PDA

View Full Version : What team will regress this year from the previous year?



JordansBulls
11-04-2009, 05:18 PM
This is basically using teams that have pretty much the same personnel from the previous season.


Example. In 2007 the Bulls were 49-33 and then the next season in 2008 with the same team they were 33-49.


In 2008 the Hornets got the #2 seed out west behind the play of CP3 and company. Last year they slipped even though everyone was expecting them to be just as good and they barely managed to get in the playoffs as the 7th seed with a 49-33 record

Last year in 2009 Portland got the #4 seed out west and many are expecting great things from them in 2010. However as of now they seem to be struggling a bit.

Does it appear that the Blazers will be this years New Orleans team and regress a bit or will they still be as good as they were the previous year?

If not Portland the team to regress, what team will?

GodsSon
11-04-2009, 05:21 PM
Denver...they wont get the number 2 seed again

edit: add Houston as well for obvious reasons

JordansBulls
11-04-2009, 05:24 PM
Denver...they wont get the number 2 seed again

edit: add Houston as well for obvious reasons

Not the same for Houston when their stars are out. That's why I mentioned pretty much the same teams from the previous year.

GodsSon
11-04-2009, 05:30 PM
Not the same for Houston when their stars are out. That's why I mentioned pretty much the same teams from the previous year.

Fair enough...i'll stick with my initial choice and say Denver, i think the Spurs are the second best team in the West this year; while Dallas and Portland also have improved squads to potentially leap-frog the Nuggets...i'll say they finish 5th

Wilson
11-04-2009, 05:43 PM
Fair enough...i'll stick with my initial choice and say Denver, i think the Spurs are the second best team in the West this year; while Dallas and Portland also have improved squads to potentially leap-frog the Nuggets...i'll say they finish 5th

With the amount of 30+ year olds on the Spurs' and Mavs' rosters, the only team that's going to challenge the Nuggets for the 2nd seed is the Trail Blazers.

San Antonio and Dallas are just making sure they're fresh and heathy for the play-offs, they're not aiming for 60 wins. They can both win on the road in the play-offs.

Denver are going to be better this year than last year: full training camp with Coach Billups, growth of Carmelo, Nene and JR Smith, addition of Afflalo (who does everything Dahntay Jones did but is younger), and the addition of Ty Lawson.

BkOriginalOne
11-04-2009, 06:10 PM
It's unfair to say denver because I think their record might be better this year (even if they don't get a 2 seed) because other teams have gotten better and might get more wins also.

My pick is the Hornets again who might not even make the playoffs this year (sad)

Wilson
11-04-2009, 06:12 PM
There's also Cleveland. I was never sold on the LeBron/Shaq pairing, and with Shaq and Z being so old there's a very slim chance they'll win 65 games again in my opinion.

Kakaroach
11-04-2009, 06:18 PM
I sure hope it isn't the Jazz. 1-3 start with 3 fourth quarter chokes. We could easily be 4-0, so ya never know.

Wilson
11-04-2009, 06:24 PM
I sure hope it isn't the Jazz. 1-3 start with 3 fourth quarter chokes. We could easily be 4-0, so ya never know.

They should figure it out with Deron Williams and Jerry Sloan. How they always struggle on the road is mystifying though.

I really want them to deal Boozer for Rip Hamilton, I think the Williams/Hamilton back-court could be very strong on both sides of the ball. If Kyle Korver and Jason Maxiell were added to the deal then both teams get decent back-ups in the deal as well. Makes a lot of sense to me...

TheHoopsProphet
11-04-2009, 06:26 PM
In order of biggest regression to least regression: 1) Cleveland 10-12 less wins 2) Portland 8-10 less wins 3) Hornets 6-8 less wins 4) Lakers 5 less wins

ko8e24
11-04-2009, 06:28 PM
clippers

Kakaroach
11-04-2009, 07:59 PM
They should figure it out with Deron Williams and Jerry Sloan. How they always struggle on the road is mystifying though.

I really want them to deal Boozer for Rip Hamilton, I think the Williams/Hamilton back-court could be very strong on both sides of the ball. If Kyle Korver and Jason Maxiell were added to the deal then both teams get decent back-ups in the deal as well. Makes a lot of sense to me... You have no idea how much us in the Jazz forum would love that.

DenButsu
11-04-2009, 08:29 PM
2) Portland 8-10 less wins

I've seen some arguments for the Blazers slipping, but that's some major slippage you're talking about. Why do you think they'll fall that hard?

Wilson
11-04-2009, 08:32 PM
You have no idea how much us in the Jazz forum would love that.

It seems like one of those trades that just seem way to logical to happen.

sofargone
11-04-2009, 08:35 PM
lakers. thats right

JordansBulls
11-04-2009, 09:14 PM
In order of biggest regression to least regression: 1) Cleveland 10-12 less wins 2) Portland 8-10 less wins 3) Hornets 6-8 less wins 4) Lakers 5 less wins

That's a big drop.

TheHoopsProphet
11-05-2009, 12:37 AM
I've seen some arguments for the Blazers slipping, but that's some major slippage you're talking about. Why do you think they'll fall that hard?

Chemistry issues. Nate McMillan is basically Byron Scott, but the Portland players havent discovered it yet. You saw him overcoach that team in the playoffs for a quick exit. Plus Oden's +/- is something to be reckoned with, they seem to be a worse team when he's on the court and not Pryzbilla. Unless Oden comes off the bench. Similar to Bynum and Gasol being on the court together. Lakers are better with Bynum off the bench. Steve Blake will regress from his hot outside shooting which helped spread the floor (3point percentage was well above his career high). Not to mention how much more thick the West has gotten, making it hard for teams to win. Nuggets always own the Blazers, and i dont think the blazers can keep owning the Lakers, Spurs can handle them. Its mostly gut feeling, but I feel like theyre a 45 win team this year.

DenButsu
11-05-2009, 12:48 AM
Well, as a Nuggets fan I hope you're right, but I don't see them getting less than 50.

JordansBulls
11-05-2009, 01:21 PM
Cleveland may elect to win less games so that they don't have all the pressure on themselves this year like last year.

Raph12
11-05-2009, 01:28 PM
The Cavs for sure.

JordansBulls
11-05-2009, 06:09 PM
The Cavs for sure.

How many wins for them?

DenButsu
11-05-2009, 07:58 PM
Cleveland may elect to win less games so that they don't have all the pressure on themselves this year like last year.

I think that's a really weird take. Seems to me that any team positioning itself for a championship run would pretty much by default want as many regular season wins as possible, provided they didn't come at too high a cost. So if they dropped a couple wins because they were resting Shaq to keep him primed for the postseason, that would make sense to me. But other than injury trouble and/or their effort to preserve the health and energy of their players costing them games, I just can't see any team that's serious about winning rings intentionally dropping games to take the pressure off. Because once they get to that playoff stage, the pressure's gonna get jacked up that many more notches if they don't have good playoff seeding and homecourt advantage, both of which are all about getting as many wins as possible.

JWO35
11-05-2009, 08:11 PM
The Cavs, they will become the NY Mets of the NBA.
I say they get the 3rd or 4th seed.

blazerman
11-05-2009, 08:49 PM
There are a few issues with the Blazers right now and it all starts with McMillian, he is ok but doesnt have any offensive strategy besides iso's with Roy and Adridge and some Roy drives and dishing to Blake and Aldridge. also for being considered a defensive minded coach, he cant see to figure out how to motivate players to play defense on the perimeter. Nate needs to get with a lineup instead of pannicing and changing it every 5 minutes like he did last season.
That being said the players need to get with it as well and as of right now things are looking a little suspect for the Blazers, the jazz are are losing some games as well but it's far too early to tell.

Houston has really impressed me with inspired play but I dont see that lasting long, could be wrong but I doubt it. Phoenix is a mirage and will fade, the Hornets are in the Utah,Portland group of looking sad (expectations were higher for all 3 teams)

DenButsu
11-05-2009, 09:06 PM
Nate needs to get with a lineup instead of pannicing and changing it every 5 minutes like he did last season.

You won't hear me too often say that George Karl outcoached anyone, but I would definitely chalk up a big part of Denver's last win against Portland to the coaching on both sides. On the Nuggets side, when Rudy was lighting up Ty Lawson, Karl put AC back in for the 4th quarter, and that guard lineup was able to lock down the perimeter fairly well from there on out. And in response to that, Nate didn't really seem to know whether to play Dre or Blake, and it was kind of like he was just randomly switching them instead of just saying, "Okay, this guy's my finisher, and I'm sticking with him." So yeah, watching Portland play, I see a lot of talent but not really a clear team identity, and I could see how that could go back to a coaching problem, or maybe even leadership problem in general. So many young players on that team, which one(s) will be the one to stand up and say, "Okay, this is the kind of team we're gonna be." K-Mart gets bashed a lot for his cheesy antics and his crappy shooting, and I see people ask "What does he do for the Nuggets?" But he's the heart and soul of the defense, the human embodiment of our defensive identity and toughness. He actually has a really important leadership role on the team that goes beyond his (limited) talent. I think the Blazers might need to consider making some trades for more role players like that, maybe more veterans. Probably what they had in mind when they picked up Dre.

mikantsass
11-05-2009, 09:32 PM
Bulls will do worse, they wont make the playoffs. I think tha Cavs dont have as good of a record as last year or the Lakers. Dont panic Laker fans, your still the best in the West, I just dont think you will win as many games as last year

JordansBulls
11-06-2009, 12:07 AM
Cavs 3-3 now and they were 20-3 last year.

Raph12
11-06-2009, 01:43 AM
how many wins for them?

~55


Cavs 3-3 now and they were 20-3 last year.

They were also 39-2 at home, in one of those two losses, no starters played. They have 2 home losses already... I'm not going to say I told you so yet... I'm not going to say I told you so yet... I'm not going to say I told you so yet... I TOLD YOU SHAQ DOES NOT MAKE THEM BETTER! lol

JordansBulls
11-06-2009, 09:22 AM
I think that's a really weird take. Seems to me that any team positioning itself for a championship run would pretty much by default want as many regular season wins as possible, provided they didn't come at too high a cost. So if they dropped a couple wins because they were resting Shaq to keep him primed for the postseason, that would make sense to me. But other than injury trouble and/or their effort to preserve the health and energy of their players costing them games, I just can't see any team that's serious about winning rings intentionally dropping games to take the pressure off. Because once they get to that playoff stage, the pressure's gonna get jacked up that many more notches if they don't have good playoff seeding and homecourt advantage, both of which are all about getting as many wins as possible.

I agree on the HCA because it will be too tough to win against Boston or Orlando if those teams have the HCA. HCA is important because even if you lose a game at home you can get it back on the road. However if you don't have HCA and win a game on the road, more than likely you will lose one at home and now you don't have the advantage anymore.