I want someone to clearly explain this to me...

Again, my OP was not about the media, it was about the "fans" (more so the 'realists', and not even all of them).

No, with the Knicks, it will never be "are they ready?" when they are doing good, it's shove-it-down-our-throats they are some kind of great team.

Again, I just wanted someone to explain how (and why) they think it's logical for those scenarios to have any merit... and, with all due respect to all the posts... I haven't seen a satisfactory answer. Probably because it's just swiss-cheese logic.

 

First off, I wasn't specifically responding to you; was responding to lawai'a. Second, there was absolutely a lot of skepticism about the Knicks last year in the media, especially early in the season. ESPN, TNT and NBA.com writers may have been hyping them up, but they're just trying to get people to tune in... that's different than the NY press and the NBA writers across the country. The latter were a bit more skeptical, I found.

You appear to be responding to a non-specific, self-selected subset of 'realist' fans. A lot of this 'realist' negativity has to do with a few pieces of information.

1. The Blazers schedule started off easy, and is now middle of the pack. These are facts. They've performed incredibly in these games, but the fact that they were an awful team last year, started off hot, and were playing easy games led to these reactions. I don't begrudge the so-called 'realists' for reacting this way.

2. The Blazers are winning in a relatively non-traditional way. The last teams to play like this (Volume 3PTA & limited OPP 3PTA) were the 06-07 Suns, the SVG-era Orlando Magic and the 06-07 Spurs. This strategy doesn't emit a lot of the performance indicators that fans look for: Namely, defensive efficiency, point-differential, FG%, and limited opponent PPG.

3. Some of the issues that hurt the team had last year, like bench production and starters minutes, are still there.

4. (probably the main reason) Portland opened the season 20-15, hung around the playoffs until early February, then bombed out. Injuries had a lot to do with this, but I think among the 'realists' there's a PTSD about potentially regressing in a big way, and I think that feeling is still there.

---

Portland is about to go on the road and face a lot of their big western conference foes. A lot of this 'realist' argumentation you're referring to won't really work in these games, so maybe we won't have to put up with it then, eh?

 

Question.... Do you think SAS, OKC, Clippers, Indiana and Miami contenders?

 

I see everything you're saying, and understand it. However, it (not what you wrote, but again, the scenarios I layed out) doesn't make sense. I guess I just wished there was some culpability. But, since the internet age has flourished, accountability has become almost non-existent in an anonymous landscape.

I realize I'm not going to get a straight answer, and that's fine, I suppose. Regardless of a soft schedule and all that, that's why I bring it up. That's pretty much my whole issue with it. Why is it such a bad thing to be winning the games were supposed to win? That's where the swiss-cheese logic of their argument comes in. I would hate to watch a game in a lose-lose situation all the time, but that's just me.

 

What's your point? I'm simply outlining the arguments of the 'realists' that Strenuus is referring to. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

My point? Just asking you a question. Don't need to get all defensive!

 

You asked a pointed question; just asking you what your argument is behind it. Don't get all defensive!

 

My point is that I think Portland is a contender, been thinking that since last summer after we picked up Lopez.

Those "realist" points are all fine and dandy, but the door swings both ways. Examples: SAS hasn't even beat any contending team. Only our team has beaten them all.

So as we have "holes", but many other contenders do as well.

 

Sample size, Mags. We've beaten some good teams a few times, but our core is relatively unused to this kind of success. SA's core has been beating good teams for over a decade. Are they contenders? Yes, because they have contended for (and won) titles already. Until that nucleus falls apart (which can't be TOO far away, right?), they have earned that much. Having a few good wins is wonderful. I love it. I'm enjoying the hell out of this season. But all "the realists" are saying is that there's a hell of a lot of basketball left to play before we will have earned anything close to the respect teams like the Spurs get. Does that matter? Probably more to us, the fans, than it does to the team.

In terms of the board, I'm a little worried about the polarization that seems to be occurring between "the realists" and "the believers" lately. Is it really necessary? Everyone expresses their fandom differently. "Belief" in a team (whatever the hell that even means) doesn't make anyone more of a fan than the endless stat checkers, or the constant worriers, or the season ticket holders, or whatever other kind of fan someone might be. We are Blazer fans because we follow the team and want them to win. Isn't that enough of a qualification? Do we now need to pass some kind of belief test? Predictions of 82-0 or GTFO?

 

Wait a minute!!! People said clippers and Houston are contenders and they haven't done shit. What's different? I understand the Spurs, Indiana and Miami. But the Clips, rockets and golden state? Really?!?!

 

People say all kinds of shit, Mags.

 

And they look foolish doing so

 

Truth.

 

Kennethn Massey has the Blazers 2nd in his rankings. OKC is #1.

 

On both sides

 

Well so far, the homers win and realists are fencing for excuses that don't apply to other contenders.

 

Profound. No, really. In general, people crave attention more than they crave being accurate.

 

I think the fact some are looking at it as winning or losing s the main issue.

 

Unusual that we are discussing an argument right? Arguments are either won or lost.