I know it's only been two games, but ever since Roy "went ballistic" on the team, it appears they've played with a sense of purpose, hustle, and unity....and it's shown on the scoreboard. We just may end up looking back on that event as a watershed moment.
Yep. All this "big three" stuff is just words. This is Roy's team...and we will go as far as he can lead us. Both he and the team need to firmly understand that.
Agreed. But it was just as big that Roy picked up his own game (especially on defense) where he has been slacking ass this year (mostly because of carrying the offensive load). Now that he's showing a comittment on both ends of the court, I think it's rubbing off on the rest of the team.
meh... speaking of just words. Brandon doesn't lead jack shit without LA playing like the stud he is. Both of them need to play to their abilities (and lead) for them to go anywhere. You've turned up your nose to Greg's contributions all year, but it is obvious to many here that he's one of their top talents and they play much better with him then without. His status as one of the Big 3 has always been on how he projects and is certainly not applicable when he's dinged up and missing games. I'm glad Brandon seems extra focused as of late as they need him at the top of his game if they're to advance, but this team has a lot of important pieces. He's the focus/point of their offensive attack and everyone plays off of him, but it's not like other players haven't been picking him up on the other end all year as well. His D has not been good so he has only so much room to point fingers. I'm sure if he's calling guys out, dude is being shown a mirror. STOMP
Don't kid yourself. This is Roy's team, both, on and off the court. His leadership is much, much more than simply what takes place on the court. As an aside, I heard Scott Hastings on Courtside last night. He said that, in the past number of seasons, Denver had been a one 'n done team. The term "championship" was a by-word, wasn't even part of the Nuggets' vocabulary. That is, until Chauncey Billups showed up. Why? Because they hadn't had anyone on their team willing to step up, demand (yes, demand) much more, then put the other guys on their back and lead. Subsequently, there's a veritable night & day difference between how the Nuggets played before he arived......and now. Same team, one guy. You do the math. Brandon's doing the same here. You can talk Big 3 all day long. However, in reality, it's Big 1 and the sidekick(s). For this season, at least. This team will go as far as Brandon takes them. I'm liking what I'm seeing recently, though.
In fact, if you look at teams that win championships, they all have a player, who may or may not also be the team's best player, who is not afraid to get on the other guys' cases when needed. Theoretically that should be a coach's job, but sometimes it takes a peer. Roy being willing to do that is part of his development, remember, he's just in his 3rd year. This does not mean the team does not need the talents of Aldridge, Oden, et al. They do. But talent without leadership does not win titles. If there was a do-over, any doubt who the #1 pick in that year's draft would be?
right... I'm the one kidding myself when you're imaging what the team dynamic is on and off the court STOMP
sure you are. How many team meetings have you sat in on? How about practices? If you want to play pretend, thats fine for you, but don't expect me to join you in imaginary land STOMP
You're right about that. None. Essentially, I've come to my conclusions on the matter based upon what I've heard and read during the time Roy has been with the team. Sure, you can't always believe everything that comes your way, but when you hear/read the same thing over and over again.....it kind of just sinks in via osmosis, I suppose. As an example, here's one piece on Roy I had read awhile back.... http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2008/12/roys_leadership_is_like_his_ga.html
I disagree with the part I bolded. There's a list a mile long of coaches who have lost their jobs after their players tuned them out. The reality in the NBA game, with its guaranteed contracts, is that it's far easier to fire a coach than move a 'trouble' player, which is why you absolutely need bona fide player leaders; guys who have credibility, but also that peer bond, which can't exist in the inherently unequal relationship between player and coach. But, yes Roy being willing to step up and be this guy who sets the tone and is willing to get in the grill of teammates and having the game to back it up is absolutely critical to the success of this team. KP getting Roy may end up being a bigger coup than landing Oden.
You might want to examine your own argument. Greg is a potential great talent. But to say that it is "obvious" that the team plays better with Greg than without is not based on any fact or truth. During the SA game, it was stated that we are 13-6 when Greg plays 6 minutes or less. Assuming that is true, we are now 14-6 when Greg plays 6 minutes or less. So, the Blazers are playing .700 ball WITHOUT Greg, and 0.589 ball WITH Greg. (I'll assume 6 minutes is little enough to call that "without" Greg) I'm as big of a fan of Greg's as anybody, but it isn't "obvious" that the Blazers are better with him playing significant minutes (at this point of his career).
The Blazers are also 14-6 with Greg playing 25 minutes or more, so their playing .700 ball with Greg playing more than half the game, and .589 when he plays 24 minutes or fewer.
Cool. I didn't pull that stat, but it is good to know. My point is that it isn't "obvious". PS. Without going back and looking, it seems like Oden has been able to stay in the game more against the worse teams - read: teams that we would have beat anyway. Admittedly, that is a total guess on my part.
I don't think there's any one statistic that would make it obvious, but I think as knowledgeable fans we can all realize that when Oden is ON he brings something this team otherwise lacks and that that something is part of a winning formula. With Oden we're a dominant rebounding team, without him we go long stretches with guys like LMA/Frye/TO as our primary rebounders. He scores with great efficiency down in the paint and draws a ton of fouls, making our offense a more versatile and effective attack. He alters shots on defense, either banging with his own man down low on the blocks and forcing tough shots or by intimidating drivers. With all those things combined I think there's at least a few games this year where you can point to a specific stretch from Oden that kept us in the game, or energized his teammates, that helped lead this team to a win. On the other hand I can't really recall any game that Oden was a major factor in us losing the game. Alot of that is due to him not being given the responsibility, and having missed significant stretches with injury, but overall I believe he's been a very positive influence on the teams play.
Not objectively obvious, but it can be subjectively obvious. That is, obvious to the person in question. I don't think that's an unreasonable use of the word. To many, it's obvious that Sergio Rodriguez hurts the team most of the time he plays, but it's not a universal sentiment or provable beyond any shadow of a doubt.
I would have agreed with the statement if it had been said that Oden obviously makes a difference on the offensive side. But, I have a hard time with the statement that it is subjectively obvious that we play better with Oden. I think it is "subjectively obvious" that Joel is better for our team on the defensive end. I guess it would be up for a debate as to which side is more useful to us right now. IMO, Joel's advantage on the defensive end is enough to make it not "obvious", either objectively or subjectively, who makes us better.
