Portland and Atlanta, a tale of two similar teams

In 2006-2007, the Blazers finished at 32-50 and the Hawks at 30-52.
Next season Blazers 41-41, Hawks 37-45
Next season Blazers 54-28, Hawks 47-35

Both teams have a star SG (Roy, Johnson).
Both teams have a star PF (LMA, Smith).
Both teams have aging, but high quality PGs (Miller, Bibby)
Both teams have promising young centers (Oden, Horford)
Both teams need upgrades at SF
Both teams have big white guy backup C's (Joel, Eva's sister Za Za)

For the past few seasons, I've been calling the Hawks my dark horse team because they've stockpiled a lot of young talent. They've shed some good players along the way, and they traded for their star instead of drafting him.

But basically, the only difference at this point, as I see it, is that Horford is more consistent than Oden.

Patience.

 

Portland got all the hype over these years, but I think Atlanta was severely overlooked.

 

They gave the championship celtics team a run for their money in the playoffs. They were just too young.

I think both teams are coming of age, just that Atlanta is a bit ahead because Harford is something of a solid young vet at C. Oden will be the better player, but not this season.

 

Atlanta's aging PG is a 3pt threat.

 

My initial assessment (likely to be wrong because: a. it comes from me, and b. it is preceded by no actual analysis)--their coach allows them to play a style which takes advantage of their athleticism.

 

My analysis is they finally are figuring out how to join the elite teams. Joe Johnson is 28 and right in the sweet spot of his prime. Roy is almost there at 25. Horford is 23, Oden is 21 (if you believe his driver's licence and that he's not really 45).

So they're a little more of a veteran team.

 

Is it possible that the slightly better team won with slightly more points, and in OT to boot?

At least they're playing like a team with the best record in the league (which they have!).

 

You're addressing why they won this game--because they're the better team. I'm addressing why they're the better team--because their coach makes better use of the available resources than ours does.

Clearly they're not mutually exclusive points.

 

I went to see the Blazers play in summer league with Storyteller a couple of summers ago. It occurred to me then that the Blazers are basically a plodding half court team because of their personnel.

It's easy to second guess the coach after a loss, but what is the team's record? Are they beating the teams they're supposed to and losing to teams that are tough match ups for them?

I'm not defending Nate here, but I don't see that the criticism is fully warranted.

 

I simply don't buy the assertion that Rudy, Aldridge, Outlaw, Webster, and Oden are "plodding half court" personnel. Sorry, I just don't.

It's easy to assume that the coach is responsible for the team's record, but how have they been coming by the wins? Is he utilizing the available resources in such a way that consistently results in efficient offensive sets, or is it primarily through their defense that they have been successful this season?

Further, I resent your assertion that my second-guessing of the coach is only coming because of the loss. I've been second-guessing the guy for months now, after wins and losses alike.

First of all--comparing the effectiveness of two coaches is not necessarily criticism of one, but could also be praise of the other. I've thought for quite a while that Woodson has been doing a very good job with the Hawks. I think that Nate could be doing a better job with the Blazers than he has been doing. If they switched places, I think the Blazers would be a better team than the Hawks right now. Is that really that unreasonable of a conclusion?

 

Of those you listed, only Rudy is capable of taking the ball from end to end on his own.

Oden is the kind of guy you wait for to get set in the post, then dump it in to him. That alone makes you a half court team.

Portland loses to Houston because they aren't a plodding half court team.

Seems to me the three guard offense is not something a coach set in his ways would move to so early in the season, and without practicing it in preseason. Most of the posts I've read in the forum for the past few games have raved about the great ball movement, though there was some concern about it not working against certain teams. This last part may be true.

I made no such assertion. My statements were basically that the Blazers are beating the teams they're supposed to, and played a team they should have lost to into OT before losing a close one.

What were your expectations for the Blazers last season? 54 wins? I don't think many people expected it.

I really suggest patience with the team. It needs a top 15 starting SF and a kick ass young PG who's ready to play right now.

IMO.