Portland Trail Blazers: A- Midseason Grade: C+ | Off. Rating: 110.9 | Def. Rating: 114.1 | Net Rating: -3.2 After a rocky “Still getting to know each other” first half, the remade Blazers bucked conventional wisdom and tanking advocates by picking up serious steam down the stretch. Whereas many young teams tend to fade late, Portland rode a top-10 offense, powered by Damian Lillard and Most Improved Player candidate CJ McCollum, to the West’s fourth-best record after the All-Star break. The Blazers held tough when many of the West’s middle class slipped thanks in large part to good health: Lillard, McCollum, and seven other key contributors all logged 70+ games this season. That lineup continuity helped compensate for defensive shortcomings and a somewhat weak interior cast, putting the Blazers in position to claim the West’s No. 5 seed and push the Clippers in the first round. There’s no question that Portland ranks among the biggest overachievers this season, placing Terry Stotts near the top of the Coach of the Year conversation. While this reality beats Portland’s preseason best-case scenario, it’s merely a good save rather than major progress. Remember, the LaMarcus Aldridge era in Portland had five seasons with more wins than the 2016 Blazers. Other concerns linger. The Blazers, lacking in top-end talent aside from their backcourt duo, must convey their first round pick to the Nuggets because it was only top 14 protected. Later this summer, Portland must pay up to retain a number of decent contributors who were on bargain deals (Moe Harkless, Allen Crabbe and Meyers Leonard). Merely keeping the fun-loving band together, though, is unlikely to launch the Blazers into the West’s top tier in 2017 and beyond. The Blazers were spunky, entertaining and motivated this year, but they’ll need to add or develop an impact frontcourt player or two before they’ll need to be taken seriously. Will Portland recognize this fact and take advantage of its prudent cap management by chasing the likes of Hassan Whiteside and Harrison Barnes?
Oh shit, I forgot the link, lol. http://www.si.com/nba/2016/04/12/final-grades-all-30-nba-teams http://www.nba.com/blazers/overtime/sports-illustrated-grades-blazers-season-success
An A- because it wasn't as good as previous seasons, and because of guys we have to pay next year? How the fuck is that a grade for what our team did this year? Which is beat most projections by 15 or so games. Remember, they did better with Aldridge. ..what am asshat. We won 7 or 8 more games last season. To come within 7 or 8 of last year with the squad we returned is remarkable.
I would consider bringing Whiteside (though I don't think he leaves Miami) but would, in any case, want us to first sign all of our own free-agents (other than maybe Kaman). I think with Meyers healthy and Harkless' evolution into an impact player later in the season and with another year of experience to our younger players, there's not much else we need to improve on. Our biggest needs are maybe another big (even though we're doing fine and currently play without Leonard) but what I think is more important is another impact player in the backcourt to allow CJ and Dame more rest and give us more options. Don't think we have much weakness otherwise. We should sign our owm players, maybe bring someone like Whiteside (or a lower profile but talented big), bring someone like Ty Lawson (maybe with less baggage) and I think we'd be set
I want to finish this year before starting next. I would like to see how players fare in the postseason. Deciding who to keep/lose (except the obvious, Dame & CJ) could depend on how they do in postseason.
Was this shit even edited? Where is he getting these offensive and defensive efficiency numbers? They aren't even close to ESPN or BBall Reference's numbers. (There are some differences in how sites calculate it) It doesn't even make sense how a 56 win team has a negative rating on -7.6. Wouldn't that jump out to you as a writer? Then there's shit like this: No, the Orlando magic did not have a net rating of 113. That is clearly wrong on an obvious and mathematical level. How the fuck did this make it past the editors????
