shape or out of shape
2. Nagging injuries, the little sprains, pulled muscles, contusions etc. that are par for the course, that every player gets and misses maybe a few days for
3. Chronic injuries, meaning either a player is out of shape or else is so damaged that he/she cannot ever really be healthy again (see Grant Hill). They are different from bad luck when a player seems to be on the receiving end of freak injuries several times.

The Blazers last year had a lot of 1's and 2's and I don't worry about them. Theo is maybe the only one who can be called a 3.

With so many one, two and three year players it's hard to point to a "history of durability" since there is so little history period. 

Has everyone else here forgotten that before all the injuries the Blazers had a winning record and were just one game out of the 6th seed? Not world-beaters but hardly a 10 win team.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Ok Ed.. How do you know Abraham Lincoln was our 16th president of the good ole US?


I've never heard that people were president of the US when they were not. I've heard repeatedly of NBA players (and pro athletes in general) being "ahead of schedule" or "slimmed down" or "bulked up" or any of a variety of positive things in the offseason... and those reports don't seem to be correlated to reality.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> yah, because now everytime we have a player who's healing, it's either 100% in shape (didn't seem to bother you that Sheed never came into camp in shape) or he's Shawn kemp..


When it comes to offseason reports on player improvement or weight loss, I treat them that way, yes.



> [bunch of excuses deleted]
> 
> being small has nothing to do with injuries.


I disagree. It's common sense that a 6'3", sub-180 pound 2 guard is going to get injured more than a standard sized player.

And his history supports common sense here. Dixon missed 19 games last year for injuries including a left elbow injury and right ankle problems. He missed 11 games the year before, including time for ankle issues. He missed 40 games his rookie year, spending time on the IL for a sprained elbow.



> Smith hasn't played enough regular minutes to know if he's been "consistently" injured throughout his NBA career. I don't think that he's played enough games to declare that his missed time was actually due to injuries or "injuries".


You haven't been paying attention, then. Smith was in and around the NBA from 1997-2003. He only had one year where he appeared in more than 34 games, and he only appeared in 120 games _total_ in thse 7 years. Some missed games were simply because he wasn't good enough (he was in the CBA and I believe appeared overseas in 99-00 and didn't play in an NBA game, for example) but many missed games were due to injury.

He broke the 5th metatarsal when he was with the Clippers towards the beginning of his NBA career and wasn't able to play more than three games with the Blazers in his previous stint because of injuries.

There's a pretty significant history of injuries with Charles Smith.



> as for Viktor, he had a freak injury, that he was expected to miss the whole season. I don't see how you can call that a prone thing.


Almost every injury is "freak". I'm not declaring that he's going to get hurt because he was hurt previously, but there's no history of him remaining healthy in the NBA.



> of which you're stretching just a tad with 3 of them (Dixon, Viktor and Smith).


Viktor doesn't have a long history of injuries, but the other two certainly do.



> to me, 1 injury does not a history make.


OK. So we'll take Viktor out of the "injured history" list and we'll take Telfair out of the "healthy history" list. Leaving only RP.



> thats a little bit of a slanted argument Ed. other than Ruben, who on the team has played major minutes? I'm glad you bruoght it up next, but that's still a bit of a bad argument.


It's not a bad argument at all. There are many Blazers with clear histories of injuries in the NBA and precious few players with uninjured NBA stints.

That indicates a team that's more likely to get hit by injuries.



> he had a bad sprani and he didn't want to further risk the injury to play in the summer leagues, when it's not like that was going to make or break his season. Would yuo rather he had played on an injured foot, just to prove he's not "injury prone" or whatever?


I don't RATHER anything. I don't have a rooting interest in whether these guys are injury-prone or not. The sad fact is that many of them are, and no number of excuses will change that, Hap.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Geez, if you're that nervous you better take some Alka Seltzer and lie down . . .


Weren't you just crying a river (for the second time in the last few months) about me following you around the board insulting you? I've shown that to be pure paranoia by linking all of our back and forths dating back the last 9 months... and now here you are for the 2nd time in the last few days toeing line with your "colorful" language and clumsy attempts to insult me. IMO it's pretty hard to pass yourself off as an innocent victim when you're stalking your supposive attacker... the other thread you called my views (the one's you pretend I hold) sad, now I'm silly and I'd better lie down and take an Alka Seltzer  pretty wacky charade you're playing.

Feel free to substitute wary or concerned for the word nervous... or just stick with nervous but try not to let your imagination run amuck that I'm in some sort of real distress. I just feel the club is in for a very poor year and that this might make a bad impression on them. While it's fine to discount this as something you don't feel the club should be concerned with, management has expressed concerns. Thats what Pritchard is speaking to when he talks of wanting to start a new culture of winning sooner then later... they don't want the losing to set in and damage their young player's overall confidence. After a decade + of guiding mediocre NBA clubs, maybe John Nash knows a thing or two about what begats losing as well? 

You can count Bill Walsh among the many top coaches and management types who feel that winning (and losing) is something that builds upon itself and that confidence in players (especially young ones) is something that is best to nurture. When he took over the 49ers in the early 80's, he went out of his way to keep his prized rookie QB (Joe Montana) sheltered from the losing mentality that had become the club's tradition. He felt building Joe's confidence in himself and the team in him was tied to the clubs chances of future success. To do this he only checked his young QB in whenever the team got the ball inside the 5-yard line, giving him the maximum chance of experiencing success. Now I don't think this necessarily means that Joe couldn't have experienced success under some other method of development/coaching, but then again Bill Walsh has developed 3 other HOF QB's. Is he silly too? Need me to bring out a few quotes from other coaching greats on the important of building confidence? 

I think the baptism by fire approach that you're advocating is a legitimate way of handling young players... certainly there have been players that have risen to the top with that method, I just don't happen to think it's the best method. IMO players that have been able to build their confidence in losing situations are the exception rather then the rule. Yes it is arguable that the young guys _might_ develop more quickly this way, but I think its completely possible that given the nature of confidence that getting whacked every night _could_ lead to the opposite happening. I think it's a pretty big stretch to use unbelievable blue chip prospects like MJ and KG as examples of how the Baby Blazers should be handled. Those two were far greater prospects then anyone currently on Portland. 

You claimed playing with the wrong supporting cast can curb a players growth, how do you think all the prospects at 3 are going to develop sharing minutes and playing out of position? I'd think a legit NBA starting two guard would help round out the cast as well. 



> Best of all, they won't be demoralized by sitting on the bench while some over-hyped and over-paid veteran takes all their minutes.


That sure kept Jermaine Oneal from developing into a decent player. 

You had an out of the blue suggestion for me, now I've one for you. Go get a part time job. Rake some leaves, mow lawns, deliver some pizzas... whatever you like. You only need to make about 200 extra bucks to get the season pass and join the rest of us who watch the 90% of the games that don't appear on basic cable. This would mean instead of wasting your time with more awkward attempts trying to start fights with me you'd be improving your winter entertainment options and being able to update your Blazer takes from the last time Portland was on the tube with regularity. Just a suggestion.

STOMP


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> Great post Soda.
> 
> I am not looking forward to a good season from these guys but if they turn in a good one, I'll be pleasantly surprised but not overly shocked.
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

STOMP said:


> You had an out of the blue suggestion for me, now I've one for you. Go get a part time job. Rake some leaves, mow lawns, deliver some pizzas... whatever you like. You only need to make about 200 extra bucks to get the season pass and join the rest of us who watch the 90% of the games that don't appear on basic cable. This would mean instead of wasting your time with more awkward attempts trying to start fights with me you'd be improving your winter entertainment options and being able to update your Blazer takes from the last time Portland was on the tube with regularity. Just a suggestion.


What about taking the high road with this? 

I think you blew the "alka seltzer" comment a little out of proportion.


----------



## DaFranchise (Jun 29, 2005)

Same Old Problem For The Trail Blazers  the teams name is Trail Blazers.  Tons Of Talent But No Chemistry. Maybe Nate Can Fix That


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> What about taking the high road with this?


you're right I'm off the high road here... though when someone consistently goes after you with lame, off-base personal shots and mischaracterizations of your expressed views I doubt you'll find me trying to give you any guff for bluntly calling them on it.

STOMP


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

DaFranchise said:


> Same Old Problem For The Trail Blazers. Tons Of Talent But No Chemistry. Maybe Nate Can Fix That


wait what? no chemistry? you got a chrystal ball or something? if so can i have the powerball numbers?


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

> Same Old Problem For The Blazers. Tons Of Talent But No Chemistry.


Wow, that statement is so far wrong that, well, its just wrong.

One of the things that has many here cautiously excited and others fairly pessimistic is the absolute wrongness of your statement.

Tons of Talent 

Uh, that used to be the case with the Blazers but not so now. We really have relatively little of proven talent. What we DO have is tons of potential. The problem with potential is that it frequently doesn't get realized. Many are optimistic due to the potential while others are pessimistic due to the reality that some may already be at their max potential and not improve.

No Chemistry

Well, this remains to be seen. It is likely that at this point in time there is relatively little chemistry but that is because the team is significantly changed from last year. At least we can have hope for chemistry whereas in years past, we've feared greatly the negative chemistry that had continually surrounded the team.

Personally I'll take no chemistry over bad chemistry. Hopefully, the guys will come together and it will result in good chemistry at some point in the season.

There is a fair chance that the Blazers will be pretty darn bad this year. There is a chance we'll be barely adequate. There is a remote chance we'll be good. There is a very high chance that we fans will enjoy watching the team more than the past couple years when we often didn't function as a team and had little to no offensive schema. 

A new and better coach (or as some would say, having someone that actually can coach), having young guys with potential and with nearly all the old school gone, it is far from the "Same Old Problem".

This is an entirely new problem and I'm looking forward to it.

Gramps...


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

DaFranchise said:


> Same Old Problem For The Blazers. Tons Of Talent But No Chemistry. Maybe Nate Can Fix That


Have you looked at the roster lately? It doesn't really scream talent to me, it screams potential. As for chemistry, the season hasn't even started yet, its a little unreasonable to assume it will be bad when most the disgruntled players are gone now.

Is there a reason you capitalize all your words? It looks very odd.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

Doesn't every player in the league feel like they have something to prove? Doesn't Tim Duncan feel like he has to be aknowledged as the greatest player ever? What about Steve Francis in Orlando wanting to prove that he is a winner and not a cancer? What about Jameer Nelson, who wants to prove that he wants to be better than Sebastian Telfair? I think every player in the league has something to prove, so the statement itself is redundant. Granted, Portland faces a great amount of adversity, but look at the New York Knicks, whose adversity is magnified. Has this increased focus on their problems lead to any championships in the last 30 years?

The whole point of sports is proving that you are better than sombod else. The adversity may unite the Blazers together, but where are they going to get the leadership from? Is Nate McMillan really a brilliant coach to turn around the ship within a year?

Don't get me wrong... I think this Portland team has a lot of potential, but I have to see it on the court before I believe it. I think this team could get it together in 2006-07 season, but I'm skeptical about their chances this year. However, it is important to be optimistic, and never say never...


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

:laugh: :bsmile:


Ed O said:


> I've never heard that people were president of the US when they were not. I've heard repeatedly of NBA players (and pro athletes in general) being "ahead of schedule" or "slimmed down" or "bulked up" or any of a variety of positive things in the offseason... and those reports don't seem to be correlated to reality.
> 
> Ed O.


Ah! ED, I do remember a person who was deemed persident of the US and was not. When I was a young boy in the 1940's my mother was so sad that Duey was declared president in the evening of the vote and the next day I believe she was elated that in fact he had lost and Truman was the new president of the US. :biggrin: :laugh: 

Of course you may not have heard of this but some of us have. Have a good day.

gatorpops


----------



## Scarlett Black (Jan 2, 2003)

f22egl said:


> Doesn't every player in the league feel like they have something to prove? * * * ...


Right off the top of my head, I can think of two examples from the Blazers roster of last year who didn't feel the need to prove anything ... Nick Van Exel and Derek Anderson.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

gatorpops said:


> :laugh: :bsmile:
> 
> Ah! ED, I do remember a person who was deemed persident of the US and was not. When I was a young boy in the 1940's my mother was so sad that Duey was declared president in the evening of the vote and the next day I believe she was elated that in fact he had lost and Truman was the new president of the US. :biggrin: :laugh:
> 
> Of course you may not have heard of this but some of us have. Have a good day.


So your example of misreporting is being used as a reason for why we should believe reports about offseason progress and conditioning?

Dewey was declared victorious by the Chicago Tribune incorrectly, but it was never declared that he was President. At most, he would have been President-elect. As it turned out, the report was treated as premature by history and no one reports that Dewey was ever President of the United States.

Compare that to TB's question about Lincoln (to which I was responding): he's asking whether I only believe things that I see myself, and clearly I do not. I don't need to see that the Earth is an oblate sphere, or that Lincoln was the 16th President, in order to believe. These established and well-known facts are of an entirely different character than Blazers-driven reports about Zach being ahead of schedule, or looking thin, or whatever.

Ed O.


----------



## Victory thru Synergy (Aug 21, 2005)

SodaPopinski said:


> I won't yet say I'm optimistic we'll make the playoffs, but I have a good feeling this team will surprise people. Contrary to teams the Blazers have fielded in the past (which arguably have been underachieving), this team is full of players who have points to prove: ...
> 
> 
> Good post Pop! I agree with much of what you say. But I will disagree with your opening by saying that I am optimistic that the Blazers have a decent shot at making the playoffs. I think San Antonio, Dallas, Houston and Denver have locks on being in the Playoffs. But I think the bottom 3 slots are going to be open for the taking and I think the Blazers have as good of shot as any other team for grabbing one of the open berths.
> ...


From what I've read about Nate's coaching, it sounds like he will employ the same formula that made the team NBA Champs in 77.
While it may take a few years to make the finals again, the direction the team is heading is certainly, IMO the right direction. I have high expectations that Portland will be back in the playoff race (first round) sooner that what most people expect. The way things stand now, I see the pieces all coming together for a new Blazer era. Although, I don't see the final pieces of a championship team being added for another year or two, I believe this team will make a bold statement this year. I am anxiously looking forward to the start of the regular season.

YES! Go Blazers!


----------

