[Todd]

 

[Tince]

I think Ed and I both realize that long-term we could be better off having got rid of the older guys. However, last year many losses were blamed on Mo, Damon, NVE, and DA. Now that we've got rid of all of them, do you still think those guys were the reasons we were losing last year?

 

[BlayZa]

honestly , long-term things look just as crap as this year.


every team needs a scapegoat , last year we had about 7 - BUT - we managed to ditch all of them!

now where does blame lie for being a terrible team? no blame, just a long term plan - are you guys really buying this? i did at the end of last year , even with a 5-22 skid to end the season but imo we have actually regressed. players have quit mentally and emotionally - a losing culture is hard to break.

 

[zagsfan20]

I think Ed and I both realize that long-term we could be better off having got rid of the older guys. However, last year many losses were blamed on Mo, Damon, NVE, and DA. Now that we've got rid of all of them, do you still think those guys were the reasons we were losing last year?

They certainly weren't winning us any games last year...

Of course a more of a veteran team is going to win a few more games...but lets face it, DA, Damon, Van Exel and Shareef were/are all on the downsides of their careers (at least not in their primes by any means).....So whats the point of hanging onto those guys (who weren't winning much more anyways) and having them play ahead of all the youth that the team has so much vested in...

Ask any sane Blazer fan and they'll tell you that they'd rather see our young guys develop then keep around over paid, under achieving, whiny oft-injured veterans, who will most likely only get us a couple more wins to boot...

Also something people need to realize is that Theo and Joel two of our only good veterans were injured for much of this year...

To answer your question about Mo Cheeks, this team would be worse off if he was still the coach...

 

[zagsfan20]

honestly , long-term things look just as crap as this year.


every team needs a scapegoat , last year we had about 7 - BUT - we managed to ditch all of them!

now where does blame lie for being a terrible team? no blame, just a long term plan - are you guys really buying this? i did at the end of last year , even with a 5-22 skid to end the season but imo we have actually regressed. players have quit mentally and emotionally - a losing culture is hard to break.

We have the youngest team in the league and our veterans have been injured...

Its not a scapegoat, its reality...

 

[Tince]

To answer your question about Mo Cheeks, this team would be worse off if he was still the coach...

Zagfan, I'm with you as to why we've lost games this year.

However, I haven't questioned if this team would be worse off with Mo, because I think we would.

My question is, if we got rid of the 90% of the people blammed for our 50+ losses last season and we're losing more this year, were they really the reason we lost?

I'm excited for this summer because I think Nate will have some say and we'll get a couple vets in. I personally would rather see Webster, Victor, and Jack come off the bench and win 35 games, than start all the young guys a win 20 again next season. The young guys will mature through time, we can't force them to grow up by teaching them how to lose, we need to show them what it takes to win.

 

[chula vista blazer]

They do? Because many posters on this board thought that the Blazers were going to win more than 27 games this year. Cheeks being replaced was cited as a primary reason. The loss of veterans was dismissed by some.

Did you want links? I can find them.

Ed O.

Nah...I'll 'fess up to being someone that thought the Blazers were going to win 30 to 35 games this year. I still think that Nate is a much better coach, but am severely disappointed in Darius' play and the centers. Zach Randolph did come back as I thought he would, but things just didn't come together as I thought they should have...

A very frustrating season.

 

[mediocre man]

This is a great thread for me.

I hated Mo and wanted him fired because I thought he was a bad coach. He has proved that in Philly where he has taken a tallented team to 9th thus far in the Eastern Conference. I also said we shouldn't hire Nate because he was just averageat best and although different than Mo the same would result.

Here's to me and my brilliantness :cheers: . Long live TP and the run and have fun style of Marc Iavaroni

 

[crandc]

Let's look at expectations.
The Blazers last year were expected to at least be in the playoff running. They were not. The Blazers this year were expected to be bad. On the team, only Zach has any real playoff experience. They are. Frankly, I thought they'd have a better record than they do. The two unexpected factors were injuries (which no one can really control) and a couple of players, one in particular, quitting on the team. There is not a lot that a coach can do about either; neither Mo nor Nate can make a person healthy and if someone truly decides he is not going to play the best coach on earth can't change that.
The Sixers this year were expected to be a playoff team. As has been pointed out, they have Iverson, Webber, Dalembert and others, all with extensive postseason experience. And in the East a team can make the playoffs without even being .500. Philly is now out of the playoffs (although with a surge they could sneak into the #8 seed).
So the Blazers last year with Cheeks and the Sixers this year with Cheeks did much worse than expected. The Blazers this year with Nate did a bit worse than expected.

 

[GOD]

A couple of things:

First - I was one of the people who thought that the Blazers would win 35+ games this year and I think the main reason I was wrong is that I undervalued the importance of veterans. Sure Ruben would have only won us 3 more games, but NVE would have added 3, Damon 5 and SAR 4. Over the course of the year that's 15 games. Now that does not mean that it was a wrong move to get rid of the vets in the long term, but in the short term it cost us plenty of wins.

Second - Although I think Mo is a worse coach then Nate, I do not buy in to the fact that we would have lost more games with Mo. In fact, Mo's inability to holster his team may have won us a few more games. He would have let Telfair play at a faster pase that suits his abilities more. With no plays to run, Outlaw would likely be playing better. Now in the long run I am betting that Nates system and intence training will pay off and make the young guns better all around basketball players, but in the short run Nate may have cost us more games by teaching the team lessens then Mo would have cost us with his poor coaching.

 

[Dan]

I think Ed and I both realize that long-term we could be better off having got rid of the older guys. However, last year many losses were blamed on Mo, Damon, NVE, and DA. Now that we've got rid of all of them, do you still think those guys were the reasons we were losing last year?

do you not see the logic fallacy in that?

 

[mook]

A couple of things:

First - I was one of the people who thought that the Blazers would win 35+ games this year and I think the main reason I was wrong is that I undervalued the importance of veterans. Sure Ruben would have only won us 3 more games, but NVE would have added 3, Damon 5 and SAR 4. Over the course of the year that's 15 games. Now that does not mean that it was a wrong move to get rid of the vets in the long term, but in the short term it cost us plenty of wins.

Second - Although I think Mo is a worse coach then Nate, I do not buy in to the fact that we would have lost more games with Mo. In fact, Mo's inability to holster his team may have won us a few more games. He would have let Telfair play at a faster pase that suits his abilities more. With no plays to run, Outlaw would likely be playing better. Now in the long run I am betting that Nates system and intence training will pay off and make the young guns better all around basketball players, but in the short run Nate may have cost us more games by teaching the team lessens then Mo would have cost us with his poor coaching.

great post. pretty much said everything I was thinking.

I was really glad to see Damon and Cheeks leave, but it wasn't because I was dead sure we'd have a much better team without them. I knew we'd suck (maybe not this bad, though). I was just sick of seeing that same miserable pair night after night.

 

[BBert]

You can say it until you're blue in the face, but your "long term" explanation doesn't answer the question of why this season people thought that Nate would lead the team to more wins than the team had last year.Ed O.

I can only speak for myself (of course), but I thought the Blazers should have more wins this year than last for several reasons:

1. We finally got rid of Cheeks. This guy was a pathetic train wreck of a coach. I was more depressed watching him on the sidelines than I've been with all the losses this year, primarily I think because he represented no hope. I was never excited about Nate (more like resigned, or relieved). I wanted Iavaroni or Porter. Nate will have to do. At least he's a clear upgrade as far as someone I want molding our young players.

2. I thought we'd have a decent lineup.

A. I expected our two-headed center, TheoBilla, to have a good year, and anchor our defense, not miss what seemed like half the season with injuries (foolish, I was).

B. I expected Darius Miles to have a good year, now that he would be our starting SF, instead of backing up SAR (so SAR could be showcased). Miles can be scary good, but he needs to start, he needs to be 'loved' (IMO), and he needs to be healthy.

C. I expected Sebastian to start all year and continue to improve on his play from the end of last season. Nate had other ideas about the style he wanted to force Telfair to play, and played Blake instead. (Finally, two months ago, Nate as much as conceded he needed to give him more freedom. Finally, Bassy is playing better.)

D. I expected Zach to anchor our interior, once he recovered from his injury. He hasn't done badly, but had some growing pains with Nate and has been a little inconsistent.

E. I expected Travis to continue his growth from the end of last season and not be completely lost in Nate's structured system. Again, Nate keeps close reigns on the young guys.

F. I didn't expect the team to sign two career backups and give them the starting spot for large portions of the season, instead of developing our young guys. I expected to lose more games at the beginning of the season, then hit our stride and win some games, with the young guys developing, later in the year.

3. Please note that our record until Miles, then Theo and Joel, going down with injuries had us well on our way to having a better record than last year. Make no mistake, Mo was a big part of our problem the last 3 years.

 

[Tince]

do you not see the logic fallacy in that?

33 responese and nobody has really answered the question I asked.

If we got rid of the 90% of the people blammed for our 50+ losses last season and we're losing more this year, were they really the reason we lost?

I'll say it again since some people don't read my entire posts, but I understand the long-term logic. I've never said Mo is a good coach.

 

[Fork]

33 responese and nobody has really answered the question I asked.

If we got rid of the 90% of the people blammed for our 50+ losses last season and we're losing more this year, were they really the reason we lost?

Who else could it be? The players are the ones on the court. So...yeah, of course they're the reason. Just like the current season's players are the reason we've lost over 50 games this year.