I'm predicting 56 wins so I went under. I wouldn't be surprise if we won more though. I don't like the easy start. We play better when up against a tough schedule. GO BLAZERS!!
I think we could hit 60. Predicted 52 wins last year and was two short. Hopefully I'm short by two games again
Under and I don't think it matters. My best guess is they will win something like 56 games or so and will be the third or second seed in the west -- which are the only numbers that matter.
Looking at this from a historical perspective: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/ These are all our teams that have won 50+ games, and last season's team was both the best offensive team and worst defensive team of the bunch. In order to climb up to that upper echelon, we have to improve our defense. Unfortunately, I don't think any of our addition to the roster bring better defense, and that improvement has to come from within.
I clicked under thinking 56, but then started thinking about ROY. So far, every year I thought he would taper off and every year he improves a good deal. So, if he was the type of player that is just playing for a contract, then I would expect him to taper off. But, I think Roy is the type of player who wants to prove that he is worth his max contract. I think Roy takes another step forward this season to become a top 4-8 NBA player. With that, along with Oden, LMA and Batum all improving naturally, and Miller being able to run the point, I am changing my mind. OVER - 61 wins
I think they're going to look like championship-contenders during the regular season (thus 60+ wins) but will not actually be on the level of Boston, LA and Cleveland in the playoffs. I think they have the talent, but winning in the playoffs has a major mental component for dealing with a brutally tough game every night, against an opponent focused on game-planning only for you. I think the team is probably not mentally/emotionally prepared to win four such difficult series, but the talent level is there and will be shown through the regular season.
I just hope that if we don;t jump our win total by 10 again everybody on won't go crazy and call the season a failure. There comes a time when the win total won't drastically go up every year.
It's all about the playoffs. I want to see us get to at least the 2nd round if not the WCF. I think that's doable, but it gets a lot harder if we don't have HCA.
Blazersedge.com ran a really nice piece on this topic the other day, and in a nutshell Dave's assertion was that when you stink you hang your hat on incremental improvements measured in sheer wins and losses, but once you are a playoff team and get there repeatedly win-loss totals mean fuck all, it all comes down to what you do with it. I'd be much happier to see this team win 55 games and get to the conference semis than I would be to see a 60+ win season flushed down the drain in a first round exit. I hope people don't obsess too much over the regular season record (of course I know that's a fool's hope) and can keep things in proper perspective -- it's all about seeding and homecourt from here on out, if that means winning fifty games and that gets the job done who cares.
I had them pegged at 60 games prior to landing Miller and he was the FA I hoped for. If they avoid injuries I'm bumping that up to 62. Once a team locks up home court they tend to take the foot off the gas down the stretch or I'd actually predict more. This is a talented and deep team that should continue the impressive point differential they were posting the 2nd half of last year. They enter the elite team mix this season. STOMP
+1 The Blazers won't be sneaking up on anybody this season. If we win enough games to land HCA, that is a successful regular season. The real measure will be how we do in the play-offs.
Somebody check and see how many wins we averaged during our really good runs in the early 90's and 2000's.
Off the top of my head, the closest Blazer example of that might be that '90/'91 team...although, they made it to the WCF. If there were any of those early 90's teams that fell (nose-dived) short of perceived expectations, I would say it might very well be that one.
