Know What Pisses Me Off?

At NBA.com aside from a running update on game stats they have 4 highlights for each game after they are over. For about the 20th time this season, after a Blazer win, either all their game highlights or at least 3 of 4 are of the losing team- the victorious Blazers. At least they can make it 2 for each team. They sure diss the hell out of us.

 

We didn't exactly do that well tonight. But I know what you're talking about.

 

To the majority we are uninteresting. Are they out to please the majority or a small fraction of their audience?

 

If it is for highlights then its understandable in some respects, blazers arent exactly high flying poster dunking or no look passing on the regular

 

Its usually other team dunk, other team dunk, other team dunk, LMA with the left block fade away dagger to ice it

 

We are a really really fun team to watch because of how fluid our offense is and how great the team works togethor. With that being said we aren't a highlight team really. We have a few nice highlights but unless you like to see open threes/2's or putbacks in your highlights you wont' be seeing many Blazers highlights.

 

Here's another example you're probably thinking of. Nate.

In articles about last night's game, Lance Stephenson's absence is dwelled upon, but Mo Williams being out is hardly mentioned, if at all. Like, in the upper right of this, is a link to a whole article about Stephenson. But nothing for Mo.

http://espn.go.com/nba/recap?id=400489612

 

I agree but it's like showcasing the losing team. And sometimes it's not a dunk or great assist but some ordinary hustle play.

 

Actually, we move the ball spectacularly when it ends with a make. Lately it hasn't. Earlier this season we had many highlights each game.

 

And ESPN keeps rubbing this damned photo in Blazer fans' faces:


Bastards!

 

I noticed that too! They hate on us. Either that or we are just not that exciting. I'd rather win games than make the highlight reels anyway.

 

hm... earth shattering....maybe its because lance is at least decent(but pretty good) and mo just sucks(worse than sucks)

 

Heh... Stern kinda had a porn stache.

 

He looks like Cliff Paul.

 

That is because Stephenson is awesome and Mo is Mo good and terrible at the same time, plus one is a starter and the other a bench player.

 

Watch the video again. The announcers say that PG was the "star" of that game. He clearly was not.

 

Yeah, not even close. Batum shut him down. They probably got confused and thought George Hill was Paul George.