But that's where I disagree. I actually think this team can win it all as long as we have Lillard and Aldridge. GS maybe the better team, but we could beat them in a 7 game series. They would be the only team I think able to defeat us in a 7 game series with or without HCA. Adding that slashing/getting to the foul line player only increases that chance. And I'm not against increasing that. I just think moves like that need to happen in the summer so you can work them in.
Setting up a false dichotomy. Just because GS hasn't/won't make a trade doesn't have any bearing on whether US making a trade would hurt/help our chances of winning it all. Let's throw these false comparisons (GS, SAS) out the window. And since we're on the topic of GS, benches, and winning it all, let's not forget that GS has a much better bench than we do - Speights, Lee, and Iggy are all better than anyone we're bringing off our bench.
Spurs yes, but GS no. Spurs have won it all and proven they can turn it on. GS hasn't won anything to be considered in the same convo as the Spurs. So far, the Blazers had gone further than the Warriors. Also Speights or Lee, not both. I would argue Kaman can contribute better.
My point is, you can't compare the Blazers to either team (or any team), not that GS and SAS are comparable. There just seem to be a lot of false comparisons between us and GS/SAS lately. And again - what happened in last year's POs has no bearing on what POR or GS are doing, and can do, this year. Just because we made it to the 2nd round doesn't mean we're going to match or improve on it this year. And just because GS lost in the first round doesn't mean they'll lose in the 1st again.
Well, yeah...nothing that happened last year has much predictive value on this year's playoffs. Just because the Blazers made it to the second round doesn't mean they'll make it out of the first round this year. It also doesn't mean that they won't win an NBA title this year. But why is it that posts like yours always seem to have their basic underpinnings in a belief that the Blazers simply aren't that good; they're just overachieving and will settle back into the mediocre unit that your preconceptions mandate that they be? It's just possible that a team that's achieved a 31-11 record despite a lot of injuries is actually a pretty damned good team.
While I may have said two different things in the same post, they were actually two different points, not a one-follows-the-other argument. The first being that these SAS/GS comparisons are silly - regardless of whether we fail miserably and miss the Playoffs or win the whole enchilada. With regards to the 2nd point, you are correct - I do not think this team is good enough to win it all. I think we're a very good regular season team, but I do not think we're built well for the Playoffs. But again, that has no bearing on my point about comparing us to other teams. What another team does (or doesn't do) doesn't mean things will (or won't) work out the same (or differently) for us.
Actually, they bring both Speights and Lee off the bench with Bogut and Draymond Green starting. That gives them excellent interior defense with the starting unit and a LOT of highly efficient scoring off the bench. Lee is better than Kaman and Speights is better than both - and I like Kaman. Between the two of them, they are averaging a combined 22.6 points and 11 rebounds a game off the bench. Which is great production considering they both average less than 20 MPG (19.5 MPG for Lee and 18.7 MPG for Speights). Thanks to these two, their bench leads the league in FG% at .488 (our bench is 12th at .441). Heck, there are only two starting units that shoot better than that - and GSW isn't one of them. Their starters are 3rd in the league at .486 FG% (for comparison, our starters are 21st in FG% at .451). So, they don't have a drop off in scoring when they rest their starters. GSW isn't just the Splash Brothers any more. They have great depth up front, with pieces they can mix and match for offense, defense or a combination of both, as needed. Even Harrison Fucking Barnes is having a pretty good season and looking more and more like a solid NBA player (.497 FG% and .440 3FG%). Because he was a highly rated recruit that went to a college powerhouse, people have been hearing his name for ever, but seem to forget he's actually younger than Meyers Leonard. Because of their defense and versatile scoring (they currently have 6 players averaging double figures in scoring, compared to the 3 they had last year and the 3 we have this year), I think they have a very good chance of succeeding in the payoffs this year - much more so than last season. Part of that is the new coach, but a big part of that is the improvement of multiple players (Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes and Klay Thompson). They may not have made any major roster changes, but in addition to Lee and Speights, they also have Iggy coming of the bench and added Leandro Barbosa and Shaun Livingston. Anyone who thinks the Warriors are not serious title contenders is missing the boat on this one. BNM
Well then we can use that same application to the Spurs then? I'm getting mixed messages and rules all over this board. One says GS is better because they have a better record, then say SAS because of their past. Or say Portland won't win it all because they haven't made any changes, then say GS can because they didn't. See where I'm going with here?
Well it's a good thing that I think they are, just like I think we are. As I've said before, I'm just not understanding how one can use certain logic to give contention, but ignore that same on our team's chances of contention. Also, our organic growth is significant as well. Matthews, Lillard and some of our bench are having career years right now
Unfortunately, one of our starters is also having a career worst year. Last year, Batum over Iguodala/Barnes would have been an advantage for us. This year, Barnes is having a much better year. I'm not saying we can't beat GSW in a 7-game series, just commenting that several people in this thread are overlooking them and downplaying their chances in the post season based on what happened last year. GSW this year >> GSW last year, and it's not just the coach. With Green and Barnes starting, moving Lee and Iggy to the bench gives them a MUCH better bench than we have. I still think our starters, especially if Batum wakes up for the playoffs, can hang with theirs. So, a series could go either way. I just hope if we meet, both teams are healthy, because if they are, it will be a hell of a series between two very closely matched teams. Kind of like POR/HOU last year, only better, This year it could be the 1 and 2 seeds meeting in the WCF, not the 4 and 5 seed meeting in the 1st round. BNM
The fact is, the West may have never before in NBA history been this deep. The playoffs are going to be dogfights without any easy outs. The east has easy outs.
If you don't understand the difference between a team with a proven track record that spans two decades (SAS) and a team that's doing really well in the regular season, but hasn't done anything else (GS/POR), then I don't know what to say to you. And if you don't understand the difference between a very deep and robust team (GS - as illustrated by BNM) and a much less deep/robust, albeit very good, team (POR), then, again, I don't know what to say to you.
That's right you don't. Because you didn't explain and you are using contradicting analogies. The regular season don't mean shit. All that matters is the post season. I agree that SAS has well deserved the praise, just like we can praise our team for knocking out Houston when they had a much better bench and better team on paper than us. And let's not use the bench as some "end all" discussion here. Our 2000 Blazers had a better 10 than anyone in the league and where beat by the team with the worst bench in the league that season. So tell me then... What reason would you have for GS, that hasn't proven anything in the playoffs to have a better chance than the team that made it further?
Portland hasn't proven anything in the playoffs either. The Blazers made it just one round further, won just one series, which is not particularly significant in terms of playoff experience. The Spurs' playoff experience involves many series victories and multiple championships over many years. Ours involves one series win, one time. They're not even remotely comparable. Golden state has a better chance of doing damage in the playoffs because they're equal or better defensively, inarguably better offensively, and deeper. Plus, even if their players haven't won anything, their coach has five rings, so he's arguably better equipped to prepare his team for a deep playoff run than Stotts is.
The Lakers had rick fox, Derek fisher and Robert Horry coming off the bench that year. Far from the worst bench in the league
That bench was the lowest scoring bench in the league that season. And it seems many in here use that as the main argument for how good a bench is.
Yep, which is why I agree that SAS will be a contender until proven otherwise. But GS and Portland are in the same boat then. The entire argument means nothing. All are at zero with the exception of SAS and OKC. Dallas, Portland, Clippers, Houston, GS and Memphis are in the same playing field until they knock out the Spurs. Saying one is better than the other without making it past the second round is pure speculation right?
...which would be why I listed reasons unrelated to playoff experience as to why I think Golden State is more of a contender than Portland is.
Ummm, they have a better roster with a much stronger bench. I thought that was covered already? What team has made it further than GS?
The same exact roster with the exception of Livingston that failed to make it past the first round last season?
