Dude, be serious. If you put those 2 guys on the trading block tomorrow, Joel would draw significant interest. Blake? You could count the teams on the fingers of one hand. He would only be of interest to a coach who would be willing to give up the things a PG usually does, in favor of a designated 3-point shooter. Even at that, they would likely see him coming off the bench - not starting.
Blake was/is a stop-gap for the PG position until we upgrade. There is no question that he is much more valuable to our team than others, so it's easy for people to overvalue his skills.
In all fairness to Simmons he is just saying the team's talent is overrated, not bad. And they are a good team, but have been called a great team. I have heard commentators say Portland is a sure fire "Future Dynasty". Those people are fucking delusional. It is possible, but no sure thing. So yeah, our team has been overrated by some commentators and many fans.
Overrated how? Was the team expected to win 54 games and lose tiebreakers to "fall" to the fourth seed and a tough first round draw? Joel would, as others have said, start for most teams in the NBA. Oden would have started for several, as well, and he should improve given he's 21 years old (younger than several of the upcoming lottery picks like Thabeet). Outlaw is a bench player, and I don't think many people think he's more than that. Blake is a low-end starter or a quality backup. His analysis here is terrible... but it's Bill Simmons. Is anyone surprised? Ed O.
What I don't get is when he says the Blazers look better on paper than they really are. Well they really won 54 games . . . so just how good do they look on paper . . . championship contenders?
I put down 82 wins ( on paper) in October. They under archived all year, come on only 54 W. We should apply and move the team to the east. We could pad our record with all the jr. teams. While we are at it just fire Nate and ship out Joel and Blake for House and big baby.. Bill Simmons is a Boston media whore. Fuck him.
Ya but someone already started a thread called Bill Simmons owes me a new monitor! so I let it go. It's really the perfect compliment as far as I'm concerned. I like Nate despite the fact that he fucked up in the playoffs. Again, all true. Except of course the me liking Nate part.
Most fans look at talent on other teams and take a 'wait and see', proof is in the pudding approach. But when a fanbase sees a player every night, over and over again, fans see the potential and the possibility that a particular young player could be something special. As it turns out, Simmons is spot on here. His outsider perspective gives him the ability to see the Blazers for what they are; a team with two major pieces, a solid third, and a bunch of semi-developed others. I, like him, am waiting to see some of the other talent step up. Fortunately, we have a lot of pieces that might turn out pretty decent. We'll see though, won't we...
I don't see how 1. The Blazers' roster was the second-youngest in the NBA 2. The Blazers won more games than anyone expected and yet 3. The Blazers' talent is overrated adds up. At all. The first one is a fact, the second one is pretty darn close to a fact, and the third one is opinion. If the math doesn't add up, which of the three is likely to be wrong? Ed O.
That's a good piece of work and really makes it clear how much we need an upgrade. I disagree with a couple, I think Blake might start over Fisher, but not over Westbrook. Jack starts for Indiana now and I think Indiana would also start him over Blake.
I was much more generous to Blake than Mediocre Man and I think I counted eight teams he might start for, nine if you count the Blazers.
