Dave from Blazersedge puts his finger on something important ...

For a little while now, I've been increasingly dubious about the Blazers long term prospects for ultimate success, but I could never quite place where this creeping doubt sprung from, and after reading Dave's article today I think I figured it out.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/3/16/1375288/stories-and-edges-olympics

Talent is certainly important, and KP has shown an ability to draft or otherwise bolster the roster with 'talented' guys, but I think it's fair to ask if he's found guys with a take no prisoners, 'refuse to lose' mentality.

Clearly this results of the playoffs this season won't matter much one way or another and this question of 'edge' becomes much more of an issue in subsequent years. But of the existing roster who is going to have that nastiness and stone cold killer mentality that pushes good teams to greatness?

I see Brandon with a budding killer instinct, I think Nic has ice water in his veins, but beyond those two (and possibly Dante) who else on this team do you think is capable of creating a win at all costs mentality on this team? Or are we still waiting for our Mo Lucas or Buck Williams to be added to this roster?

 

Hi.

Head coach with no fire = Team with no fire

Glad to help.

 

Team of nice guys built on character = no swagger.

 

Bayless? Miller? The first seems like a hard case, the second seems like a willing to go all-out for wins.

Plus rotating veterans like Howard and Camby. They won't be around for long, but they'll be replaced with others.

I think too much is being made of the Blazers being "nice guys." It's just a narrative for fans to handle disappointment...Aldridge didn't play well, so he's a gutless softie who doesn't really "want to win." Rudy has regressed...probably due to being a heartless softie who doesn't really want to win. Etc.

Yes, some of the players aren't the rugged, enforcer types. Very few teams have ever been composed entirely of those sorts. Portland has a perfectly viable mix of intense, aggressive players and "merely" skilled players.

 

I don't believe that.

Any fire this team has (I think a lot of the players on this squad have it in them) is extinguished by the man on the sideline.

They will never ever never ever never ever never ever win anything with him on the sideline.

The only one who lacks fire IMO is LMA and you can easily carry a guy or 2 with none if the rest have it. He reminds me of Duck in this regard.

 

Yeah, I guess Rudy has that swag. Nate is a sargeant.

 

I'm hopeful that Howard, Camby, and/or Miller can yet instill a sense of Mr. Mean into these guys.

 

Miller has it, but he's a short timer, Bayless is intense, but ... I'm not sure it's that kind of calculated cold blooded killer intensity that Dave talks about in his article.

In any case I don't think it's a narrative at all, I can't quantify it, but I've certainly 'felt' it when I've watched this team play (and I get a different vibe from teams like Utah, OKC, Denver, LA and Cleveland to name a few)

 

I am not buying this thing at all. This year was a model for toughness. You have that many injuries, people will either start to play for themselves or fold down.

Let's look at a tough team, with a tough coach. The Utah Jazz. They are tough, right? Last year, their top-6 players, through an 82 games season lost 91 games - tons of games, they finished the year with 48 wins.

This year, the soft Blazers, with their soft coach, have lost 162 games from their top 6 players (not including injuries to Rudy or Travis or Blake or Bayless), through 69 games - and they are on pace to win 48-49 games.

If this team is not tough, I have no clue what tough means. Not buying this stuff. This team will rip out wins they should not. They might not be pretty wins, they might have long ugly sections of games where they are not looking good - but at the end of the day, these guys rip out wins no-one imagined they could.

Go to Dallas, lose Joel, and win? Done. Go to SAS, no Roy, no Oden, no Travis, no Joel and win? Done.

Give me a break. This is a tough team. Just because they do not act like thugs or have crazy tatoos does not mean they are not tough.

This team has been tough from the get go - 2nd youngest team in the league, last year, won 54. How the hell did they do it? Through playing pretty and soft? Not buying this.

 

The difference that last years team was a young team and the teams they're being compared against were veteran teams. I believe the team now as it it's built up contains that swagger with Camby and Miller. I also think we've seen it transform when we've seen this team close out close games and doing what it takes to win.

 

Why are those teams the model? All good teams, but do you really consider Utah, Denver (and Houston, mentioned in your first post) clear-cut title contenders? I don't. They're a few good teams who play differently than Portland.

As for OKC, I think they're behind Portland both in talent and the development curve and I have no idea why you view them as significantly more rugged, tough or intense than Portland. Westbrook is, at best, as intense as Bayless or Miller. Durant and Roy are similar in terms of both wanting the ball in their hands to close out games. Green seems even less rugged than Aldridge.

I understand that you're making a subjective evaluation here, but I still don't see how this rises above "narrative." What does Portland actually not do, to win games, as a consequence of this "missing vibe?" They've been one of the best rebounding teams in the game when healthy, they've been one of the best offensive teams when healthy and not incorporating new key players and, prior to Oden going down, they were actually one of the top defensive teams. Defense and rebounding are usually viewed as the hallmarks of intensity and effort, and Portland seems to be at least solid in both respects when healthy.

 

In the end maybe it's really more about Portland's still pretty porous perimeter defense and what I see as an over reliance on perimeter shots ... this is not what I would call a physical team.

Whatever; clearly most people aren't seeing it the same way, and I get the feeling this is a more emotionally charged topic than I thought it would be (and no, I'm not saying you are responding emotionally).

 

I hear ya on that. For that matter, so does Charles Barkley.

 

I think the question of whether or not this team is "tough" or not will be answered quite clearly in the next month.

 

I don't think for one minute that nice guys=no swagger, and I think this team does have mental toughness. But the fact remains that for whatever reason, this team doesn't appear to have a killer mentality yet, as evidenced by all the big leads they've blown. They build a lead and lose it. I think it starts with Roy/Aldridge, since they're the leaders on the team.

I don't think we can overestimate what Joel Pryzbilla meant to this team.

 

Or we can find a way to get Carl Landry from Sacto this offseason and our toughness problem is solved!

 

Oden/Camby tandem will own the paint. It's hard to play with swagger when your paint is being abused

 

I am not so sure it is all on Nate. What this team is lacking is players who will be a total fuckhead to the other team, and not give a shit about how the other team feels about it. We don't have anything close to that right now, besides the one guy who is down at the end of the bench (pendergraph). The only other guy who I think might get that type of attitude over time is Bayless.

 

I would go out on a limb and say most coaches who have won championships recently have little "fire", so to blame Nate's lack of fire on this team not winning it all is comical.

What coach has the "fire" to take us to the promised land?

Jerry Solan has a ton of fire and that's help him lead his team to how many championships? Phil Jackson sleeps through games. Mike Brown often thinks he's got a front row seat. Doc Rivers, is a peer not a coach to half of his team.

 

IMO Oden is a lot "hungrier" than most think, I think especially after the injuries and with all the doubters he wants it REALLY BAD. The only caveat is of course whether he can stay healthy.