The Blazers need at least one MVP-level player in order to be a contender. That's the way it is in the NBA.
I think that's a bit of a chicken/egg issue. Are MVP candidates what leads a team to contention or are they created by the media as a team pushes itself into contention? If LaMarcus puts together a full season of what he delivered for a couple of months this year and the Blazers end up with 55 wins next season, would he not then be an MVP-level player?
I'm happy for Dallas. That franchise has taken a lot of heat in the past few years. Statements like choking in playoffs, losses in the first round, Cuban building rosters for regular season but not playoffs. But Cuban and Co stuck to their guns of accumulating as much talent without care of cost of player and salary cap. To me, Blazers are a playoff team that needs some things to go their way to be championship contenders. They are in no different position than 75% of the playoff teams. With PA, I think the chances of things going the Blazers way increase. Getting Wallace was really stepping up. Couple more of those type players and we are right in this thing.
Who are the elite western confrence teams next year? There was a differnece between the Mavs and the Blazers, but that gap is reachable. OKC is a force, but in hindsite was the Perkins trade a good one or bad one? That team will get better but they must now add talent via trades and it will get tougher on them. Denver, SA, NO, Memphis . . . any given series
Gimme a break. Did you watch Dallas come back from 15 points down with 5 minutes to play in the 4th quarter? Let's ignore their miracle comeback while pointing out ours just to keep the "I'm so level headed and the only fan who can view this team objectively" shtick going.
Point blazerboy30. Nothing against Nikolokolus, but blazerboy30 has a huge point on your post. Also, what about Dallas's comeback in game 1 against the Lakers? Regardless, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. I mean if we are doing the "technicals"; we can account for games 1 and 2 being favored by Portland; since they came into the 4th with a considerable lead.
And don't overlook their 17-2 run against the Thunder that gave them the win in OKC in Game 3. Nik and the other "realists" on the board have some valid points that the Blazers' roster isn't where we'd like it to be in order to be considered true contenders. That said, I'd be more than willing to bet that a look on a few Mavs message boards around the web would reveal plenty of other Maverick fan "realists" dogging the Mavericks' chances in getting out of the first round this year. The way I see it, some of us here suffer from an overly-rosy view of the Blazers, ignoring shortcomings in our players, coaches and management, while others seem to only be able to see and talk about the negatives. We fans are a bit crazy, but I guess as long as we're all pulling for the team to do well, we ought to be able to get along together.
I think we've got a pretty decent core to our roster- Two near all-star level players on both sides of the floor in Aldridge and Wallace, a good veteran point guard in Miller, decent 2 guard in Matthews, possible future star in Batum, a wildcard in Oden- we just need a good GM to fill in the holes. I don't see why we can't compete with anyone in West- we need to add some depth, maybe a good center like Nene/Chandler/Kamen. I think we could have beat Dallas had we had a bit better shooting off the bench and no Brandon Roy ( I think his resurgence made Aldridge drop off...) Bring back Trader Bob- he could do it.
Honesty I think it was the Brandon Roy quarter that kind of kicked the Mavs' asses into gear; ever since then the Mavs have been playing like a real championship caliber team ... and even then I'm not sure they're going to have enough to get past Miami. Which brings me to my point. Does anybody realistically think that this team is even close to being able to edge Miami out in a 7 game series anytime soon? Because when people talk about this Blazers team being close, that is what it's going to take as the Heat continue to add complimentary pieces to Lebron and Wade. We have an ancient point guard coming up on the last year of his deal with no clear successor, our starting center is 37 with one year left on his deal and although Greg might conceivably be able to take up his production, I don't trust him to stay healthy ... certainly not for 100 games a year (which is what a championship team must play to win it all). That leaves us with LMA who looks like a top fifteen stud now, a severely diminished Roy whose knees are not going to get better, only worse, Wallace who looks like he might have peaked physically two years ago (he's still really good however). So like any "pretty good" team it doesn't look like we're that far away at first glance until you start to look at the way the roster is put together and how narrow the team's options are to dramatically improve it to the point where you should feel good about its odds to make a run. This isn't a bad team, they're a pretty good team in fact, but that's not the same as being a legit title contender ... or being close. This isn't a "schtick," I'm not needling anybody, this is how I see the team's situation. I'm sorry if that is a huge buzzkill for some of you.
Yeah, nobody ever makes statements without iron clad evidence here. Nobody ever says that Nate is an ass clown. Or, that the team will never win anything with him as a coach. How about some hard evidence that Portland is not and will not be a contender without a re-build? Go Blazers
If LMA puts up a season with a 24+ PER, sure, that's an MVP-level player. He didn't do that all season, though. He would also need decent players around him even if he does it. Add 2008-09 Brandon Roy to this year's team, plus new LMA, and I think you've got a contender. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. The next hope is LMA explodes into an elite player, and that Oden stays healthy and is dominant on the boards are defense. 2004 Detroit didn't have an MVP-level offensive player, but Ben Wallace had one of the better defensive seasons of the past 20 years, which offset the lack of an MVP-offensive threat.
How does Nik's point about Roy's 4th quarter ignore Dallas' comeback against OKC? That makes no sense. I'll go as far to say that if Cho had been able to suspend Roy, the Blazers get swept by Dallas. Quite the leap in logic.
I thought we were talking about the Blazers being a contender, no? If edging out Miami in the finals is your standard to be a contender, does that mean the team has to win the title to be a contender in your eyes? Seems to me that, if the Blazers are playing Miami in the post season, they are by definition, a contender. Go Blazers
I don't think Portland is the second-best team in the West. I think they have a good core, but the idea that they're "close" is deceptive. They have just about everything they need...except a superstar. They have a wonderful #2 in Aldridge, a very good #3 in Wallace, a very good and smart point guard, some good complimentary players in Matthews and Batum. But, obviously, the one thing they're lacking is far and away the hardest thing to acquire--a franchise star/superstar who is a legitimate #1 option. There are two current chances for Portland's core to "complete": 1. That Oden is healthy and continues his ascension (glimpsed in the one season, combined, that he's played) to a franchise player or 2. That Aldridge didn't merely break out but jumpstarted his development and will get even better next season and become a franchise player. Both of those are much likelier to bear fruit, IMO, than trying to tear down to the foundations and start the process of finding a new franchise player, a great secondary star, an excellent quasi-star and good complimentary players.
First of all, I don't see the Blazers getting to the finals anytime soon barring a lot of luck and/or some fairly big breaks. Secondly a contender to me means that your team has a realistic shot at winning a title, if you don't have a realistic shot then you are not in "contention" you are an "also ran" or a "rest of the field" team. Maybe I'm breaking this whole argument down to semantics, but to me the word "contender" gets thrown around way too liberally in sports and basketball in particular, which isn't particularly prone to upsets (like football or other single elmination playoff formats)
This could be part of the issue. Many of us might have very different opinions on what contending is. Some might think that contending means playing for the title, while others might think contending means making the playoffs. In theory, Indiana was a contending team even though they only won 37 games. They made the playoffs though and had a point differential against the Bulls of only 27 total points in 5 games. On the other hand, the Blazers had a point differential of 31 points in 6 games. Does that mean the Pacers were bigger contenders for the title than us? Does it mean they are closer? Portland won 1 more game than them in the playoffs, so does that make Portland bigger contenders? Or is it that you have to make the conference finals to be considered a contnder? Does that mean the L*kers weren't? I think it's really a gut feeling everyone has, and it will vary from person to person.
