# Is this a playoff caliber team now?



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I believe the Blazers now have the talent to compete in the Northwest division. By mid-season they could be playing .500 ball barring injuries. Is this a good thing? I'm not sure as it hurts our 2007 lottery chances.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

It was completely insane to bank our future on a 1 in 4 chance of getting Oden....so IMO this is a "good thing." I still don't think we'll make the playoffs though...30-35 wins I would predict.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

I think we'll have a season sort of like what the Hornets did last year -- play surprisingly well, win 35 to 42 games, and narrowly miss the playoffs. I predict we finish 10th in the west. 

The next year, playoffs.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

There's no way this team makes the playoffs. I'd say we're looking at between 25 and 30 wins.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> There's no way this team makes the playoffs. I'd say we're looking at between 25 and 30 wins.
> 
> Ed O.



I'm not nearly as pessimistic this year Ed. We've got a lot of size now, and Roy will add a great deal at SG. I definitely think we can compete and win more than 30 games now


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

tlong said:


> I'm not nearly as pessimistic this year Ed. We've got a lot of size now, and Roy will add a great deal at SG. I definitely think we can compete and win more than 30 games now


It seems to me a lot of this has to do with both chemistry and, even more, health. That said, I'm thinking something in the 27 to 32 win range. If they do better, that's great. I'd rather see the team win than have a _chance_ at a high draft pick.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't think we're much better than last year.....yet. As the roster stands today, with Magloire....I'd say 28-33 wins. More wins than that depends on Roy's affect on the team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

No. Plain and simple. 

Second year PG, rookie or second year SG, a malcontent with no outside shot at the 3, and 4 disgruntled players all deserving of playing time at the 4 and 5. An offense that is unimaginative and easy to defend. 

I love what the Blazers are doing, but they are nowhere near the playoffs yet.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> There's no way this team makes the playoffs. I'd say we're looking at between 25 and 30 wins.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree with you most of the time, but you're really overlooking the injury woes we had last year and their affect on the team.

Granted, there is still the possibility that our bill of health will be equally dirty, but we're much more prepared this time.

Also: 

Healthy Jack
A contributing SG (Roy)
A healthier Randolph
A contract year Center (Magloire) with rebounding skills... our biggest weakness.
Another perimeter threat on a team sorely in need of shooters.

These aren't exactly rose-colored observations, just factual ones. 

Sure, all could go to hell again, but at least this time we won't be in the carpool lane driving 85.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Ed O said:


> There's no way this team makes the playoffs. I'd say we're looking at between 25 and 30 wins.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree 100% with this.

These are my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> I agree with you most of the time, but you're really overlooking the injury woes we had last year and their affect on the team.


Crap. I had a response all typed out but the server at it.

Bottom line? This team finished 3-26 last year (after it traded Patterson). You listed some positives but there are negatives, too. I think that a 4-9 game improvement is pretty likely and will show good progress on a young, heretofore bad, team.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I don't think Pritchart is done with the roster yet so I think this discussion is premarture. That said, if we go into the season with the current group of players, I'd say that the team has a shot at somewhere around 35 wins. Better than last year, but too green in the backcourt to expect making the playoffs.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Crap. I had a response all typed out but the server at it.
> 
> Bottom line? This team finished 3-26 last year (after it traded Patterson). You listed some positives but there are negatives, too. I think that a 4-9 game improvement is pretty likely and will show good progress on a young, heretofore bad, team.
> 
> Ed O.


I'd be pleased if we won 30-35 games. And I think it's likely. We may not have that 'it' guy in the frontcourt, but we're 4 (5?) players deep at those positions. I think that puts us at least in the middle of the pack as far as big men. 

Everywhere else, we're a little green, but instead of floundering late in the season I think we'll pick up a few more wins. I predict 32-35 wins. 

I'd be happier with 25-30, though. This is the season to suck.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Looking at this objectively, here's last year's order of finish:

Western Conference Playoff Teams
San Antonio 63 19 
Phoenix 54 28 
Denver 44 38 
Dallas 60 22 
Memphis 49 33 
LA Clippers 47 35 
LA Lakers 45 37 
Sacramento 44 38 
_____________________

Lottery Teams
Utah 41 41 
NO/Oklahoma City 38 44 
Seattle 35 47 
Houston 34 48 
Golden State 34 48 
Minnesota 33 49 
Portland 21 61 

The top four teams look to me to still have a lock on the conference. Phoenix should be better with Stoudemire back. So the question is whether the Blazers have a shot at passing the other lottery teams and one out of Memphis, Clippers, Lakers, and the Kings. The Grizzlies should be the same or better than last year with the additions of Swift and Gay. The Clippers will be more experienced and should improve. The Lakers haven't done much so far. The Kings could arguably be worse with Bonzi being replace by Salmons and the loss of Adelman. They're definitely vulnerable to falling out of contention this year.

Of the lottery teams, I think the Blazers are clearly the most improved. Utah will be tough. Houston could finally get its act together if McGrady can get healthy.

Bottom line, I don't think you can say with any certainty that the Blazers won't contend for the final spot, but it would take Roy and Jack really playing beyond their experience level for it to happen.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

A lot depends on the readiness of Martell Webster and Brandon Roy. If one of those guys can get it together and put in a solid season, we could be competing for the final playoff spot.

As of right now, these teams are clearly better than us:

San Antonio
Phoenix
LA Clippers
Dallas

These can arguably be called better than us:

Denver
Houston
Memphis

The rest, I believe, are still up for debate when you consider the talent that this team has acquired since the offseason began. I wouldn't call them a playoff team just yet, but we should definitely be better than we were last year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Of the lottery teams, I think the Blazers are clearly the most improved. Utah will be tough. Houston could finally get its act together if McGrady can get healthy.
> 
> Bottom line, I don't think you can say with any certainty that the Blazers won't contend for the final spot, but it would take Roy and Jack really playing beyond their experience level for it to happen.


I think your analysis is good, but we need to remember that Portland wasn't right behind the rest of the lottery teams... it was WAY BEHIND them. We lost games by nearly double digits on average. We were absolutely horrible at the end of the year (sorry to repeat myself, but 3 wins and 26 losses... 3 and 27, if you include Ruben's last game).

Everything that you typed might be true and might come to pass, and we could still be the worst team in the West by several games.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Barring unforeseen circumstances, I think this trade officially takes us out of the Oden race.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I think your analysis is good, but we need to remember that Portland wasn't right behind the rest of the lottery teams... it was WAY BEHIND them. We lost games by nearly double digits on average. We were absolutely horrible at the end of the year (sorry to repeat myself, but 3 wins and 26 losses... 3 and 27, if you include Ruben's last game).
> 
> Everything that you typed might be true and might come to pass, and we could still be the worst team in the West by several games.
> 
> Ed O.


No disagreement from me on what you're saying. I meant to say that of the lottery teams, the Blazers are clearly the most improved...but that they had a long way to go to surpass them. Things would definitely have to click just right for the Blazers to make the playoffs this year. Jack and Roy would have to really play well, the team would have to be healthy, and Miles would have to put forth effort on a consistent basis...something he hasn't done to date.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Last year the Blazers were on pace to win 31 games before the "great collapse" (Meaning they started 17-28 before they finished 4-33). Since I think this team is better than last year's I wouldn't expect them to win any fewer than that. I think at least 35 wins is a fair expectation.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Entity said:


> Last year the Blazers were on pace to win 31 games before the "great collapse" (Meaning they started 17-28 before they finished 4-33). Since I think this team is better than last year's I wouldn't expect them to win any fewer than that. I think at least 35 wins is a fair expectation.


Why are you confident that 31 wins is a more "real" total than 9?

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I think your analysis is good, but we need to remember that Portland wasn't right behind the rest of the lottery teams... it was WAY BEHIND them. We lost games by nearly double digits on average.* We were absolutely horrible at the end of the year (sorry to repeat myself, but 3 wins and 26 losses... 3 and 27, if you include Ruben's last game).*
> 
> Everything that you typed might be true and might come to pass, and we could still be the worst team in the West by several games.
> 
> Ed O.


I think we have to attribute a lot of that to some players giving up on the season. I'm not saying we'll make the playoffs but that certainly throws off how far we were behind other lottery teams. Of course if we are in the same position to give up on the season again this season that early we could have the same results. But I don't think we will be and I don't expect the same attitude this season with the new players we have on the team and especially if we get rid of one particular player.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Why are you confident that 31 wins is a more "real" total than 9?


Because wins are something you earn. It shows what you are capable of. To beat one team in a slump is one thing, but to have multiple teams sharing in a slump is way too coincidental. The Blazers won those seventeen games because they could. They lost those last thirty-three because they mentally collapsed.


----------



## sjla2kology101 (Apr 23, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Why are you confident that 31 wins is a more "real" total than 9?
> 
> Ed O.



wait you think portland is only going to win 9 games this year....lol, some of you guys r funny.....

Roy will have a solid season and be in the running for ROY if nate gives him the minutes.

Jack was playing on a ankle last year that had 80% bad tissue the docs couldnt even beleive he was playing on it. now hes healthy.

Randolph has lost ALOT of weight and has been working out liek a mad man for teh last couple weeks. and his knee is better.(one of the reason he shot so many jump shots last year because it puts alot of weight on the knees playing DL)

Mags is a 10/10 player and the bucks were playing a fast style which isnt excactly how Nate plays.

Martell wants the leadership role and has been working like a mad man to get better, he will do better then most expect out of him...

Miles will most likley be gone but if he is here he will try during the beginning of the season so he has a chance to 1: make the all-star team because he thinks hes good enough, and 2: build up his trade statis.

This team is much better then a injured telfair, zach, jack, ratliff, przybilla....and WILL win more games and if you think last years team is better then this team, I laugh at your basketball IQ.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think this team is much better structurally, but it is still very young experience wise. They will be better than last year, but they will still be a bottom 8 team in the league, maybe even a bottom 3. But...They are in the right path, IMO to get out of that fast. HTey are making the right decsions now, and bringing in players for the right reasons.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

There's no way we make the playoffs this year IMO. One reason is because the West will be an absolute dogfight this year. The Spurs, Mavs, Suns are a lock. Unless the seeding system is changed, then either Utah or Denver will win the NW Div and get a top 4 seed as well. The other one will be in a very tough battle with the Clips, Lakers, Rockets, Kings, Hornets and Griz for the playoffs. That's seven pretty good teams fighting for 4 spots, and I don't see the playoffs being accessible to any team with less than ~44 wins.

The Blazers have improved, and could pull out a 35 win season in my estimation, if things workout just right. We'll really need to pick up another experienced PG, because Dickau reportedly isn't healthy and Sergio is a rookie. The SG/SF positions are ok with Roy and Miles as likely starters and Dixon and Webs as backups, but they are not particularly deep either. One or two injuries and/or an implosion by Miles, and we become precariously thin at the 1-2-3, barring further roster moves that bolster the positions. After getting Magloire and LaFrentz, we are all of a sudden not at the absolute mercy of Zach's and Joel's knee health (remember when Viktor played C last year? ouch), but I'm really not on the "Magloire is a former all-star" bandwagon. He is good, but not great. We have great depth but no real dominance in the frontcourt, and we run the risk of having playing-time issues as well that could hurt team chemistry. 30-35 wins is where I'd see us likely ending up, barring some kind of major injury and or attitude problems (both of which we found out last year are entirely possible).


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Playoffs or not they should be a lot more competitive and a lot more entertaining to watch. And as many have said they are heading in the right direction.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Let's break it down by position: 

*Center*
_Last year: _
Przybilla didn't play the final 8 games of the season, and missed a total of 30 games. 
Skinner basically played like the scrub he is. Ditto with Ha. Ratliff missed 27, unless you count the games where he actually exerted effort, in which case he missed about 50. 
_This year:_
Przybilla probably misses another 30 games. But Magloire has a very solid long-term health track record and will be playing out of his mind for another contract (at least until we trade him). Even after he's dealt, we'll still have Raef and Aldridge, big upgrades over Ratliff and Ha.
*Verdict: Upgade.*

*Power Forward*
_Last year:_
Randolph was playing on one leg, out of shape (from an inability to train much in the offseason) and without any real competition for his spot. Our backups were Ruben Patterson (tough, but 6'5) and Mr. Toilet Brush Beard, Skinner. 
_This year: _
Randolph clearly looks at least 10 pounds lighter. All reports are that his knee is feeling great. No guarantees, but I'm sure a lot more optimistic. We now backups in Magloire, Aldridge and Raef to pressure him to perform the way McMillan wants him to. 
*Verdict: Upgrade. *

*Small forward*
_Last year:_
We had about 14 small forwards, all of whom were mediocre or bad except for Miles, who is only mediocre when he's in the mood (often). 
_This year:_
We have far fewer small forwards. Definitely more vulnerable to injury. Outlaw is probably out of the league in two years, barring a major change. Miles is out of his mind most of the time. Webster is a year older, so that can only be good. 
*Verdict: Downgrade* But it's not like we had very far to fall. 

*Shooting guard*
_Last year: _
Juan Dixon was our best shooting guard. Good lord. 
_This year: _
A draft pick who has yet to play a single NBA game is already arguably one of the top three players on the team. Roy is going to be sweet. Again, Webster is a year older/wiser, and Dixon can come off the bench, which he's more suited to. 
*Verdict: Major upgrade. *

*Point guard*
_Last year:_
Kind of like SF--lots of solid backup-tier Pgs. Jack was about as good as any of them, despite being the only one enduring serious injury. 
_This year: _
Jack's supposed to be fully recovered. Who knows if that'll last. Roy showed he can play some PG for at least occasional minutes. Dickau is a passable backup when/if healthy. Of course, if Jack gets hurt we are relying on "Spanish Chocolate" for minutes, which makes me nervioso. Jack could also get healthy for the first time and blow away his first-year performance. 
*Verdict: Push.* Even if Jack does no better than last year, 35 mpg of Jack and 13 minutes of Roy isn't really that much different from 16 minutes each of Jack, Telfair and Blake. 


We strengthened rebounding at every single position. We strengthened outside shooting at SG, although it's offset by the loss of Blake. We've had significant upgrades at 3 of 5 positions, while only downgrading at one (SF). 

We should be able to win 32 games. If Roy or Webster has a truly breakout season, we're looking at the 8th seed 40-42 wins.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Entity said:


> Because wins are something you earn. It shows what you are capable of. To beat one team in a slump is one thing, but to have multiple teams sharing in a slump is way too coincidental. The Blazers won those seventeen games because they could. They lost those last thirty-three because they mentally collapsed.


Did the teams that beat us at the end of last year "earn" the wins?

Maybe we were just beaten by teams that were better and deeper and better coached than we were.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

sjla2kology101 said:


> wait you think portland is only going to win 9 games this year....lol, some of you guys r funny.....


Your reading comprehension isn't very strong, is it?

Ed O.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> It was completely insane to bank our future on a 1 in 4 chance of getting Oden....so IMO this is a "good thing." I still don't think we'll make the playoffs though...30-35 wins I would predict.



i agree with this


i feel we'll win 30-35 games and finish around 10th in the west


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Why are you confident that 31 wins is a more "real" total than 9?
> 
> Ed O.


I think he is just saying that if "the collapse" had not occured, we could have continued to win in the second half at a similar pace to that of the first half. I think the collapse was as much due to a cascade of physical injuries as to a change in mindset. In any case, the stark difference between the two roughly half-seasons appears too drastic to just be coincidence, and "mental collapse" seems like as plausible a hypothesis as any to me. Neither the 31 nor the 9 is "more real", but hopefully with new players, a new season and a fresh attitude, this year the team will more resemble the one from the first months of last season than the later months of last season.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I think your analysis is good, but we need to remember that Portland wasn't right behind the rest of the lottery teams... it was WAY BEHIND them. We lost games by nearly double digits on average. We were absolutely horrible at the end of the year (sorry to repeat myself, but 3 wins and 26 losses... 3 and 27, if you include Ruben's last game).
> 
> Everything that you typed might be true and might come to pass, and we could still be the worst team in the West by several games.
> 
> Ed O.


C'mon Ed. If everything he typed is true and Roy and Jack play very well then there is no real way for us to be worst in the West by several games (unless Zach, Magloire and McMillan retire to the ice capades or something bizarre).

I can understand your negativity and to an extent I agree. However there is a "chance" that the Blazers make the playoffs. I calculate it at around 6 percent.

The way I see it

25-30 wins 30 percent likely
30-35 wins 40 percent likely
35-40 wins 20 percent likely
40-82 wins 10 percent likely

Magloire makes a huge impact on this Blazers team. We suddenly have a, no doubt about it, solid 4 & 5 spot. We have a top ten center- solid at both ends of the court.

We may even have a needed veteran presence to lead the team. This is a former all star who has won championships at the high school and college level and who seems to be a Buck Williams type blue collar worker- a banger.

You probably know what I'll say about the rest of the Blazer team (i.e. I like Zach and Roy is ROY), so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> The way I see it
> 
> 25-30 wins 30 percent likely
> 30-35 wins 40 percent likely
> ...


i like how u broke this down and i agree

but mine is more liek this

25-30 wins 30 percent likely
30-35 wins 45 percent likely
35-40 wins 15 percent likely
40-82 wins 10 percent likely 

not much different but still that feels more right to me


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

You've got to remember that it's enough for us to win the Northwest, in order to get a playoff place- with home advantage! I know Utah, Denver, and maybe Seattle are tough teams- But if Denver trades K-Mart for zip, and Utah gets another Injury season- we might be lucky.

Just if though.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> C'mon Ed. If everything he typed is true and Roy and Jack play very well then there is no real way for us to be worst in the West by several games (unless Zach, Magloire and McMillan retire to the ice capades or something bizarre).
> 
> I can understand your negativity and to an extent I agree. However there is a "chance" that the Blazers make the playoffs. I calculate it at around 6 percent.


I'm not being negative.

This team could be 10 games better and still be several games behind the other teams in the West. We WERE 12 games worse than any other team in the West last year, and I doubt that Minnesota or Houston are going to be nearly as bad as last year... Golden State might be.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I noticed that neither of you put <25 wins as having any possibility. In my mind, our expected wins number is about 32, which would mean that 25 or fewer wins has nearly the same probability as 40 or more. Neither is very likely IMO, and don't forget that in the West, it will probably take more than 41 wins to make the playoffs. Last year it took 44 wins to get the 8th seed (and 3rd for Denver, but that's a different story...), and Utah and Houston look to be healthier and better, and New Orleans sure isn't standing still. I think this year we will see at least as great a disparity between the West and East as we saw last season, unless a few teams such as Memphis, Minnesota, Seattle, Golden State or others all combine to take unexpectedly large dives in the win column.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

PhilK said:


> You've got to remember that it's enough for us to win the Northwest, in order to get a playoff place- with home advantage! I know Utah, Denver, and maybe Seattle are tough teams- But if Denver trades K-Mart for zip, and Utah gets another Injury season- we might be lucky.
> 
> Just if though.


That would be hilarious if the Blazers got the third seed in the West. Utah could conceivably have another insanely injury ridden season, but they still got 41 wins last season with all their many injuries, and they've only gotten better by adding Fisher and letting D Williams get a year older. Denver would be a little thin up front if they lost Martin for nothing (can not rely on Camby), but if they do re-sign Reggie Evans, I think that problem is nicely mitigated. They shouldn't fall too far without Martin unless Camby (likely) and Nene (unknown likelihood) both lose significant time to injury. Minnesota didn't get worse than last year, but they won't get much better, and the players in Seattle have to be wondering what they are even playing for right now, so they probably won't scratch out many gritty and surprising wins. I don't think we have much of a shot at winning it, but it does look like the NW Division could again easily be second worst in the league (after the Atlantic).


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Did the teams that beat us at the end of last year "earn" the wins?
> 
> Maybe we were just beaten by teams that were better and deeper and better coached than we were.
> 
> Ed O.


Well, if they were better and deeper teams then the schedule was rediculously lopsided in the second half of the year. But I don't think that's how the Blazers lost those last 33. 

Did they earn the wins? They did outscore the Blazers every game, and they did prevent the Blazers from outplaying them. The Blazers might have been beating themselves, and you could say that against the Blazers it's not much of an earning. But there's a difference between earning wins against one team, and earning them against many. The Blazers were playing much better basketball at the beginning of the year, and I think they could have finished much better than they did.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I went to basketballreference and pulled the last 8 (ignoring the strike season and the year before it since 32 games were missed) years of teams that have won fewer than 22 games in a season. Let's see how many games worth of improvement they showed:

1995-96: Philly 18 wins + 4 wins the next year
1995-96: Toronto 21 + 9
1995-96: Vancouver 15 - 1
1996-97: Boston 15 + 21
1996-97: Vancouver 14 + 5
1999-00: Chicago 17 - 2
1999-00: LA Clips 15 + 16
2000-01: Chicago 15 + 6
2000-01: Washington 19 + 18
2000-01: Golden State 17 + 4
2001-02: Chicago 21 + 9
2001-02: Golden State 21 + 17 
2002-03: Cleveland 17 + 18
2002-03: Denver 17 + 26
2003-04: Orlando 21 + 15
2004-05: New Orleans 18 + 20
2004-05: Charlotte 18 + 8
2004-05: Atlanta 13 + 13
_2005-06: Portland 21 +?_

Overall thoughts: 

-- too bad the strike happened... 97-98 had some EPICALLY unsuccessful teams (11, 17, 19, and 19 wins for Denver, LAC, GS, and Vancouver, respectively) because the top of the West was so tough.

-- there were more teams that succeeded in bumping up their win totals significantly than I'd anticipated. This makes a 35+ win season for the Blazers seem more reasonable, but I think that given 9 of 17 teams did NOT improve double digits (and, indeed, two lousy teams did even worse) I don't find it that likely that the team will exceed 35 wins and I'd put the over-under on the Blazers' season at 30 wins... so maybe I should predict 28-32 wins 

-- most of the biggest improvements are pretty obvious (Denver with Anthony and Miller, Cleveland with LeBron, NO with Chris Paul, etc.)... but the Boston improvement? I looked and didn't see any massive personnel changes... Pitino effect, I suppose. Although Mercer was pretty good for a rookie, and even a disappointing Billups got double digits in the 51 games he played in.

-- the average improvement amongst the 17 teams? 11.4 wins.

Kinda interesting...

Ed O.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

The Bucks thought that Jamaal Magloire would propel them to being a top tier team in the East...did he? No, they only just made the playoffs.

PG: Jarrett Jack...Dan Dickau...Sergio Rodriguez
SG: Brandon Roy...Juan Dixon
SF: Martell Webster...Darius Miles...Travis Outlaw
PF: Zach Randolph...LaMarcus Aldridge...Raef LaFrentz
C: Jamaal Magloire...Joel Przybilla

They could go with Roy/Miles or Webster/Miles at the 2/3 spot. It's a half-decent team with a lot of talent and A LOT of potential that will win somewhere around 30-35 games. However, there are simply no leaders on the team.

Assuming the Spurs, Mavericks and Suns are all locks to make the playoffs, that leaves five slots open. The chances of the Blazers getting one of those slots over teams like the Clippers, Lakers, Kings, Grizzlies, Jazz, Hornets, and Timberwolves is pretty slim.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Damian Necronamous said:


> The Bucks thought that Jamaal Magloire would propel them to being a top tier team in the East...did he? No, they only just made the playoffs.
> 
> PG: Jarrett Jack...Dan Dickau...Sergio Rodriguez
> SG: Brandon Roy...Juan Dixon
> ...



I think you forgot the Rockets as well. They are a playoff team and championship contender if they are healthy. My Western conference as it stands right now, before injuries. 

1. Suns
2. Mavs
3. Spurs
4. Memphis
5. LAC
6. Houston
7. Minnesota
8. Denver
9. LAL
10. NO/OK
11. Sac
12. Golden State
13. Utah 
14. Portland
15. Seattle


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I think you forgot the Rockets as well. They are a playoff team and championship contender if they are healthy. My Western conference as it stands right now, before injuries.
> 
> 1. Suns
> 2. Mavs
> ...


That looks about right to me, except for two teams. Minnesota added James and Foye, and basically only lost McCants and Banks, but there is still only one ball to share. James, Foye, Davis and Blount looks disturbingly similar to Marbury, Francis/Crawford, Jalen Rose and Eddy Curry from the NY Knicks, which has been proven not to work. KG is great, but even with him, I wouldn't bet on the Wolves pulling out 44-45 wins and the 7th seed this year.

The one that seems really off to me though is the Jazz. Why don't they seem to get any love. With Kirilenko missing a few games, Harpring missing half of it and Boozer missing most of it, the Jazz still got 41 wins last season. In the offseason they re-signed Harpring, Boozer looks healthy, Deron Williams is ready to start now and they added Brewer and Derek Fischer. If we really want to project how well they will do _if they are healthy_, Utah has to be competing for those bottom 4 playoff spots, or even the third seed if they win the NW division (and the seeding rules haven't been changed). The only thing that will stop them again this season is more major injuries.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I think you forgot the Rockets as well. They are a playoff team and championship contender if they are healthy. My Western conference as it stands right now, before injuries.
> 
> 1. Suns
> 2. Mavs
> ...


Memphis at #4? I don't know about that. I also don't see Portland finishing below Sacto or Golden State.

Also, I don't think Portland's a playoff-caliber team. 30-35 wins seems likely. 2007-2008, though? We'll see.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Close! 35-40 wins very possible. My guess is that Miles will be energised and Zack will be much better than last year and Maglorire and Priz will add a bunch of rebounds leading to more possessions and some fast breaks and some more scoring from the center positions and with Raef to bring in outside shooting (ala Radmanovich of Seattle) and Martells improvement and Outlaw's improvement and Roy's poise and penitration and distribution and Jacks health and consistant play we stand a great chance to be the most improved team in the league. We have much more maturity on this team than we had last year in Raef and Mags. This is a much better over all team than last year and had we had these guys we would not have gone 3-26 at the end of the season. Sure we can end up like Houston did last year but not likely. This is not a bad team.

gatopops


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

The great thing about being the worst is there's only one way we can go. I think right now 33-38 wins is about right. We're substantially better than last year at the areas we needed to improve the most - Defense and rebounding, if for no other reason than we're bigger and taller.

During the epic late-season surge in which we finished 4-33, Zach didn't play in 7, Theo didn't in 20, and Joel was DNP in 23 games. Of those last 37 games, there were only 4 where we had both Theo & Joel, and 10 games we had neither. 

If you remember, there were 3 games where Zach was our starting center, 10 where Victor was starting at PF, and 4 in which HA WAS OUR STARTING CENTER!! Several other games he was the only backup at the PF and C positions. 

Our back-court wasn't any better. In 8 of the last 37 games, we had two pointguards starting the game. Even Charles Smith started a few games... 

One of our 4 WINS featured a starting five of C. Smith, Zach, Ha, Dixon, and Blake. One of our losses had Miles, Victor, Ha, Dixon, and Blake. (Probably the worst starting five I've ever seen)

The result was that we were outrebounded in 29 of the last 37 games. We got outrebounded by 10+ 16 times. Twice we only had 4 offensive rebounds, and once we had only 3... 

That won't happen with five front-line players who are all better than Skinner and Ha. And instead of a backcourt of Blake/Teflair or Blake/Dixon we'll have Jack/Roy or Jack/Webster. Definitely not in the playoffs unless we trade for a good SF, but I think 35 wins is very realistic.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I think you forgot the Rockets as well. They are a playoff team and championship contender if they are healthy. My Western conference as it stands right now, before injuries.
> 
> 1. Suns
> 2. Mavs
> ...


Houston #6? The only problem there is that T-Mac seems incapable of staying healthy for an entire season and Yao is the perfect picture of inconsistency. And beyond those two, that team is _weak_. 

New Orleans/OK, Denver, and the Lakers will all finish above the Rockets, once again. The Timberwolves are hard to figure. So are the Kings. 

I'd go like this, though: 

1.) Dallas
2.) Phoenix
3.) San Antonio
4.) LA Clippers
5.) Memphis
6.) Denver
7.) New Orleans/OK
8.) LA Lakers
9.) Minnesota
10.) Houston
11.) Sacramento
12.) Utah
13.) Golden State
13.) Seattle 
13.) Portland

Yeah, three-way tie between Golden State, Seattle and Portland. The inept triumvirate of the northern half of the West Coast.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I'm not being negative.
> 
> This team could be 10 games better and still be several games behind the other teams in the West. We WERE 12 games worse than any other team in the West last year, and I doubt that Minnesota or Houston are going to be nearly as bad as last year... Golden State might be.
> 
> Ed O.



If we are 10 games better, we are 31-51. I don't know what your definition of several is, but if a few games is 3 or 4, maybe several is 5 or 6. The odds are against every western conference team finishing better than 36-45. It's more likely that there will be a couple teams below 30 wins.

So, mathematically, what you are saying makes little sense. You are being negative in this instance.

By the way, you can never tell completely which team will be the one to fall off- but someone will fall though either injury or poor performances. There will be this year's Houston and Minnesota in the West.

I have a hunch it will be the Lakers and the Grizzlies that take the plunge.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

If Roy and Webster were ready to lead a team into the playoffs, they would have DOMINATED summer league, but instead, they just played well. I think we'll win 5 more games this year, but no playoffs.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> If Roy and Webster were ready to lead a team into the playoffs, they would have DOMINATED summer league, but instead, they just played well. I think we'll win 5 more games this year, but no playoffs.


I hear what you're saying and generally agreed. Just to play devil's advocate, though, consider that Roy played almost exclusively at the point and _did_ dominate when they ran him at SG. I really think Roy's got a great shot at Rookie of the Year.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I think that Portland can win 8 more games than last year, I don't see the playoffs this season, but stranger things have happen. Maybe they can pull a blockbuster at the deadline for a solid player using Miles and Mags. :whoknows:


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

Ed O said:


> There's no way this team makes the playoffs. I'd say we're looking at between 25 and 30 wins.
> 
> Ed O.


ditto...I see you guys def. winning 30 games though...an improvement over last year, for sure. I just don't see CONSISTENT outside shooting on this team.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I don't see this jumbled mess of players matching last year's heroic effort.

Last place, again.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> If we are 10 games better, we are 31-51. I don't know what your definition of several is, but if a few games is 3 or 4, maybe several is 5 or 6. The odds are against every western conference team finishing better than 36-45. It's more likely that there will be a couple teams below 30 wins.
> 
> So, mathematically, what you are saying makes little sense. You are being negative in this instance.


Several means 4 or 5 to me (more than a couple). I think that it's VERY possible that no Western teams finish with fewer than 35 wins, other than the Blazers.

"Mathematically" my statement was perfectly sensible.

And I think that I've been consistently called "negative" on this board for the past 2.5 years. And yet I have been consistently right, for some reason...

Ed O.


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> That looks about right to me, except for two teams. Minnesota added James and Foye, and basically only lost McCants and Banks, but there is still only one ball to share. James, Foye, Davis and Blount looks disturbingly similar to Marbury, Francis/Crawford, Jalen Rose and Eddy Curry from the NY Knicks, which has been proven not to work. KG is great, but even with him, I wouldn't bet on the Wolves pulling out 44-45 wins and the 7th seed this year.
> 
> The one that seems really off to me though is the Jazz. *Why don't they seem to get any love*. With Kirilenko missing a few games, Harpring missing half of it and Boozer missing most of it, the Jazz still got 41 wins last season. In the offseason they re-signed Harpring, Boozer looks healthy, Deron Williams is ready to start now and they added Brewer and Derek Fischer. If we really want to project how well they will do _if they are healthy_, Utah has to be competing for those bottom 4 playoff spots, or even the third seed if they win the NW division (and the seeding rules haven't been changed). The only thing that will stop them again this season is more major injuries.


Because we are in the same division as you guys. So the other teams fans in the division wan't your team to do bad.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Several means 4 or 5 to me (more than a couple). I think that it's VERY possible that no Western teams finish with fewer than 35 wins, other than the Blazers.
> 
> "Mathematically" my statement was perfectly sensible.
> 
> ...


It has never happened that only one team in the West has less than 35 wins. The closest we've come is last year, when there were 4 teams with 33/34 wins and that was an aberration. Usually, there are at least 2 or 3 sub 30 win teams.

Here's a link if you don't believe me: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2006.html

It's mathematically improbable, because it would require more parity than happens- i.e. for teams to win 55/60 games, you have to have teams that win much less.

So, when you say "very possible", you are wrong. Just accept it, embrace it, and move on, gent.

Don't feel bad about it- it's just my business to reflect deeply on odds and probability- that's where the whole AG tag comes from.

As far as negativity goes, clearly, I haven't been on this board for the last 2.5 years. I just call it like I see it. You see the Blazers winning about 5 to 10 games less than I do- slightly too negative.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I think the most important factor to consider is that we play in the *Northwest Division*. We are competing against Minnesota, Seattle, Denver, and Utah. My personal belief is that none of those teams holds a significant edge in talent against us any more (with the possible exception of Denver). I think it's possible that we could beat any and all of those teams for the best record in the NW.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

tlong said:


> I think the most important factor to consider is that we play in the *Northwest Division*. We are competing against Minnesota, Seattle, Denver, and Utah. My personal belief is that none of those teams holds a significant edge in talent against us any more (with the possible exception of Denver). I think it's possible that we could beat any and all of those teams for the best record in the NW.


A few things of note: 

1.) Even when the Blazers were good and the Nuggets were bad, Portland had a very hard time playing in Denver. Not going to change. 

2.) Likewise, Utah is a tough place to play, and Jerry Sloan is a better coach than Nate McMillan. Will, again, be hard to beat the Jazz. 

3.) Minnesota has a superstar in Kevin Garnett who can get foul calls virtually at will against the no-names on the Portland roster. Again, the Timberwolves won't be pushovers for the Blazers. 

That leaves the Sonics as the team the Blazers have a good shot to beat, in head-to-head competition. Doesn't give me confidence that the Blazers will be vying for the top spot. 

Add to that the fact that the rest of the West is very tough (with the exception of Golden State), and I don't see a lot of inroads to significant improvements in the Blazers' record.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Probably not, but I believe there will only be 1 team from the NW division in the playoffs, and they will probably squeak in with a .500 or under record, so I guess what I am saying is, any team in the NW division that happens to develope some chemistry will probably have the best shot at winning the division.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> It has never happened that only one team in the West has less than 35 wins. The closest we've come is last year, when there were 4 teams with 33/34 wins and that was an aberration. Usually, there are at least 2 or 3 sub 30 win teams.
> 
> Here's a link if you don't believe me: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2006.html
> 
> ...


Let's take a look at this, shall we?

I say that the Blazers _could_ win 10 more games than they did last year and finish several games behind every other team in the West.

You said it's _nonsense_.

I said that it's NOT nonsense, and that it's very _possible_. Meaning not nonsense.

You said that it's "_mathematically improbable_".

You're simply redefining what I'm saying to try to make it look like what you're saying is somehow disproving what I've asserted. Why should I feel bad when you're being either sloppy or disingenuous?

What I've said is correct. It is possible. It might not be likely, and that's why I didn't use that term. It might not be probable, and that's why I didn't use *that* term, either.

Last year was a historical aberration, but looking at the way the West is, I think it's possible that parity will not only remain but be increased this year as some of the teams on the bottom got better and none of the teams at the top did.



> As far as negativity goes, clearly, I haven't been on this board for the last 2.5 years. I just call it like I see it. You see the Blazers winning about 5 to 10 games less than I do- slightly too negative.


Whatever. If you need to label other opinions as negative simply because they're different than yours, then good for you.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ya, and it's possible that the Blazers make it to the playoffs too. It might not be likely, it might not be probable, but it's possible.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Ya, and it's possible that the Blazers make it to the playoffs too. It might not be likely, it might not be probable, but it's possible.


That is true. I said in my first post that there was "no way" that the team makes the playoffs. There is, of course, a possibility. 

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> No. Plain and simple.
> 
> a malcontent with no outside shot at the 3, and 4 disgruntled players all deserving of playing time at the 4 and 5. An offense that is unimaginative and easy to defend.
> 
> I love what the Blazers are doing, but they are nowhere near the playoffs yet.


No way Miles starts at the 3. Webster starts with Miles coming off the bench. Zach, Joel and Magloire split the 4-5 with Raef filling in at the 3/4/5 this year.

With the trade for Magloire, Raef had better drop 10-20 lbs and get ready to run. He will get minutes at the 3 when Nate wants to go big.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Let's take a look at this, shall we?
> 
> I say that the Blazers _could_ win 10 more games than they did last year and finish several games behind every other team in the West.
> 
> ...



Okay, let's stop beating a dead horse, though I will go for the last word.

You actually said "VERY possible" with an interesting capitalization. Are we supposed to interpret that as "remotely possibly, though it has never happened before in the history of NBA and would require a incredible parity that we don't currently have"? Does your initial post make sense if we are using this interpretation?

Your initial post was downplaying the significance of 31 wins by saying that we could still be several games in last place. This post doesn't really make sense if it is describing a situation that hasn't ever happened before.

Really, the key point is that you are wrong to downplay 31 wins.

I haven't twisted anything you've said- in fact, I've always quoted you.

You've twisted my words a bit- "makes no sense" becomes a more rude "nonsense"

And, I don't mean to be rude in any way, so this is my last word on this subject. Got a little work to do before the Poker tournament.

Ciaou!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Several means 4 or 5 to me (more than a couple). I think that it's VERY possible that no Western teams finish with fewer than 35 wins, other than the Blazers.
> 
> "Mathematically" my statement was perfectly sensible.
> 
> ...


Don't flatter yourself or anything.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> No way Miles starts at the 3. Webster starts with Miles coming off the bench. Zach, Joel and Magloire split the 4-5 with Raef filling in at the 3/4/5 this year.
> 
> With the trade for Magloire, Raef had better drop 10-20 lbs and get ready to run. He will get minutes at the 3 when Nate wants to go big.



Webster will not beat out Miles in training camp for the starting SF spot. He showed in Las Vegas that he is still a pretty one dimentional player. I hate Miles, but I would have to admit that he is by far the better player of the two. I honestly don't think Webster will beat out Brandon Roy for the starting SG spot either.


----------

