If The Blazers Had Remained Totally Healthy This Season...

...do you think they'd be in the Title hunt right now?

 

if.....

if.... i only walked in the store before the guy who bought the winning lotto ticket.

they were playing like shit healthy so no. we arent better then denver, okc, lakers, mavs, suns or spurs... and our 2 best players are always hurt.

 

Hard to say.

Nate was having a terrible time with his rotation and it was costing us games. Miller was languishing on the bench and Blake's poor play was costing us games. Miller only got to start and control the tempo due to injuries.

Maybe Nate would have worked it out and maybe not.

 

I don't think so. But we'd be fighting for the #2 seed in the west though.

There were some issues when we had a lot of bodies, and the log jam was creating chemistry problems. You'd have Bayless and Howard sitting on the bench, while Nate is using a 10 man rotation. That is way too many people that all feel they deserve 20+ mpg.

Also, the team seemed to be having trouble playing through Oden (or at least Roy was). I think we'd figure it would by the end of the year, but we'd probably have to make a consolidation trade near the trade deadline. We'd probably be in that 2nd tier of teams after the Cavs, Lakers, Magic and Celtics.

Oh well. That is my $.02... Didn't happen so we move on. I just really want to see the playoffs and good development with a few key players for next year.

 

The reason for my question, dear MIXUM, is based upon the current Blazers' play this season. Personally, I think it's reasonable to conclude that, with a healthy roster, the Blazers would have won an additional 6 games thus far....placing them at 36-18....and #2 in the WC.

Definitely in the hunt.

 

i think yes. oden was becoming a major force, and we would have assimilated miller by now, we would have been a trendy pick to win it all going into the playoffs.

 

No I don't. I personally don't put this teams healthy starting unit as even equivelent to the 1999-2000 teams bench.

 

Yes! Like ABM said, Oden and Priz would have added another 5-6 rebounds per game and likely 2-3 more block shots to many games. That is several additional posessions and would have added at least 6 games and likely more. Even without Oden's offense. One thing Nate's teams do is get better as the year goes on and the character of these players is great.

 

They would have been in contention for the number two seed easily, but not serious contenders for the title yet no. I think that would have been another year just due to experience needed. PS I like how Mixum says we aren't better than the Spurs when we swept them this year while depleted. The logical inner workings of Mixum, folks.

 

Me thinks you oughta add that one to your string of sigs.

jus sayin'

 

THIS TEAMS BEST PLAYERS ARE INJURY PRONE. THIS WILL HAPEN AGAIN.

 

Isn't that kind of like splitting hairs? The Spurs are hardly playing good ball either this year. Hell if there was a year for some teams to bust into the playoffs for their first time, this is it. Everybody outside of LA, Denver and Utah is irrelevent IMO.

 

If you know this, then most/all of the other GM's know this. That said, how in world is kpee gonna be able to trade for any good players?!

 

Don't sully a constant quote on an epic, historically great show like Battlestar Galactica with your dribble.

 

The question/statement wasn't whether they were playing good ball - it was simply a statement that they were better than us which I find false. We beat them three times total and two of those times were without Roy, Greg and Joel. The Spurs are on the decline and I have to say we are better than them going forward. It is certainly possible Duncan and Manu will find new life in their legs come the playoffs, but until that time comes it is what it is.

We wont know anything about Memphis and OKC until they hit the end stretch and whether they can maintain - like someone pointed out yesterday Memphis has been on a swoon lately. It could be that they are simply this year's version of Portland's 2007-2008 season that included the 13 game winning streak.

 

STFU (Shut the Frack Up!) (Yes I am joking!)

 

To answer the original question: Yes. This team really missed Batum more than anyone else early in the season. You put him in at the 3 from day one, and it's Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden at the 2/3/4/5. At that point it really doesn't matter who is our starting PG. Even if McMillan still makes the asinine move of starting with Blake, our defense would've been so much better we'd still be better off.

And McMillan wouldn't have experimented with the three guard lineup. Four of the five starters would be cemented in there. Meaning if we have a bad patch, the only way McMillan could really change things up would have been to bench Blake in favor of Miller. Which means we probably would have gone to Miller much, much earlier.

We're on course right now for about 47-50 wins. If you add in a 100% Oden, Batum, Przybilla, Fernandez and Roy for the full season, that'd translate to another 10 or so wins. Any team with 57-60 wins is a title contender.

 

This squad is not a title contender now, or next year. We need to trade some guys and swap out a coach before Portland even sniffs a title.

 

We're still waiting for that legit second option on offense to emerge.

LaMarcus is not that guy.

Greg is still too raw.

We'd be a team that other teams would hate to see in the playoffs. Though, we likely wouldn't have made it past the second round.

 

well all i know is the sobering day for blazer fans, kpee, paul allen, and teh players will be right around the corner...

when teh thunder make the post season and we don't or finish with a higher seed. thats a pretty low day for thsi franchise wether you admit it or not. low low low day.