Why do people think we "lack depth"?

I've heard this criticism aimed at the Trail Blazers far more than at other "contenders." So we're supposed to be concerned that our nine-man rotation bottoms out with Joel Freeland and Thomas Robinson (PER of 10.6 and 15.4, by the way)?

Let's look at the 8th and 9th men on some other contenders, shall we?

Nick Collison (9.0) and Steven Adams (14.0)

Ian Mahimni (5.4) and Orlando Johnson (7.2)

Rashard Lewis (10.1) and Chris Andersen (17.6)

The Clippers' situation is muddled by injuries. The Spurs use a bizarre 11-man rotation prominently featuring Patty Mills (19.0), Matt Bonner (10.0), and Jeff Ayres (nee Pendergraph, 5.3 PER).

It seems people are really grasping at straws at this point to pick apart Portland's case for being considered a "true" contender. But I think it's time we stop acting like Portland is the only team that would be screwed by a key injury or the only team with some serious replacement-level question marks beyond their top 7.

 

It's just because were the new kids on the block

 

Because they cannot accept that a small market Portland team, coming off yearly injury crises, and a last season record of 33 wins (and only 11 road wins), could do ANYTHING to be a contenders. The Blazers were written off by the media before the season started, and now that same media is left coping with the cognitive dissonance incurred using a litany of excuses. Time will heal all... we can only hope.

 

I just want to make sure I'm not crazy. It's not just national media either, but local writers too. While everyone is out there saying we have a concerning lack of depth, I'm sitting here thinking almost the exact opposite. Freeland and Robinson are guys I'd be fascinated to see in larger roles should the circumstances demand. Not that they could necessarily be 6th or 7th men on a 1-seed team, but on a lower-end playoff team, why not? That's before we get to McCollum and Crabbe, whose jumper is obviously the real deal. Finally, for all his apparent faults, Leonard has a sparkling 19.3 PER in very limited minutes. He remains a naturally skilled big man with all the talent in the world.

I honestly have no idea how this team suddenly became so well constructed, or why I came into this season expecting the 8-seed.

 

It's because our bench doesn't score much compared to other benches.

 

I know. I've posted quite a few threads about certain "media" guys that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground; "All about Ben Golliver - By Ben Golliver". You'd think someone with access to the players, or even someone who covers professional basketball for a living, could show less bias and more understanding and respect for the game in their writing. It's just a popularity contest - no one wanting to admit fault or lose their audience. I've found the guys that are most candid about their opinion and honest about their biases have a larger audience. But in the day and age of "short term memory" and "I need my news in short, monosyllabic tweets" it's easier now than ever to be a complete sloth in their presentation of "expert" opinion.

As to why or how this team became THIS good, let alone considered by a majority as "a legit play off team" if not a "real contender" - that is a good question. And, one I encourage people to talk about. What did people over-look, discount, or flat out ignore that brought them to the conclusion that Portland would miss the play-offs. There are still incredulous ass-hats out there in national media land that still believe this Blazer team will miss the play-offs. The fear of admitting fault and self-correction is a powerful vice.

 

This is true. But as Blazer fans, we know that Stotts is pretty firm on his philosophy to leave 2 starters in the game at all times. So even with 3 bench guys in, why wouldn't those two starters still be taking a majority of the shots? It just defies logic how easily some donkey looks at a stat, and writes this team off without context.

 

We should have known that Lillard, Matthews, and Batum can all shoot 38%-42% from deep on HIGH volume. We should have known Aldridge would see marginal improvement across the board in his second year in this system and playing next to a true center.

I guess I just didn't know those things would combine to have us flirt with 60-win pace deep into the season.

 

I think the lack of depth is in regards to our frontcourt. If Lopez went down we'd be screwed. We have quite a bit of depth at the wing position, and we could probably survive Lillard being out for a few games, but if either of our starting big men went down, that would be it. I actually think Robinson could fill in if he had to, but if we had to start Freeland we would be in trouble.

 

Well, we also knew lots of other things, like Hickson did not improve team defense or rebounding. Lopez was really solid on the offensive glass, and he is a monster human being, so it doesn't surprise me that paired with LA (who I believe and know is a good rebounder, contrary to the bull shit you'll hear around the league), Portland would be pretty good and much improved in offensive rebounding, which alone would make them a better rebounding team than last season. As for defense, we knew they were changing their pick-n-role defense, and could now that they had a giant center who could stand on that island alone in the paint. Sure, RoLo is not Howard or Hibbert, but he's definitely not Hickson who struggled even with help.

Combine that, with the offense we had, a healthy roster, the addition of a decent bench with more veteran and tested shooters (and CJ), and explain how that somehow makes Portland a below .500 team. I read the reviews, and they all were "talking straight outta their 4th point of contact" cliche excuses for being the "rational" and "pragmatic" dimwitted Debbie Downer.

But you are correct, it is entirely fair to say no one could have foreseen how good the chemistry would be, and how well the pieces would fit that has resulted in 21-4. That's really never been my argument. I've only ever poked fun at the utter failure of "expert" yokels who spent all summer and pre-season trying to pull stats outta thin air to support their bias and ignorant opinion that Portland would miss the play-offs. You couldn't disagree with them or even ask them why they think a certain way and to provide their logic and support for that thinking, without being either ignored or talked down to like you were stupid.

When you ask people to explain why they think something, they either confirm their argument has validity, or they end up revealing that they don't really have a valid argument and are simply too lazy to have an informed opinion. Most people just get defensive and either ignore you entirely, cry wolf as if you are attacking them personally rather than their argument, or getting all aggressive with their imaginary credentials/resume as if that renders their argument infallible.

I appreciate people that take the time to explain their opinion and logic, whether I agree or not, and have a great deal of respect for those that are able to see someone else's point of view, maybe even question their own perception. Changing opinions really isn't the point for me, because God forbid you are able to change your opinion based on new, or even more accurate info - like a man at a baby shower, they just don't go together.

 

I totally buy this argument. What I don't buy, is the fact that this logic applies to every team in the NBA: GS without Bogut, Memphis without Gasol, Miami without Bosh, Houston without Howard, Minn without Pekovic. It's like, what's the point of stating the obvious that applies to any team, as if it is only unique to Portland? It's lazy, and it's not reality. Lopez isn't hurt. And if that's the big reservation for not saying, "I was way off with my prediction because I failed to take (....) into account", then that's bush league.

 

Experience.

Robinson and Freeland are second year players. We have virtually zero proven front court depth. if you have a hard time seeing that, take off your Moda colored glasses

 

OKC could be the best team in the west. Their back up center is Adams a rookie who in many ways is worse then Leonard. I guess you could argue that Collison would play center if an injury occurred, but technically he is listed as a PF.

 

If Howard went down, Houston would be screwed. If LBJ went down, Miami would be screwed. If Hibbert went down, Indiana would be screwed. Rinse and repeat for every other contending team.

 

Why isn't anyone talking comparisons between 6 and 7? Both Mo and Wright are in the 11 PER range. How do other teams' 6 and 7 players stack up?

 

how and why do you say Adams as a rookie is worse than Leonard,=? when he played us he looked like he at least had a clue and knew what his job was - Leonard still looks totally lost unless he is attempting an outside shot.

 

I don't think it's a big problem, but the depth is a concert.

The chemistry you see with starters is gone when the bench is in, they have lost multiple 15+ point leads forcing the starters to have to rush back.

The PER stat mostly takes offense into account, and only Joel off the bench seems decent on D. So just looking at the PER doesn't give a full picture.

Part of depth goes beyond the 9th man, it's being able to go 11 deep in order to find the right pairings to counter certain opposing schemes. When CJ comes back, and now that crabbe is showing himself to be an option, we may actually be 11 deep, but it did not appear that way for a while.

Sure, there will be a huge drop off for most teams if their star goes down, but for the Blazers all five position backups are far inferior to their starting counterpart. With the terrible streak of injuries the Blazers have suffered in the past, losing starters at some point seems almost certain. I don't know if any positional loss could be overcome by the Blazers.

All that being said, I don't think depth is a huge issue, but I would like one more defensive minded big.

 

I think the Blazer strength is in their starting 5. Yes every team will be effected if they get an injury to one of therei big 3. What makes the Blazers so impressive is how the starting 5 is clicking on all cylinders. If one of them, any one of them, gets hurt, the "depth" will be put to the test.

I think the bench is thin when it comes to big men. Stotts is letting T-Rob develop, but when games are close, you don't see a lot of T-Rob. Freeland has improved tremendously . . . to make him a serviceable big man. If Freeland turns into a starter, there is where it gets thin.

The key to any team is to keep the big 3 healthy, for the Blazers to maintain being top in the west, I think all starters have to remain healthy.

 

This. Repped.