Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

· Excentrifugal Forz
Joined
·
6,987 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This article on SI has the Blazers rated #2 in the top 5 biggest disappointments:

They keep shedding their problem children -- Ruben Patterson was the latest to go -- but the chemistry still seems all wrong. Nate McMillan may dig them out, but he's got a long way to go.
Of course NY is #1
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,756 Posts
Were the Blazers expected to be good this year? So how disappointing can they be?
What about the Warriors, expected to be a 4-6 seed, now officially in the lottery for the league-leading 12th consecutive year? Or Philly? Boston? What about the Lakers, who were going to be great again and are hanging onto the playoffs by their fingernails? The Sonics, from division winners to lottery? They put Minny at #5, I'd put them more disappointing. Quite a few, myself included, thought they would win the division.
As for pleasant surprises, where are the Clippers? The Nets, with the NBA's longest win streak of the year? Flip Saunders, driven out of Minny, thriving in Detroit?
I mean, why are all these writers such damn sheep? They HAVE to say nasty things about Portland and they will NEVER say mean things about the Lakers.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,938 Posts
They are not a disappointment to those of us who expected such a record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgb

· Excentrifugal Forz
Joined
·
6,987 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
crandc said:
Were the Blazers expected to be good this year? So how disappointing can they be?
What about the Warriors, expected to be a 4-6 seed, now officially in the lottery for the league-leading 12th consecutive year? Or Philly? Boston? What about the Lakers, who were going to be great again and are hanging onto the playoffs by their fingernails? The Sonics, from division winners to lottery? They put Minny at #5, I'd put them more disappointing. Quite a few, myself included, thought they would win the division.
As for pleasant surprises, where are the Clippers? The Nets, with the NBA's longest win streak of the year? Flip Saunders, driven out of Minny, thriving in Detroit?
I mean, why are all these writers such damn sheep? They HAVE to say nasty things about Portland and they will NEVER say mean things about the Lakers.
True, we have one more win than Nash said we'd have so how can be we be a disappointment?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,957 Posts
mgb said:
True, we have one more win than Nash said we'd have so how can be we be a disappointment?
When u are dumb like me and think that everything will go great webster will be a stud and we would make the first round of the playoffs.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,548 Posts
mgb said:
This article on SI has the Blazers rated #2 in the top 5 biggest disappointments:



Of course NY is #1
And this is why Time, Inc. is slowly but surely losing relevance in the world. Their inability to make much damn sense - WITH THEIR OWN CRITERIA - drives the intelligent fan population to more credible sources of insight. You will find better opinion pieces on the best blogs - and they are free. Take that economic model and stick it in your tailpipe SI.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,166 Posts
So sad. An also ran once again.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
I think I understand what he was driving at: that the Blazers have made a committment to clean up the team and the "character" of the players and it hasn't got any better.

Notice that he doesn't discuss wins and losses. Of course, those of us who think chemistry is a function of wins and losses (rather than vice versa) might see disappointment in lack of chemistry improvement as a disappointment in lack of wins.

But even assuming he's just talking about Portland's collective attitude, putting it as the #2 disappointment in the entire league is just ridiculous.

Ed O.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgb

· Registered
Joined
·
6,509 Posts
How is Golden State not on that list?
 

· Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Ed O said:
I think I understand what he was driving at: that the Blazers have made a committment to clean up the team and the "character" of the players and it hasn't got any better.

Notice that he doesn't discuss wins and losses. Of course, those of us who think chemistry is a function of wins and losses (rather than vice versa) might see disappointment in lack of chemistry improvement as a disappointment in lack of wins.

But even assuming he's just talking about Portland's collective attitude, putting it as the #2 disappointment in the entire league is just ridiculous.

Ed O.
if it's a matter of wins and losses, how do you explain the 2000-2001 trail blazers collapse?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
SMiLE said:
if it's a matter of wins and losses, how do you explain the 2000-2001 trail blazers collapse?
I don't know if "collapse" is the right word, and I don't think that any "collapse" that occurred was due to chemistry. I don't think that chemistry tore Bonzi's ACL, for example.

Ed O.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,411 Posts
Timberwolves have easily been the biggest disappointment...I remember hearing many pundits saying that they were the easy pick to win the division this year....
 

· Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Ed O said:
I don't know if "collapse" is the right word, and I don't think that any "collapse" that occurred was due to chemistry. I don't think that chemistry tore Bonzi's ACL, for example.

Ed O.
um, ed? the injury to bonzi happened like with 4 games to go (against the Warriors).

how do you explain that the team went 8-17 before that game?

And started losing the minute Det and Rod Strickland were brought back?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
SMiLE said:
um, ed? the injury to bonzi happened like with 4 games to go (against the Warriors).

how do you explain that the team went 8-17 before that game?

And started losing the minute Det and Rod Strickland were brought back?
Bonzi was hurt halfway through a blowout win against the Warriors. There were six games to go and the team went 2-4.

The team ended up the year on a 8-14 slide, which sucked. They lost some close games (6 of their final 7 losses were by 6 points or fewer) and Bonzi got hurt.

The team started the season at 2-3... did they have "chemistry" problems then, too?

Ed O.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,102 Posts
Zidane said:
When u are dumb like me and think that everything will go great webster will be a stud and we would make the first round of the playoffs.
I think you were right about all of those things, but at least one or two years early.
 

· Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Ed O said:
Bonzi was hurt halfway through a blowout win against the Warriors. There were six games to go and the team went 2-4.

The team ended up the year on a 8-14 slide, which sucked. They lost some close games (6 of their final 7 losses were by 6 points or fewer) and Bonzi got hurt.

The team started the season at 2-3... did they have "chemistry" problems then, too?

Ed O.
the team was 42-12, and added det and rod.

then finished 8-20.

do the math.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
SMiLE said:
the team was 42-12, and added det and rod.

then finished 8-20.

do the math.
What season are we talking about? 2000-01, right?

That team was never 42-12. They were 30-12... they were 42-18 (and 42-23). But never 42-12.

And I'm not splitting hairs here. I'm wondering if you're mixing up seasons and/or just remembering things worse than they actually were.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=POR&yr=2000&lg=n

Ed O.
 

· Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Ed O said:
What season are we talking about? 2000-01, right?

That team was never 42-12. They were 30-12... they were 42-18 (and 42-23). But never 42-12.

And I'm not splitting hairs here. I'm wondering if you're mixing up seasons and/or just remembering things worse than they actually were.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=POR&yr=2000&lg=n

Ed O.
I'm remembering the winning #'s wrong (i was thinking of the 77-78 team that started 50-10, and finished 8-14, and somehow mixed up the wins/losses), but the fact remains the same. Once they got Det and Rod, the team fell apart.

And it's not because of Bonzi's injury in game 75, nor is it because of other players "injuries".

TB added pieces that didn't need to be added, and it back-fired. The team's chemistry was changed and the teams psychie was screwed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
SMiLE said:
I'm remembering the winning #'s wrong (i was thinking of the 77-78 team that started 50-10, and finished 8-14, and somehow mixed up the wins/losses), but the fact remains the same. Once they got Det and Rod, the team fell apart.

And it's not because of Bonzi's injury in game 75, nor is it because of other players "injuries".

TB added pieces that didn't need to be added, and it back-fired. The team's chemistry was changed and the teams psychie was screwed.
I totally disagree. That team was good, but not great and probably not even very good. By the end of the year Wells was gone, Rasheed had been suspended by the team, Kemp was worthless and the team was just out of gas.

An 8-14 finish is not a collapse and it's not falling apart; it's just a bad streak that any team--especially one that's not great--can go through because of injuries and bad luck.

Ed O.
 

· Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Ed O said:
I totally disagree. That team was good, but not great and probably not even very good. By the end of the year Wells was gone, Rasheed had been suspended by the team, Kemp was worthless and the team was just out of gas.

An 8-14 finish is not a collapse and it's not falling apart; it's just a bad streak that any team--especially one that's not great--can go through because of injuries and bad luck.

Ed O.

good but not great?? you mean leading the conference (and NBA iirc) is only good?

I disagree. That team was tinkered with too much (as was the next year. Getting DA was a moronic move by Whitsitt, far worse than, imho, getting Kemp).
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top