Debating the NBA’s Biggest Surprise Teams in the Wild West
Our NBA insiders are debating the biggest topics in the league. Can the Jazz, Blazers and Spurs sustain their early success?
Chris Mannix: Alright, Beck, this has already been a season full of surprises—and I’m not talking about Kyrie’s social media, the Lakers’ struggles or Minnesota’s dysfunction. I’m talking about Utah! And Portland! And the Spurs! If you had told me weeks ago that three of the top nine in the West would be teams I would have bet big would be lottery locks, I’d have called you crazy. Yet here we are. But it’s a long season and we have not yet hit Thanksgiving. So do any of these teams have a shot at sticking in the playoff field come April?
Howard Beck: Cue the Herm Edwards “YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!” memes. Also, cue up every cliche about games not being won on paper, yadda, yadda. Seriously, this is what’s great about sports. Even in an age of analytics and fancy algorithms, we can’t predict everything. We can still be pleasantly surprised. The question is, what’s real and what’s an early-season mirage? If I’m ranking these teams from most sustainable to least sustainable, I’m going Blazers, Jazz, Spurs. San Antonio will be in the lottery for sure. The Blazers easily have the most talent of the group, and should be a playoff team if they stay healthy. It’s the Jazz who are the most confounding to me. Is Lauri Markkanen really an All-Star now? Is this team of (almost literally) spare parts really capable of a playoff run? And, most importantly: Is this actually what the Jazz front office wants?
Mannix: Let’s table the Jazz will-they-or-won’t-they have a firesale topic for a moment. To stick with the football theme: How about ‘dem Blazers! I wasn’t sold on Portland’s offseason. I liked Anfernee Simons but I had seen the high-scoring backcourt tandem there before. I like Jerami Grant but I had a few people connected to Detroit tell me he wasn’t as great a defender as some say he is. I like Chauncey Billups but he didn’t do anything last year to suggest he was an elite coach.
But everything has come together. Simons has picked up right where he left off last season. Grant is defending and shooting better than 40% from three for the first time in his career. Billups has brilliantly worked in a zone defense that has the Blazers defending at a high level. Do you see all–or any–of these things being sustainable?
Beck: Yes, it’s absolutely sustainable, for one big reason: Dame. It’s amazing how quickly we all forget how transcendent a talent he is, because of one injury-marred (and shortened) season. When healthy, he’s still a top-10 player in this league, and capable of carrying this team to the playoffs. Yeah, the Lillard-Simons backcourt is undersized, just as the Lillard-McCollum backcourt was undersized, and maybe that puts a similar ceiling on this edition of the Blazers. But the additions of Grant, Josh Hart and Gary Payton II give them a defensive edge and athleticism that recent editions lacked. I don’t see the Blazers finishing in the top four in the West, and they might even sink to play-in range once some underachievers (looking at you, Warriors and Clippers) get their act together. But I do see them as a legit playoff team—and ultimately better than the Jazz.
Mannix: Gave yourself some wiggle room, eh Beck? Play-in suggests they can be a top-10 team in the West, which isn’t that impressive given where this team has finished in recent years. To be a little contrarian here: ‘20–21 season, Lillard averaged 28.8 points per game. McCollum averaged 23.1. They had the second-best offensive rating in the NBA. Seven players averaged in double figures. And they finished sixth. What kept them there was a defense that was absolutely awful, 29th in the NBA. This team’s defense, as I type, is ranked in the top-10. So I guess the question is, how sustainable is this defense? Because we have seen how far a great Dame season gets the Blazers. It’s a shellacking by the Jamal Murray-less Nuggets. To me, this team will go as far as its defense takes them. So how sustainable is this D?
Beck: No wiggle room! (*Seinfeld voice*) I said they’re a playoff team! I just think it’s a lot to ask for them to grab one of those top six guaranteed slots. As to their newfound defensive profile: Still too soon to know if this is sustainable. Sorry. But I think their added wing depth (and length), which also includes (oft-injured) Justise Winslow and rookie Shaedon Sharpe, bodes well. If anyone’s dodging here, Mannix, it’s you, on this Jazz vs. Blazers question. So tell me, who’s got the better record on April 10?
Mannix: Eesh. I don’t know, in part because I can’t be sure what Utah’s roster looks like. But let’s assume the Jazz remain intact. I believe playoff level basketball is sustainable. Look: Lauri Markkanen is for real. He was a big part of Cleveland’s success last season and it’s no surprise that in an enhanced role—he’s averaging four shots per game more than last season—he’s thriving. Jordan Clarkson may not shoot 40-plus percent from three all year but he is a proven scorer. Mike Conley is still a solid point guard. The Jazz go nine or 10 deep with legitimate NBA players. That includes Walker Kessler, the ex-Wolves draft pick who I think is going to turn out to be a steal. So, yes, if Utah doesn’t tear the team down, I think they finish ahead of the Blazers. You disagree?
Watch the NBA with fuboTV. Start your free trial today.
Beck: The Jazz are amazing and fun and totally confounding. And the confounding thing is part of the fun. No one in the league saw this coming. No one expected it. And I think there’s still some justifiable skepticism about how sustainable it all is. Markkanen always had talent, but he’s never been a No. 1 option before. Maybe the Jazz just got him at the precise right moment in his career. Can he keep this up? Is he really a guy you can build an offense around? Those are still legit curiosities. The rest of the roster is made up of solid rotation guys, but not the sort of firepower you normally need to be among the top teams in the West. And then there’s the biggest question of all: Is this really what the Jazz want? They traded their two foundational stars this summer, and specifically got return packages that were heavy on picks and young players, not established stars. It didn’t look like they had any intention of winning this season, preferring to be part of the Victor Wembanyama chase. Did the whole league misread their intentions? Or was everyone right, and this is just a happy accident? And if it is, is it one that Jazz officials want to sustain? Because they could sell high on Markkanen right now, trade a couple other vets and lean into the Wemby sweepstakes, and no one outside Salt Lake would blink.
Mannix: I talked to Danny Ainge this week—check out that column when you are done reading this—and I think it’s closer to happy accident than Utah stumbling on something sustainable. And even though Ainge isn’t going to give his veteran pieces away, it’s more likely than not that one or more from the Conley/Clarkson/Olynyk group gets moved before mid-February. Which, frankly, is the right thing to do. Utah has 14 first-round picks through 2027. The more they add, the better the chances are, either through the draft or trade, they can add talent that fits their timeline. The team I’m confused about is San Antonio. I never thought they would be treading water at this point. But here they are, with early wins over Philadelphia and Chicago, and a narrow overtime loss to Memphis. What have you made of the Spurs?
Beck: If there’s one team we absolutely know came into the season with its eyes on the lottery, it’s the Spurs. You don’t trade your franchise star for draft picks if you’re still trying to compete for a playoff berth. The Spurs' ahem, “problem,” is that, per usual, they’ve done a decent job of drafting and developing players. So Keldon Johnson and Devin Vassell are blossoming, and this young cast is competing every night, causing the Spurs to win more than perhaps is good for them, lottery-wise. But there’s not enough talent or depth here to sustain it, and they’ll almost certainly trade Jakob Poeltl when the right offer comes along. Any reason to think otherwise?
Mannix: Nah. It’s a net positive for San Antonio to have young, contractually controllable players like Johnson and Vassell showing improvement. But—as evidenced by the current five-game losing streak—this is a team that will likely sink in the standings. Quickly. And hey, the last time the Spurs mailed in a season they got Tim Duncan out of it. Maybe history will repeat itself.
More NBA Coverage:
