BTW, the reason i bring up this homerism, is because I am sick and tired of delusional Blazer fan who gets on S2 and on the Radio and explains their love for steve blake and how he is much better than miller and etc etc And how roy needs the ball in his hands for this team to win and how he needs to be selfish etc. Those people need to get there heads out of their asses
That's majorly flawed logic there. I'm quoting you, not saying it myself. You were saying that someone said X, and you said "well, X is still better than Y" (Y being us as we currently stand). SO I went off on the "currently stand" bit. I'm not saying I agree with it. You might have noticed that I A: didn't say one fucking word about OKC in the thread and B: brought up how even the analogy I brought up (comparing 4 injured players on a team vs team basis) wasn't easily transferable to other teams. You made the most idiotic leap in logic I've seen in ages, and are just too stubborn to admit you fucked up by accusing me of being a homer because I quoted you commenting on someone elses' comment (which wasn't my own, nor something I backed up in this stupid thread). Either that or you just think it's funny.
Alright, i never ever mentioned you directly as agreeing with what i deemed to be homerism When did i say that???? All i said is i dont understand the homerism sometime, not once did i mention or quote you
Well, to answer the question, I think the Lakers would probably be alright. Looking at other top teams: Boston, taking the worst of their big 3 away, I'd say you remove Allen. And then Perkins, and two bench players. I think Rondo, Garnett and Pierce is enough to get them through the rough patch better than we will. I think Cleveland would struggle. I think Orlando would be alright. Hmm, really, I think the TOP teams could weather the storm, whereas most teams below us and around our level would struggle bad. All of the depth on other teams is a good thing, apaprently. Maybe as constructed, we have too many people concerned about shots, and less about winning, so having "depth" 10 deep is great when 10 guys know their role, but not when it's 10 guys that, while playing for the team, are also playing for themselves some. it's the difficulty of havign 8 guys on rookie scale contracts. Everyone wants to get paid.
So, in hopes no one tries to continue an argument from an unrelated subject, I'd like to re-start this thread. 1. I don't think OKC sucks. 2. And on a totally unrelated note, I wonder how other teams would handle similar injury issues as the Blazers (like, 2 starters, and 2 bench players). 3. For example, if the Lakers lost Bynum, Odom, Artest and Walton (although the comparison isn't as accurate, but it's two starters and 2 bench players, and if you take away Bynum and Artest (which you could argue), you're not removing 4 rotation players who play a key role on the Lakers team). 4. OKC does not suck. 5. You could even make an argument to limit it to 3 players, since we started the season w/out Batum. 6. OKC does not suck.
The laker comparison is unfair because Roy != Bryant, I would liken Roy to someone like Dirk.... If Dallas loses Marion, Drew Gooden and Jason Kidd I think that that Dallas team with Dirk Dampier Howard Terry Barea, is better than this Blazer team
Who cares? I'm a homer and I only care that we get back on track. We're lucky to have Roy healthy. He will thrive now and probably keep us in the playoff hunt till Rudy, Travis and Nic can rejoin the rotation.
Is this what matters? to be in the hunt? This whole season had a bad vibe about it to begin with, but this thread is related to other teams missing players and how it would affect them. Please stay on topic.
I am of the opinion that the loss of a good player hurts Portland far more then most other teams. With so few shots being attempted the value of each shot increases. So it is vitally important that the people taking the shots are good. Right now Portland is playing only two guys who can score effectively big minutes. Other guys off the bench or starting are either streaky scorers or just flat out bad. Further, Portland's offense lends itself towards guys who can create their own shots. Portland in the best case has 4 of these players (Roy, Outlaw, Rudy and Bayless). Two of the four guys are down while Bayless plays limited minutes. That makes Roy the only guy on the team who plays big minutes who can create his own shot. The offense turns to shit when that happens. Defensively I haven't the slightest idea. Recent events and player breakdowns suggest I am less then clueless about NBA defense so it doesn't really make sense for me to speak on the subject.
My thinking is there isn't a single team in the league that could withstand these injuries, which is why I'm so bummed about the bad luck occurring to some really good people. I don't look at it in terms of positions or ranks, I look at it in terms of roles. Greg Oden was an elite post defender. The ability to bring a player of Joel Przybilla's caliber as a backup was a strength few other teams in this league had. That's 48 minutes of tremendous rebounding from the five. Now we have to move LMA there or play Juwan Howard. That's a HUGE dropoff. Nicolas Batum's contribution didn't show up in the stat sheet, but he was our best wing defender and kept defenses honest with his three point shooting. He also fit the starting lineup to a "T". Travis Outlaw was the focus of our second unit offense. As a "stretch 4" he provided a constant mismatch. He had the ability to create his own shot and bail us out of bad sets. Rudy is our second option in our second unit. Mills and Pendergraph were unlikely to make any contribution. However, the loss of those four players not just robbed us of their specific role, but also messed with our rotations and chemistry. Could the elite teams still make the playoffs? Sure. Could they get to the Conference Finals or Championship? Not likely.
It's hard to calculate a comparison, in part because we don't really know what the roles of all of these injured players were going to be... so where would we even start? Regardless, losing 6 players, including four key contributors would be really, really bad for most teams, and only really bad for a few.
