I would give the team a D. I didin't expect a lot, and I would grade them a C if they had stuck to their plan of this being a developing year. They continued to rid themselves of dead weight (Ruben Patterson) but failed when they didn't trade Theo or Darius. In no way should they get an F.
Grading the Blazers
As I've mentioned before, I write a monthly NBA column. In a couple of weeks I will be grading every NBA team. Grades are based on overall performance + comparison between performance and expectations. So a team that overachieved may get a higher grade than a disappointing team with the same or slightly better record.
Here is my question to all of you: what grade would you give the Blazers for this season? Not any individual player/coach/owner but the team as a whole, based on record and expectations?
For reference, I am looking at giving the Pistons, Spurs, Mavs and Nets A's (first 3 based on overall record, Nets on exceeding expectations), and the Knicks a 0 (for high payroll, terrible record and not even a 1st round draft pick).
Thoughts?
Here is my question to all of you: what grade would you give the Blazers for this season? Not any individual player/coach/owner but the team as a whole, based on record and expectations?
For reference, I am looking at giving the Pistons, Spurs, Mavs and Nets A's (first 3 based on overall record, Nets on exceeding expectations), and the Knicks a 0 (for high payroll, terrible record and not even a 1st round draft pick).
Thoughts?
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
So far they have won one game over what Nash predicted, have to give them a high grade for over achieving.
I recall a lot of us saying that struggles at first should be expected, but if the team showed improvement as the season progressed, it would be a successful year. Well due at least partially to injury issues with Darius, Zach, and Joel, we've been privy to just the opposite... and of course injuries are part of hoops. They won't get the 25-27 wins I predicted but I'm most disappointed about the tepid improvement of the young guys.
So I had low expectations, and they fell short of them. A D or F seems the only appropriate grades for the worst Blazer club I've seen in my 30 years of following the team.
STOMP
So I had low expectations, and they fell short of them. A D or F seems the only appropriate grades for the worst Blazer club I've seen in my 30 years of following the team.
STOMP
Ya, it'd have to be no better than D though some of the players have improved, Webster especially considering how lost he was originally.
I'd say C-. I had low expectations and the team has failed to meet them. Few players have lived up to what is expected of them (Webster and Dixon and probably Blake are the only ones I can think of that have) and Nate has hemmed and hawed with his lineups and rotations all year.
Ed O.
Ed O.
If I had to, probably about a C.
Although, I think it would be pretty hard to objectively grade the team, considering that Nate came on-board just this past summer - along with his highly intense approach, along with the uncertainties that come with an evaluative season. Understanding, of course, from the get-go that more than a few players will probably not be with this team next season.
That being said, I'll be more inclined to grade the team at some point next season.
Although, I think it would be pretty hard to objectively grade the team, considering that Nate came on-board just this past summer - along with his highly intense approach, along with the uncertainties that come with an evaluative season. Understanding, of course, from the get-go that more than a few players will probably not be with this team next season.
That being said, I'll be more inclined to grade the team at some point next season.
as a "team" D-
what I expected? C-
what, based on the players they have, should be? F-
what I expected? C-
what, based on the players they have, should be? F-
Pretty much my sentiments exactly...except I didn't mind Nate shuffling the lineups around a bit.Ed O said:I'd say C-. I had low expectations and the team has failed to meet them. Few players have lived up to what is expected of them (Webster and Dixon and probably Blake are the only ones I can think of that have) and Nate has hemmed and hawed with his lineups and rotations all year.
Ed O.
I agree with Ed also, except I would give a D. A few players showed some real improvement, and I didn't mind Nate changing the lineup early on. But, the season has been over and Nate gave some guys too many second changes (Miles) at the expense of those that really try (Webster, Khryapa, Outlaw). Webster has done great despite the inconsistant playing time and rotation. But the good that came from watching Webster, Blake and Khryapa, was outweighed by the wasted minutes on Miles, Lenard, etc.Ed O said:I'd say C-. I had low expectations and the team has failed to meet them. Few players have lived up to what is expected of them (Webster and Dixon and probably Blake are the only ones I can think of that have) and Nate has hemmed and hawed with his lineups and rotations all year.
Ed O.
I would have graded them higher with more losses, but more PT for develping players. But, when you field a team with a $30+ million dollar front line, and end up tied for last, anything above a D is too much.
I give an F.
I guess I'm just an extremely optimistic (or, if you prefer, idiotic) person -- I predicted 44 wins for this team. :whoknows: So they were far from meeting my expectations.
But even if you didn't have the expectations of a Kool-Aid drinker, I'd still give an F for a few reasons:
1. The team seemed to get worse rather than better as the season went on.
2. The team failed to develop it young potential stars (Telfair, Outlaw, Webster), instead developing its journeymen (Blake and Dixon, ugh).
3. The team never seemed to settle on a philosophy, identity, or style of basketball. Will we play uptempo or squeeze the clock? Build around defense or offense? Run our offense through the post or through movement on the perimeter? Sadly, I think the answer to all of these questions is "none of the above."
Stepping Razor
I guess I'm just an extremely optimistic (or, if you prefer, idiotic) person -- I predicted 44 wins for this team. :whoknows: So they were far from meeting my expectations.
But even if you didn't have the expectations of a Kool-Aid drinker, I'd still give an F for a few reasons:
1. The team seemed to get worse rather than better as the season went on.
2. The team failed to develop it young potential stars (Telfair, Outlaw, Webster), instead developing its journeymen (Blake and Dixon, ugh).
3. The team never seemed to settle on a philosophy, identity, or style of basketball. Will we play uptempo or squeeze the clock? Build around defense or offense? Run our offense through the post or through movement on the perimeter? Sadly, I think the answer to all of these questions is "none of the above."
Stepping Razor
Stepping Razor said:I give an F.
I guess I'm just an extremely optimistic (or, if you prefer, idiotic) person -- I predicted 44 wins for this team. :whoknows: So they were far from meeting my expectations.
But even if you didn't have the expectations of a Kool-Aid drinker, I'd still give an F for a few reasons:
1. The team seemed to get worse rather than better as the season went on.
2. The team failed to develop it young potential stars (Telfair, Outlaw, Webster), instead developing its journeymen (Blake and Dixon, ugh).
3. The team never seemed to settle on a philosophy, identity, or style of basketball. Will we play uptempo or squeeze the clock? Build around defense or offense? Run our offense through the post or through movement on the perimeter? Sadly, I think the answer to all of these questions is "none of the above."
Stepping Razor
So Nate gets an F.
Yep.mediocre man said:So Nate gets an F.
Although I might bump him up to a D because I do think he's had some success in teaching individual players to improve their games. (Zach and Telfair, I think, have both improved from last year.) But, yes, as far as teaching the team game goes... I haven't been impressed by Nate at all.
He's miles better than Cheeks, but I'm not sold on him as a good coach at all. His rotations are mystifying, and even during our little good stretch in January he cost us a couple games with bonehead late-game decisions (mainly having Theo making decisions with the ball at the top of the key in the last minute; stupid and predictable turnovers cost us at least two games within a week).
Stepping Razor
Blazer Team-D+
Blazer management-F
I don't care how low expectations were this year, the fact the Blazers are the worst team in the league record wise and that the owner has mentioned selling and/or moving the team has to make this one of the low points in Portland Trailblazer history. Given that, I have a hard time giving any grade that implies they have done an average or slightly below average job.
Blazer management-F
I don't care how low expectations were this year, the fact the Blazers are the worst team in the league record wise and that the owner has mentioned selling and/or moving the team has to make this one of the low points in Portland Trailblazer history. Given that, I have a hard time giving any grade that implies they have done an average or slightly below average job.
Nash would have to give Nate at least a C for getting as many wins as Nash predicted. In fact given the injuries the Blazers had this year, Nash's grade of Nate should be a B for doing a good job getting more wins than Nash predicted with many injuries along the way.mediocre man said:So Nate gets an F.
With the Rash of injuries to hit the team, they struggled like I thought they would. They fell short of my prediction by a few games (They can still make it, but I doubt it.) I give the team a D. With more effort and better rebounding this team could have won a lot more games this year. Certain more experienced players lacked the effort and leadership to bring that around.
I actually look forward to next year to see if some of the guards take a leadership role on the team. I don't care if tempers flare on the bench, somebody needs to get in these guys heads and lead these guys out on the floor.
I actually look forward to next year to see if some of the guards take a leadership role on the team. I don't care if tempers flare on the bench, somebody needs to get in these guys heads and lead these guys out on the floor.
Individuals:
A -- Jack
A minus -- Blake (did not see meaningful PT until December but has been most consistent Blazer); Telfair (grade would be a smidge higher except for time lost to injury)
B+ -- Khryapa; Webster (did go to D league but as a Blazer has shown very well, otherwise would be an A; but has done more than to be considered "incomplete." A very promising player.)
B minus -- Przybilla, Ratliff (injured a lot but contribute well when healthy)
C+++ -- Dixon (inconsistency).
C -- Miles, Randolph (tardiness).
D -- No D's
F -- No F's
Incomplete: Ha (not really significant enough PT before going to D league to measure), Monia, Patterson, (traded away); Lenard, Skinner (acquired thru trade)
Coach: B --- (shuffling lineup too much, maybe kowtowing to pressure from non-basketball guys above him)
A -- Jack
A minus -- Blake (did not see meaningful PT until December but has been most consistent Blazer); Telfair (grade would be a smidge higher except for time lost to injury)
B+ -- Khryapa; Webster (did go to D league but as a Blazer has shown very well, otherwise would be an A; but has done more than to be considered "incomplete." A very promising player.)
B minus -- Przybilla, Ratliff (injured a lot but contribute well when healthy)
C+++ -- Dixon (inconsistency).
C -- Miles, Randolph (tardiness).
D -- No D's
F -- No F's
Incomplete: Ha (not really significant enough PT before going to D league to measure), Monia, Patterson, (traded away); Lenard, Skinner (acquired thru trade)
Coach: B --- (shuffling lineup too much, maybe kowtowing to pressure from non-basketball guys above him)
soonerterp said:Individuals:
A -- Jack
A minus -- Blake (did not see meaningful PT until December but has been most consistent Blazer); Telfair (grade would be a smidge higher except for time lost to injury)
B+ -- Khryapa; Webster (did go to D league but as a Blazer has shown very well, otherwise would be an A; but has done more than to be considered "incomplete." A very promising player.)
B minus -- Przybilla, Ratliff (injured a lot but contribute well when healthy)
C+++ -- Dixon (inconsistency).
C -- Miles, Randolph (tardiness).
D -- No D's
F -- No F's
Incomplete: Ha (not really significant enough PT before going to D league to measure), Monia, Patterson, (traded away); Lenard, Skinner (acquired thru trade)
Coach: B --- (shuffling lineup too much, maybe kowtowing to pressure from non-basketball guys above him)
So not only do you punish guys for being hurt, you give Miles a C only because he was tardy a few times. Juan Dixon gets a C+++ why?
If you were really an optimist, you wouldn't have given an F.Stepping Razor said:I give an F.
I guess I'm just an extremely optimistic (or, if you prefer, idiotic) person -- I predicted 44 wins for this team. :whoknows: So they were far from meeting my expectations.
But even if you didn't have the expectations of a Kool-Aid drinker, I'd still give an F...
1 - 20 of 43 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.
Professional and College Basketball Forums
A forum community dedicated to Competitive Basketball players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the NBA to college basketball to even everything but basketball. It's all here!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
