# Why



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

So I haven't posted here in a while. I'm not going to get into the particulars, because this thread is not about me. It's about the Blazers, and why--as I watch each and every game--I'm rooting for them to lose.

The Blazers had a great draft in 2006, with the three rookies this year (obviously) proving that they are good prospects. The Blazers have other very nice pieces in Zach and Jack and Webster. They have a few potential assets in Outlaw and Miles, and they even have a few veterans in Joel and Raef who can help out next year.

But THIS YEAR? The team wasn't going to win much. Talk of the playoffs has been crazy, and for the future of the franchise's success, I hoped that they would not eclipse my predicted 32 wins for this season. The franchise has made a committment to Nate, and I was confident that another year of losing wouldn't derail the long-term direction of the team, but it WOULD add another talented piece from an incredibly strong draft.

So I've watched every game on Season Pass, rooting for players and hoping that the team would always come up a bit short.

I'm not proud of myself, but I'm more convinced now than ever before that it's in the team's best interests to lose lots of games between now and the end of the year.

Next year? Things will be different. I will root for the team as well as the players. I will have hopes for a playoff push and I will expect the team to get to .500. But they (hopefully) will do so with the assistance of a top 5 pick from this year's draft.

Ed O.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Add me to the list of people that feel this way. If it were up to me we would lose every game by 1 point.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

It's good to see you post again Ed. I clearly don't post often but have always enjoyed your input. I would have to say from a business standpoint it does make sense to lose as many games as possible. It's hard to root to lose while the game is in progress though.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I completely agree Ed...I find myself with mixed emotions when the team wins, considering that this draft has the potential to really add another good (possibly great) young player to the mix...


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I'm rooting for them to beat Dallas, the Lakers, Phoenix, New York (hate 'em) and a few others, but to lose especially to the Memphises, Bostons, Phillies and other bottom feeders of this world. But only in triple overtime on a blatantly incorrect call.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Such a tough connundrum...I just can't root for us to lose though. Especially against hated teams such as the Lakers, Jazz and Sonics.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

By the way, nice to see you back, Ed. How much "potential" does Telfair have left, would you say?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Such a tough connundrum...I just can't root for us to lose though. Especially against hated teams such as the Lakers, Jazz and Sonics.


You cheer for them to win, and then sigh when they lose. That's what I do.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> So I haven't posted here in a while. I'm not going to get into the particulars, because this thread is not about me. It's about the Blazers, and why--as I watch each and every game--I'm rooting for them to lose.
> 
> The Blazers had a great draft in 2006, with the three rookies this year (obviously) proving that they are good prospects. The Blazers have other very nice pieces in Zach and Jack and Webster. They have a few potential assets in Outlaw and Miles, and they even have a few veterans in Joel and Raef who can help out next year.
> 
> ...


I'm still not rooting for us to lose. 

We had the best chance of landing the top pick last year, and ended up 4th. So, there's no guarantees we'd get lucky this year either. I understand, the chances go up the worse you are. But to me, I'd rather see our guys gaining confidence rather than getting an extra .03% chance of getting the top pick. 

We got the best player in the draft last year at #7. We got another excellent prospect at the end of the 1st round. True, Oden and Durant will be long gone by then, but I trust our scouts and interim GM to make the right calls and get a stud no matter where we pick. Lebron was a can't miss stud, guaranteed #1 pick...I think I'd pick Dwayne Wade #1 if I had that pick and the benefit of hindsight. And I think we're not done making trades. I think Pritchard and co can target the guy they want and get him, (aside from Oden and Durant) no matter where we're picking.

Plus, we're still bad enough I don't have to ROOT for us to lose. It happens anyway.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

I'm glad you're back Ed.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Welcome back Ed. The board has sucked without you.

Objectively, I think you're right -- getting more pingpong balls and a better draft pick would help the team more than anything right now. (I'm imagining Kevin Durant running the break with Sergio, Brandon, and LaMarcus... ahhhh.)

Subjectively, I find it impossible not to root for our guys to win. I love watching these guys play and heartbreaking losses like yesterday's really burn.

So I'm conflicted. I guess for the rest of the season I just want to see more good basketball, and I can be happy if we win (because we won!) or if we lose (because we're getting a better draft pick).

Stepping Razor


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> So I haven't posted here in a while. I'm not going to get into the particulars, because this thread is not about me. It's about the Blazers, and why--as I watch each and every game--I'm rooting for them to lose.
> 
> The Blazers had a great draft in 2006, with the three rookies this year (obviously) proving that they are good prospects. The Blazers have other very nice pieces in Zach and Jack and Webster. They have a few potential assets in Outlaw and Miles, and they even have a few veterans in Joel and Raef who can help out next year.
> 
> ...


I agree completely. Out of the playoffs is out of the playoffs. I think the Blazers have served notice that they have good young talent...the only positive that can really come out of the season now is a top-five (ideally top-two, but that seems pretty much impossible now) pick.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I realize the team will be in a better position if we lose, but I still root for the team to win. I can't help myself.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I mentioned this in another thread, but what I think is getting underestimated is the impact losing has on young players.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

graybeard said:


> I'm glad you're back Ed.


DITTO :allhail:


Hey Ed O.. clear some PM's ok... your full


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

First off, welcome back EdO.

I can't root for them to lose although I can't disagree with your contention that in the end, losses now may very well be what is needed to get the final pieces to build a very strong team ready to contend for playoffs and later championships. 

But I would rather root for the win and root for the best bounce of the ping-pong balls. During the games, I root to win but take solace in knowing that losses bring us closer to drafting better players. 

There are a couple things to note about this years draft. The top two picks are likely going to be superstars, but even if the Blazers tank, they most likely will not catch up with Boston or Memphis. If we were close to the bottom two teams I would consider rooting for the loss but we already have 10 more wins then Memphis. After the top two draft choices, there seems to be a lot of parity, so I am not sure that drafting third is going to be that much better then drafting seventh. Of course the higher you draft the more choices you have, and I do trust Pritchard, but the difference is not enough for me to root for a loss.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Lose now to win later? Tough question. 

Take last night for instance. I was pleased to see the Blazers take a lead deep into the 4th quarter against one of the top 4 teams in the NBA, but wasn't saddened by the eventual loss, knowing that the missing piece could be found in the draft.

The team needs a top 5 pick, because the talent level drops off quite a bit after Oden/Durant/Noah/B. Wright/Horford. On the flip side, the team needs to develop some confidence.

For me, 33-49 is the goal for the year. Granted, the Blazers weren't expected to win, but losing 50 still carries a stigma.

March Madness will be exciting for one reason: to find the Brandon Roy of 2007. 

I like Jeff Green, and Al Thornton and Corey Brewer are also interesting. Brandan Wright is also growing on me, the more I watch him play, the more I like how he plays the game, even though he seems a bit raw and could use another year to develop.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm not proud of myself, but I'm more convinced now than ever before that it's in the team's best interests to lose lots of games between now and the end of the year.
> 
> Next year? Things will be different. I will root for the team as well as the players. I will have hopes for a playoff push and I will expect the team to get to .500. But they (hopefully) will do so with the assistance of a top 5 pick from this year's draft.
> 
> Ed O.


I can not stand to loose. I am too competitive. But agree....

we will not gain much at all by winning out this year. If we loose more and get a better shot at a top pick then do it. Pray pray pray we get a shot at Durant... He would make a huge difference ont hsi team. So would Oden. I want to be able to get one of those 2 even if we trade up and it cost us a player not named Sergio, Jarrett, Brandon, Martel, or LaMarcus.

You add Durant in our lineup right now, and it would be awesome.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I just want to finish a game worse than Philly/Milwaukee/Charlotte/Atlanta who are BARELY behind us in the standings.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> You cheer for them to win, and then sigh when they lose. That's what I do.


Agreed. I root for them to win each and every game - while the game is being played. But if they lose, I just shug it off and say, "Oh well, more ping pong balls in the Oden/Durant lottery". I still like to see the young guys win and build their confidence, but get much less stressed when they lose. Losing when there is no hope of getting better soon was really hard to take. Losing while you watch them get better before your very eyes feels a whole lot better.

BNM


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Welcome back, Ed. You wouldn't know it because you've been absent for awhile, but this topic has been discussed endlessly around here. We seem to be divided pretty evenly between those who want to lose (but still be competitive) and those who just plain want to kick butt every time out. I personally don't mind the losing, because I know that we're not going to make any noise in the playoffs even if we get there, and I can still enjoy watching Roy, Aldridge, and Rodriquez get better every game. THAT has been the saving grace of this season.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> So I haven't posted here in a while. I'm not going to get into the particulars, because this thread is not about me. It's about the Blazers, and why--as I watch each and every game--I'm rooting for them to lose.


Cause you are a Debbie Downer.

he he.

Actually, as I watched the Spurs game, I loved the way the Blazers were playing through large chunks of it. Put a smile on my face.

I quickly got annoyed with the Spur's players and coach's CONSTANT complaining to the refs. Put a frown on my face. Would serve that spoiled group to get spanked once in a while.

And yet, at the end of the game, as the Spurs, methodically, surgically, and brutally, snatched victory out of a sure defeat, I started getting a smile - not a frown.

That was the perfect game. For this team, during this season.

Play really well against one of the best - who is also hot right now - only to lose in the end after a dumbfounding finish. More lotto balls!! Yeah. Win Win.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Hey Ed O.. clear some PM's ok... your full


Well...
"You have 649 messages stored, of a total 100 allowed."

I need to figure out which 550 messages I want to zap so yours will fit. Or, I suppose, I could look into a premium membership again.

Also, TB: did you get my email reply to you a month or two ago? I sent it from another account, and I didn't hear back from you so I wonder if it got caught. Anyway.

Thanks for the support peeps. "Pessimistic Ed O." (which is all that many of you know) only has a little longer to be around, I have a feeling.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Welcome back as well from me too, Ed O. I root like hell for three quarters and then watch the bad calls/no calls take its toll at the end of games. I am with you, ping pong balls are better for this team than wins. They are a young group that is hungry. That will pay off next season and hopefully many seasons after.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> <snip>
> 
> Next year? Things will be different. I will root for the team as well as the players. I will have hopes for a playoff push and I will expect the team to get to .500. But they (hopefully) will do so with the assistance of a top 5 pick from this year's draft.
> 
> Ed O.


Oh, no, not you again! You only want us to lose so your prediction will be right! 

Seriously, good to see you posting again. I predicted 35 wins, but as long as we continue to get better I don't mind that we lose more games though I not sure it'll help us that much. We could win 35 games and get the #1 pick! Just depends on how the ball bounces.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Agrreed with Ed.... in triple overtime.. on a crappy call that we should have won....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Thanks for the support peeps. "Pessimistic Ed O." (which is all that many of you know) only has a little longer to be around, I have a feeling.
> 
> Ed O.


wait, so are you staying or going?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

By the way, I will remind (again), it DOES make a differnce if you lose a few games.

If you have 10th or 11th worst record, you have tiny odds of vaulting into top 3.

If you have 7th, 8th worst record, you have modest odds of vaulting into top 3, and it seems every other year, some team does, often to the #3 pick.

If you have 4th, 5th, or 6th worst record, it is common to vault into top 3.

Last year Toronto with 5th worst record got the #1 pick. And that was not unusual.

Many years, the difference between 10th worst record and 5th worst record is 2 or 3 games.

2 or 3 more losses could make the difference between very little shot at a top 3, and a decent shot at it.

THAT'S why fans "root" for losses.

It is mythology to claim that it makes no difference if you win a few exta games. That is only true if you are already a .500 club at this point in the season, and then think you can tank. With our already poor record we are right now in the mix to have a shot at top 3. Each win pushes us out of reasonable contention to win a top 3 pick.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Glad to see you back, Ed. No matter what Hap says about you. 

I hope the Blazers win each and every game the rest of the season.

But I won't be disappointed at all if they lose each and every game the rest of the season...
...as long as they aren't blowouts.

Next season is going to be really, really exciting.

Um...

...buy your season tickets now!

PBF


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm glad you're back too Ed, especially since you agree with me on this topic.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Masbee said:


> By the way, I will remind (again), it DOES make a differnce if you lose a few games.
> 
> If you have 10th or 11th worst record, you have tiny odds of vaulting into top 3.
> 
> ...


Let me remind you what the worst record got us? #4 pick. It's all how the balls bounce. But if we don't move up then yes a few more losses can only help.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mgb said:


> Let me remind you what the worst record got us? #4 pick. It's all how the balls bounce. But if we don't move up then yes a few more losses can only help.


Not entirely.

And the year before we DID move up.

See how that works? Its better odds to move up the worse your record is. Not a guarantee.

What is guaranteed is even if you don't move up to top 3, you still will have a better pick, having lost a few extra games.

Sometims a few games is all that separates a #11 position from a #6 position.

#11 position = very, very low odds of top 3 pick, and around #11 pick.

#6 position = a fair chance at a top 3 pick, and if lose around #6 or #7 pick.

#6 position is significantly better.


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

I approach this from several different angles.

1. The goal is a pick near the top. This is accomplished in many different ways only one of which is losing every game. It can be accomplished by losing _some_ games. It can also be accomplished by a smart GM with some pieces to trade.

2. Losing is brutal on the psyche and confidence of a player.

3. Losing is brutal on the coaching staff. Losses usually mean a pink slip down the road.

4. Losing is brutal on ownership. Poor decisions are made when one loses.

So there is a downside to losing. Overall I am encouraged by the approach of the players and the coahcing staff and even Paul Allen this season. Everyone seems to understand that this year is not about the W-L column, it's about getting prepared for next year's W-L column.

Do I want them to lose? No. I want them to play hard and develop. Losing or winning is a by-product of that. I do not want losing to become acceptable to anyone. Slippery slope.

End of rant.

Nice to see you back, Ed.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

I want them to lose if we can get a legit shot at a top 3 pick but if we're gonna finish in the 9-14 range I'd rather they win since the differnce in odd's is like 1%.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I just can't hope they lose. Most great teams didn't get that way through high draft picks. I am not saying I don't want the highest pick we can get... just that instilling a winning attitude is more valuable. Nate has this team believing they can win and they are competing just about every night. To me... they seem like a better team than their record says. We can luck into a good pick while still competing. I just believe you always do your best and let the chips fall where they may. Hopefully the Blazers will get lucky in the draft, but regardless... we have a nice team right now that will challenge for a playoff spot next year, regardless of who we draft.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Welcome back, Ed.


----------



## sportsnut1975 (Jul 6, 2006)

I have to say forget the ping pong balls. I am all about winning. Last night was so tough for me. To be the better team for one night and let it slip away made me livid. I like the Orlando Magic luck. Just miss the playoffs and get the number one pick! Shaq. 
I thought Ed O and Mediocre man might be brothers due to them being so negative all the time. Then I see Ed O likes Zach and we all know how Mediocre man feels about Zach.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Good to see you back, Ed. You were often the most intelligible of the nay-sayers.

I don't agree that the playoffs were a crazy dream this season, about 5 games ago, it seemed like a rational possibility- but those are the ups and downs of a young team.

I don't want us to tank any games- outside of Oden and Durant, I think there's talent that's relatively equal in the next 6 or so picks and I trust our management to find the golden pick. For instance, Brewster seems like a nice pick- shades of Igoudola when he came out, and he's projected to be the 10th pick by draftexpress.

I also think we've already got the core that will take us to contention in a few years and back to the playoffs next year. We have further improvement to be seen by Randolph and our four young studs look to get even better- Aldridge, especially.

So, I wouldn't tank any games- let our guys develop and fight for some wins. Who knows, we may though honest effort still end up with a top 5 pick.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Why? Why not win if you can? To play as hard as you can is the purpose of the game and if you are good enough on this given day you win. I would never root for the team to lose. 

This team needs to try as best they can and if they lose, they still learn what it would have taken to have won. The community needs them to win as much as possible as well, so it is incumbent on the team to win if they can. Let the ping-ong balls fall where they may and draft deftly if possible. Zack had a team meeting presumably concerning not finishing like last year. Last year had a big negative effect on Zack, or so it seems.

gatorpops


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Masbee i agree with you and predicted the 5th spot and jumping into the top 3!


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I would also like to point out there are two ways for a team to lose. One way I would support more then the other. 

Type A (strategy for losing)
The Players lose the game. 

Type B (strategy for losing) 
The coach loses the game.

In Type A, the coach is playing the same rotations that he would play to win, but the team and players play poorly and let games slip away. I can not support this approach. Type B the coach experiments with lineups and playes bench players more then the starters. The coach makes the decision to lose so he encourages the players but then the coach does not do what is stratigically needed to win. I could get behind type B more.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

For Three! Rip City! said:


> It's good to see you post again Ed. I clearly don't post often but have always enjoyed your input. I would have to say from a business standpoint it does make sense to lose as many games as possible. It's hard to root to lose while the game is in progress though.


Better from a business standpoint? More wins = more tickets sold. Thats the truth. The average fan who buys a ticket doesnt want to go see the team lose. As sad as it may be, the average fan gets their info from the newspaper etc... if they keep reading about the Blazer winning, they are more likely to buy a ticket or tune in to a game on TV.

Now for me, and most of us in here who are more than just an average fan, we understand that more loses this year is better in the long run.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I have no issue with fans quietly rooting for losses to get a high draft pick...

But if we're talking about the team literally tanking games to get a high draft pick, count me out. That sends the completely wrong message to the team. Losing is one thing, but being essentially taught that that losing is okay because they're not good enough, and they need some sort of savior to win a lot of games... that could have a really negative effect.

I would guess that the more competitive players (read, the ones you'd like to keep around) would be incredibly turned off by that and take the first chance they have to get out of town...

I would much prefer the team to end up with the #8 pick and players that are excited for next year than a #4 pick and players who would rather go somewhere with a "culture of winning".

Like I said though, fans rooting, no big whoop, I can understand that...

(Welcome back Ed!)


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> But if we're talking about the team literally tanking games to get a high draft pick, count me out. That sends the completely wrong message to the team. Losing is one thing, but being essentially taught that that losing is okay because they're not good enough, and they need some sort of savior to win a lot of games... that could have a really negative effect.


I agree. Intentionally tanking shouldn't be an option. It's all about playing hard and losing, ideally. Losing doesn't damage a player's psyche...a culture of hopelessness and accepted losing damages a player's psyche. After a surprisingly strong first half, a tough second half shouldn't be a problem at all for the player's psyches, if McMillian is coaching to win and the players are doing their best to win.

There's really nothing strategic here for the team to do. They have to keep trying their hardest. I think all those of us who want losses are saying is that it would be best if they try their best and happen to lose every game the rest of the way. Preferably by 1 point each, in triple-overtime. With their top young players recording one great game after another and the loss ultimately coming down to a screw-up by Miles or Magloire, since they won't likely be on the team long-term anyway.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I mentioned this in another thread, but what I think is getting underestimated is the impact losing has on young players.


Exactly.

A defeated and dis-illusioned team would lose more value than a draft miracle could compensate for.

These guys are committed to winning NOW, and have the confidence that they Can.

If they make the playoffs this year, which is still a reasonable possibility, the strength they get from that experience will be far more valuable than next year's rookie will be.

I am simply amazed at the prevalence of posters on this board, and only this board I might add, who root against this team. Who think cheating is ever the way to go. Amazingly the same posters criticize players for their lack of morality. Disgusting and pathetic.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Losing doesn't damage a player's psyche...a culture of hopelessness and accepted losing damages a player's psyche. After a surprisingly strong first half, a tough second half shouldn't be a problem at all for the player's psyches, if McMillian is coaching to win and the players are doing their best to win.


Spoken like someone without a competitive bone in his body.

Good luck finding a credible psychologist who agrees with that assessment. Losing begets losing. Simple as that.



Minstrel said:


> ...and the loss ultimately coming down to a screw-up by Miles or Magloire, since they won't likely be on the team long-term anyway.


Miles? I guess you want them to tank next season for a pick also? :whoknows:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Miles? I guess you want them to tank next season for a pick also? :whoknows:


Miles is done. He's never been a difference maker, and he'll never be one. If the team could waive him today without having to pay his salary (or at least, have it count against the cap) he'd be gone yesterday.

He's the exact opposite of what the team is trying to build. he's not a team player. he's not a good defensive player. he doesn't give effort. he's a lazy *** fool.

darius being on the team next year means about as much to the overall success as me being on the team would. 

diddly squadoosh.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Why?

Why do members suddenly appear
Every time you post here?
Just like me, they long to be
Arguing with you.

welcome back.

I'm in favor of winning the championship this year, and then getting Oden and Durant in trade for Magloire and LaFrentz. I would throw in Dickau if necessary. 

barfo


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't know that I'd sy I root for losses necessarily, though I think they are mor eimportant to us now than a couple extra wins. More than anyhting I;ve becoame a big Atlanta, Charlotte, Milwaukee and Philly fan and I do my share of rooting for Seattle too. I think we can play at a fairly steady pace down the stretch and still fall into that 4-5 range.


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

barfo said:


> I'm in favor of winning the championship this year, and then getting Oden and Durant in trade for Magloire and LaFrentz. I would throw in Dickau if necessary.
> 
> barfo


barfo, what would we do without you?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Loyalty4Life said:


> barfo, what would we do without you?


Judging from the last three weeks, when I was away, I'd say the answer is "carry on as normal".

barfo


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

According to Grandpa's "Bottom 10" thread, we are currently only 2.5 games ahead of the fourth-worst team in the NBA (Atlanta), and only 2.5 games behind the tenth-worst team in the NBA (Minnesota). So a swing of a few games will make a huge difference in our finish.

If we end up with the fourth-worst record, we get 119 out of 1000 winning ping-pong ball combinations, which means we have a ~23% chance of getting a top-2 pick and either Oden or Durant.

If we end up with the tenth-worst record, we get only 11 combinations, which means we have a ~2% chance of Oden or Durant.

Ed's right. We need more games like the Spurs game (doh!). Keep playing great and piling up losses, boys!

Stepping Razor


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Spoken like someone without a competitive bone in his body.
> 
> Good luck finding a credible psychologist who agrees with that assessment. Losing begets losing. Simple as that.


Balderdash.

Michael Jordan claims that the reason he hit big shots at the end of games is because he'd missed them before... losing didn't drain his thirst for victory, and it didn't sap him of the skills needed to succeed.

As Minstrel said, a feeling of hopelessness can eat away at a player and a team, but while every loss counts the same in the standings, it doesn't stand to reason that every loss counts the same on a player's or team's mental register.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Losing begets losing. Simple as that.


My Oregon Ducks lost a lot of games the last few years, yet somehow this year they've come into their own and turned into a very competitive squad with a shot to go deep in the NCAAs. 

This is just one of many recent examples I could list of losing teams who've matured/bonded and turned their fortunes around. While I believe there is some merit to a culture of winning or losing continuing on, a team's current season is not necessarily it's projected fate... especially if is adding another major talent.

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

the nice thing about being a fan of a crappy team is that when you lose you win (in the lottery) and when you win you win (in the standings). so every game that doesn't end in a tie is "progress." 

it's about the only nice thing.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mook said:


> the nice thing about being a fan of a crappy team is that when you lose you win (in the lottery) and when you win you win (in the standings). so every game that doesn't end in a tie is "progress."
> 
> it's about the only nice thing.



That was funny . . . given the Blazers luck, I expect the next game to end in a tie. :biggrin:


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Welcome back, Ed! 

iWatas


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I've been rooting for the Blazers to lose all season. Not lose on purpose, or "tank", but to play hard and come up short. This is the strongest draft in a while, and it should be our last chance to add a top 5 talent to this team via our own draft pick. 

Even if the ping pong balls don't bounce our way, we are within a few games one way or the other of having a significantly different pick. If we finish 4 games better than we are now, we finish 12th worst in the league, while if we finish 4 games worse than we are now, we finish 3rd worst. 

3 or so years from now, when we start to make our run, would you rather have won a few more games at the end of the '06-'07 season, or have more (perhaps significantly more) talent to go to battle with?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

The problem with rooting for the team to pile up the losses is where do you draw the line? 

Lets say Portland ends up with the 3rd pick. Portland drafts one of the wrights and added talent by having another horrid finish to a season. Well next year at this same time are we going to be rooting for losses again? Next year should we finish with the worst record in the league and have the best chance at getting the newest greatest prospect? You could continuously root for the team to finish like crap every year and get great draft picks a la the clippers.

I'd rather see a team make smart picks, good signings and shrewd trades. Grab a Jermaine Oneal/Zach Randolph in the middle of the draft. Get a Sergio at the end of the first round. Package a bunch of late picks for a Jarret Jack. Sign a key FA like Desmond Mason because he sees this team as a possible title contender, not a lottery contender. Acquire talented lottery pick in trades as was done with Rasheed. Bring in the final veteran piece for a bunch of scrubs as we did with Pippen. Thats how you build at a shot for a title. Not by losing.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Draco said:


> The problem with rooting for the team to pile up the losses is where do you draw the line?
> 
> Lets say Portland ends up with the 3rd pick. Portland drafts one of the wrights and added talent by having another horrid finish to a season. Well next year at this same time are we going to be rooting for losses again? Next year should we finish with the worst record in the league and have the best chance at getting the newest greatest prospect? You could continuously root for the team to finish like crap every year and get great draft picks a la the clippers.
> 
> I'd rather see a team make smart picks, good signings and shrewd trades. Grab a Jermaine Oneal/Zach Randolph in the middle of the draft. Get a Sergio at the end of the first round. Package a bunch of late picks for a Jarret Jack. Sign a key FA like Desmond Mason because he sees this team as a possible title contender, not a lottery contender. Acquire talented lottery pick in trades as was done with Rasheed. Bring in the final veteran piece for a bunch of scrubs as we did with Pippen. Thats how you build at a shot for a title. Not by losing.


You draw the line when we start to win, and when losing a few extra games doesn't mean so much. 

I think Lamarcus Aldridge will help us build a shot at a title - and we got him by losing. Why can't we add another piece the same way?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Spoken like someone without a competitive bone in his body.
> 
> Good luck finding a credible psychologist who agrees with that assessment. Losing begets losing. Simple as that.


So now you are a psychologist? Please.

Your pop psyc claptrap is utterly destroyed by the example of the 98 Spurs, who not only lost, but intentially TANKED. Loss after loss after loss as they sat recovered players on the bench and gave heavy minutes to CBA players.

They win the lotto, add Duncan, and ***** slap the NBA next few seasons.

All those losses sure crushed the spirit of the team. Sure created permanent scars on people like Avery Johnson. He has yet to recover from that humiliating experience.

You are so right. It is dumb simple. Winning begats winning. Losing begats losing. There is no other alternative. It is only black and white.

Dumb simple. Simple dumb. Dumb de dumb.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ya, next year we are in the playoffs and we won't be back in a lotto for a long time most likely. So that is the cut off obviously. I also don't think we should tank the season, but as long as we play hard and get better I don't mind if we lose.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> Better from a business standpoint? More wins = more tickets sold. Thats the truth. The average fan who buys a ticket doesnt want to go see the team lose. As sad as it may be, the average fan gets their info from the newspaper etc... if they keep reading about the Blazer winning, they are more likely to buy a ticket or tune in to a game on TV.
> 
> Now for me, and most of us in here who are more than just an average fan, we understand that more loses this year is better in the long run.


Well yes, then it appears you do agree. In the long run it is better for business to lose this year provided that we receive a higher draft pick. More talent equals more wins in the future which equals sustainable sales increases.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Well...
> Also, TB: did you get my email reply to you a month or two ago? I sent it from another account, and I didn't hear back from you so I wonder if it got caught. Anyway.
> Ed O.


Sorry, I did not get it. Please resend an email, and I will look for it closely. I think you still have my email address.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

barfo said:


> I'm in favor of winning the championship this year, and then getting Oden and Durant in trade for Magloire and LaFrentz. I would throw in Dickau if necessary.
> 
> barfo


Barfo, I nominate you for our next GM.. Sorry KP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> As Minstrel said, a feeling of hopelessness can eat away at a player and a team, but while every loss counts the same in the standings, it doesn't stand to reason that every loss counts the same on a player's or team's mental register.
> 
> Ed O.



correctomundo... and I think many of our new players have that thirst for winning and a high competitiveness. Its the fire within.... They exhibit extra practice, time in the weight room, support for each other, and most of all.. they do not give up in a game. they WANT to get better and win


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Masbee said:


> So now you are a psychologist? Please.
> 
> Your pop psyc claptrap is utterly destroyed by the example of the 98 Spurs, who not only lost, but intentially TANKED. Loss after loss after loss as they sat recovered players on the bench and gave heavy minutes to CBA players.
> 
> ...


Nice revisionist history there, and even so, one that still does not support your arguement.

More appropriate examples for this discussion would be the Clippers or the Grizzlies. Losing begets losing begets losing. It takes more than #1 draft picks to make a winner.

The Spurs were a top team all but that year, a year when Robinson was only available for 6 games. A year when they went 20-62 coming off a 59-23 year. Tanked? Ridiculous. They fired their coach 18 games into the season because losing was NOT acceptable. They were massively crippled but still fought the good fight. They had less available talent that year than we did last year.

The Pre-Duncan Spurs were already a top team for years with a superstar center in Robinson. Had Robinson's injury ended his career it would have taken years for Duncan to have the effect he did and the Spurs would have had a slow recovery. Even with the addition of Duncan and the return of Robinson they finished 56-26, 3 wins less than the year before their downfall. The year after that they won a title with an asterisk due to the shortened 50 game season, but it was not until 2003 that they achieved a 60-22 record and therefore had fully recovered record-wise, and only after completely overhauling their team and stocking it with veterans from several other teams through trades and free-agent signings.

We've already reaped more talent from last year's draft than they did in 1998. Now it's time to win games.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Bones have nothing to do with competitiveness. I have a competitive _mind_, guy.


No, you obviously don't.



Minstrel said:


> Yes. Greg Oden might not come out this year.


Case in point.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> It's all about playing hard and losing, ideally.
> 
> I think all those of us who want losses are saying is that it would be best if they try their best and happen to lose every game the rest of the way.


With fans like you The Blazers don't need opponents.

I'm sure you'll jump back on the bandwagon when they start winning again though.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Nice revisionist history there, and even so, one that still does not support your arguement.
> 
> More appropriate examples for this discussion would be the Clippers or the Grizzlies. Losing begets losing begets losing. It takes more than #1 draft picks to make a winner.
> 
> ...


So by your reasoning if the Clippers or Grizzlies had lucked into drafting Duncan, they would've continued to suck because they would've been mired in the culture of losing? 

I somehow doubt that very much. Whichever team happened to draft Duncan was going to enjoy a long line of playoff appearances, regardless of their prior history of losing.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mook said:


> So by your reasoning if the Clippers or Grizzlies had lucked into drafting Duncan, they would've continued to suck because they would've been mired in the culture of losing?
> 
> I somehow doubt that very much. Whichever team happened to draft Duncan was going to enjoy a long line of playoff appearances, regardless of their prior history of losing.


Duncan would have made very little difference.

Both teams have drafted several players of equal or nearly equal talent to Duncan. And yet they continued to lose. The players have not excelled quite the way they would have had they been drafted by a team such as the Spurs who had a culture of winning deeply implanted.

Duncan also would not have risen to the pinnacle that he has if they had drafted him, most likely would have had a career similar to the one Shareef Abdul Rahim has had.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Duncan is a BEAST, period.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Duncan would have made very little difference.
> 
> Both teams have drafted several players of equal or nearly equal talent to Duncan. And yet they continued to lose. The players have not excelled quite the way they would have had they been drafted by a team such as the Spurs who had a culture of winning deeply implanted.
> 
> Duncan also would not have risen to the pinnacle that he has if they had drafted him, most likely would have had a career similar to the one Shareef Abdul Rahim has had.


I couldn't disagree more. I don't even know where to start. I don't care who he plays for, Duncan would never make "very little difference", and should never be compared to SAR.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> With fans like you The Blazers don't need opponents.
> 
> I'm sure you'll jump back on the bandwagon when they start winning again though.


Just because someone disagrees with you on what to hope for to help the team out doesn't mean you should call him out as a fan.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Duncan would have made very little difference.
> 
> Both teams have drafted several players of equal or nearly equal talent to Duncan. And yet they continued to lose. The players have not excelled quite the way they would have had they been drafted by a team such as the Spurs who had a culture of winning deeply implanted.
> 
> Duncan also would not have risen to the pinnacle that he has if they had drafted him, most likely would have had a career similar to the one Shareef Abdul Rahim has had.


Well that clarifies why there is this disagreement. I can't believe anyone typed this ridiculousness let alone believes it one iota, so it follows that you don't agree with diehard Blazer fans who see the merits in taking a step back to take several forward. 

Duncan was dominant day #1 at smallest school in the ACC that was hardly used to winning. His superior talents/pro potential was so obvious that he would have gone #1 following his Soph and Junior years as well. Golden State and Phili's respective GMs publicly begged him to come out. Before his first game in the NBA, GMs were comparing him to Russell and Walton. His first year in the league he enjoyed a better year then the league's MVP Karl Malone and was clearly superior to his Top 50 of All Time teammate. 

Crediting the Spurs culture for his career is as offbase as crediting his brand of shoes or toothpaste. Greatness just is, and thats what TD has always been. No one the Clips or Griz have suited up has ever approached his talents in any way. 

STOMP


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

I agree Ed. Root for the win, and then if we lose, I don't really feel that bad.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Duncan would have made very little difference.
> 
> Both teams have drafted several players of equal or nearly equal talent to Duncan. And yet they continued to lose. The players have not excelled quite the way they would have had they been drafted by a team such as the Spurs who had a culture of winning deeply implanted.
> 
> Duncan also would not have risen to the pinnacle that he has if they had drafted him, most likely would have had a career similar to the one Shareef Abdul Rahim has had.


Interesting.

Seems to explain a lot.

I would gather that your opinions on Duncan would be rejected by the vast majority of those that are involved with or write about the game.

Doesn't mean you are not right if you are virtually the only person on the planet to hold a particular opinion. Just makes the odds pretty slim.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Duncan would have made very little difference.
> 
> Both teams have drafted several players of equal or nearly equal talent to Duncan. And yet they continued to lose. The players have not excelled quite the way they would have had they been drafted by a team such as the Spurs who had a culture of winning deeply implanted.
> 
> Duncan also would not have risen to the pinnacle that he has if they had drafted him, most likely would have had a career similar to the one Shareef Abdul Rahim has had.


Wow. Not much point in continuing a conversation. How you perceive basketball is just on an entire different planet from how I do. 

Tim Duncan would be the greatest (or in some circles second greatest after Malone, although I wouldn't agree) power forward of all time regardless of what team you put him on.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

mook said:


> Wow. Not much point in continuing a conversation. How you perceive basketball is just on an entire different planet from how I do.
> 
> Tim Duncan would be the greatest (or in some circles second greatest after Malone, although I wouldn't agree) power forward of all time regardless of what team you put him on.


Hmm....I think he may not have done so well on a team like the Knicks- his personality and the NY media would have been a bad mix. He may have only been the third greatest power forward of all time...after Zach Randolph!!!:biggrin:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Duncan accomplished more in his rookie year then Shareef has in his entire career. Are you watching basketball the same way as I am?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Duncan accomplished more in his rookie year then Shareef has in his entire career. Are you watching basketball the same way as I am?


You mean, drunk and naked in the office lunchroom? 

barfo


----------

