Weekend Discussion: Rivalries New and Old
by Dave on Sep 19, 2009 12:19 AM PDT
Email
PrintFor the weekend I want to open a discussion regarding who the Blazers' biggest rival is going to be over the next couple of years. BUT WAIT! Before you make the instant "L*kers!!!!!" comment understand how we're defining rival for the purposes of this discussion.
- A rival has to be someone in your conference. You can't have a rivalry playing a team you see twice a year and who doesn't count in the standings against you except in the NBA Finals or lottery. Or at least you can't have that kind of rivalry until you've made the Finals against a team a couple times, which we haven't.
- For these purposes a huge part of the definition of "rivalry" is team strength. Your rival is the guy who is neck and neck with you in talent and usually in the standings. Every game is tense because it means something and it's up in the air, fought tooth and nail until the very end. This should pretty much hold true for BOTH teams in the rivalry. They should be as nervous to meet you as you are to meet them. This aspect should weigh quite heavily in your deliberations and really narrow down the field to a few teams.
- Most people think of animosity--perhaps between the teams, certainly among the fans--when considering rivalries. That's part of our definition as well. However remember we're talking about future rivalries here, ones that will develop and/or sustain over the next couple of seasons at least. Hard-fought battles and close disappointments tend to foster these feelings. Obviously you can't tab somebody as a rival if your relationship is always going to be sweetness and light. But the most hated team isn't necessarily your closest, most intense rival either. Weigh this a little, but weigh the close competition and the rivalries which will naturally evolve from it more.
You can pick an up and coming team you think will challenge the Blazers in the next few years. You can pick a team the Blazers are already close to if you surmise that condition will continue and intensify. You can pick a team ahead of Portland (yes, even the L*kers) if you believe the Blazers will ascend to that level and cause them to worry about us as much as we worry about them. Basically the question is, "Which team are we going to be so close to that we fight like cats and dogs shut in a closet?"
I'll share my thoughts as the weekend progresses. For now, what's your call?
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
119 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
By your criteria
the obvious choices are Denver and San Antonio. But I have trouble working up any hard feelings for them. It’s Lakers all the way, even if the feeling isn’t mutual.
I can think of at least four possibilities
and a couple more outside ones. But you’re right, I think those two are down the middle. But others might have different assessments.
—Dave
I think we'll be a solid #2 in the West
Denver and SA, if healthy, are equal or better than us. But it took a miracle to have K-Mart and Nene healthy all year last year, and SA’s stars are old and TP has not impressed me in international play. I’m not a big Jefferson fan, so I think we pull away from everyone but the Lakers.
In my mind, the Mavs and Suns are has-beens. I’m not quite on the OKC bandwagon, but even if they are going to be as good as people seem to think they will be, they’re a year or two out. Rockets are Yao-less. Clippers are intriguing, but…they’re the Clippers.
Most signs look toward the Hornets continuing to decline. But man, you can’t count out a team with CP3. If Okafor clicks and West can pull another borderline all-star season, they could surprise some people.
okafor may even be an all-star
its not like he has a lot of competition in the west
Are you kidding?
For All-Star purposes, they always seem to count guys like Duncan, Nowitzki, and Gasol as centers. Not to mention Bynum would get more votes than Okafor even if he was injured the whole season. All-Star selection is a joke. Watch T-Mac get on this year.
Actually Duncan has always been a forward All Star
A few years ago the league listed him as a center and the Spurs raised such a fuss the league switched him back to forward.
I just listen for Casey. His voice gives me tingles. —Dave
I'd say Denver & Utah when healthy
both teams on average are young enough, both in our division, and both have stars of comparable age to be hanging with the Blazers for years to come as long as thier respective teams remain commited to winning.
by DephlatorMouse on Sep 19, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think Utah will spend enough, and Denver requires billups, who will age
That’s the challenge here, I think the blazers pull far ahead in the next two years. LA doesn’t rebuild, they reload. That’s what will make that the rivalry to watch in the west. OKC will be good at some point—but they will still be up and coming for a couple seasons. LA is the only team that is both good enough to be on our level (slightly ahead at present), and expected to continue being that good. Spurs would be there, but TD only has a few years left. I do get excited for lakers and spurs games though. Against the east the celtics games get me fired up also, but we only see them twice. Meanwhile we are VERY likely to meet at least the lakers or spurs in the playoffs, if not both.
Oh, it's mutual
They just like to make you want to think that they are above everyone. For all their “fans” that seem to claim that it’s not really a rivalry because we lose the big games, they care way too much as compared to a game compared to the, let’s say, the Clippers.
There’s just way too much past history between the two franchises to not care. Although their #1 rivalry is the Celtics, I’d say we’re the next tier along with Suns and the Spurs.
San Antonio is iffy to me
Denver Definitely, but looking ahead, SA is getting real old. This year, given the criteria, sure they fit, but looking beyond that it looks more likely than not they will fall off for 3 or 4 seasons.
Goodbye Deke. The NBA will miss Mt. Mutombo
Support families in crisis in Portland www.give10tell10.org
Yes, when Duncan & Parker slow down or suffer injuries, the Spurs will have to regroup
They’ve had quite a run, though, haven’t they? And I wouldn’t bet against them getting it done one last time in ‘09-’10.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
Can I say who isn’t our rival? Ok, good.
The Thunder. It’s a bunch of individual talent with no bigs or cohesion. They are not yet the greatest collection of talent in the league as Simmons claims. Durant needs to work on playmaking and defense, Westbrook on not leading the league in turnovers, and Green in having a PER that isn’t two points under the league average.
We shall see. I’m dubious that they make the playoff push that some pundits predict.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 19, 2009 12:32 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Not next year, but it's easy to see that they will be a playoff team once they grow a bit and add a center
Harden might not be the shiniest addition this year, but he could be “their Roy”, a missing piece that puts them on a new level. He fits perfectly in between Westbrook, Durant and Green. The bench is still pretty shallow, the mentioned top center lacking (unless you believe in Mullens, which you don’t and most people don’t), and it’s unclear if the ownership really will spend the money their GM needs to make it happen and retain Durant plus add to the team, and not just ride with a team full of cheap talented youngsters. But there could be something brewing there.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
I think they will be a playoff team and good, absolutely.
they need to resolve the glaring issue: new front line. Green is not a power forward. Remember LaMarcus eating him alive in the post? Yeah, they might want to fix that. Also, they need interior defense from their bigs. They have very little right now.
Harden could be important in spreading the floor, but they still go nowhere until there is someone at the pivot.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 19, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
That's a pretty negative take, and an unsupported one I think
I like our team better, no doubt about it.
But just because Simmons likes them and makes fun of Oden doesn’t mean they aren’t potentially a really good team. I hate the Thunder because I think their owner is a [bleep!], but that also doesn’t make them worse on the court.
Yes, the bandwagon hopping for Best Young Team can overblown and tough to take – but isn’t that partly because that was Portland for the last 2 years? As far as I’m concerned, Okie City is welcome to that moniker. I’d prefer simply Best Team at this point.
As for your points. Jeff Green is 1 point under average on PER, not 2. Aside from that, he’s the kind of player that does a lot of the dirty work that doesn’t show up in stats, even PER. Nic Batum is even lower, and everyone here thinks he’s the bee’s knees. I think he’s a pretty good young power forward. And Nenad Krstic is an adequate center.
To top it off, they have lots of cap room, their own pick this summer, and Phoenix’s unprotected draft pick. They have an opportunity to add a ton of firepower over the next year.
By all reports they are all pretty good friends, and they finished the year a respectable 20-30 in a really tough conference. A lineup of Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Green and Krstic looks pretty good to me, and they are incredibly young still.
Yeah Durant isn’t a good defender. Neither is Brandon Roy. Neither are most young players.
My pick is the Thunder. I think they are going to be very good, and they are in our division.
by matthewcc on Sep 19, 2009 6:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No D?!
B Roy isn’t a good defender? I must disagree… He routinely guards the other teams best player in crunch time, he tied a record for most steals in a game, and I seem to remember a L*kers game in march in which for the last 4+ minutes of the game, it was the Kobe-Roy show where they basically played one on one. We won behind Roy’s offensive heroics and his stellar D on #24. And he’s done that on a number of occasions. KD doesn’t have the same defensive prowess as BRoy, period.
by DribbleDriveDish on Sep 19, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions
That last 4+ minutes was the BEST part of last season
It reminded me of Jerry West v Walt Frazier and Frazier v Earl the Pearl when Monroe was with the Bullits. Yep, I’m an old fart but that was great basketball.
To see Roy take on Kobe fearlessly… ah what a beautiful thing!
he's a good defender
in crunch time.
the other 40 minutes, he tends to float a bit and conserve energy.
My dearest hope is that Andre Miller and the rise of Oden/LMA will enable Roy to become a 2 way terror on the court. Then, championships are just a matter of time, and referees.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Sep 19, 2009 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Jeff Green is 1 point under average on PER, not 2.
Sorry. Can’t believe I was a little off at 12:30. :) I forgot the .9. The point still stands.
Aside from that, he’s the kind of player that does a lot of the dirty work that doesn’t show up in stats, even PER.
Really? He had a somewhat poor to mediocre adjusted +/- at 0.72. While you can argue against adjusted +/ as it is far from a perfect metric, it does a good job at identifying players who excel defensively and do “all the little things.” For example, Green’s own teammate, Russell Westbrook posted a strong adjusted +/- despite being on such a crappy team. Could this be because Green is out of posiiton? Quite possibly… but that goes back to my point about talent lacking cohesion.
While Green may be a good player in the future, he is certainly not efficient or good defensively at the power forward position.
Nic Batum is even lower, and everyone here thinks he’s the bee’s knees.
Nico is a good defender at the position he plays, unlike Green. Also unlike Green, Nico is not expected to be a primary offensive option for us… guys named Andre Miller, Brandon Roy, Rudy Fernandez, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Greg Oden are all more important to the Blazer offense. Green is expected to be a primary ballhandler in the current OKC system. If he becomes a shooter a la Batum, then he’s just standing in the corner at one end and guarding forwards that are too big for him to handle at the other end.
To top it off, they have lots of cap room, their own pick this summer, and Phoenix’s unprotected draft pick. They have an opportunity to add a ton of firepower over the next year.
Phoenix will win 40 games this year, so that’s not an astounding pick. You are right though, they have assets. They need to use them to acquire an actual front line.
Nenad Krstic is an adequate center.
Really? I don’t think a 50.4% TS mark from that position is adequate, personally. Also, good teams need interior defense. As of now, Krstic provides very little.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 19, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
i dont really think he was saying the thunder are better than the blazers.
one shouldn’t really take mentioning the good qualities about a team as being anti-blazer automatically. every-team has good qualities as well as doubts. its good to name both.
in my opinion, the thunder need to swap jeff green for “an actual big man” cause jeff’s nat position, in my eyes, is the three. and his potential is enough to get someone i think, maybe with that pick you mention.
one shouldn’t really take mentioning the good qualities about a team as being anti-blazer automatically. every-team has good qualities as well as doubts. its good to name both.
Absolutely. I stated in my original post that I was going to make a case for why the Thunder weren’t our rival. They do have a lot of talent, led by Russell Westbrook’s fantastic play.
My point was why they weren’t our rival.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 19, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
agh, posted before I was done.
A lineup of Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Green and Krstic looks pretty good to me, and they are incredibly young still.
While Harden may become a good defender (we really don’t know), Durant-Green-Krstic is laughably weak at this point. Green guarding 4s, Krstic in the middle, and Durant on anybody is a bad combination right now.
Yeah Durant isn’t a good defender. Neither is Brandon Roy. Neither are most young players.
Brandon Roy is a mediocre defender. That’s a long, long ways from Durant, who had the worst adjusted +/- in basketball last year. The worst.
It’s also not just his defense. He needs to work on being a playmaker to be truly good on offense. He had more turnovers than assists last year… he’s more Kevin Martin than anyone at this point. That’s a nice piece to have… but to be dangerous, he needs to add passing to his game.
I dunno. If they trade Green for someone with a legitimate post game and defense at the 4 and we’ll start talking.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 19, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
When he wants to be
I’m with the crowd that says Brandon is a great defender when he has to be. The last 2 years he’s carried this team on his back and even Brandon cannot be all things to all people all the time. Assuming he gets more help this year, I expect to see better defense out of Brandon.
by BlazerNation on Sep 19, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I think those arguments
Just explain why they won’t be the WORST team. Which they won’t be.
None of those arguments make them sound very good.
To me, a lineup of Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Green, and Krstic don’t do very well even if they play 48 minutes a night. Once ya add in the bench, hooo boy. But it will be easier to see how good Harden is once he gets out there; I just don’t see him being the sort of talent where everyone improves from him just being there.
I agree they got good wiggle room and will be in a position to add nice pieces, both from the draft and from free agency. That doesn’t separate them from any other bad team in the West, and nothing on the court or statistically has separated them from being just another bad team as well.
They COULD become good, but it’ll be because of who they get in the future, not who they got now. That goes for any cellar dweller. Minny or the Kings could go draft the next great talent and suddenly be pretty awesome. With who both teams got now, they won’t be good— but they could be in the future.
Mortimer
It's too bad
they aren’t in Seattle anymore. That would have made for a nice context.
I don't know about that...
First of all, I think the parameters for defining a “rivalry” put forth in this story are far to narrow and are indicative of a problem with American sports. Rivalries are not temporary animosities formed out of a season or two of competitive teams, they are a genuine loathing for another team based on the history between the clubs.
That said, I would say the Thunder are our biggest rival, outside of the LA LAs. Not necessarily because of our equality of talent, we’re clearly a much better team (although let’s not forget that they have shown quite the knack for beating us recently), but because of the history between the two franchises.
In that sense, we have a lot of history with the Thunder; we were both championship contenders in the 90s, we both lost to Jordan in the finals, we both crashed and burned in the early 2000s, and we’re both currently rebuilding. We may be getting back into the limelight quicker than they are, but there is no denying they are on the come up.
Granted, the rivalry took a huge blow when the Sonics became the Thunder, as the North West pride element of the feud was eliminated, but that sort of lives on thanks to the Oden/Durant draft drama, and the one season Durant played in Seattle. If they had stayed in Seattle, things would have gotten very interesting as our superstar, our heart, our soul, Brandon Roy, was born and raised in Seattle. That would have added a significant wrinkle to the relationship.
In closing, I would say that we look overseas to find the true nature of rivalries. Rivalries persist in earnest in English Football, regardless even of what league teams are in. A team could be at the bottom of the third league, but on they off chance they play their arch rival, who may be leading the Premier league, in a Cup competition, it’s going to be quite the event. Now these teams have much more history than any NBA team (hell, even the sport of basketball), most being around for more than a century, but that doesn’t mean that NBA teams should discount history in rivalries.
I agree, as you know
I will not worry about OKC until they win over 30 games. They are simply an AWFUL, abysmal, crappy team.
The current incarnation will never win more than 41 games. Ever.
The only way OKC becomes good, is from who they draft in the future. That is the same for any bad team, including us a few years ago. Their current young, good players are good, but not together. And none are Roy-esque A-list stars (not even Durant). The only way the TEAM of OKC becomes good is by changing their lineup drastically or getting really good players in the draft… getting that A-list young player who makes his teammates better.
But I am of the strong opinion that if you put the ball in the hands, on the perimeter, of a guy who doesn’t pass well, you won’t win. Combine that with bad/youthful defense (which I think will improve, and I think Westbrook will be a great disruptor), mismatched talent, and you got 23 wins— on pace for 26 after Scottie Brooks took over. They couldn’t even feast on the other truly crappy teams in the bottom of the West.
Does anyone here really think that the addition of James Harden makes OKC go from 23 wins to 45-50 wins? If Durant and Westbrook and Green make them add pretty much no wins, Harden ain’t gonna add much. Not even in two years. They got many, many, many steps left before they are even respectable.
And those steps including getting good players in the draft, like any bad team. So, until they get more good players in the draft, they will be bad for a good long while. They could very well become a great team, but it won’t be based on who they got now.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Sep 19, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Big rec for that wake-up cup of coffee.
You can pretty much look at any team in the league and see that they all have some nice pieces. There is nothing exceptional about the Thunders unless Durant turns into a taller, stronger, faster, better-shooting version of MJ, which will never happen.
Here’s what the Thunders are: a gunner and a bunch of rookie second-unit players. They won’t sniff the playoffs for at least five years. The Thunders’ marketing department must be pumping-out some mighty tasty Kool-Aid for so many folks to be so duped about that roster.
My opinion is that No defense, No rebounding, No wins
And OKC doesn’t do either…and doesn’t have the personnel to do it. That’s why Houston is going to better than they seem while OKC and Memphis will not play .500 ball. You can quote me at the end of the season.
I concur
And that double whammy is why OKC has been so bad— not only no defense and no rebounding, their offense is bad as well.
They literally do nothing good.
So, I expect that to continue until they get a real game changer.
Morty
(now that I re-read it, I am sure I’ll get called on the “literally” do nothing good line, but I can’t think of any aspect of the game they do DECENT, so maybe I can sneak away with it)
(Mortimer)
I also suspect
That to a lot of OKC fans, they’ll wonder why their offense is bad… “we got Green, DURANT for pete’s sake, Westbrook can score, why are we so bad at offense?!” or they won’t even realize they are bad at offense because of their pace.
And to me the answer is playmaking. No playmaking on offense, no defense and rebounding on defense, equals “don’t even worry about them for now”.
Morty
To be fair to OKC, they were a good rebounding team.
Outside of that though, the team was really bad. They shot a lousy percentage from the field (last in eFG%) and let their opponents shoot a good percentage from the field. They also turned the ball over a lot.
The obvious choice for me is Utah
1.They are a division rival.
2. They are a sound organization that puts together good personnel packages year after year.
3. They are evenly matched with us and still have strong young players.
4. They have a great coach who brings teams every year that play strong fundamental basketball.
5. They have a definite anger towards Portland from the FA signing this summer
6. They are so much fun to beat.
I just listen for Casey. His voice gives me tingles. —Dave
by lee3022 on Sep 19, 2009 12:41 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Utah for me too
Utah, other then the L*kers is my hate. I never disliked the Sonics.
In the Eastern Conference, I am really hating on Boston because of the way KG turned out. I can’t believe I used to like him.
hg
I think that in the future
The “Thunder” and the Timberwolves have a shot to become our rivals. Things will have to break really well for both of these teams, but forecasting into the future for both of our clubs they seem like the biggest potential rivals. As it stands right now, our weakness and strengths come together very well with both of those teams, and forecasting into the future (ie 3+ years down the road) I think they will be pushing us for the division crown, and may even take it a year or two.
i think this season
the major rivals are denver and san an.. i think portland spurs and nuggs are all going to be fighting for the 2-4 spots this season and it is going to be close. over the next couple seasons i see the blazers having more of a rival with the Lakers fighting for western champ…
"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting"
"I don't like jail, they got the wrong kind of bars in there"
Charles Bukowski
A few years down the road
The Zombie Sonics should be take the distinction. But now? I don’t feel any kind of animosity towards Denver or else they’d be the obvious answer. Maybe Utah? San Antonio? I don’t know.
As much as you said not to, I still have to give a mention to the Lakers simply because I will never forgive them for the 2000 WCF.
Another aspect of rivalry might be history of contention
When Seattle was good and Portland was good, the Sonic-Blazer relationship was definitely that of rivals. At other times, maybe Utah or Phoenix were Portland rivals. But for shear endurance and intensity, nothing matches the bilious Blazer-L*ker relationship. But what it’s lacked lately is the symmetry that could turn it into a rivalry. Portland was not a serious threat to L*ker success and therefore did not really arouse L.A. ire. The L*kers did not respect the Blazers enough to much dislike them. There was a time in the ‘90s when this was not true and the time comes again this year or next. The Blazers will present the greatest obstacle to continued L*ker glory and L*ker fans will come to rue our team, thus adding their necessary respect and passion to the mix necessary to create “a rivalry.” That is, until L.A.’s decline creates some surprising moments of our condescending sympathy and the search for a more worthy “rival.”
And that’s the truth.
well just have to wait and seee. lots of up and coming teams have faltered to take the next step.
its the biggest and hardest step to go from good up and coming to series perennial title contenders.
Denver, Utah, Lakers, Tumbleweeds . . . err, I mean Thunder soon
Denver always is a pain in the tookas. In Denver they usually seem to beat us but a couple dozen (blame it on the altitude) and even in Portland they are a pain. They are a pain in terms of their ‘tude too – I’d like to smack Birdman and their other bad boyz.
Utah has been a rival for so long it is hard to think they aren’t, and at this point they most definitely still are even though we seem to be gaining momentum in the rivalry.
L*kers. No explanation needed but they aren’t our division.
The Seattle Drifters – their time is soon. That loss last season ought to be a wake up call.
put a body on 'em
Its already been established
That the fakers don’t like us and we don’t like them, we are definitely rivals in every way and we can certainly challenge them. Last season many NBA analysts and Kobe Bryant himself said that Portland causes the most problems for them. Even from an individual standpoint: Roy/Bryant – Oden/Bynum – Aldridge/Odom etc…
and Batum and Rudy don’t like them either, as a matter of fact last year when the entire team was asked whom they liked to go head to head with, most said the fakers, so im gonna ride with them and say the fakers as well. Another team i can see being our rival despite the gap between us right now is the OKC Thunder, yes, the Thunder will indeed be our rival sooner than we know, you have the whole Oden/Durant thing, their young and talented like us and were in the same conference. Drafting James Harden couldn’t have hurt their chances either.
Denver don’t want it.
Go Blazers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I find my self rooting against the Thunder
simply because of my desire for Greg to come out on top in the silly debate with Durant, but I don’t really think of them as a rival.
Under winter skies
We stand glorious
And with Oden on our side
We are victorious
By your rules...
….. I would say the Butt-Nuggets today, and the Oklahoma Blunder tomorrow……
But, in my heart deep within, where the warm blood flows with each beat that breathes life throughout my being. Nourishing each and every cell every second of every day that i have lived, IT WILL ALWAYS BE THE L*KERS…..!
To me, a rivalry usually stems from one team always being ‘in the way’ year after year. Equally as important, I think, is that the games are usually ‘down to the wire’ endings. But, I think the most important is that they are the most heated because both teams (and fans) hate each other to the core.
That my friends, has the Blazers and L*kers written all over it.
I believe most Blazer fans even forgot there is an ‘a’ in L*kers. I know I have.
There is no other rivalry….
I have been a L*ker hater too many years.
The L*kers has been and will be my most hated. Like SHIGHKIN, I can’t forgive them for the 2000 WCF and many others.
In our division I would have to go with Utah. Denver is rough right now and I hate the Birdman intimidating attempts, but I think they will self-destruct within the next two years much like the Jailblazers of past. Of course they have been a pain in our side even when they weren’t considered a good team.
The Thunders were rivalries because of geographical reasons. There is talk about doing a re-zoning of the Western Conference. That would take the Thunders out.
Utah has been for so many years with The Mail Man’s elbows and knees a rivalry to me that I just can’t let it go Plus the fact, my brother-in-law lives in Utah and is a Jazz fan.
So, Utah it is.
hg
When I think of L@kers I remember
In 1976-1977 we lost every game to the L@kers during the regular season until the last game of the season and then swept them 4 games in the WCF on our way to the championship.
When I think of the consecutive home win streak here.
When Pau screwed his buddy by messing up consecutive dunk attempts for Rudy at the Slam Dunk contest.
Rudy – never ever trust a L@ker! Even in the gold medal game. Especially not on national TV.
I think this is an important consideration
If we and the L*k*rs are in the same division, rather than merely the same conference, they are our greatest rivals hands-down. Even without this consideration, however, I still think no other team will be able to beat our rivalry history with the L*k*rs for several years. Utah comes close, partly because Jerry Sloan is such an easy target. But as long as Uncle Phil is coaching in L.A. I’ll still cast my vote for them—even if their team goes bad.
Honor Alaa Abdelnaby.
First in the NBA. At least alphabetically
Lakers or bust
I really love this whole line of questioning considering that the year before last, and even early last year, our boys still exuded way too much googly-eyed awe towards the top teams in the league. You could always just feel that bubbling under the surface of our team’s collective psyche was the shadow of the doubt that they even belonged in the ring with top contenders.
On the flip side of that was the top contenders mostly believing that we didn’t belong and acting correspondingly. Even when you started to see a little flicker of doubt in their eyes, they still steadfastly swaggered around with an eye-roll and a “ppphffft, yeah right!” As the season wore on though, and our team’s confidence grew, you could see how hard it was for those contending players to stick to the "you don’t even belong in my sandbox" mantra. I mean, sure y’all have had the run of this playground for a while, but how many of you am I going to have to kick sand in the face of and chuck out of the sandbox before you can say I’m your peer?
That’s were it starts getting seriously fun. Most maligned team’s fans can only dream of the emotional release we got to feel over the course of last season as we watched the awe and uncertainty in our players’ eyes gradually transform into an ever-growing confidence and the emerging belief that "yeah, you know what? We do belong. We ARE your peers now, and we will MAKE you respect us accordingly." How gratifying for such a team’s fans to see the opposing teams’ smug sense of inevitable supremacy morph gradually into unspoken, yet increasingly visible signs of fear and anxiety.
We just kept showing up and demanding respect, from Pierce’s failed trash-talking to Brandon, to the LMA-KG head slap, to the Gorilla chesting up to…well…whichever big didn’t want to give him his due, to exorcising the demons with the Phoenix loss streak, to shutting up the Lakers with the Zen-master giving us the brush off and failing to show at the Rose Garden, to handing nearly everyone a thorough and unquestioned beat down at the tail of end of last season (including the final demolition of Denver). Little by little we’re starting to feel like the kid in the hallway that the school bullies are making less and less eye contact with as they’re passing by; but this time, they’re the ones looking away, not us.
Sure, we were brought back down to earth in the playoffs, and we’ve got a lot to prove if we want our rivalries to consist of the best of the best, but a renewed Laker-Blazer rivalry certainly isn’t out of the question (Laker fans who will always insist otherwise notwithstanding). I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but it sure feels like we could grab it if we could just stretch a little more.
Bottom line, I just had to take a moment for myself to reflect on how we got to a place where we can even have a legitimate conversation about this. Sorry (not really) to drag you through that with me.
As for Denver, San Antonio and Utah. Sure, any of those could be rivals, as long as we stay on our trajectory and they do what they need to do. For me, San Antonio has just never felt like a rival, regardless of who’s on top (especially now that Bowen is gone). Besides, it would likely be a short-lived one with the age difference. I mean, what would society say if we shacked up into a rivalry like that? Our parents would disown us.
Utah should probably be a pretty likely candidate if they are healthy. We do have a little history with them, they are in our division, and I CAN’T STAND BOOZER! But, seriously, I don’t like their chemistry right now, I’m not sure what AK’s going to bring, and it’s hard saying how the Boozer drama is going to play out. We may or may not be in the same class. TBD.
Denver has real promise as a rival moving forward, I think. While they’ve got some aging folks (billups, Kmart), they are young enough. I agreed with Dave’s earlier assessment that we should discount them (even a little bit) at our own peril, lest we fall victim to the insecure bully syndrome trap mentioned above ourselves. After last season’s closing beat down, I’d expect them to itching for revenge, no matter how much they say they didn’t care about that game. How far this thing goes seems uncertain to me, but it could have legs.
Thunder, sure. I guess I can see it, but maybe I’m a little too recency-oriented to forecast like that. I’m more of "peak my head out the window and sniff the air" sort of weatherman. I’ll believe this one when I see it (uh-oh, traces of bully speak there).
Blah-buh-dee-blah-blah. Let’s get real here. It’s the Lakers. If it’s not the Lakers than we ain’t who we thought we were. I don’t want to be rivals with the Thunder or the T-Wolves (spoken as a whiny child). And while it would be no disrespect and I could get down with a Utah or Denver rivalry if we’re both doing well and having epicish battles, it’s just not visceral enough.
I hate the Lakers and I want them to hate me too. We’ve had Odom in the huddle, we had last year’s melee after the Rudy foul, and we take it to them in our house. They have Kobe. Yuck. They have Odom. Pew. They have ron-ron…eh, actually don’t really hate him any more, but Crazy Pills makes stuff interesting. The have Fisher. Ick. C’mon, they have Vujacic. Greeeeaaaaazzzy. Please, Greg, come in and break Bynum (figuratively, spiritually). The Zen-master is the most backhanded, condescending, smarmy coach in the league. Double-ick. And really, I want to be rivals with the champs, and if the champs are the lakers, the hate is already on tap.
It’s probably not a real rivalry until we bounce them in the playoffs or at least take them to seven, but what the hay. I’ll roll with the one sided rivalry until they have to no choice but to admit it.
BEAT LA!
You are righty on
We may not be quite there yet, but we are well on our way and there is no stopping us from getting there.
Still L*kers
When a team win 54 games with very young players, obvious areas for expected and potentially quantum growth, and adds key pieces, it should aim for a ring. Now. And in the foreseeable future. This is not just a reasonable expectation, but a categorical imperative for any franchise in this position (my old science and philosophy teachers are turning in their swivel chairs now…). And pieces are already in place, with the Blazers’ home dominance and Phil jackson’s hip games. Add the hate, and it’s the L*kers.
by Epimenides on Sep 19, 2009 4:51 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
L@kers it is
By Dave’s criteria:
1. In our conference.
2. Team strength. We tied for second behind them last year, and were a team they feared. S.A. may be ahead of us this year, but they will still fear us, because they simply haven’t been able to win in Portland. Phlapping Phloundering Phil even stayed home. Kobe says it always rains. They know we’d have a chance to knock them out if we met in the playoffs. Others may be close behind us, but we’re going to be the top threat to them for years, and probably ahead if them within three years at the most.
3. Animosity. Years of history on this. In recent years, think Odom pushing into our huddle. The Ariza foul on Rudy. Odom leaving the bench to get in the midst of it and then claiming he didn’t. Comments about it always raining. Etc. Add to that the fact that we have to go through them to win it all, almost certainly, and our goal is to win it all. Add to that the fact that Denver is led by Billups, S.A. by Duncan, Utah by D-Will, N.O. by Chris Paul. These are all players that Portland fans respect. LA is led by K*be, and most fans believe he behaved very poorly in that Colorado case, even if it wasn’t rape. Their leader has given off-the-court reason for fans to dislike him. LA leads by far in the animosity stakes. And you read the comments of most of their fans, and they hate us, too.
Sorry, but no one else comes close.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
There are pretenders, then there's the LA
Gotta meet and beat LA to get the ring.
Problem is - they don't consider us rivals and everyone considers them rivals
There is no team I want to beat more than the L@kers. But Utah considers us the enemy as we do they. That makes a rivalry.
I would have said Sonics – hands down while they were still with us.
The championship year we were way behind the front running L@kers. The most satisfying series win in that year (besides winning the trophy) was sweeping the L@kers. They were totally stunned. But they have a new rival every year. Since everyone guns for them they are everybody’s rival.
I just listen for Casey. His voice gives me tingles. —Dave
I'm gonna go with the Rockets
Not this year but for a couple after that I see them being a problem.
Yao being back, however effective he is, means they have a tough matchup at center.
Scola is good and seemed to give LMA some troubles (I know this was mainly due to us double teaming Yao but still his style is problematic for LaMarcus)
Ariza is a damn good defender and should be effective on Brandon, or at least neutralizes the advantage we get from having Batum
Shooting guard is a bit of a hole for them after McGrady is gone but assuming they miss the playoffs this year I would guess a good gm like Morey will fill this through the draft or alternatively through trading some of those pf’s he has in reserve.
Aaron Brooks will still be just as quick when the Rockets are relevant again and unless Bayless develops into a smarter defensive player he will give us fits like he did in the playoffs
Finally, the reserves they have are hard-nosed, effort over talent players that tend to be good defensively. We are the opposite – a ridiculously talented bench offensively but not much defense to speak of outside Joel (if he’s here after next season). They seem to do well in this matchup because they are more effective at disrupting our offense than we are at overcoming their defense.
I know the Lakers are the popular answer however I could actually see the Blazers dominating that rivalry within 2-3 years. The Lakers core consists of nobody under the age of 29 except for Bynum. I can’t see him carrying that team when the decline and injuries likely to befall Kobe, Artest, Gasol and Odom – all players who have been in the league longer than their ages would indicate. Plus they have no young pg’s to speak of and Fisher looks done.
Next year the Lakers will be better than us, the year after maybe, after that I’m not seeing it.
The Rockets just seem more likely to continue to be that team that isn’t as good as we are but manages to beat us. That to me is the source of a good rivalry.
Yeah, I regret not mentioning them
It’s just seems so easy to forget about them knowing Yao is out this year. They are a definite matchup problem for us, but it’s hard to see how without Yao (unfortunate rhyme) or a healthy Tmac. I just doubt most people can get behind this one with the amount of future uncertainty involved.
Also, on a personal note, I really just respect them too much. I like my sports rivals to stir my inner angst, and they just don’t.
Wish I could agree
It seems as though the L*kers always goes out and buys refs, dominating players and end up on the top. Like getting Gasol from Memphis.
I don’t know how or why, but it makes me always leery of them.
hg
No votes for the Rockets?
Rockets fan here….
I agree with the above post…
I’ll just add that there will also be either a completed rejuvenated McGrady (if he is resigned) or a 24million expiring that can be traded this season or comes off the books for the big free agent class next summer.
So basically, the Rockets could be a much better team this time next year over the team that beat you this past year.
There is a rivalry between which front office makes the most shrewd moves, and of course the whole Drexler thing…
by PhilippeinBoston on Sep 19, 2009 5:32 AM PDT reply actions
Sorry Rockets
Many factors:
- NO Ron Ron
- NO Yao
- Can’t Hate on Rick A
- Can’t Hate on Aaron Brooks
- Rockets aren’t the L*kers
"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot." - Bill Russell
Ultimately, we don't hate the Rockets
Even if they become the second best team in the conference, there will never the be antagonism for that kind of rivalry.
Unless they start trying to injure our players or something.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
Sorry Houston, even if McGrady expires for nothing you will have just around $7.5 million in cap space. That's enough for an upgrade, but not for an upgrade over what TMac once was.
And unless you want NY’s junk, few teams will have the salary and the interest to trade for McGrady.
http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/9/13/1029244/what-teams-look-to-have-cap-space
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
I don't think of the Rockets as a rivalry, more like a respected enemy. I've found myself rooting for the Rockets A LOT over the past several years.
I rooted for the Rockets a lot in the Hakeem era, during your championship runs, and last year vs the L@kers. There’s just no hate there I think. The teams seem to respect each other too.
by dario argento on Sep 19, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I respect the Rockets in much the same way I do the Spurs
Well run organization, good players, shrewd GM, and it’s always good to beat ’em.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I feel differently about rivalries I guess
If the Rockets continue to beat us as I think they may over the next 3 years or so then a rivalry will emerge whether we as fans hate them or not.
In any case, I could easily see them becoming our achilles’ heel and if we are a team winning 55-60+ games consistantly then I see us fans becoming agitated at a team we can’t beat consistantly no matter how well run they are or how much we respect them.
Thats my take anyway
To me
For a rivalry to form, we gotta either get their goat or they get ours over and over. Or an equal amount (that’s the best sort of rivalry).
Houston got us good recently, but I’ve traditionally liked them as well. If they KEEP getting us, then we’ll be annoyed by them and maybe hate them, but I don’t see our timelines matching enough to make a true rivalry.
They either wait for Yao to come back good as new and keep going, or start over… I dunno if we’ll be equals.
Morty
Yeah, if we repeatedly run into them as a roadblock then it would be more of a true rivalry
But I don’t think that’s going to happen unless they somehow get a lot for T-Mac’s expiring contract or something.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
In the future...
I see four teams that could be there.
Utah has a young core of good players, and Sloan will keep them working hard, at least at home. The question is will they have a chance to get much better?
Oklahoma City has some talent, and will continue to amass more. The question is if they can become a cohesive unit. And if their star player can learn not to be a defensive liability.
A lot of people have laughed at Kahn, but I think he’s doing all the right things to right the ship that McHale sank. Plus the fan base hates us. But the fun is a couple of years off at least.
Finally, as the last two commenters above mentioned, the Rockets have a good chance of bouncing back after this year. And the one person who will most influence this is not a player, but Daryl Morey. I have a ton of respect for this guy. He has spotted too many diamonds amidst the coal to ever take lightly.
I don’t think the Lakers will be there that much longer. Because of all the talk of the Spurs getting old, The Lakers’ key players are on average older than the Spurs’ key players. And neither team has the reserves to replace them when their skills diminish, unless Bynum can show that he’s more than a Western Conference Andrew Bogut. And you only have to look back to April 2006 to find that the Lakers at one time had a worse record than the Memphis Grizzlies. A regression to the mean will come soon enough.
Denver may have some good players, but it was the aging Chauncey Billups that really made a difference for them. Perhaps Ty Lawson can become that kind of player, but I’m not going to bet on it.
Spurs are in it this year, and maybe the next, but the Spurs will go as far as Duncan’s knees will take them and not much further. Dallas is running into the same problem. The Suns are already there.
If I had to take one team, and say that they’re the ones who are going to be our rivals down the road, I’m going to go out on a limb (with saw in hand) and take the Timberwolves. Because I think they’re the ones who have the best chance at a perfect storm to rise up and be the next big thing (like we were) in the future.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
I gotta agree with the Minnesota Timberwolves
Plus, their fans REALLY DO hate us for taking Brandon Roy and the whole Joel Przybilla thing. What else? Let’s go over to their SB Nation stie (whatever it’s called) and make fun of em.
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 Sep 20, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I thought that
to many ifs are still there. If the coach is good. If the new players can gel, if they keep up with the signing and trading of players to become elite then I think you are right. I sure wouldn’t cut that limb off yet.
hg
Can't do it.
I am up early, trying desperately to flip this on it’s head, think outside the box and come up with a rival other than the L*kers. Sure the Rose Garden bumps when Denver and Utah come to town. OKC will be in the discussion soon enough, no question. You might have gotten more diverse answers if the Sonics were still around…
There are countless reasons why it’s the L*kers, though, the best ones being….
1. 2000
2. 1991
3. They have the most titles in the Western Conf.
4. They enjoy the benefits of being “front runners” with most players and coaches wanting to go there due to history, climate, Hollywood, etc.
5. The Blazers/L*kers 3 basic truths…
a. We hate LA
b. They do not hate us back with the same intensity.
c. This pisses us off.
There are more creative answers, sure, but who are we kidding? Until we smack them back (in the playoffs) for the wrongs inflicted, we are doomed to this bitter fate. The good news is that it’s coming, and soon we can find a less petulant rivalry!
by The Penguin on Sep 19, 2009 7:12 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
the best part is how it's self-fulfilling, we hate them because we hate them more
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Nuggets
thuggish players, bulling tactics that our team needs to learn to overcome, two really talented players in Melo and Billuos that you can’t not respect, and that annoying birdman…
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
OKC Thunder
Both our team and OKC are young teams with loads of potential. While they may not be on par with us in terms ability now, and it’s likely that OKC Thunder will be challenging us in a few years to come. The other reason is also because they originated from the seattle supersonics…
Science demands an answer!
And the scientific way to settle this critical question is with a poll of Bedgers. The choices have been laid out and argued. Now how about it, Dave, a survey of the sentiments?
c'mon, it's the Fakers!
1) They are the team to beat. If we aspire to championships, that road goes through LA.
2) They have Kobe, the most easily hated rapist errr. player in the league.
3) They have Philthy Jackson, the most overrated coach in professional sports history.
4) And, despite what their universally obvnoxious (sorry timbo) fans think, the Lakers (at least the front office) DO worry about us. Why else get the Roy stopper this off-season? (Certainly not to improve team chemistry!)
5) Their fans live in (ugh) LA. They have warm winters, beautiful women, 2-BR condos go for a million, and what’s worse, they come up here to escape hell, and clog our roads… I mean, what’s not to hate?
A rivalry has to make you grit your teeth when you think about them… They have to be the team you check second after the Blazers when looking at the boxscores. The team you actually put on the calendar when we play them, so you don’t schedule something over it…
The rivals are the team you watch the Blazers play alone, because (a) you don’t want to talk to anybody if we lose, and (b) you don’t want your friends to see you like this, and © you can still blame the kids if you throw something through the TV…
If you’re a Laker fan, sorry, we’d unlikely ever be friends. (I have a neighbor, great guy, Nuggets fan – no problem.) (Like I instantantly dislike anybody wearing a Yank-me cap.)
My hatred of the Fakers goes way back – before I even started watching BBall… Once the Bird/Magic series got serious, we’d always hear the story about the balloons in the rafters for Game 7, and the Bill Russell Bob Cousy led Celtics killed that party… Once they beat us in 87, my hatred for the Fakers equalled my life-long (or, in my family, generates of abject) hatred for the Yank-mes.
So, for me, nobody else evens come close.
And, as for those that say the Fakers are old and won’t be our equal in a few years – fantastic, then we get to do a monthly beat down on their sorry asses, and try to make up for past disappointments. I, for one, will never have any problem laying double-digit whippings on those condescending, obnoxious fans from earthquake country…
This is the only time I’m happy saying ‘Fakers are #1’…
Blazers: RUN away with the title!
KP: Please don't trade the next decade's Scottie Pippen (Batum), Spanish Larry Bird (Rudy), Bill Russell (GO) or Captain BRoy - at least until they 3-peat..
by Visionary2 on Sep 19, 2009 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
You want a logical argument
Rivalries aren’t logical.
We all wanted to see Ariza get beat down last year after the Rudy incident.
We hate Derek Fisher and the stupid way he wears his headband.
We hate Kobe and the way the press fawns over him.
We hated Magic every year when he would beat us in the playoffs.
We hated James Worthy being a perennial all star when his only move was that stupid looking stiff legged dunk off a Magic Johnson feed.
We all felt sick when we blew the 15 point fourth quarter lead.
The only time I have felt close to rivalry with another team was Utah when Karl Malone threw that viscious elbow to Brian Grant’s face in the playoffs.
No team makes us feel like the L*kers. They are our rivals and we hate them.
A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste.
1. L@kers for obvious reasons will be our #1 rival.
2. Nuggets; that team seems to get under our skin. They have a lot of firepower, are in our division, and will probably remain good for the next several years.
3. Jazz; they have been good rivals to us for so long, how can they not be? They still have a premier point guard, pretty good depth, a monster at the 4 ( that we tried to get in Milsap ), a pretty good trading chip this year in Boozer’s expiring contract ( think over their blog they’re calling CBEC yet? ), and a great coach in Jerry Sloan, who always seems to get every drop of productivity from his players.
4. I would say the team that shall not be named that has Durant, but no. That would be acknowledging them.
You don't pick a rival.
Rivalry happens. You don’t create it.
It comes about because of an event, or series of them that escalates feelings between teams.
This Blazer team made it to the post season for the first time last year. We did not have a dramatic race to the playoffs where we had to beat out this certain team. We didn’t have a dramatic series with Houston, we went out with a whimper. Maybe something will happen in the next couple of seasons to create a new rivalry.
Until then there is always the L@kers.
A dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste.
That would be a nice sticker: Rivalry happens. Or a "The NBA - Where rivalries happen" spot.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
That would be the point of the question
Which team do you forecast will become the Blazers’ closest rival in the next couple of years?
—Dave
Right now, only Denver measures up in our division.
Utah has the capability, but has yet to show it since our ascension.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
by GonzoFan on Sep 19, 2009 11:45 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Until last year Utah was the dominant team winning the division title several yrs. in a row
As I have been telling everyone who will listen don’t sleep on the Jazz.
"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-
Fully agreed
Utah had tons of injuries and a discontented Boozer. They are healthy now, Boozer is not as big a factor with Milsap maturing. So I believe they will be up here with the Best of the rest, right behind the Blazers
hg
yeah
This year I think SA followed by Denver will determine our playoff seed.
Regarding Hedo Türkoğlu:
Look at the bright side, Blazers fans -- you dodged a bullet. He peaked statistically two years ago. He's allegedly 30 but could be closer to 32 or 33 for all we know. (Do you trust Turkish birth certificates? And isn't it weird that he played four years of pro ball in Turkey in the 1990s?)
- Bill Simmons of ESPN.com
Sonics, Lakers, Jazz
Those are the three teams we have the most history with. I think Utah and OKC would consider us rivals as well. I don’t think the L*kers give a rats ass about us though.
If geographic proximity counts, no one is our rival.
And that’s fitting, because our toughest rivalry is with ourselves. The Lakers didn’t beat us in 1991 and 2000, we beat ourselves. This team finally has the talent, the resources, the organization, and the coaching to win multiple championships. All our players need is experience and maturity. When they get it, we will have no peer.
by MiledAnimal on Sep 19, 2009 3:31 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Denver
Don’t get me wrong, I hate the L*kers, I hate the $#%! outta them. There is no team I enjoy watching us beat more than them, not even close. But I’m pretty sure that the feeling isn’t mutual, that they don’t see us as the same kinda threat we see them as. We don’t yet offer them the same “challenge” they offer us. I think we may start to this season, and will next season, but it has not reached “rivalry status” yet. It bugs me when L*kers fans tell me that there is no rivalry between us. It’s hard to hear that from a fan of the team that I hate more than any other, I’m not gonna lie.
For the sake of discussion, I think that Denver fits the “rival” category now better than the L*kers do. They are on the same level as us (54 wins last season), they are jockeying for position in the same division, and I don’t like them very much either. That’s not to say I think they’re more of a threat than the L*kers are, I just think that feelings of rivalry are more likely mutual with them. It doesn’t help that they have J.R. Smith, K-Mart and Chris “the Birdman” Andersen, all of whom I can’t say I’m too fond of. For that matter, I don’t care much for Carmelo either.
San Antonio, Utah, OKC? No, not really.
L*kers? I hate your guts, but no.
Denver makes the best argument for rival.
Don't get manipulated
The L*ker fans want you to think that they don’t care. The old saying, Love me Hate me but please don’t be indifference to me. That is the game they are trying to play. Since we have all this emotion, we don’t want to be rejected or denied
hg
Does anybody else miss the Northwest rivals?
In two years, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver will all have Major League Soccer teams. The three-way rivalry has been referred to as the “Triangle of Death.”
Does anybody else miss competing with the Vancouver Grizzlies and Seattle SuperSonics? The Northwest division, as it stands, features only one team that is truly from the Pacific Northwest. The presence of the other two teams on the I-5 made for excellent competition and reasonable travel time in order to see the Trail Blazers play away games. It’s too bad they are gone.
That said, I think that current rivals can include San Antonio, Denver, and Utah. They really get me angry, and Denver and Utah both play in our division.
--
by CaptainSexyJacob on Sep 19, 2009 7:53 PM PDT reply actions
Lakers.
Anybody who said otherwise fell for Dave’s deke…
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
the Lakers are our nemisis, not our rival
That may change to some degree a few years from now, but that remains to be seen.
by jksnake99 on Sep 19, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
ooh, nice distinction
You can have multiple rivals, but only one nemesis who you must defeat for ultimate victory.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Potentially the Memphis Grizzlies..
Conley/iverson vs Miller/Blake
O.J. vs Roy (two stars collide)
Rudy gay vs nicolas batum/outlaw (lengthy vs lenghthier)
Randolph vs LaMarcus (Jailblazer vs #2 pick)
Thabeet vs Oden (#2 pick vs #1 pick)
Top lottery picks collide.
by philthebballplayer on Sep 19, 2009 10:19 PM PDT reply actions
"Your rival is the guy who is neck and neck with you in talent and usually in the standings. "
Even if all their players improve drastically, Memphis won’t pay to keep a good enough team to challenge us.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Ehh, their potential is potentially ruined by acquiring Zach and Iverson...
If A.I. and Randolph don’t fall apart like humpty dumpty, I’ll be astounded. Not only will those two decline, they’ll also eat up valuable minutes that could have gone to young players who do have the potential to improve and learn on the job.
No way Iverson is content to let Conley start. Even after an extremely humbling summer of nobody wanting to sign him, Iverson is still thinking he can average 28 a game; if he doesn’t start he’ll undermine the heck out of Conley and O.J. Iverson isn’t even a PG! Prediction: Lionel Hollins will be the first coach to be fired (I would have said Dunleavy but apparently he has tenure), Memphis will miss the playoffs yet again, revenue will plummet, and the league will be forced once again to relocate the team to an even smaller market (Fargo? Tallahassee? Gresham?) because that’s how David Stern operates. Smaller is better (who needs 50 referees when you can pay 10 to do the same job?).
The Blazers’s only rivals? Kobe and co. Things to watch for in 09-10: Did Phil Jackson’s beard require chemo? Which hotel employees will get raped this year? Has Sasha Vujacic heard of shampoo? Will Memphis trade Mayo, Thabeet, and Marc Gasol to L.A. for Kwame Brown and a half-empty tube of toothpaste? Stay tuned!
made em jump like Rod Strickland
We must have no rivals....
I have been a blazer fan for all of my 38 years of life and THE ONLY rivalries we have had that I can recall are, Lakers, Sonics and Jazz. These divisions havn’t been around long enough and the teams in ours havn’t played enough, or for high enough stakes, enough times to have rivalries, so that takes time. In five years maybe we’ll have a good one with someone. Right now. None.
Remember how Joe Frasier or George Foreman would CLOBBER Ali, and he'd just laugh?
This would be their best shot—or close to it—and Ali would laugh at them and trash talk as though he’d hardly even felt the blow. In reality, of course, Ali would be jelly-legged and on the verge of going down. But he’d play it off so convincingly that his opponent would lose energy & confidence. A moment later, a recovered Ali would fire off a flurry of jabs to win the round.
Well, that’s the Lakers-Blazers relationship right now. The Lakers are still pretending that the Blazers are nothing but a harmless, insignificant fly buzzing around their regal heads. But you know that, behind the front, the Tinseltown Boys are getting seriously concerned that they flat can’t beat the Blazers in the Rose Garden. By the end of last season, Phil Jackson was finding excuses not to make the trip south, and Kobe Bryant couldn’t hide his frustration while not only losing but getting blown out in the Rose Garden.
Sure, Kobe downplayed the loss post-game. But his remarks rang hollow. Remember: prior to that, Kobe had always praised the Blazers as an up & coming team. The fact that he now felt the need to belittle them spoke volumes; the upstarts were progressing a little too quickly for comfort.
The Lakers know in their bones that the Blazers will soon develop the experience and confidence to go with their talent, and that when that day arrives, the current Lakers mini-dynasty will be over. For now, the key to holding on is to laugh off those Blazer haymakers, to pretend they don’t hurt a bit. Because once the Blazers realize the firepower they have, this currently one-sided matchup should become a rivalry for the ages.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Sep 20, 2009 11:48 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
To be honest...
I’m looking for the Thunder and T’Wolves to be in the mix very, very soon.
We all know the Thunder are getting close to turning the corner. They’re what the Blazers were about 2 years ago. Only thing we have on them is a better head coach, in my opinion. They’ve got the pieces that we had at that stage, and they’re building a solid team. The just need to build a bit more solid of a bench.
The Wolves, however are quietly building a solid team over there. They picked up Flynn in the draft, and he’s solid, but they also got Ramon Sessions through Free Agency. Those are 2 solid guards. Kevin Love is great on the boards, and Al Jefferson is solid as well. I believe that they are a solid perimeter scorer away from giving us some trouble. We’ll still beat them. But it won’t be nearly as easy as it has been in the past.
After that, as soon as the Grizz realize that A.I. and Zach Randolph don’t work well on their team (or arguably any team, for that matter) and go back to their young guys, then they’ll be a force to reckon with soon.
The Spurs are fading, they’ve got maybe 2 years left with Duncan/Ginobli/Parker, then Duncan is done, and Ginobli is fading. Parker will still be there, though, and they’ll build around them.
Denver is a conundrum to me. I honestly can’t tell if they will fall apart once Chauncey Billups gets too old. So, they’re a coin flip. Heads: They’re contending in 3 years, Tails: Melo is gone, and they’re rebuilding around J.R. Smith (Who subsequently leaves for Miami, and screws them over).
Now… that team in L.A. Those purple n’ gold pansies. They who shall not be named. I only hope that He who shall not be named gets old, and Pau Gasol starts throwing passes like he did to Rudy in the Slam Dunk contest (See Horribly). Bynum will be solid, but Greg will hopefully develop and they will cancel each other out. I can say now, that in 2 years, if Phil Jackson has retired and they replace him with someone from outside the system, and the triangle gets scrapped, then L.A. will not be nearly as good as they are now. The triangle is that effective, especially for a team that is in their prime. However, it can cover up age, so that is the real reason I don’t feel that their getting older will hinder them at all. The only thing that the triangle can’t cover up is inexperience, which is why you don’t see too many rookies playing for L.A. A year practicing before playing in a system like that to ensure competency. And it works.
Well, that’s the end of my story. I rambled a bit, but I think I hit the major 5 teams that were mentioned above me. If I had more time, I’d totally do a synopsis of all the teams in the league in 3 years, but I really don’t have the time right now. Maybe later in another post.
Thunder and T'Wolves
need a center. Neither have close to the firepower we have. Both are building a playoff team for the future, perhaps, but both are some way from being an elite team to rival us.
Grizz may do better than a lot of people expect, but they won’t be elite, either, unless they can pick up a #1 pick somehow.
Denver will implode once Billups is gone unless Carmelo actually matures.
Greg will more than cancel out Bynum. We’ll be the best in the West, year in and year out, for at least five years, starting next year if not this year. LA will be our closest rivals for most of those years.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
The Lakers!
And it’s not really even close for me. Maybe Laker fans don’t reciprocate the hatred, but I don’t care. You line up the Lakers against anyone – Denver, Utah, New Orleans, San Antonio, Houston, etc – I want the other team to beat the stuffing out of the Lakers. I even have a hard time rooting for the Lakers when it means better playoff positioning for the Blazers.
As the Blazers acsend to the level of the Lakers, they will be hating us also…maybe without as much fervor, but we are a threat to their championship quest this season…if they don’t take the Blazers seriously, then they are foolish.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
