Blazers need to Turnaround?

ESPN has this series going on right now that involves experts voting on different predictions for the upcoming season. We received three votes for team most likely to have a big turnaround this season. How is that possible? Are we going to win 70 games?

over 2 years ago Fund A Mental 10 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think those votes are for next year's playoff run.

which we WILL turnaround.

The Kings have the best bench I’ve seen. There are easily 14 guys on this team good enough for every bench in the league. Now if we could only get some starters, I’d totally jizz in my pants.

Kings fan

by dyshooter182 on Aug 27, 2009 1:34 PM PDT reply actions

At the beginning of the story

We’ve broken down who we think will be the best and worst newcomers in 2009-10. Now it’s time to name Team Turnaround — the squad that could see vast improvement this season. (Also, check out the vote for Team Turmoil.)

So 3 members of their panel believe the Blazers will see vast improvement this season.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Aug 27, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions

Maybe when they say "Blazers" they mean

Oden.

Backcourt game - 24/7

by pxilpooshr on Aug 27, 2009 3:03 PM PDT reply actions

we only got to the first round last year

"shaq and zach randolph have the same trainer... "

best one liner i ever heard.

by bowdown on Aug 27, 2009 7:41 PM PDT reply actions

I saw that this morning too.

It doesn’t make any sense to me. Teams that won 54 games the year before aren’t typically candidates for “vast improvement”. Especially since a lot of our continued success will be derived from organic growth as opposed to acquisitions (aside from A-Mill).

"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."

by Arby on Aug 27, 2009 8:59 PM PDT reply actions

We aren't the normal 54 win team

We are legit candidates for vast improvement.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Aug 28, 2009 3:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Do we really need to critique compliments?

I saw it, and I thought that was an impressive statement. I agree they are probably considering how far we go in the playoffs and not total wins, and which one matters most?

I will take all the love we can get. We got so much hating during the Jail Blazer era, I’m going to just let pour over me to cleanse our past transgressions.

by Titlein2011 on Aug 27, 2009 10:35 PM PDT reply actions

I would take issue with the comment ....

… that OKC is the best collection of young talent in the NBA.

I’ll stack Roy, Oden, LaMarcus, Webster, Rudy, and Nic against Durant, Green, Westbrook and Hardin any day.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Aug 28, 2009 8:10 AM PDT reply actions

No doubt.

OKC is flat out not good and the only semi-star (of the Granger/Kevin Martin level) is Durant. Green is ok, Westbrook had a good rookie year, but as a PG ya ain’t winning anything anytime soon with a PG who has 10 turnover games and isn’t Dwyane Wade.

They’re not expected to win anything, so their dismal win total (23, which is God-awful) gets ignored… and the reasons for why they are bad.

After a few more drafts I could easily change my mind, but OKC is nothing to worry about and CERTAINLY does not have better young talent than us. For one, they don’t have any close to as good as Roy, and Green/Westbrook/etc aren’t as good as LMA, then Oden, then Batum, down the line. Nuh uh.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 28, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions