They certainly weren't winning us any games last year...Tince said: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?
We have the youngest team in the league and our veterans have been injured...BlayZa said: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.
Zagfan, I'm with you as to why we've lost games this year.zagsfan20 said:To answer your question about Mo Cheeks, this team would be worse off if he was still the coach...
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...Ed O said: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.
do you not see the logic fallacy in that?Tince said: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?
great post. pretty much said everything I was thinking.thylo said: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.
I can only speak for myself (of course), but I thought the Blazers should have more wins this year than last for several reasons:Ed O said: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.
33 responese and nobody has really answered the question I asked.SMiLE said:do you not see the logic fallacy in that?
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.Tince said: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?