# Seven and Twenty-nine



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The Blazers ended last year on a seven wins, twenty-nine loss slide. A .194 winning rate.

I look at our roster now, which is seemingly set for the upcoming season, and I can't find many reasons that we won't be that bad all year long. At a .194 rate, that adds up to just about 16 wins.

I want to list some positives and some negatives and hopefully people will be able to convince me that the team is going to at least break 20 wins this year.

*Positives:*

-- A better coach. Mo Cheeks was never a great coach, but Pritchard had never coached before. While I don't feel confident judging coaches in detail, I gotta think that Pritch made some decisions or errors that cost us ballgames during his time. Nate McMillan knows how to coach at the NBA level, and is probably an upgrade on Cheeks... and almost certainly one over Pritchard.

-- Better health. Theo should be ready to go. Zach should be back for most of the season. Derek Anderson could even contribute. Viktor should be recovered and available.

-- Experience for our young guys. Telfair should be better. Outlaw will be better. Viktor should be better.

-- Injection of more young talent. Webster, Monia, and Jack will probably all be on our roster this year, and that youth should help a team that relied on players like Maurice Baker and Geno Carlisle and James Thomas last year.

-- Law of averages. It takes a VERY VERY bad team to win fewer than 20 games. I think that even if Portland's capable of losing that many, they'll get enough bounces to avoid 16-ish wins.

*Negatives:*

-- Loss of talent. Zach's return is offset significantly by the loss of SAR. A totally healthy Zach is better than SAR, but he's not THAT much better. Damon shot too much and he had massive defensive issues, but he kept us in games when he got hot, too, and he provided a relatively stable alternative to Telfair at the PG spot.

-- Loss of veteran influence. Damon, NVE, and SAR each had their flaws, but in addition to their on-court abilities they had been in the NBA a while. Teams without veterans rarely win.

-- Fragility. Looking at our roster, it's littered with guys who get hurt. DA is an obvious example, but Theo and Joel have each had significant numbers of games in the past 5 years where they've been unavailable due to injury. Darius has had physical problems since leaving the Clippers, and Zach is coming off of microfracture surgery. And while it seems likely that Viktor will be fully recovered, he missed over half the season last year with his foot injury.

-- Improvement of teams around us. ABM started another thread looking at the other lower-tier Western conference teams, and i think that they've almost all improved. Utah should take a big step up now that they've got their PG situation improved and Golden State hit their stride after getting Baron Davis (ending the year with an 18-8 record in the final two months). New Orleans adds Paul and gets Magloire back, but they're the team I find us most likely to be better than in spite of thatm

Am I the only one that's fearing a big step back even from our final record last year based on these factors?

Anyone got anything to cheer me up?

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

just our of curiosity why did you target the last 36 games? say instead of 41 or 50?

What was the record since Mo was fired?.. something like 5-22? (going by memory here)


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

You will get no cheering up from me...unless you assume the losses will continue in 06-07 and we will wind up getting the #1 pick after the 06-07 season.

This team is going to be horrendous. The negative you haven't stated is the disaffection the few veterans on the team will feel as we continue to give minutes to the young guys. This will cause team chemistry to suffer.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Ed O

Normally I agree with most of your posts, but I find I'm much more optimistic on this one. I think 22 wins is much more in line with how they'll finish the year. :biggrin:


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

The offseason isn't over yet. We still could easily add another player or two that brings the positives that our departing veterans brought to the team and I have to believe that any player they might bring in would have fewer negatives.

Yes, some teams did improve, but if we're healthier and you add in those other factors, so did we.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I am still hoping for a FA signing and a trade to bring in a stable vet :gopray:

but the media has potraited Nash's words to seem awfully frugal.

I am enjoying the youth movement and their potential.. but I do like winning and being in the playoffs. I was a bit spoiled with 21 years of being in the playoffs in a row

Let the sumemr play out.. I hope Nash knows what he is doing :gopray: I hope the roster by Oct 1 looks different yet

June was a good month... I hoep July is

REMEMBER: Sambonius had an email from Nash's saying there was a trade done that is waiting on the new CBA... so hopefully something good will happen


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

The west outside of the Spurs,Rockets,Suns,Mavs and Nuggs is wide open in my mind.

Look at the Clippers, Lakers, Warriors, Grizzlies, Sonics and Jazz, our team can play with all of these squads and many of them are rebuilding as well.

It's way to early to say if this team can compete, but last year no one thought the Sonics had a chance and Nate did quite well with that bunch, didn't he?

As for injuries how can you mention Golden State and not think Baron Davis, didn't he sit for almost a year in New Orleans?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The Blazers ended last year on a seven wins, twenty-nine loss slide. A .194 winning rate.
> 
> I look at our roster now, which is seemingly set for the upcoming season, and I can't find many reasons that we won't be that bad all year long. At a .194 rate, that adds up to just about 16 wins.
> 
> ...


I think Damon provided a really crappy team with a really crappy SG who's a midgit (no offense to the short people).



> -- Loss of veteran influence. Damon, NVE, and SAR each had their flaws, but in addition to their on-court abilities they had been in the NBA a while. Teams without veterans rarely win.


this is a problem (as I stated in another thread) but I dont think that losing NVE is as big of a problem as you're letting on. Also, I think they still could get a decent "vet" (grossly overpaid tho) for a NVE + Ruben package. I'm not saying I'd bet on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if a NY Portland trade happened (NY is going to have to want to cut down their massive salary one of these days).


> -- Fragility. Looking at our roster, it's littered with guys who get hurt. DA is an obvious example, but Theo and Joel have each had significant numbers of games in the past 5 years where they've been unavailable due to injury.


wasn't Joel's mostly due to his former coach wanting him to be heavier?



> Darius has had physical problems since leaving the Clippers, and Zach is coming off of microfracture surgery. And while it seems likely that Viktor will be fully recovered, he missed over half the season last year with his foot injury.


but he also came back from an operation that was considered to have been at least a year away from the court.



> -- Improvement of teams around us. ABM started another thread looking at the other lower-tier Western conference teams, and i think that they've almost all improved. Utah should take a big step up now that they've got their PG situation improved and Golden State hit their stride after getting Baron Davis (ending the year with an 18-8 record in the final two months). New Orleans adds Paul and gets Magloire back, but they're the team I find us most likely to be better than in spite of thatm


I think the Warriors could be better, but they also could get their usual injury bug.



> Am I the only one that's fearing a big step back even from our final record last year based on these factors?
> 
> Anyone got anything to cheer me up?
> 
> Ed O.


I think having a coach (altho I dont think Nate is the best option there is, but probably the best there was) will make the biggest difference. I dont think that Shareef made as big of a difference as you're saying. The guy seemed to coast through the season, and I rarely remember him doing the scottie pippen "get your head in the game, numbskull" routines.

Maybe he did, but I don't remember seeing it much.

I think they should win about 8-9 more games this year, especially if Zach, Theo and Joel are healthy all season. If 2 of those 3 are out for a large portion of the season, all bets are off.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

[Positive Spin] You can look at the player additions and subtractions, but I don't think that is what is going to determine if it is 16 wins or 36 wins. I think it will come down to how quickly the team adjusts to Nates system, especially on defense.

If the Young Guns can pick up the defense and implement it well, then I think they will be in games.

A healthy team of

Telfair, Jack
DA, Webster
Miles, Outlaw
Zach, Theo
Theo, Joel

playing together and executing would be sufficient for a reasonable number of wins. [/Positive Spin]


[Reality]Having said that, I don't think our current roster will work it out quickly. 

Of our vets, DA may not even be part of the team, Miles will likely not follow directions or be able to learn the system, Zach hasn't shown a great ability to adapt to games other than the one he has always played, and Theo is a shotblocker, and will likely never be more than that.

Of our young guys, Outlaw, Telfair, Khryapa, and Ha will all have to learn a new system in addition to just learning how to play the game. Webster and Monya will be entering into completely new systems also.
[/Reality]

I think this year the Blazers will give us hope for the future with flashes of brilliance mixed in with large doses of realistic expectations. This year is just a foundation for the future.

This year = 20-25 wins. Next year = 35-45 wins.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i don't think there will be that much improvement in other teams overall in the conference. GS should continue to do well and utah can't help but do better with AK back, but i don't see the lakers doing much better even with phil unless they can steal some talent in trades. i also see memphis tanking, and would be surprised if sacramento wasn't down a little. i expect nuggets to also have a little downer now that karl honeymoon is over.

if we are reasonably healthy i think we should win around 35 and finish no worse than 9-11 or so, possibly even .500 in the second half. there is still a ton of talent on this team, even without SAR/damon.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> just our of curiosity why did you target the last 36 games? say instead of 41 or 50?


Because it gave a good cross-section of the team... NVE and Zach participated in some of those games, Mo Cheeks coached in some of those games, etc. That way it wasn't just a single thing (or set of things) that went wrong. It was the whole enchilada.

I guess I could have picked post all-star break. The team went 6-25 after the all-star game... a slightly worse win rate (.1935 to the .1944 of my original post).

Ed O.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

tlong said:


> The negative you haven't stated is the disaffection the few veterans on the team will feel as we continue to give minutes to the young guys. This will cause team chemistry to suffer.


You may be right about unhappy veterans. That seems to be par for the course when the big entitled babies don't get their minutes.

I doubt though, from what I've read, that McMillan is going to pull a Pritchard and spend the season in player evaluation mode. To me it seemed (at the end of last year) that the entire decision making process as to who to play, when, where, and how was mostly for evaluation purposes, and that winning the games was secondary to that. And I was fine with it (considering the circumstances).

McMillan has indicated that he will put the best players on the floor, regardless of politics, to give the team a team first identity and to win games. And I believe him.

So I guess I'm saying that I do believe we'll win more games than in Ed's doomsday scenario, but that veterans (if we have any left) that don't earn their minutes will have to do some soul searching or else there will be conflicts. I seem to recall also that Nate, in anticipation of this constant NBA reality, has pretty much stated that if they don't get on board with a team-first attitude it will be "buh-bye."


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Am I the only one that's fearing a big step back even from our final record last year based on these factors?
> 
> Anyone got anything to cheer me up?
> 
> Ed O.


11 of our last 22 losses were by 6 points or less. That's a lot of close games, especially when we were relying on rookie PG to lead the way down the stretch. I think by the end of last year, (2 wins in our last 3 games BTW - why didn't you use a 3 game sample size?) we were already seeing the improvement in our young guys. 

Frankly, I think you could have made very similar comments about Chicago going into last season. They were young, had some injury questions, appeared to be short on talent. Coming off a 23-59 season in 03/04, they dropped their first 9 games, then went 47-26 to close out the year. 

I look at their team in the 04/05 season. Kirk Hinrich, Othella Harrington, Tyson Chandler, Nocioni, Eddy Curry, Deng, Ben Gordon, Duhon and Antonio Davis...I don't see more talent in that lineup than what we can put on the floor. I realize they are in the east, but that team can win far more than 16 games in the west. 

A good coach can cure a lot of our problems.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

well, I'd list a few more positives: 

-- Outside shooting. The only outside shooting threat we had last season was Damon, and he really stunk for the first third. It sucked having our setup guy also be our shooting guy. Webster will be a guy you just can't leave alone on the perimeter like you can Telfair or Miles. Outlaw is gaining confidence, and was already the best shooter in practice last year, from what I read. 

-- Balance. Night after night we'd see the front line do well but have our guards gun us down game after game after game with combined 7/25-ish nights. Yeah, Telfair will still miss a fair amount, but he's going to distribute much more than Damon--really run the position from a pass-first perspective. 

Guys are going to basically know their roles this year unlike last year. There will be only one 20/10 power forward (Zach). One starting point guard (Telfair). One starting SF (likely Miles). SG and C are somewhat debateable, but I honestly feel like those are positions where the best man will win and the guys who don't won't cause much fuss. The exception, of course, will be Patterson. 

-- Experience. To your list of Telfair, Outlaw and Khryapa, I'd also add Przybilla and maybe even Randolph by the end of the season. 

It's easy to forget that until January, Przybilla was commonly referred to as "Foulzilla", almost never getting into the double digits in points or boards before getting in foul trouble. The dude made huge strides, and who is to say he won't improve more in a contract year? He'll easily blow away last season's 6 pt/7 reb average. 

Randolph may actually learn how to pass and defend this year. The guy is a hard worker. It's certainly possible. 

-- Superstar potential. At the beginning of last year, Randolph and Miles were the only guys who you looked at and could say, "Maybe an All-Star."

This year I think you can look at Outlaw and say, "Maybe a superstar in another year or two." Telfair and Webster, along with Randolph and Miles, all have some All-Star potential as well. Will they all reach it? Nope. But they have the potential, and if a couple of them really bust out this year we will definitely win more than 20 games.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> The negative you haven't stated is the disaffection the few veterans on the team will feel as we continue to give minutes to the young guys. This will cause team chemistry to suffer.


Actually, I thought of this this morning but I forgot it when I typed this up. There's a real danger in losing Theo, Ruben, and Darius if their minutes or roles are less than they think it should be.

On the one hand, one could reasonably say, "Good riddance to bad rubbish," but not having these guys contributing WILL hurt our chances on the floor.

Hopefully Nate can keep them checked in emotionally even if/when he has to play younger guys over them as the team loses.

Which reminds me of something else I thought about: Nate and the brass want to instill a "culture of winning" in these young players. Is it possible to instill a culture of winning in the face of an overwhelming number of losses?

It's certainly possible to be a good person and act maturely and keep trying your hardest even as you lose... and all of those things would seem to be important to any culture of winning. But I'd assume there's something more to winning in the NBA, and I worry that a team full of young players that don't win won't learn how to do so on their own.

Ed O.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

If we get some other veterans and are healthier, I see us contending for the eighth seed, if one of those things happens, 25-30 wins, if neither, you could be right, Ed.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I hate to rain on your parade, Ed, but your post seems a little silly. If the whole idea is whether or not the Blazers will win 16 games or "at least 20 games," who the heck really cares!? That's not even a significant enough difference to worry about. 

If they win 16 games, they're a lousy team. If they win 20 games, they're still a lousy team. Big deal.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hard to call at this point.

The Blazers were about .500 when Zach went down, then the big slide happened due to the yout h movement where there was IMO no emphasis on winning and a caoch with 0 NBA coaching experience..

Bringing in Nate, who is already establiching a new attitude from the coaching perspective (and will have better management support) will have an impact, IMO he likely will get more out of this team than Maurice did, but the loss of veteran tallent will level the playing field.

Hate to say it but a lot of the teams success this season will hing on Derek Anderson and his health. IMO we are probably looking at this lineup.

PG Telfair/Jack
SG Anderson/Oulaw/Webster
SF Miles/Patterson/Outlaw
PF Zach/Theo
C Joel/Theo/Ha

I doubt we'll see webster more than about 7mpg this season, unless DA is injured. 

Of course ther eis always the Ruben Factor, IMO we can in fact afford to move him but what do we get in return? looking at the Roster a backup PF would be importlant.

We also need to consider Viktor and Sergei....I suppose Viktor could be the primary backup 4 but what about Sergei? Guess we'll find out in October.

I'd peg this team at this point as winning about 30 games, but it will be easier to stomache sinc ethe losses will be spread out throughout the season rtather than closing the last 22 games with 20 losses.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

1) Nick Van Exel and Derek Anderson were distractions, if anything during that span of games. They'll be gone. That can't hurt.

2) Ruben Patterson was a pain too. McMillan will keep him in line. Plus, I see him getting more out of him.

3) Charles Smith will bring the team more success at the 2 than Might Mouse did.

4) McMillan should get MUCH more out of Miles.

5) Randolph was injures for most of the season, and he appears to be recovered. A hobbling Randolph and SAR is not necessarily greater than a healthy Randolph and Patterson, especially with the type of offense we plan to implement.

6) Nash isn't done yet adding to this team. I believe in addition to Charles Smith, Portland will bring in a capable 1 and 4/5. 

7) Our young players are more advanced than they were at that point last season.

8) Every team has injury issues, or "potentially" fragile players. I don't see that Portland's outlook is any dimmer than another teams.

IMO, your expectations for this team are unreasonable. I mean we've been rebuilding for 5 months. The team is undertaking a major reconstruction. I have a lot of confidence in the management and now coaching staff. I look at what the team's doing and where they're headed, and I'm hooked. There's no way this team struggles as much as they did last season, unless they're hampered by injuries. I see no reason why a line up of Telfair - Smith - Miles - Randolph - Prz - Webster - Outlaw - Patterson - Ratliff won't be far better than what they had at the end of last season.

I'm particularly excited about the end of next season. Portland will have some very attractive pieces to offer other clubs. Jack, Anderson (and his expiring contract), Miles (or Outlaw), Khryapa, Monya, Patterson (and his expiring contact), and our three draft picks (maybe even a fouth can be collected) could all be used to strengthen this team.

Good things are coming our way.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Crimson the Cat said:


> IMO, your expectations for this team are unreasonable. I mean we've been rebuilding for 5 months.


You think that the team has only been rebuilding for five months? What were they doing the rest of the time Patterson and Nash have been in charge?

If it wasn't rebuilding, it was failing to win... which makes me wonder why you'd have confidence that they are more capable of rebuilding than they are of winning.

I appreciate people giving me their thoughts on why the team is going to be better than I think, but calling the expectations I have for this team unreasonable when we're looking at a third straight lottery year and a probably sub-30 win season seems a bit off.

Ed O.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

By memory, one hallmark of recent Sonics teams was that they got off early to good starts. It is also said that Nate runs a very demanding training camp. I would guess, that the new Babyblazers will have a better chance to win games during the first two months of the season than at any other time. No other team will consider them any kind of threat, and it will be awhile before opponent players bother listening to scouting reports. I think they might be able to get 10 wins out of the first 22-24 games of the year. 

However, this really depends greatly on good 4th quarter play. What was seen at the end of last year, was that teams were so confident that they could beat the Blazers down the stretch in the 4th, that they didn't put out much effort during the first 3 quarters. If the Blazer players understand this and can up their 4th quarter perfomances, wins will come. I think this is about the best that can be expected for next year. If all goes well, then 2-3 years down the road, the Babies will have grown enough for opponents to actually play them competitively for most of the game, and the Blazers will be playing near, but below 500. They can then be dubbed the TeenBlazers.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Sorry Ed O, there will be nothing from me to change your mind!

Positives 
Zach will be back. He is a stable scoring machine. And he boards.
Miles also might be back (I predict him starting again at SF). He also could add to what was missing last year. 
DA might play (that's a positive). 
Theo's defense might be back again. 
Pure shooting of Webster.

Negatives 
Our vet's are gone. Pressure shots at the end of shot-clock will be trouble. 
All the youngsters will be improved - but not compared to most other veterans. 
Many close games will be lost again. GS, Denver, Utah all should be better than last year.

I predict 20-25 wins. (based upon roster as it is today).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Negatives
> Our vet's are gone. Pressure shots at the end of shot-clock will be trouble.
> All the youngsters will be improved - but not compared to most other veterans.
> Many close games will be lost again. GS, Denver, Utah all should be better than last year.
> ...


Pressure Shots at the end of the shot clock shouldn't happen with out Damon and Nick dominating the ball.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Utah should be better than last year.


why should Utah be better? They're young, have little to no vets (who are worth beano) and they got younger in the draft. How'd they all the sudden leap frog us?


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

I think most people are missing a key detail here. We went from sniffing the 8 spot in the playoffs to finishing 7 and 29 because our team purposefully tanked games- just like San Antonio did seasons earlier. 

Why did we tank? Because we hoped to be much better after the tank- which we should be now.

We've lost Van Exel, Damon and Shareef- but only one of these players is really a net loss. Damon and Van Exel are absolutely lousy players on both the defensive and offensive (check out the field goal percentages...)

We've gained two pretty good players through the draft and should see improvements from our young players. Also, Zach Randolph will be back and this time he won't be backstabbed by our coach and wing players (do you remember players with a 38% field goal percentage arguing through the media that a 50% field goal shooter should have the ball less?). 

We will have a coach that knows how to use Darius Miles and that is tough enough to keep him in line.

People are raving about how good Sebastian Telfair looks this year and Outlaw is coming closer to living up to his potential.

This is not a bad team. Don't put so much stock in the 7 and 29 because it's not representative.

I predict from 35 to 45 wins, myself.

As the fan would say, it's time to Believe harder!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

chula vista blazer said:


> I think most people are missing a key detail here. We went from sniffing the 8 spot in the playoffs to finishing 7 and 29 because our team purposefully tanked games- just like San Antonio did seasons earlier.


San Antonio didn't purposefully tank games to get Tim Duncan. They were coming off of 121 wins in the two previous seasons, but David Robinson was out almost all year because of injury. Sean Elliot missed over half the year. Chuck Person didn't play at all that year.

Those are three of their top five scorers from the previous season, including an MVP-level player.

In 97-98, the Spurs had a healthy Robinson, a healthy Person, and another stud in Tim Duncan. They weren't the same team that only won 20 games.

Compare that to how Portland lost their games: they lost them by playing the same guys that are going to be here in the upcoming season.



> As the fan would say, it's time to Believe harder!


I know the Fan (as far as one can know people through posting on a board about basketball). In many ways, I appreciate the Fan. But I don't follow his advice about things.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

sounds familiar

The Blazers had some pretty good records a few years earlier, went to the playoffs 21 years in a row, and almost knocked Dallas out of the 1st round after being down 3-0

DA was out half the year the season before... then many games this year

Rahim was out several weeks.. a starting candidate

Zach was out nearly half the season... Did I mention he was most improved player the year before?

a coach was fired for 27 games...

and the brass decided to pull out the rug and go with all youth to gain experieince...




Sounds a lot like San Antonio to me.... either that or we did not tank the season either... legally of course


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> why should Utah be better? They're young, have little to no vets (who are worth beano) and they got younger in the draft. How'd they all the sudden leap frog us?


Kirilenko was injured most of the year. Other new players into Sloan's system - will learn at least at the same rate as babyblazers. I think they played well below expectations and talent last year.




Schilly said:


> Pressure Shots at the end of the shot clock shouldn't happen with out Damon and Nick dominating the ball.


I think they still might from over-passing and young players not knowing when it's time to shoot and when its time to keep passing the potato. Young players don't take shots when they're supposed to.


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> San Antonio didn't purposefully tank games to get Tim Duncan. They were coming off of 121 wins in the two previous seasons, but David Robinson was out almost all year because of injury. Sean Elliot missed over half the year. Chuck Person didn't play at all that year.
> 
> Those are three of their top five scorers from the previous season, including an MVP-level player.
> 
> ...


Ed,

I don't know you very well at all (well...I know your name is Ed!), but pessimism does not become you. I can sense that you'd rather be wearing a goofy grin and waving a huge Blazer banner- so let me help with that!

The Blazers did not lose playing the same guys- the best player- Zach wasn't really there last season and not at all during the slide. Webster and Jack weren't there. Telfair was there, but was still learning. Ruben and Darius were misused (And didn't Ruben sit out for a while) by our inexperienced or purposefully bad front office coach. 

This coming year, hopefully, we'll have a healthy Zach, a more experienced Telfair, a refocused Miles and an actual Coach.

How can things not be better? Break that banner out of the closet. I have a feeling that we'll be seeing many goofy grins this year!


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

chula vista blazer said:


> Ed,
> I can sense that you'd rather be wearing a goofy grin and waving a huge Blazer banner


Yeah, that's how I think of Ed.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

> San Antonio didn't purposefully tank games to get Tim Duncan.


It sure seemed that way as several of their injured starters were well enough to return with over a month to go but SA decided not to bring them back. Clearly it was a smart move on their part.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Kirilenko was injured most of the year. Other new players into Sloan's system - will learn at least at the same rate as babyblazers. I think they played well below expectations and talent last year.


as was Zach last year. He was injured for most of the season.

And we played well below our expectations too.

I don't see how Utah's players automatically make them a surer shot at winning more games. Neither team has bupkis for vet talent, and neither really is scarey from the outside.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> as was Zach last year. He was injured for most of the season.


But we had SAR to fill in. The Jazz didn't have such a nice replacement for their best player.



> I don't see how Utah's players automatically make them a surer shot at winning more games. Neither team has bupkis for vet talent, and neither really is scarey from the outside.


The Jazz aren't losing anyone outside of Raja Bell, while the Blazers are losing 3 of their top 7 (or 8 or 9, depending on how one defines these things) players. The Jazz also have added Deron Williams, who's probably going to get plugged right into the starting lineup.

I don't think there's any guarantee that the Jazz will be better than the Blazers, but I think that the chances are good that they will be because of the more mature nature of their lineup and their superior roster balance.

Ed O.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I bet a friend today $20 that the Blazers would win at least 30 games next year, and I actually believe that the Blazers will likely win more like 35-40.

First off, Zach healthy is much better then injured Zach and SAR combo.
second, I have a feeling that although miles wont breakout as a superstar, he will finally become consistantly good.
third, the talent and maturity of the young ones is being highly underrated. Telfair and webster are both far and away more mature then most geve them credit for, Outlaw is finally coming into his own, Jack is going to finally give us a defensive point when needed, and Joel will hopefully be playing the entire year at the high level he did in the second half of last year. 

Smile


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> But we had SAR to fill in. The Jazz didn't have such a nice replacement for their best player.


true. but we're talking about this year, not last year. 

not only that, Zach and Shareef were both poorly used (if you want to even call what they did with Shareef being used). They didn't have a system that helped either one, or even took advantage of either one.

So basically, if Shareef was a "nice replacement" for the best player, why'd the team go in the **** can?

Same reason why Utah did. They didn't have the talent, and they don't have the talent (as we know it).



> The Jazz aren't losing anyone outside of Raja Bell, while the Blazers are losing 3 of their top 7 (or 8 or 9, depending on how one defines these things) players. The Jazz also have added Deron Williams, who's probably going to get plugged right into the starting lineup.


losing Damon is a plus. Losing Shareef isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. Losing NVE will be a bonus.



> I don't think there's any guarantee that the Jazz will be better than the Blazers, but I think that the chances are good that they will be because of the more mature nature of their lineup and their superior roster balance.
> Ed O.


I don't think either team is realistically any better than the other. Both could have better records than the other.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> true. but we're talking about this year, not last year.


You might not be talking about last year, but I am. I'm talking about where each team ended up last year and what's changed. That should add up to a good estimate of how the two teams are going to do this year.

The Jazz finished with 26 wins, and the Blazers with 27. Essentially even. This in spite of SAR's presence as a pretty good fill-in for Zach.



> So basically, if Shareef was a "nice replacement" for the best player, why'd the team go in the **** can?
> 
> Same reason why Utah did. They didn't have the talent, and they don't have the talent (as we know it).


Yep. But the Blazers struggled in SPITE of having SAR, while the Jazz struggled because they had no nice replacement for Andrei.



> losing Damon is a plus. Losing Shareef isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. Losing NVE will be a bonus.


I don't agree that Damon being gone will help us win games. I don't see how that's possible, considering how much Damon played last year after Pritchard took over... maybe Pritchard was playing him to make the team worse so they would lose more games, but I think that the team was trying to win every game, and Damon got heavy minutes because the organization saw him as a player that helped them.

As long as Zach is healthy, losing SAR isn't going to hurt us on the court (although losing him for nothing is a lost opportunity to add assets for the longer run). And I don't think that NVE was a very good player for the Blazers, but he's a better player than Jarret Jack is at this point.

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

How is Boozer and Okur not a replacement for AK47?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BlazerFanFoLife said:


> How is Boozer and Okur not a replacement for AK47?


At least two reasons I can think of:

(1) Because they play the 4 and 5, and Andrei was lined up to play the 3.

(2) Because both will be back this year, playing alongside Kirilenko.

SAR and Zach played the same position and, in spite of the experiment that the Blazers undertook the first 25 games of last year, they ONLY played the same position with any effectiveness.

Ed O.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I don't think the end of last year is the greatest way to measure how the team will do next season. Unfortunately, the best way - to look at the sum of our parts, how they'll do under Nate McMillan, read the various reports on how healthy and slim Zach Randolph is, etc. - is not that easy to do. 

So, I'm left expecting that the Blazers will be better than the end of last season for a few reasons. 

1.) Nate McMillan is a proven coach, and will get players' attention as a result. That could well lead to Darius Miles finally showing some consistency. For the Blazers to be good, they need Miles to average 15 ppg, 8 boards, and play consistent defense. Plus the occasional breakout game, and Miles will have done his part. I'm betting that happens. 

2.) Zach Randolph will return healthy. From everything that's been reported to date, Randolph is healthy, not overweight, and working out. His game doesn't rely on athleticism, anyway, but I would expect him to put up his 20 ppg and 10 boards. 

3.) The combination of Theo Ratliff and Joel Przybilla - when the team was actually trying to play good defense - was one of the best center tandems in the league. With Theo rested, and Joel playing for his next contract, the Block Party will be back. 

Those three factors alone - all in the all-important frontcourt - will win the Blazers 20 games. More than that, and it's up to the youngsters in the backcourt, the free agent vets that Nash might sign, and X factors like whether or not Portland keeps Ruben Patterson. 

I expect this team to be like the Baby Bulls, but with a better frontcourt. For that reason, I'm seeing 30 wins as a reasonable expectation, but the jump from 20 to 30 wins is in the hands of Sebastian Telfair (and maybe Jarrett Jack).


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

NVE had no positive influence on the team last year, at least after the 1st month or so. His absence will not matter.

Damon instead of Telfair was better last year, but that might not be true this year. Telfair seems to have as much desire as ever, and now has a full year under his belt. Though he will still make mistakes, I don't think he'll actually be any worse than Damon. Likely a better influence in the locker room as well, though it's hard to see how much that will count for. 

Losing SAR might hurt, but only as the insurance if Zach gets injured or is slow to recover. Having him didn't help at all when Zach was healthy, and I don't think he was a motivator or leader off the court, either.

So yes, the team is losing many of its vets, but I don't expect that to have much of an impact. Additionally, the team will have a more varied offense this year, since they have more range, better coaching, and the impact players on the floor will be more experienced. The defense ought to improve at least a little as well. The biggest worry to me is injury, especially a the 2 places lacking depth (PG and PF). Barring that, I'll be surprised if they get much fewer than 30 wins (or any more than 40).


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

theWanker said:


> well, I'd list a few more positives:
> 
> -- Outside shooting. The only outside shooting threat we had last season was Damon, and he really stunk for the first third. It sucked having our setup guy also be our shooting guy. Webster will be a guy you just can't leave alone on the perimeter like you can Telfair or Miles. Outlaw is gaining confidence, and was already the best shooter in practice last year, from what I read.


I'll second that and add more to it. Webster, Monia and Jack are all reported to be excellent shooters. If DA is back healthy, by that I mean so that he can he can handle the ball stop and pop a jump shot that actually involves jumping and get some separation from the man defending him, he is probably the best shooter of the returning players. That's four guys that can shoot that we didn't have last year.

We didn't really have an offense last year and though I'm optimistic about Nate's coaching abilities I don't have high expectations for him to put in a successful offense with the players we have on the roster. That means we are going to end up taking a lot of last second shots. But I'm hopeful that the guys taking those shots will be the ones I've mentioned previously and not Damon Stoudamire.

Another big factor is going to be improved defense. Defense should start in the back court. Maybe I'm seeing with rose colored glasses but it seems to me our defense was significantly better when Telfair started guarding the opposing team's main ball handler. Jack is supposedly a great defender as well. DA will never make anybody's all-defense squad but if he's healthy he is easily twice the defender Amon Stou_amire (See how I took out the D's. I'm clever) and that alone should account for a 10% drop in the opposing shooting guard's percentage. Monia, Smith and Webster should all be an improvement on Amon (OH YEAH!! Used the same joke again, I rule) as well.

And if our back court defense is as improved as I think we should be a very hard team to score against. Opposing guards will actually have to work for their points instead of being guarded (using the term loosely) by Amon (Damn I'm good!) and Nick Van Exel who both seemed to just let guys go by them without really trying. A guy like Randolph who is generally thought of as a bad defender will be able to pay better attention to his man rather than instinctively going toward the key because the opposing team's point guard has made his way into the lane for the seventeenth time that night. 

The one kind of bad thing is that it will reduce the number of blocks that Theo and Joel get because they will have less opportunities. But the blocks they do get will be meaningful. They'll stop a shot that was created because the other team's player made a great move or pass. They will also be able to pay better attention to their man rather than having to be constantly looking to the man with the ball because they're going to run past our guy any second. There were tons of times last year when I saw Joel or Theo run away from their man going for a block just to see the opposing center end up with an uncontested shot.

In a season where a lot of teams are going to look at this team and think of that night's game as an unofficial day off our improved shooting and defense should be enough to win us an extra 10 games. So I'm saying we'll win 25.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

just wanted to say that no one thought the Sonics would do well because of the FA situation. Everyone figured they'd all play for themselves, and fall apart. 

On contrast, the guys got closer and played better. They all thought big contract, played well as a team & besides the bigs w/ exception to Collison, earned big contracts. 

Now, 3 of the Sonics FA's were considered in the top 15 among all FA's. Ray Allen being #1, A.D. coming in in the 10's, and Vladimir along in the 15's.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You might not be talking about last year, but I am. I'm talking about where each team ended up last year and what's changed. That should add up to a good estimate of how the two teams are going to do this year.


but it also was not a normal end to the season. you had guys who hardly played, and didn't have a system. now they'll have a system, get get minutes. 

It's kind of the Zach Randolph effect. Better yet, the Joel effect. When he didn't get minutes, he looked inept. When he did, he looked good.



> The Jazz finished with 26 wins, and the Blazers with 27. Essentially even. This in spite of SAR's presence as a pretty good fill-in for Zach.


the only time when Shareef was a "good fill in" was *after* the team gave up, and basically he played for stats.



> Yep. But the Blazers struggled in SPITE of having SAR, while the Jazz struggled because they had no nice replacement for Andrei.


was AK out for the last part of the season?



> I don't agree that Damon being gone will help us win games. I don't see how that's possible, considering how much Damon played last year after Pritchard took over...


because maybe the players who are replacing him are better for the TEAM game. Just because someone played a lot once Maurice was canned, doesn't mean that the team needed him so desperately. 

Remember the game where Damon didn't play? the team won and played a game much better than they did when he DID play. Damon was like a sickness. Sure, when you finally get off of Damon, you aren't playing that good (and in comparison, look horrible compared to when you were on Damon)..but give yourself about 15 games, and you'll start to see a noticable difference. Then in about another 10 games, you'll end up playing better than you did when you were on Damon.



> maybe Pritchard was playing him to make the team worse so they would lose more games, but I think that the team was trying to win every game, and Damon got heavy minutes because the organization saw him as a player that helped them.


who else was there Ed? NVE wimped out, DA is a wimp, and basically you're left with Richie Frahm. It's not like we had another PG or SG who was worth beans. Damon played minutes more by default.



> As long as Zach is healthy, losing SAR isn't going to hurt us on the court (although losing him for nothing is a lost opportunity to add assets for the longer run). And I don't think that NVE was a very good player for the Blazers, but he's a better player than Jarret Jack is at this point.
> 
> Ed O.


If Jack stays on the team and doesn't cause a commotion (and plays in most of the games) I'd say he's a better asset to the team than NVE was.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

BUMP.

Anyone care to revise their predictions? I stick by mine.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

I'll stick by my 22 win prediction, and logically most of them will come in the 2nd half of the season. They're right where I expected them to be (getting our butts kicked). Next year we'll draft a couple of big men and our defense will get a little better and more of our shots will start falling. The results will be about 10 more wins than this year. The 3rd year we'll win about 12-15 more games than next year. That will put us around 45 wins and possibly the playoffs. The 4th year, we'll be making some noise in the playoffs. Relax and watch these kids grow.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I remember reading this thread but don't think I posted a win amount but I did in another thread of 41 ? I think and missing the playoffs. 

I do need to revise that but seeing the game last night (and going to see it again today - Tivo) I see that the learning curve is much slower than I thought with _a system _ to learn. Both young player and the vets we have have never had to learn a system of any kind. 

The third quarter did prove to me that this team can be explosive when they play defense. The shooting will come around as soon as the _plays_ are learned well and executed with fluid movement. Telfair was struggling to make passes that lead to scores because he has never learned to be _structured_ in his play. Cosequently Jack may have a leg up on him in this reguard. I think you will see great improvement in Webster as soon as he gets some confidence and not have to think if he is doing _it_ right. This goes for nearly all the players on this team.

So I will revise my prediction to 35 wins. :yes: :swammi: 

gatorpops


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Let's take a look at my most in-depth outlook for the team, which I wrote in July.



Ed O said:


> I want to list some positives and some negatives and hopefully people will be able to convince me that the team is going to at least break 20 wins this year.


Well, the team is 6-16 after tonight, putting them at a pace for 22 wins. Slightly more than 20, but we've got to play all 4 games of the season against the Hawks and the Knicks (two of the worst teams in the NBA).



> *Positives:*
> 
> -- A better coach. Mo Cheeks was never a great coach, but Pritchard had never coached before. While I don't feel confident judging coaches in detail, I gotta think that Pritch made some decisions or errors that cost us ballgames during his time. Nate McMillan knows how to coach at the NBA level, and is probably an upgrade on Cheeks... and almost certainly one over Pritchard.


Can't really tell here, but I think that Cheeks is better than Pritchard. Not saying much, but still a step in the right direction over the end of last year.



> -- Better health. Theo should be ready to go. Zach should be back for most of the season. Derek Anderson could even contribute. Viktor should be recovered and available.


Well, DA is gone (and he's hurt again for Houston 20 games in, anyways). Zach and Viktor have been playing, and Theo WAS healthy. At least for a while.



> -- Experience for our young guys. Telfair should be better. Outlaw will be better. Viktor should be better.


Yep. Telfair's been better and Viktor's been better. But Outlaw hasn't been much better except maybe in practice.



> -- Injection of more young talent. Webster, Monia, and Jack will probably all be on our roster this year, and that youth should help a team that relied on players like Maurice Baker and Geno Carlisle and James Thomas last year.


Definitely a positive.



> -- Law of averages. It takes a VERY VERY bad team to win fewer than 20 games. I think that even if Portland's capable of losing that many, they'll get enough bounces to avoid 16-ish wins.


Almost certainly true, but too hard to tell at this point.



> *Negatives:*
> 
> -- Loss of talent. Zach's return is offset significantly by the loss of SAR. A totally healthy Zach is better than SAR, but he's not THAT much better. Damon shot too much and he had massive defensive issues, but he kept us in games when he got hot, too, and he provided a relatively stable alternative to Telfair at the PG spot.


I think that this is abundantly clearly true at this point.



> -- Loss of veteran influence. Damon, NVE, and SAR each had their flaws, but in addition to their on-court abilities they had been in the NBA a while. Teams without veterans rarely win.


Again: looks to be true.



> -- Fragility. Looking at our roster, it's littered with guys who get hurt. DA is an obvious example, but Theo and Joel have each had significant numbers of games in the past 5 years where they've been unavailable due to injury. Darius has had physical problems since leaving the Clippers, and Zach is coming off of microfracture surgery. And while it seems likely that Viktor will be fully recovered, he missed over half the season last year with his foot injury.


Again, DA is gone. And Viktor and Joel have been healthy so far. But Theo and Darius were injured (as their histories indicated was pretty likely) and Zach seems not to be all the way back).



> -- Improvement of teams around us. ABM started another thread looking at the other lower-tier Western conference teams, and i think that they've almost all improved. Utah should take a big step up now that they've got their PG situation improved and Golden State hit their stride after getting Baron Davis (ending the year with an 18-8 record in the final two months). New Orleans adds Paul and gets Magloire back, but they're the team I find us most likely to be better than in spite of that.


OK. So I was wrong about NO, it appears. But being wrong there actually shows how right I was on this point.

Historical cellar-dwellars like the Warriors and the Clippers are off to very good starts, and while a team like Utah isn't doing great things, they're still on a pace to win 10 more games than they did last year.

Even with the slipping of some better teams from last year (Sacramento, Houston, Seattle) it still is clear that the bottom of the conference got better. Except for Portland. And that means fewer wins.

Ed O.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

i think i picked 24 wins this year - by the waythings are looking im gonna be on the money.

id agree with most of your comments with respect to your original post, ed.

bright spots 

blake - gem signing , really taking his opportunities
jack - nice to see some D at the point 
miles - that one game when he was the punisher!
krap - improved
joel - rebounding machine and solid d

dull spots

zach - anti-rebounding machine, seems to lose desire every game.
telfair - 4.x assists? horrible
webster - lack of minutes but with the hype over the pick im still rather deflated, still wanted paul.
miles - the other games where he is the vanisher!


the rest are somewhere in between.

all up its as bad as i thought it'd be and i thought itd be worst than most.


----------

