We lose a few games and suddnly were a below average team? The few big things iv taken from these last few games is. 1: we drift away from lma to often in close games 2: our offense relys to much on three point shooting. When we hit a few the lanes open up and lma has a better time down low 3: our help d is shaky at best. We also go under picks to often. If were scoring our d has energy and hustle if were on a cold streek our d becomes lethargic as well. These things dont lead me to a "blow it up" conclusion but a more conservative approach. A few of our guys are shooting career lows from distance give them a chance to turn it around if nothing really has changed close to the trade deadline then we need major changes eitherr threw blowing it up or retooling by trading crawford wallace felton ect Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk
I agree. I think we use this year to figure out where we retool . . . but we are looking to improve rather than trying to play the draft lottery.
I don't think many people are saying this is a bad team or a below average team (aside from Hank) but I think it's becoming clearer that this is merely an average team or a slightly above average team when they're catching breaks; that's really the no-mans land of the NBA -- especially for a roster that's upside is somewhat limited due to age lack of up-and-coming players and certain contract situations. If I were Paul Allen, I'd be willing to let it ride until the trade deadline to see if they can turn things around, but a team that's this bad on the road isn't something I'd want to keep together for much longer.
Hank, you were MIA when the Blazers were on a hot streak at the start of the season. I guess their slump has you feeling more chatty. No, I haven't seen enough yet. I don't think that this team is nearly as good without Marcus Camby as they are with him. He'll be back the next game. I also don't think that the guard play will remain as dismal as it's been lately. Career averages tend to reappear as slumps are left behind. The West is wide open after the Thunder and I think the Blazers have a solid shot at an upper-bracket slot in the West.
Wait what? LMA is barely a 2nd option but is good enough by himself to keep a team from a top lottery pick?!?
Uh, dude. First, Chicago: After the blowup when Jordan left, they were in the lottery 6 straight years, including seveal years of worst or second worst record. They were a horrible, nasty, bullshit product for their fans. As a reward after those 6 nasty years, and a bunch of lotto picks, their fans got a playoff team that was deep, but with no star. Deng, Hinrich, Gordon, Big Ben. They played hard defense, went no where in the playoffs, and in the 4th year of that, the players couldn't take the "effort" gameplan and Scott Skiles anymore, they "dipped" into the lottery - beat the odds by jumping from the late lottery to win the #1 pick and Rose. The "dip" was UNPLANNED. The team just imploded that one season. Then, get Rose, build around him and ONLY 13 seasons later - the Bulls make it to the Eastern Conference Finals. We all agree that is bad, right? OKC is better right? Yes, but is it what you imply? Sonics, after they lost McMillan, they failed to make the playoffs. In the lotto. Drafted Sene. Ooops. Next season, same team - still sucking, decided for full tear-down. Ray Allen traded for lotto pick. Rashard Lewis will be allowed to walk. Back into lotto, get lucky and they got Durant. All better now, right? Not so fast. They still sucked balls - as the new ownership was purposefully tanking the team to drive fans away. That double down on tanking got them Westbrook and Harden. The team would be NOWHERE without that tanking as well. So, the team was in the high lotto FOUR SEASONS. Not ONE. FOUR. FOUR. FOUR. And that is your idea of a "quick dip". The OKC are the shinning examples of how to do it "right". In fact, your opinion is shared by the national sports media that OKC did everything right and caught a bunch of lucky breaks. And even still, it took FOUR YEARS. So, in conclusion, I don't hear any more bullshit about how a "quick dip" into the high lottery is a cure for this - or most any other team's ails. Show me an example barring incredible dumb luck that has happened once in the last 20 years (Spurs).
This is an honest question. Is a string of low playoff seeds and multiple first round exits a lot better than missing the playoffs altogether for a couple of years?
So if you were GM, how would you get this team our of mediocrity and into serious championship contention?
Fun trick: go to a restaurant in SE Portland, and see how long it takes before they play Radiohead. I swear I hear more Radiohead at the Hophouse on Hawthorne than I would at an actual fucking Radiohead concert.
It's not a lot worse; It's basically the difference between 13 and 14 in the draft. No, if you're going to suck, suck all the way. But only one team a year gets to be #1 in the draft, just like only one team a year gets to wear rings the next year. Just "missing the playoffs" isn't enough. You gotta tank with gusto. The average draft is only 6-8 players deep, with number 1/2 being the only "game-changer" in a draft. What if we get 4th? Tank again. Tank until we get #1... then maybe once more for another 4. To put Masbee's point into dates and gates: are you willing to watch young guys tanking in the 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 seasons if it means an opportunity to compete legitimately in 2018? Is "Just Wait til 2018" going to look good on a black and red t-shirt? I agree that mediocrity is... mediocre, man. But 14 teams every year are in this range: not good enough to make the finals, but good enough to make the playoffs. We aren't at the top of the bell curve, but we aren't way off the left side either. It's the nature of sports. You win some, you lose some. And for 29 teams every year, your season ends in a heartbreaking loss. That's life. We will need to get worse before we get better, but I'd contend that we're probably happier now in a small pile of shit than risking an even worse situation for a long time by blowing it up again.
The great news about this team is that they don't have to blow it up. LA, Batum, Matthews, Nolan Smith, maybe even Williams are solid pieces.
And one final point: exactly how many titles has OKC won since acquiring Durant? How many have the Heat won since getting the Big 3? NYK, Since getting Melo & Stoudemire?
This summer will definitely be interesting. To play devil's advocate: we have those solid pieces, but can we get better without getting rid of them? We can place some blame on Felton and Crawford, and probably some on Nate (I hope you don't think I'm pandering to you ), but is there actually addition by subtraction there? Wouldn't we have to trade at least half of those guys to get better? And wouldn't that leave us weaker than before?
Maybe. I think Wallace can be dealt to give us some good pieces. They are definitely going to have to be a little more creative than they have been recently
I agree. I like Wallace - but there are good reasons not to make him a long-term building block. As for Felton....if you can get value for him, do it! The team needs to be open minded about trades. Playing for the 7th or 8th seed in this mess of a season should not be the over-riding priority.
Earlier in the season when it looked to me like Top 4 seed was possible, I would have said go for it, do whatever it takes to get Top 4 and let it ride. Now, I'd rather rest guys than run them. This season is a goat rodeo.
