# Trend or Blip?



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It's only one game, and we (should) all know that we can't project too much based on one game. Of course, SOME of the things we saw will be part of a trend. I want to know which of these things are trends and which are just blips on the radar.

*LaMarcus Aldridge, Scoring Machine*

*Strong Trend*

Aldridge looked like Rasheed Wallace from 2000 when he chose to assert himself offensively. He's got much better hands, too. He's the entire package in terms of scoring the ball, and he's going to probably consistently demand double teams.

I don't know if 27 points will be that common, but his scoring is definitely a trend.

*Aldridge, Weenie on the Boards*

Trend

Aldridge also looked like Rasheed Wallace on the boards. I know Joel was getting a lot of rebounds, and I know that the Spurs were trying to keep Aldridge off the blocks (and out of rebounding position)... but three rebounds? I've got my fingers crossed that I'm wrong, but I think that Aldridge might settle into a 6-7 rebound a game guy just like Rasheed.

*Brandon Roy's Sophomore Slump*

*Random Blip* (meaning it was a big fluke)

Roy claimed to be healthy, but he hadn't played much in the preseason. He was matched up against Bowen all game, which is always tough sledding. And he got off to a bad start, which tends to make guys like Roy who aren't that assertive even less so. Brandon Roy might not end up with the numbers he had last year, but OBVIOUSLY last night has to be considered an aberration.

*Martell Webster's Arrival*

Trend

Webster has taken a lot of heat on this board over the last year or two, and those of us who are fans of his have waited for him to prove that he is not JUST potential. His preseason was very good and last night he demonstrated not just an ability to his a perimeter shot (which is the most important key to his long-term success) but also a willingness to put the ball on the floor and take it to the hoop. Webster won't shoot 50% from three point range, and his peripheral numbers (rebounds, assists, etc.) and defense will be sub-par, but he will remain a factor for this team (hopefully for the next decade or so, although that's getting ahead of myself) and I think that he'll prove to be, far and away, our best option at the SF spot. And the best part? He's still only 20 years old...

*Point Guards Struggle*

Trend

While Martell made a claim for the starting SF spot, our other glaring weakness remains a huge question mark. Jack and Blake are each borderline starters, at best, and we shouldn't have too high hopes for them. I think that while we will see glimpses of superior play from each of them, our PG spot will remain a problem this year. Green has surprised me since we drafted him, but I don't see him being a savior and Jack and Blake just aren't that good.

*Pryzbilla is Back*

Blip

It's funny how our opinions of Joel have gone back and forth. He was laughed at as a potential signing by some on this board (in spite of his experience as an NBA starting center at a young age) and then there was a huge outcry to keep him when he became a FA, and lately many of us have written him off as injury-prone and offensively inept. Well, he's still probably injury-prone, but last night he was effective finishing around the basket and in getting to the line. I doubt we see that many more 13 point efforts from him (because he'll get hurt and because Roy will get more shots most nights) but if he can be efficient when he's in there he's going to help the team a lot. I see last night as a freak game, though, because he's bound to get hurt and he won't shoot free throws like that for long. Next year, backing up Oden? He'll be a huge strength in our rotation.

*Bench Acquisitions Stink*

Blip

Frye was terrible. Jones was a non-factor. Blake was OK, but I lumped him into the PG comment, above. I am anything but a Channing Frye fan, but he simply cannot and will not be this bad all year. Jones should not supplant Martell as the starting 3, but he will be able to contribute at a higher level than he did last night once he gets into game shape.

*Blazers referred to as "Oden-less Trail Blazers"*

Blip

This team won't win that many games, but they will be competitive and the media's constant referral to the absent future superstar will subside pretty quickly.

Ed O.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Joel is an excellent rebounder... but from what I saw of Oden in the summer league... I am concerned the rebounding could be a issue next year when Aldridge and Oden play together. Hopefully Oden was just off his game and he is a better rebounder than he showed.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I think we'll be constantly referred to as the Oden-less Blazers, regarding of how we do.

"In a surprising development, the Blazers, without Greg Oden, have made the playoffs..."

Oden is the guy everyone is interested in.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Spot on. 

One thing I noticed. Players who worked hard on their game during the summer show the improvement. Those that did not, are still the same guys they were last year. 

Pryzbilla might get a few points a game off of free throws if he can keep his percentage up, he is bound to go to the line banging in the paint. Not 13, but maybe 6 to 10 points a night. Plus we won't have to keep him out in crunch time because of free throw shooting.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I agree with you on most counts, but I think Joel will return to the form he showed prior to last season's slump...which I would refer to as the "blip". He won't come close to averaging 13 a night, but if he can get 8-10 rebounds and be at least a reasonable scoring threat, then he will be fine in his one-year role as starter. If his freethrow shooting last night was any indicator, he'll be able to stay in the game in the 4th quarter instead of having to be yanked as a freethrow liability. 

I think the Oden-less Trail Blazers will be around all season. I hope that it will change from the mode of last night where the perception is, "This team might be decent if they had Oden," to "Man, these guys are pretty good right now, imagine what they'll be next year with Oden."

One other trend that I'm watching for is the change in offensive style. For all of the bashing that Nate took last year for his slow-down, controlled, coaching style, you'd have to say that last night showed none of that. I think it's a definite trend...and it should make for an entertaining season.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

e_blazer1 said:


> One other trend that I'm watching for is the change in offensive style. For all of the bashing that Nate took last year for his slow-down, controlled, coaching style, you'd have to say that last night showed none of that. I think it's a definite trend...and it should make for an entertaining season.


That offense was on display during the pre-season as well. I think it is clear that Nate tries to maximize the talent he has on the team - and using the slow-down offense on a team featuring Randolph was it's #1 option was the right way to go. The problem was not Nate, it was the roster. It is good that KP understands it.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Interesting post, Ed. 
I agree with you on most points. My points of disagreement would be on Joel (whose good play I think is a weak trend rather than a blip) and the bench acquisitions (which, unfortunately, I think is a strong trend.) I think our starting lineup this year will be a huge, pleasant surprise -- playoff-quality. But our bench, I fear, is garbage and will lose us a lot of games -- just like yesterday. But next year, when Joel moves to the bench backing up Oden and Rudy slots in somewhere.... that will be niiiiiice.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> One other trend that I'm watching for is the change in offensive style. For all of the bashing that Nate took last year for his slow-down, controlled, coaching style, you'd have to say that last night showed none of that. I think it's a definite trend...and it should make for an entertaining season.


Good one... whether the team will play up-tempo or not.

I doubt it. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think when the team loses a few games Nate will go back to what he knows best: keeping the offense under his thumb.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Stepping Razor said:


> Interesting post, Ed.
> I agree with you on most points. My points of disagreement would be on Joel (whose good play I think is a weak trend rather than a blip) and the bench acquisitions (which, unfortunately, I think is a strong trend.) I think our starting lineup this year will be a huge, pleasant surprise -- playoff-quality. But our bench, I fear, is garbage and will lose us a lot of games -- just like yesterday. But next year, when Joel moves to the bench backing up Oden and Rudy slots in somewhere.... that will be niiiiiice.


While I agree that the additions of Oden and Fernandez will likely make a huge difference, I'm not nearly as concerned as you are about the bench. This _was_, after all, the defending champions -- they _should_ have won the game. 

Most teams don't have near the depth that the Spurs do. After is first year, Frye was deemed "untouchable." Jones was a regular starter for the Suns and is known both as a 3 point specialist _and_ as a defensive specialist -- this team's Bruce Bowen perhaps? Outlaw seems to finally be showing fairly consistent improvement and can get his shot off nearly anywhere, anytime, so when it's going _in_....

The PGs I'm most excited about are the two least likely to see time -- Rodriguez and Green. Still, I expect at _least_ mixed results from them -- they seem unlikely to stink it up when they do actually get PT.

I'm even relatively excited about McRoberts, though it'll be awhile before we get to see him play. He's something of a tweener, but that might be something he can turn to his advantage when combined with his hustle and passing ability.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> [Aldridge] is the entire package in terms of scoring the ball . . .


I'm afraid the expression "scoring the ball" is a trend that is here to stay.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> *Pryzbilla is Back*
> 
> Blip
> 
> ...


I agree with most your comments other then these two,

I think Przybilla is back, however he won't always be as good as he was this game (so I think this game is a Blip, but overall his overcoming last season is a trend).

I also think the media won't stop referring to us as the Oden-less Trail Blazers unless we win at a surprising rate, and even then there won't be an article that won't mention something to the effect of "and imagine if Oden was healthy!"


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

when was joel in a slump not related to injury? as i recall he was dominating on defense and on the boards in the first few games of the season last year before taking the *cough* knee at golden state. he was never expected to do much on offense, so that's not a big deal.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> While I agree that the additions of Oden and Fernandez will likely make a huge difference, I'm not nearly as concerned as you are about the bench. This _was_, after all, the defending champions -- they _should_ have won the game.
> 
> Most teams don't have near the depth that the Spurs do. After is first year, Frye was deemed "untouchable." Jones was a regular starter for the Suns and is known both as a 3 point specialist _and_ as a defensive specialist -- this team's Bruce Bowen perhaps? Outlaw seems to finally be showing fairly consistent improvement and can get his shot off nearly anywhere, anytime, so when it's going _in_....
> 
> ...


My hope for Jones is that he is a somewhat taller and younger Udoka. I'll be thrilled if he is and Martell plays well enough to keep him on the bench. I agree with everything else.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

I agree with Ed on almost everything, the only difference is while I think Roy playing like he did while his heel isn't hurting was a blip, I worry that his heel injury might turn into a trend.


----------



## TallBottom (May 24, 2006)

I think the trend with Roy is having bad games against the Spurs (he hasn't had a good one yet) so I wouldn't try and apply that to his whole season.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i agree with ed but i dont think nate will change the offense


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Good one... whether the team will play up-tempo or not.
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> ...


The only way this team slows down to last year's pace is if Zbo returns to the Blazers.

With Aldridge at the 4, the Blazers will be much more up tempo. With Travis and Aldridge on the floor together---WATCH OUT!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

in other news...

The sky is grey in Seattle 
TREND


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

We could have definitely used a healthy miles off the bench last night. An outlaw miles jones combo at the 4 3 and 2 would be an improvement.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I hope Nate keeps the offense. He doesn't have to try and play Suns ball or anything, just run from time to time when the opportunities are there. The slow pace from the previous couple years made our games unbearable to watch at times, even though with Zach and others perhaps that was the best strategy. The NBA is changing from Van Gundys to Adelmans; I think Nate is aware of that.

I agree that LMA rebounding is a huge concern. I think he will exert more effort to try and get boards than Sheed ever did, but he will struggle the same as he is not a talented rebounder. Martell is actually a very solid rebounder for a SG/SF, so hopefully him and other guys can get minutes and help chip in so we don't lose games from rebounding.

I was also concerned with Aldridges apparent desire to settle for jumpers, we'll have to see how it plays out.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Samuel said:



> We could have definitely used a healthy miles off the bench last night. An outlaw miles jones combo at the 4 3 and 2 would be an improvement.


Agree completely. I'm hoping for a strong Miles return some point this season.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

We should sticky this and revisit it after 10-12 games.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

Considering that Aldridge was averaging about 8 rebounds a game last year when he got playing time, the 3 rebound performance is not a 'trend'. And yes, the spurs did plenty of things that had LMA playing a long ways from the basket. Nate's use of a lot of zone didn't help either.

Obviously LMA & Martell are not going to average 48 points a game, but the trend for both of them appears to be for a giant jump in scoring. When was the last time a team had 2 players in the running for Most Improved Player?

Roy had a bad game. he was frustrated by Bowen and the spurs' team defense. he also needed more then 5 quarters of play in the preseason. That was a miscalculation on Nate's part, perhapas.

The point guards did stink it up. I fear that may be a trend, although it difficult to believe that will be that bad all season.

Joel will be better then you credit I believe. I'm not going to forecast injuries for players and won't in this cas either.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

sticky sticky sticky

trend 

seattle flans being haters on the most wonderful team ever THE PORTLANDDDDDDDD TRAIILLLLLLLL BLAAZZZEERRRRSSSSSS!


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

I sure hope it's a 'blip' for Channing. He not only looked terrible last night, he looked terrible all pre-season. Right now he really doesn't provide anything other than jumpers, and those aren't falling.

If he keeps this up, I think we'll be seeing a lot of Josh McRoberts sooner rather than later. Of course, that's when McBob recovers from his sprained ankle.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Btw, the Rasheed/LaMarcus comparison is spot on. He really did look like the 'Sheed from 2000. However, I think LaMarcus has more of a scoring mentality than Rasheed. But their games are nearly identical.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

-Sonny- said:


> Btw, the Rasheed/LaMarcus comparison is spot on. He really did look like the 'Sheed from 2000. However, I think LaMarcus has more of a scoring mentality than Rasheed. But their games are nearly identical.


I agree... Aldridge looks how Rasheed looked when he really WANTED to score. It wasn't in Wallace's mental makeup to do that very often, though, so we didn't see it very frequently.

I think LA is a different cat. Which is good, especially for the Blazers on the offensive end.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I think you got it, Ed. The only thing I might disagree with is the team being referred to as the "Oden-less Blazers" being a blip. I think it will be that way all season. If the Blazers end up totally stinking this season, the fact that they are "Oden-less" will be a big part of it. And if they shock the world in some way, it will be "in spite of being Oden-less". Going middle-of-the-road (record-wise) is where you will problably hear the least of it, but you will still hear things like, "Imagine how well they'd be doing if they had Oden!".

IMO, "Oden-less Blazers" is a strong trend this season.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

-Sonny- said:


> If he keeps this up, I think we'll be seeing a lot of Josh McRoberts sooner rather than later. Of course, that's when McBob recovers from his sprained ankle.


:gopray:

Not that I wish Frye ill will or anything like that. He just hasn't impressed me AT ALL as a Blazer to date.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BTW... wouldn't it be a kick to see Webster get selected for the 3-point shootout this season? If he keeps hitting at this clip, it could happen. The TNT guys the other night sounded really impressed. However, now future opponents will know they will need to D up on him. I just hope he can keep hitting at pretty much the same rate in spite of the increased defensive pressure (and making the dump to Aldridge an instinctive reaction to double-teams).

PBF


----------



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

ProudBFan said:


> BHowever, now future opponents will know they will need to D up on him. I just hope he can keep hitting at pretty much the same rate in spite of the increased defensive pressure (and making the dump to Aldridge an instinctive reaction to double-teams).


Perimeter players are almost never double teamed. The real key for Webster will be to continue to be aggressive and use his athleticism to drive to the basket several times a game. When he does that, defenders will have to back off a little so he doesn't just blow by them. That creates the little extra space he needs to get a good look on his jumpers without a hand in his face. 

His biggest problem last year was a lack of aggressiveness/confidence on offense that lead to him being a stand-still, spot-up perimeter shooter. If he falls back into that one-dimensional the role, he becomes very easy to guard. As long as teams have to respect both his drive and his outside shot he'll be a lot tougher to guard and the game will start to seem easy to him (on the offensive end)- which should help to continue to bolster his confidence.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Perimeter players are almost never double teamed.


True, but some are not left alone on the perimeter even when a post player is being doubled. Players that earn that sort of respect stretch the D even without the ball in their hands. 

STOMP


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

STOMP said:


> True, but some are not left alone on the perimeter even when a post player is being doubled. Players that earn that sort of respect stretch the D even without the ball in their hands.
> 
> STOMP


Just so. And add some movement and picks without the ball, along with a deceptive step or two (remember how Kiki always managed to get a shot off?), and the defense stays *very* honest. 

iWatas


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's only one game, and we (should) all know that we can't project too much based on one game. Of course, SOME of the things we saw will be part of a trend. I want to know which of these things are trends and which are just blips on the radar.
> 
> *LaMarcus Aldridge, Scoring Machine*
> 
> ...


It's interesting looking back at this thread now that the season's over. You did remarkably well with your guesses it seems to me, Ed. The two that stand out as misses are Przybilla and, to a lesser extent, the media regarding Oden (though in their defense it shifted to more of a "just imagine this team with Oden...."). It also seemed odd that Outlaw didn't get a mention. I haven't looked back at that box score but I'm guessing he didn't play either well enough or poorly enough to get a lot of attention.

I'll be looking forward to a new thread like this coming out after next season's first game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> It's interesting looking back at this thread now that the season's over. You did remarkably well with your guesses it seems to me, Ed. The two that stand out as misses are Przybilla and, to a lesser extent, the media regarding Oden (though in their defense it shifted to more of a "just imagine this team with Oden...."). It also seemed odd that Outlaw didn't get a mention. I haven't looked back at that box score but I'm guessing he didn't play either well enough or poorly enough to get a lot of attention.
> 
> I'll be looking forward to a new thread like this coming out after next season's first game.


Thanks. It's amazing how I can be so right on particulars and so dreadfully wrong about things (being off by like 7-10 wins, thinking the Knicks were going to win about twice as many games as they did, etc.).

That's part of the fun of talking out our asses, right? The pain of being incredibly inaccurate in retrospect 

And I looked it up: Outlaw had 11 points and 4 boards. Getting 10 shots seems like it was the most interesting thing from the boxscore, but I would bet it's just because nothing about his game that night leaped out at me.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Thanks. It's amazing how I can be so right on particulars and so dreadfully wrong about things (being off by like 7-10 wins, thinking the Knicks were going to win about twice as many games as they did, etc.).
> 
> That's part of the fun of talking out our asses, right? The pain of being incredibly inaccurate in retrospect
> 
> ...


At least in this case I assume the "pain" of being "incredibly inaccurate" was mitigated by your team doing better than you expected. Far better, I'd think, than having projected a 50 win season in terms of the disappoiment factor. Otoh, at least in that case other posters would (presumably) be less inclined to make a point of it.

Speaking of such projections, when shall we start such a thread? I'm inclined to wait until the after presumably most of the off-season moves are made, though I suppose if we get bored enough we could do it twice or even three times. 

For that matter, a nice way of passing some of the next several months might be a series of polls. Topics might include such things as:

1. which team (or teams) that made the playoffs this season are least likely to next season;

2. after the big three, which Blazers' player is likely to have the biggest impact on the team (presuming he's still on the team);

3. which team (western conference or across the NBA) is likely to be the "surprise" team next season in terms of win total increase;

4. which former Blazers' player will help his team the most; and

5. which Blazers' player will lead the team in blocks?

Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. I'm sure others here can come up with better topics. But it might be interesting to collect a few like these and then gradually roll 'em out over the course of the off-season, if only to help pass the time.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Wow......an Ed O sighting. Longtime no post.

Hey Ed, care to step out on a limb and predict the NBA Lottery? Does Portland move up (Trend) or was last year a (Blip).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

HOWIE said:


> Wow......an Ed O sighting. Longtime no post.
> 
> Hey Ed, care to step out on a limb and predict the NBA Lottery? Does Portland move up (Trend) or was last year a (Blip).


That's actually a really good question, Howie -- it might merit a poll question (ideally public, from my perspective). I think that, much as Pritchard and Allen both love the draft, they probably trade down. Either that or they trade _way_ up. If they actually end up using the 13th pick themselves (which I find pretty unlikely), they'll already have plans in place to bring in a veteran PG is my guess.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I feel a No. 3 lottery pick in the Blazers' immediate future. Believe. :biggrin:


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

I was positive before the lottery (ask MAS) that we'd get the #2 pick. Maybe I was a year off? And good to see you around Ed.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

its true.
i had a feeling we won the whole thing once we got top 3.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

btw, you coming up for the lotto party?


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> That's actually a really good question, Howie -- it might merit a poll question (ideally public, from my perspective). I think that, much as Pritchard and Allen both love the draft, they probably trade down. Either that or they trade _way_ up. If they actually end up using the 13th pick themselves (which I find pretty unlikely), they'll already have plans in place to bring in a veteran PG is my guess.


I think Howie was actually just asking about how the ping pong balls will bounce. I think that movement by trade is going to depend a lot on what other teams are willing to do. I would be in favor of staying, trading down, or trading out. There is no one between 7 or 13 that really make me that excited.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Zybot said:


> I think Howie was actually just asking about how the ping pong balls will bounce.


Ah! Thanks -- and yeah I think I misread it, too. 



> I think that movement by trade is going to depend a lot on what other teams are willing to do. I would be in favor of staying, trading down, or trading out.


Those, er... would seem to be the options. Are you meaning something there I'm missing?



> There is no one between 7 or 13 that really make me that excited.


Huh. Well, okay. It seems to me there are several players there I'd be happy to have on the team. Now, I can certainly imagine getting better value out of the pick by moving it somehow or other and yeah, there's really _no one_ outside of Rose I'm actually excited about, but it seems to me there are interesting possibilities there. Maybe it's a half-full vs. half-empty thing (and we're really saying pretty much the same thing}?


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Those, er... would seem to be the options. Are you meaning something there I'm missing?


I suppose it would have been easier to just say, I don't see a lot of sense of trading up in this draft. You are not going to get some one off of a top 2 pick, and while there are plenty of PG's (some who will be available at 6 that won't be at 13), the player at 13 should land us a pretty decent player if we decide to keep the pick. I am pretty happy with the roster as is -- so a lack of fireworks on draft day would be just fine with me.


----------

