Prepare ye the way for the Blazers rant PT 1

by silkybrown on Mar 10, 2008 8:36 PM PDT

Though they had eyes, they could not see...
Though they had ears, they could not hear...
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free fellow Blazer fans...

I must address an issue that has plagued my Blazer loving soul for too long now. There has been a lot of whitewashing (that is painting the outside of tombs to make them look nice) going on regarding the ideas of tweeners and combo players and I want to say a few things about that and its relevance to our team.

It comes down to the old issue of being a jack of all trades (Pun was only slightly intended) -vs- being really good at one thing. Being well rounded -vs- being very strong in one point and weaker in others.

I am all for improving every aspect of an individual's basketball game. I am, however, against making a player something that he is not. I am a big fan of roles being filled and teams working like a smooth-oiled machine. That being said, let me make my points.

Exhibit A:

COMBO GUARD is a term we have come to glorify. We have been taught that combo guards are an asset. We've been told they offer an advantage over other teams. My question is, do they really?
It seems to me that combo guard is really a code word for "This guy might be ok at one guard position, and average at best at the other."

So we have trained ourself to associate good feelings to the idea that combo guard = good. The reality is, often times combo guard = mediocre and average.

TWEENER is not a term that we have glorified as much as combo guard. It acutally has more of a negative connotation to it. Usually we refer to tweeners as being "Not big enough or strong enough to be a good power forward, and not quick enough or good enough of a shooter to be a good small forward. A tweener is rarely a center, and they are never a guard.

That being said, there are few examples where a tweener or a combo guard is a good thing. Charles Barkley breaks all of the above rules. A 6'5" power forward, and one of the best. Brandon Roy is intriging too. He is a shooting guard, but is better with the ball in his hands than he is moving around without the ball. He makes his teammates better when the ball is in his hands. Roy is the opposite of a Reggie Miller, although they pretty much play(ed) the same position.

Roy is a better point guard than the three actual point guards on this roster. Ask yourselves Blazer fans if I have not indeed made a true statement. If my statement is true, then why are we piddling around with these other three guys? Perhaps next year we will see some changes.

In my opinion, it is easier to find a really good shooting guard in this league than to find a really good point guard. We know what we have in Roy...a gold mine. I wouldn't be surprised if KP doesn't actually target a shooting guard or small forward in 2009 instead of a point guard as so many think. I could see Roy playing the point.

If Roy plays the point, I would like to see Martell Webster get a shot at playing his real position, the 2 guard. If Rudy lives up to the hype, then maybe he'd be our 2. Then we could start James Jones at the 3. This makes more sense to me than any thing else. Now you have a starting lineup of Roy, Webster, Jones, Aldridge, and Oden. This lineup would DESTROY teams. Offensively, the only weakness we have is that James Jones can't drive past anyone. Other than that, Roy can do it all, Webster is getting better at trying to do it all, Aldridge has figured out you can score 20+ a game if you actually post up, and Greg Oden is supposed to be the Center of the Decade.

Think of the penetrating and dish...4 guys not named Oden who can make the perimeter shot,the 3's out of double teams, the assists, the good rebounding. That lineup suits Roy better anyway. Roy has always been the type of player to take over a game when it is necessary, and so that plays into his being a point guard.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I generally agree with this basic premise...

but as you yourself stated: "I am, however, against making a player something that he is not." If this is the direction that Blazer management goes, then I just hope that you are right, that BRoy should in fact be just a point guard, and a point guard only. I would hate to think that he got shoved into the wrong role.

35:12 Min, 14-20 FG, 1-2 FT, +15 +/-, 1 Off, 6 Rebs, 4 Ast, 1 Blk, 29 Pts - LMA vs. Bucks

by LaMarvelous on Mar 10, 2008 8:51 PM PDT 0 recs

Well said good sir...

And trippingly from the tongue.

But Brandon Roy cannot play the point guard for 40 minutes, for bringing the ball up the court would tire him to much to be effective. Other teams would do well to Harass him until he reaches the half court line. Play after play after play.

I like our three point guards but of course we would be better if we had above average defenders and consistant all-star quality offensive players.

I pray you, let all who pine for Mr. Roy to take up the point full time, to leave this most fantastic but impossible of thoughts to realm of fantasy for which it belongs.

If dinosaurs voted, Ralph Nader would win the election... Unanimously.

by T REX on Mar 10, 2008 8:55 PM PDT 0 recs

I understand what you are saying

I also believe that he is a better point guard than any of the three we have know. He doesn't have to play all of his minutes at point. Maybe 30-32 at point, and 5-8 at SG. Just a thought. I do think he should start there though.

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 10, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

He is a better offensive point,

but not a better defensive point guard. I also have never ever seen Brandon Roy run the point on a fast break. Brandon Roy is best utilized as he is, defending the opposing shooting guard or small forward and orchestrating the offense. Therefore I think we should use him in that role.

Roy plays best as a ball-handling shooting guard, Webster as a shooting small forward. To move both out of their best role seems counter to your argument.

by EnglandDan on Mar 11, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

Defense wins in the playoffs

Most the posts are always concerned with offense, but as the Spurs have shown, it is defense that wins it all. Please explain to me the defensive scheme you would use to stop the other team, especially with a quick PG that can get our bigs in foul trouble.

If you can show me how we can defensively win a championship then I will agree with your premise.

by lonevoiceofreason on Mar 10, 2008 8:59 PM PDT 0 recs

Quickness

You bring up a good point. I'll say what I said in another response. Brandon is still an improvement over the three guys we got. Are you going to tell me that any of the 3 out of Blake, Jack, or Rodriguez are quicker defenders than Roy?

What Roy lacks in speed, his intelligence will help compensate. I know that is not an end-all answer, but I don't believe Roy will get blown by on a regular basis like some seem to think. Not only is Roy quicker than our current point guards on D, he has a longer wingspan and can jump high to block some shots if he catches up to a penetrator.

At the end of the day, it will be more good than bad. If it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world. We still have Blake who is solid enough to start and contribute.

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 10, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

I'll tell you that all three are quicker.

by EnglandDan on Mar 11, 2008 10:46 AM PDT up 0 recs

Is this your way of saying that you are done

hoping that J Jack will turn into a great NBA point guard?

by jferg on Mar 10, 2008 9:21 PM PDT 0 recs

No

I saved this for part 2

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 10, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

Roy is a good defender ...

but he would have trouble against the league's quicker guards, most of whom play in the west.

Then again, he could post up a lot of smaller guys too.

Should be interesting to see which way we go. In KP I trust.

by bfan on Mar 10, 2008 9:38 PM PDT 0 recs

Webster isn't a 2 guard either

He can't handle the ball. We need at least two ball handlers on the floor to be effective on offense. This is why Jack plays for us. I tend to think both Jack and Webster are on borrowed time.

Roy, on the other hand, is a play making 2 guard. Just like Clyde. Just because he can make plays with the ball doesn't mean he should be our point guard. Roy lacks speed at the 1 position and we want Roy to save his energy to shoulder the offensive load.

by blzrfan on Mar 11, 2008 12:50 AM PDT 0 recs

Brandon > other 3 point guards

At what?

Running the half-court offense. That's it.

Defending opposing point guards? I can't see that Brandon is likely to be any better at all at it.

Shooting the 3? Worse than Blake.

Breaking opposing traps and full-court press? Not better.

Spearheading the fast break? We need to recognize that Brandon >doesn't particularly like< to fastbreak. It doesn't play to his strengths. He might be better at it than Sergio (doubtful), Blake (debateable), or Jack (not difficult), but it isn't his game and he won't do it much. Don't try to make him into something he isn't.

Brandon is like MJ. Put the ball in his hands in the half-court offense, but that doesn't mean he's a PG.

If Brandon plays the point, we will see full-court pressure A LOT, because we won't have a true PG to help break it, because we're going to be devastating in the half-court so teams will have to try to force turnovers, and so that they can wear Brandon down by forcing him to bring the ball up court against pressure. If Martell is our 2 beside Brandon, we'll see even more of it, because he's not a skilled ball-handler at this point.

We don't need Brandon at the point. We need Steve Blake with a little better defense, a little more consistency on 3s, and a little more commitment to pushing the ball upcourt even when there aren't obvious opportunities -- sometimes, when you hurry the defense, opportunities develop.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 11, 2008 2:14 AM PDT 0 recs

This is a great point I was preparing to make

People need to stop calling Roy a PG. He's not. His role in the offense is similar to Jordan, Wade, or Drexler. The ball is in his hands to create offense. Roy needs a PG next to him like Ron Harper, Chauncy Billups, or Terry Porter - pretty good defensively, brings the ball upcourt to break the press, sticks open 3's, can drive to the basket, initiates the offense when Roy is doubled, and doesn't turn the ball over.

Steve Blake is doing a heck of job getting close to that job description, but falls just short. Anyone that thinks Jack or Sergio is the answer is fooling themselves. Either the Blazers will target someone either this summer or when they have cap space, or they will stick with Blake and hope Koponen can step into that role.

by Blazerholic on Mar 11, 2008 7:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

Oh

You mean the 6'6" Ron Harper, right?

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 11, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up 0 recs

In theory

If we put Blake, Jack, or Sergio into a game, had them guard the other team's 2-guard, I would be very curious to see how many starting 2-guards those guys could stay in front of on defense.

I believe half of the 2-guards in this league, if not more, could take those three guys off the dribble and get to the hoop.

You don't see that happening to Roy very often...a 2-guard blowing by him. The only person I've seen make Brandon look silly on defense is Lebron James. Lebron is a freak and plays the 3.

Brandon is our best perimeter defender. Do you disagree with that JSCOT? If you say that Brandon is our best perimeter defender, then he is our best chance of anyone on our current roster of stopping opposing point guards.

If we are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs this year, I want to see Brandon get the start at point guard to try it out the rest of the year.

Worst case scenario: Any thing we might lose because we have a 6'6" point guard will be gained when his 6'6" posts up against their 6'2" on the low block. If it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world, because we still have Blake.

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 11, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up 0 recs

I partly agree

Brandon is our best perimeter defender because of whom he is defending.

I didn't say he would be worse at defending opposing PGs, I said he wasn't any better. OK, he might be better right now than Sergio, but Sergio's been working hard, and has room for improvement. I suspect Blake is better at defending PGs than Brandon, but he isn't exactly stellar.

Brandon's ability to defend PGs is unlikely to improve, because his problem is quickness.

To say that Brandon is our best perimeter defender, and thus our best chance of stopping PGs, is flawed. I would say that LMA has the potential to be our best perimeter defender, but I never want him defending PGs.

If Brandon defends opposing PGs and Blake defends opposing 3s, we would end up saying that Blake gets posted up a lot against those small forwards, but he is our best perimeter defender. So what? You have to look at who a person is defending when you assess how good their perimeter defense is, and you don't want to voluntarily walk into bad mismatches.

If Brandon becomes our PG, you have permanently adopted a weakness in our perimeter defense at the most crucial point. Brandon will never be quick enough to be a good defender against PGs on a consistent basis.

If you keep him at SG, you have permanently established at least one spot where you have good perimeter defense.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 12, 2008 2:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

I was going to point out the holes in your

analysis of Roy as PG, but I doubt I could add to what jscot has already said.

As for the combo - tweener stuff, people sometimes get too caught up in the terminology. What matters is how well a coach utilizes the assets at his disposal and how well the players mesh with each other and within the coach's system.

You could possibly pair Allen Iverson and Nate Robinson (assuming Robinson suddenly developed a penchant for assists) in a back court and add a guy like Marcus Camby at center. Neither AI or Nate are point guards. But they also don't fit the description, at least physically, of SG's. But with their ball handling skills, ability to penetrate, and quickness on defense, they can score on anybody and play somewhat adequate D. Meanwhile getting posted up is less of a problem with Camby there to offer weakside help.

A good coach will make what he has work, so long as the players buy into what he's saying.

by timg56 on Mar 11, 2008 6:09 AM PDT 0 recs

If you can't add anything

why did you type all that other stuff?

I keep telling you, what you should say is simply, "jscot is right. He is always right. He always says everything that needs to be said. I want to rule his navy when he takes over the world."

That will be sufficient for now. Later, you can send me money, too.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 11, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up 0 recs

There is a distinction to be made

between being right and being complete.

Besides, knowing how much you abhor redundancy (not to mention repeating yourself), I thought I'd pick up the slack.

BTW - I'm withdrawing my application to head your navy. As tempting as it sounds, I'm not dressing up as a woman. If, however, you will consider limiting the requirement to the wearing of thong underwear, then I will be happy to reconsider.

Wait - scratch that last. I forgot I was a submarine sailor. We didn't wear underwear. At least we didn't until the Weapons Office started having drawers inspection at quarters when all but one of his torpedomen came up sans boxers/briefs during a nuclear weapons causualty drill. Guess the sight of all those penii unnerved him.

by timg56 on Mar 11, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

When I rule the world

You'll do as you're told. Don't want to head the navy? I'll find a role for you, never fear.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 12, 2008 2:58 AM PDT up 0 recs

6"6' PG?

Jordan was 6"6' and nobody wanted him to be point. He would get blown by the smaller quicker PGs like Parker. I don't need my all-star getting beat off the dribble everytime. Its not good for morale. We want him to play 40 minutes for us and bring the ball up against pressure. Will he have enough to to do his 4th quarter heroics? Probably not, plus he's 6"6'.

The problem maybe is that we only play 1 PG(Blake) and don't have a true backup SG. You don't play Sergio but put Jack in but he is not a PG. You put in Jack at SG behind Roy but he is not a scorer. Thats where Von Wafer should come in, behind Roy to pick up the scoring because he is a SG but Nate doesn't want to win so he puts in a so called "combo guard". We won the last 2 games because Jack wasn't in the game at crunch time and he knew it.

If I don't see smarter coaching and more leadership qualities by Nate, I want somebody else that does. It doesn't look like he is in control out there with that confusing look on his face when something goes wrong and making the players confused out there too. Letting James light us up for 2 straight games that we should of won is inexcusable. But maybe Nate likes to bend over and take it up the rear like that.

Sorry Nate, but that kind of attitude is not acceptable to represent me, my city, or my Blazers. I need a General out there to lead my boys into war and Nate doesn't look like no General. We would be in the playoffs if we had a better coach. There is too much talent and too good of a chemistry on this team. How are we not better than GS? They have no inside presence but we still lost to them in the last game which pretty much took us out of the race.

It looks like it all points to Nate's inability to coach in my opinion.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 11, 2008 9:56 AM PDT 0 recs

6'6" and being a PG can be compatible

Magic Johnson.

by CMCWizard on Mar 11, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

Self-contradictory

Nate doesn't want to win.
Nate is unable to coach.

So is the problem attitude/desire on Nate's part, or is it inability on Nate's part? Please decide which argument you want to make, so we know at which argument we are supposed to laugh.

Nate obviously wants to win. He sometimes is physically sick after losses.

Nate obviously is not a perfect coach, but to say he is unable to coach is ludicrous. Last season, we won more games than expected. This year, we've already won far more than most expected us to have for the entire season.

Never mind, you don't have to decide which argument you want to make. We can laugh at them both equally.

Yes, letting James light us up is inexcusable. Send out a memo to the rest of the league, since he does it to everyone else, too. I don't know why the guy averages more than 8 points a game, personally.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 12, 2008 2:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

Very good points

for my learning process.

"You´ll never walk alone"

by amlmart1 on Mar 11, 2008 9:57 AM PDT 0 recs

Tweeners/combo guards

I would disagree that "tweeners" cannot be guards; there have been many "tweener" guards in the league--guys who are too small to effectively guard shooting guards, but who lack point guard skills. (Just like the classic "tweener" PF is a guy who is two small to guard larger big men, but doesn't have the perimeter game to play SF well).

Some "tweener" guards have been successful in the league. Ben Gordon is probably the best example of a tweener currently. (Note that scoring PGs like Gilbert Arenas or Allen Iverson don't fit this definition of "tweener"--Iverson can play the point; he just looks for his shot more than most PGs do. Sometimes too much).

Many consider Jarrett Jack a "tweener"; his ballhandling is subpar for an NBA point guard, and his playmaking ability is likewise not great. When hot, he's an effective weapon though.

Tweener guards are most likely to succeed when:

They can score in bunches, to (partially at least) offset their defensive liabilities.
They assume a sixth man role, or
They can defend the smaller position adequately, and are paired with a large point guard who can defend SGs.

JJ can probably function as an adequate sixth man (or seventh man); though right now his perimeter D is not sufficiently good for him to be starting. OTOH, the presence of Brandon does open the door for a good-defending tweener as his backcourt mate--which is why you hear about guys like UCLA's Westbrook being mentioned as a potential Blazer draft candidate. Jerrod Bayless was another, but now he's pegged in the top three or so, so probably not reachable by the Blazers.

by EngineerScotty on Mar 11, 2008 10:15 AM PDT 0 recs

I am sure I must weigh in here

I see Roy as a situational point guard. We still need an upgrade at the point. I can actually see the ideal point guard being another combo guard.

If we can find an excellent defender who also hits the open three we will have the compliment to BROY.

Problem is that those qualities are very rarely found together in a guard. It isn't Derrick Rose folks.... he can't and won't ever hit the open 3.

Steve Blake can hit the 3 (42% is fairly good), but he isn't likely to get quicker or better at defense. He is the best we have and will be a good back-up or average starter.

Aye... Jarrett Jack.. I love the guy and it will be the end of me. He can improve on defense & 3 pt. shooting, but he just needs so much improvement in general playmaking.

Sergio Rodriguez... you are dead to me.

Rudy Fernandez... not a point guard or even a combo guard. I love the confidence he has & the ability to step up in big games as an off the ball scorer. Have you seen him dribbling? The guy is going to be called for 5 carrying violations a game for the first year. Also, he has a crazy drift to his jump shot that will make him a streak shooter.

Here are the current players we could look at realistically (I eliminated Billups/D*r*k F*sh*r):

Daniel Gibson .476 3 Pt
Calderon .453
Tyronn Lue .435
Ben Gordon .400
Jason Terry .402

I haven't watched enough of these players to really know their defensive abilities, but they can all run the point or slide to two guard next to Roy and they can all shoot.

Eric Gordon is the next coming of Randy Foye. Jarryd Bayless is the only player in the draft capable of fully complimenting Roy and that is even questionable.

Maybe Steve Blake just isn't that bad.

by tweener on Mar 11, 2008 10:18 AM PDT 0 recs

Blake isn't that bad and I was Blake hater

not that long ago. I demand a lot from my PGs because it is a position that demands a lot. I'd rather have him than Jack running the point. He needs to improve his leadership skills though. Even though Roy is our heart and leader, the PG needs to be a leader out there to set the table for the rest of the guys.

But we still need somebody to backup Blake which is Sergio's job because he is our only other PG. I don't understand why Nate don't even give Sergio chances to prove his worth.

Again, everything points to Nate's inability to coach this great team.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 11, 2008 10:47 AM PDT 0 recs

Practice....

Much decisions on who gets PT are not based on who did well in the previous games; but who does well in practice. Nate has only 240 player-minutes per game to dole out; and most (if not all in some games) have to go to guys who Nate knows can contribute.

Sergio has improved this year, but his play on the floor hasn't been stellar. It is quite likely that he hasn't shown enough in practice to merit more minutes than he does.

The team does seem to view him as a long-term project--somebody they think will be good in a couple of years; not a couple of weeks. So I doubt Rodriguez is going anywhere anytime soon.

The interesting thing--what happens if Koponen shows up? He seems to be a taller Sergio...

by EngineerScotty on Mar 11, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

Cmon Scotty you are better than that

You don't really think that Petteri & Sergio are similar players?

We've only had a glimpse at PK, but how are they similar other than their skin color?

I don't like Sergio at all, but I have to admit that he is a unique/rare type of player with only a small handful of comparisons:

Steve Nash, Jason Williams & Grayson Boucher.

by tweener on Mar 11, 2008 11:06 AM PDT up 0 recs

Haven't seen much of Petteri...

but I've heard the comparison before. It's not based on skin color...

I'm not sure I'd compare Nash and White Chocolate (other than they're white and flashy with the ball). Williams is nowhere near Nash when it comes to taking the ball to the hole.

Boucher? He's a streetballer who isn't anywhere near good enough at organized team basketball to be worth mentioning on this page. (You're not trolling, are you? :) ) Dude is a circus act. I hope that Sergio isn't the next Grayson Boucher--if he is, we should cut him immediately and get on with it.

by EngineerScotty on Mar 11, 2008 1:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think PK and Sergio are similar

If you read the scouting reports about Sergio and PK, they say mostly the same things: Sergio is a magician, PK is "Houdini." Both are strong in terms of leadership, court vision, and identifying passing lanes. Both were considered good in off the ball defense but mediocre in man-to-man defense (though both are working to improve in this area). Both were considered better at running the fast break than a half-court offense. Both can occasionally get too fancy with their passes and have a tendency to force bad shots if they cant get the offense flowing (though PK's shooting is significantly more accurate). Both were young but thought to have a lot of potential. Neither is especially athletic, their strong points are mostly mental. Both have been compared to Steve Nash, though so far neither of them is anywhere near as good as Nash (PK says that Steve Nash is his favorite player and that he modeled his game after Nash).

It seems like the biggest differences are that PK is slightly taller and has better range and accuracy to his shot, while Sergio seems to have an advantage in terms of quickness. I have read that PK has been working hard to increase his speed over the past year, but it will be difficult to tell how much he has improved until he comes over for summer league.

by trk on Mar 11, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Hopefully PK will have a more rounded

game than sergio in a couple of years. His nbadraft.net comparison last year was Kirk Hinrich.

by tweener on Mar 12, 2008 10:51 AM PDT up 0 recs

Great team?

Wha'?

by leeroyjenkins on Mar 11, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

Roy, Aldridge, Jones, Outlaw, Pryz, Blake, Sergio,

Webster, Frye, Von Wafer is a pretty great roster to have in my opinion and with great chemistry. We beat a few good teams this year(Utah, Detroit, NO, and Dallas) and won 17 of 18 at one point which shows me what this team is capable of.

Everything happens for a reason. If something is not right with the Blazers then there is a reason for it and has to be addressed.

I am sorry that I strive for perfection even if it means changing coach or PG.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 12, 2008 2:12 AM PDT up 0 recs

Like timg said

a good coach will work with what he's got and still win. Maybe we can't blame the soldiers and start looking at the Generals.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 11, 2008 11:47 AM PDT 0 recs

What of Pat Riley?

Widely regarded as one of the best coaches in the history of the game--and his team is at the bottom of the standings.

The old adage that certain coaches could beat you, then switch teams with you and beat you again, seldom applies to the NBA. Most of the guys patrolling the NBA sideline are top-notch coaches--and while some are better than others; my guesstimate is a topnotch coach is probably worth at most 10 regular-season wins over a lousy one.

In the playoffs, OTOH, superior coaching does become more important, most recently demostrated by Don Nelson's thorough embarassing of Avery Johnson in last year's playoffs. We're probably not gonna make the playoffs this year, so no worries there.

Were you to swap out Nate and swap in Phil Jackson--would this team be much better? I seriously doubt it. Nor would Sergio magically blossom into Steve Nash for that matter. Or did you think that the Blazers are an underachieving 50-win team this year?

by EngineerScotty on Mar 11, 2008 12:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

50 wins? Lets hold on for a second.

We were struggling to get to 30 losing to Sonics and Kings. We just barely beat one of the worst teams in the league, Minnesota. Of course Sergio can't become Nash when he is Nate's whipping boy and gets no PT. I wouldn't want Jackson because I rather beat him. Give me some Doug Collins. But it doesn't matter the replacement. I am questioning Nate's coaching abilities to win championships.

Its a marathon, not a sprint.

by theanomaly777 on Mar 12, 2008 1:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

The team will sign someone

I have to believe the team is going to sign a guard for next season who can play defense on the perimeter or handle the ball in late game situations, maybe both.

We love our Blazers, but the fact is that we've got some players on the current roster who aren't gonna cut it.

by leeroyjenkins on Mar 11, 2008 2:17 PM PDT 0 recs