Yes, you're right. I was looking at Minnesota's record when I thought I was looking at Memphis' Still the Grizz only have three wins against 0.500 teams all season and have been beaten by double digits in 10 of their 20 losses. They are 2 - 12 on the road with 9 double digit defeats. They are a worse team than the Raptors we beat by 13 last night. We also have'vt played any of the Eastern Conference's four worst teams at home this year. My point was we already have more blow out wins this season than all of last, and have many more potential blowouts against weaker teams remaining on our schedule. BNM
Last night wasn't fools gold, it was exactly who we are right now. A talented young team that loses defensive focus and shows poor execution at times (first half) When Brandon Roy goes off the 4th quarter, we usually win (at least when we at home) and when he doesn't . . . We fed the post more and had more points in the paint than we've had recently (didn't settle for as many jumpers) We played a 12-18 team at home and we won, like we should. Our poor defense is going to allow most teams to stay in the game with us, so I'm not suprised Toronto was in the game or had the lead several times.
we're also 0-7 vs. western conf. playoff teams on the road and with a little less luck could easily be 3-3 or worse against them at home. you could say there are signs both ways.
This is what I was thinking during the game. Sometimes, teams play 'over their heads.' Like during our 13-game winning streak last season. Sometimes, teams play below their ability (like the Clippers game or some of the games at the end of our grueling early season schedule when our guys were just worn out). It sucks when it happens (to us). Against Toronto, I thought the Blazers were pretty much showing exactly who they are. The Blazers are good, but inexperienced, and they have lapses. They had a few against Toronto (including some ugly sequences in the second half); luckily Toronto helped us by missing shots. Our inexperience especially shows against the experienced teams -- that's why, imo, we lost to Dallas. And got killed by Boston. They owned us because of their experience. The experience will come. And we'll still be good.
I sometimes get the feeling that some fans don't understand that things don't happen over night. Sure, Boston won 41 more games than they did the year before, but they also had a long period of really poor basketball. It takes time, and we're ahead of schedule (realistically).
Being ahead of schedule and seeing glaring weaknesses that have not been corrected in over 2 years are two different things. We are a horrible perimeter defensive team. Nothing about that has anything to do with lack of experience. It has to do with coaching schemes and players wanting to play defense. We have a very poor offensive flow. Our EFF is pretty high because Roy saves us a lot, but in reality there is little movement and we are fairly easy to defend. We don't get a lot of easy baskets or points from the line either. We have a few players that hit the boards hard, or in LMA's case block out well, but others don't have a clue about how to rebound.
We have a lot better offensive flow than a few years ago. We seem to move the ball great now. What I think you may be saying is that we don't dribble the ball around a lot on our offense and in that sense... yeah... we don't have a lot of flow. I'm sure Nate wants passing instead of dribbling to cut TOs. Rudy moves amazing without the ball... but a lot of the other players seem to want to stand on the perimeter. The penetrate and kick has worked damn well for us though. Another thing I think we have improved on is running. The first few years Nate didn't want the team to run really. At that stage in their development I think he just didn't want the turnovers and wanted to focus on half court execution. It was ugly... but they did learn to execute. Now they push it whenever they can and I think it is really helping the team. No... we are not a super running team... but it does wear down defenses, and when we have a deeper bench I think it is to our advantage. Are we a finished product ready to challenge for a championship? No. Playoff team? Very close. Personally I think a very good team in the west will miss playoffs. Hope it isn't us. We still have not had a single game this year with our projected 5 starters (Blake, Roy, Webster, Aldridge and Oden) They may have played in one game... but they didn't start. So for that reason alone, while I think we do need some more pieces... I would not make a trade. I need to see all the pieces together first.
Our team passes a lot, but it's not to cutters, it's to jump shooters. Quite frankly that hasn't been a very good model of success. As for penetrating and dishing....when? Improved running? We are dead last....AGAIN in fast break points. Deeper bench? It has been said by a lot of "experts" that you win with your top 8 guys. Having a deep bench means shit in reality. But whatever. I get that I am alone on this one.
We're near the top in pretty much all offense rankings, and among the best rebounding teams. If those are "glaring weaknesses" on the team, you may have to live with the Blazers having glaring weaknesses in all facets of the game for your entire lifetime. As for defense, no real arguments. I think our interior defense is better than our perimeter defense, but that isn't saying a ton.
Maybe you're alone because nobody is quite sure what you want or expect. I've been as upset with the team as anybody.....but even I saw positive things in the last game.
Please don't give me "near the top in pretty much all offensive rankings" Last in pace Last in Fast break points We are average in PPG, APG and near the bottom in FG % We are near the bottom in FT attempted So yes, we have glaring weeknesses. The offensive rankings that we do well in is a made up stat of EFF. We do well there because we are a good offensive rebounding team that plays so slow we don't turn the ball over a lot. We jack up a lot of threes, and that has helped us so far. Now teams have started scouting us better and we are 5-6 in our last 11 games. All I'm saying is that things aren't as nifty and sweet as they should or could be.
What did you see? I'm not being argumentative here, I'm curious? We sucked in the first half. In the second half Brandon Roy scored 18 in the 4th or we probably lose. Toronto misses a lot of wide open jumpers or we are in a much tighter game. Toronto has maybe the worst game plan against us as anyone this year as well. The refs let Greg play a little more than normal as well.
Almost all of those are correlated, though. Not separate problems. We don't get many possessions each game. That is reflected in our low Pace and impacts PPG, APG, FT attempted, rebounds and any other number of "per game" stats. The low Pace is only a problem for those (like you) who want the team to run. It's not a problem to me as long as we're winning. Offensively, we're very efficient. We can improve, of course (specifically in feeding the ball to the post, IMO, and, yes, getting a few more easy opportunities in the open floor) but we're still in pretty good shape there. I agree things could be better. Frye is hurting us and we need to feed the post better. We also need to improve our defense overall. Ed O.
I'm talking about total offense, not each individual component. We are near the top in basically every ranking of overall offensive efficiency. Our pace is slow, but that's neither good or bad...it means less possessions for us, but also fewer possessions for our opponents. We are more efficient with our possessions, which makes us a top offensive team in terms of effectiveness.
You act like that's a bad thing. Most teams don't win unless their star players show up. I can think of many times that Lakers wouldn't of won last year had Kobe not shown up big in the 4th quarter to bail out his team. Same goes for LeBron, Wade, Dirk and all other stars in the league that have the ability of carrying their team when they need it. This is something we have lacked for a long time and now that we have a player capable of doing that you act as though its some kind of problem. Its called leadership.
Like I said, whatever, I am alone on this one. I'll just wait around until it gets worse and then join in a thread that one of you guys start about how change might be a good thing for this team because EVERY OTHER TEAM has figured out how to stop us.
Hoo boy, you are quite a piece of work, aren't you? You aren't at least over the top dramatic like Mixum portrays himself as, but you're surely heading in that generation direction. I don't see how what you're doing is any different (and any less hyperbolic) than the guy who posted that Oden sucked and that we should have taken Durant. Maybe you have unrealistic expectations for what the team should be doing. It does seem that you constantly whine about the team not running enough, but I ask you. When was the last fast breaking team that won a title? Slow, half court offense is what wins titles, not running and gunning (otherwise, Phoenix, Dallas and the Warriors would be champs). If there's anything we need to work on, it's perimeter defense (and a PG who actually plays defense)
I don't know what you're looking for, from us. I don't agree with "let the cake bake," but I also don't just want to change personnel for the hell of it. If there is a GOOD move available, I hope Pritchard makes it. If there isn't a good move, I hope Pritchard doesn't make a move. A bad move is not better than no move. I'd love to see RLEC and Outlaw/Webster cashed in for Gerald Wallace, for example. But who knows if such a deal is even available. I don't agree with you that the offense and rebounding are glaring weaknesses, overall. Could either be improved? Sure. No team ever attains perfection in anything. But they are far from big problems. I agree with you that defense, especially on the perimeter, is a glaring weakness.
