Blazersedge: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

Prepare ye the way for the Blazers rant PT 2, The Jack Frye Chronicles

Unfortunatly, I must go back to the ugly beginnings of Part I of my rant that I posted in an earlier diary and speak of combo guards and tweeners.  

The question(s) I offer to you is, "Who are the combo guards on this team, who are the tweeners on this team, what is their best position, and should they be kept on the team?

Brandon Roy is a TRUE combo guard in that he plays both guard positions adequately and practically interchangably. However, if you listened to Mike Barrett, Mike Rice, and even several prominant members on this site, the spoken words "combo guard" is usually a reference to none other than Jarrett "Combo" Jack.  

Jarrett Jack is not a true shooting guard.  The ONLY advantage we have on offense when Jack plays shooting guard, is that he is slightly quicker than some opposing 2-guards.  That is why he can penetrate on them.  Other than that, there is no advantage to Jarret playing the 2-guard, other than to say we might have another ball handler out there.  That raises a whole other discussion.  Do you really want Jarrett Jack handling the ball? :)

For being an NBA point guard in his 3rd professional year, Jarrett has horrible habits.  There is not a game I can remember recently where Jarret has not left his feet to make a pass and that is a big no no.  It is also very unnecessary.  I challenge you to watch him closely to see him do this.  If it isn't that, it is stepping on the baseline an ungodly amount of times this season. Isn't twice too many?  No doubt about it, Jarret has done that no less than 10-12 times this season.  His newest thing is to telegraph his entry pass lobs, and having that soft garbage poked away or stolen.  Don't even get me started on his fast break abilities.  

On defense, all I need to say is that when matched up with other point guards Jarrett doesn't have a speed advantage.  Quite frankly, all three of our point guards lack defensive speed, and get blown by often.  

In an attempt to paint a pretty picture, the major homers have given Jarrett the GLORIOUS title of combo guard.  I'm telling you, we've been taught to believe combo guard = Wonderful. I'm tired of the combo guard smoke blowing.  We've been tricked! Open your eyes people.  Jarrett Jack is not a combo guard.  SHOOT, HE CAN'T EVEN PLAY HIS NATURAL POSTION ALL THAT WELL, NOT ALONE ANOTHER ONE ALL TOGETHER.  Give me a break. How about if I put Travis Outlaw in at point guard and start calling him a Point Forward.  Scottie Pippen could pull that off.  We ain't talking about Potty Skippen though.

We have a guy who is capable of being a decent backup 2-guard this year in Martell Webster, but Nate has him stuck at the 3.  Von Wafer has shown himself as someone who can play the position just fine.  The guy can shoot and looks quicker than anyone else on our team.  Nate hasn't let him play meaningful minutes since he helped Portland beat the Clippers (in a game Jack did well in I might add). Why Von hasn't played more is beyond me.  I've heard people sugguest Nate has a man-crush on Jarrett.  You can come to your own conclusions based on the evidence of what you have seen this season.

Then we come to Channing "Tweener" Frye.  Channing has the size of a power forward.  Channing has a few post up moves.  Mostly though, he is a spot up shooter.  That is a good thing, but it is a live by the sword die by the sword quality.  It is good that he can shoot and draw defenders away from the hoop.  There is a flip side to that though.  Post player taking perimeter shot = less rebounders inside.  I don't know Frye's percentages, but I'd guess he is around 40-43%  So if you are only converting that percentage, and your rebounding players are away from the basket, that means the defense will have stopped you almost 60% of the time.  That is why I'm so glad that Aldridge is posting up more now.  His scoring is up and opposing defenders are picking up fouls.  We struggled when he fell in love with the perimeter and wasn't hitting his shots.  

Channing has a hard time defending physical players....and most players who are POWER forwards and Centers are physical players.  Channing is a true tweener through and through.  He is a small forward stuck in a power forward's body.  

Last point:

You wan't to know why we have struggled so much in the 2nd quarter the past several games?  It is a matter of personel and substitution patterns.  It is a bunch of combo guards and tweeners making up our 2nd unit.  

Hopefully my memory doesn't fail...
We were up by 7 in the second quarter of the Cav's game when Channing Frye entered the game.  I yelled "NOOOO!" when I saw this. My wife in the other room asked what was wrong.  I told her we dominated the first half, were up by 7, and that we were about to lose all of our momentum going into the half.  

Steve Blake immediately hit a 3 to put us up by 10.  Perhaps I rushed to judgement too quickly? Heck no.  

I think our lineup at this crucial juncture was Blake, Outlaw, Webster, Frye, and Aldridge.  It was a crucial time, because those three minutes could demoralize Cleveland, or give them hope.  If I am the Cleveland coach, I have one game plan at this point, and that is to double team LMA.  Blake has been ok but is a pass first guy.  Outlaw has been in a shooting slump.  Webster is like a box of chocolates. Frye is cold off of the bench.  Who in that line-up is going to punish the Cav's????????????????????????????

Frye immediately blew his assignment leading to a dunk.  He then misses a jump shot.  Then he fumbles a pass a substituted Roy gives him at point blank (that would have been a lay-up) out of bounds, ala Cliff Robinson in the Western Conference Finals against the L*kers.  Had Lebron made that 3 at the Buzzer, it would have been a 1 point game at half.  As it was, we had a  four point lead, but now Cleveland had life.  Our starters built the lead back up in the 3rd quarter, but then Nate made a magical substitution at about....you guessed it..the 3 minute mark of the 3rd quarter.  The lead that had been built back up evaporated, and then Cleveland moved ahead of us. I won't mention who it was that Nate put into the game.  

The fourth quarter was ugly, and for whatever reason, Steve Blake was once again no where to be found until it was too late.  Thanks Nate.  I trust you are doing well with that $4 Million you are making this season.  

In this man's opinion, we need to get rid of this combo/tweener non-sense on our team.  We need a true back-up 2, a true back-up 4, and we need to completely re-evaluate the point guard position.

Brandon can play either guard position and we lose nothing.  Martell can play the 3, but I think he is really a 2. Travis can play the 4, but I think he is really a 3.  

Adding Oden and Rudy will help things a lot.  As it is though, this combo guard, combo forward/guard, combo w/ cheese stuff is rediculous.  

Jack and Frye are nice individuals, but I think they need to go.  I hope our lineup for next year looks something like this.  

Starters are:
C  Oden
PF Aldridge
SF Jones
SG Webster
PG Roy

2nd Unit:
C  Przybilla
PF LaFrentz or Player we acquire
SF Outlaw
SG Fernandez
PG Blake

Leftovers:
Wafer (I think we should re-sign him)
Rodriguez
Miles
McRoberts (If he's cut, it will be for Freeland)
Draft Pick(s)

LaFrentz/McRoberts is the question mark.  LaFrentz and his contract could be traded away, but I'd just assume see his $$$ come off of the books.  Jack and Frye should be traded away.  They could be traded for draft picks, they could be in a "combo" trade for another player, or could somehow be packaged with our lottery pick so we can move up and get a difference maker in the draft.  Maybe we could trade them for a future first rounder?   I think there are lots of options, and I look EXTREMELY forward to seeing how this offseason unfolds.

Thank you Blazer nation.

Poll
What is the best nickname for Jarrett Jack
Baseline
11 votes
TO
13 votes
Jumpin' Jack (In honor of the jump pass)
6 votes
Captain Jack
2 votes
JJ
6 votes
J-Dog
4 votes
Snoop Jacky Jack
1 votes

43 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Amen about your all caps
in relation to Jack. Your points are so obviously true, it makes me wonder how that can be and yet jack still gets tons of minutes and often in crunch time. sigh. it feels like i've been screaming at the tv when Jack is playing for an eternity. Nate clearly has some obsession with him that goes far beyond objective reason.
Free Sergio! http://www.freesergio.com

by sergioFTW on Mar 10, 2008 10:43 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Von Wafer
plays one game and you already want to sign him?
Travis Outlaw drops the sledgehammer on Daequan Cook for a dunk so vicious, it's illegal in 48 states.

by BlazerBandit on Mar 10, 2008 11:26 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

If it is for cheap I'd sign him.
It only took me watching the 2 or 3 times he played to see that he is more athletic than all of our guards except maybe Roy.  The mechanics of his shot looked very good, as well as the results of his shots.  I also saw that he can beat people off the dribble as quick if not quicker than any player on our roster.  For all the Jack supporters that say, "Yeah, but Jarrett can take it to the hoop," I'd say, "Well, you should like Von's game then.  

Shoot, I guess you could even argue that Von Wafer is a "combo" guard.  Isn't that a good thing? :)

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

by silkybrown on Mar 10, 2008 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jack = small forward in PG body
He looks like Corey Maggette and plays like him.  Except he's not 6'7 and sculpted like a Greek God.

Channing Frye is a bad one on one defender who fouls a lot.  A poor help defender who fouls a lot.  He generally fouls a lot.

At least he comes in to rebound the ball and make a couple jumpers.  Otherwise, career journeyman.  I say that confidently due to Channing's incredibly awkward basketball movements.  

by blzrfan on Mar 11, 2008 1:23 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

This is going to sound mean spirited
But it really isn't intended to be.  I'm just sharing an observation.  What Channing Frye has to offer this team reminds me exactly of 300lb Shawn Kemp's play when Kemp played for the Blazers.  Read on and see if I am telling the truth. I will link to the stats and I promise your jaws will drop and you will laugh in disbelief. Pay attention to minutes per game and points per game.  You gotta read what I write first.

Kemp came off of the bench and could hit the 15-18 foot shot. He'd get you a few rebounds.  When he tried an offensive move in the low post, it looked kind of silly because he couldn't move well due to the weight. Kemp's weight made it hard for him to play good defense. Guys went around him or over him.  Kemp fouled people alot because he was a step slow. He was bad at providing help on D from the weak side.

Shawn Kemps stats from 2001-2002. http://www.nba.com/blazers/stats/2001/index.html

Frye comes off the bench and can hit the 15-18 foot shot.  He isn't quick footed and people get around him on D.  Most people can get their shot off on Frye because he's not a shot blocker. Frye is comfortable on the perimeter and looks very awkward attempting low post moves.  He is bad at providing help on D from the weak side.

Channing Frye stats from 2007-2008
http://www.nba.com/blazers/stats

So truth be told...

Channing Frye = Shawn Klump

Look at the stats!

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

by silkybrown on Mar 11, 2008 1:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The rebounds
Don't forget to look at the rebounds.
I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 11, 2008 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well Channing...
would look a lot better if he got to play the finesse PF role that is natural to him. We ask him to be a center next to Outlaw or Aldridge and it's pretty rediculous. Next to Pryz he makes a lot more sense and could spread the floor, and give more operating room to the big guy down there (Oden too), AND more room to drivers (Brandon). I think it's a skill not many others on the team have and I'd like to keep him and use him in a smarter way.
My Favorite Non-Blazers: Dwight Howard, Andre Iguodala, Allen Iverson, Andrei Kirilenko, Gilbert Arenas, Elton Brand, Jermaine O'neal, Chris Bosh

by darkhelmit54 on Mar 11, 2008 2:07 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Silly to evaluate Channing this year
We got him to play as a PF next to a true center (Oden/Joel) and be a threat from the high post, stretching the defense and helping to open the middle for our slashers.

He has never had that role this year, because of the injury to Oden.  He's had to play center (now that's a joke).  How many of his minutes have been next to Joel?

Channing was not much of a rebounder in early games.  He saw we were poor at rebounding, and he upped his focus on rebounding, and has a very good rebounding rate as a result.  That's the kind of role player you want on your team, the kind who sees a team weakness, and says, "I'll work on being part of the solution."  He'll never be a great rebounder, but he's improved and still improving.

He's played out of position willingly, for the sake of the team.  No complaints.  That's the kind of role player you want on your team.

What's the model?  Three stars, and surround them with role players who will run through a wall for the team.  Channing is that kind of role player.

If the right trade comes, KP will trade him.  But I pretty much expect him to be here next year, and play the role for which they got him -- to play beside Joel, and to be LMA-lite and step into the starting lineup without disrupting the chemistry if Aldridge gets hurt.  

KP is building a team.  Frye is a piece he wanted.  He won't give him away for nothing.  I hope Channing stays.  If he doesn't, Travis appears likely to be our backup PF.  I'm not sure this is best.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 11, 2008 2:36 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

which is...
almost exactly what I said too. I totally agree though, he needs to be next to a true C for us to see what he can do. I think he complements Oden really well and for periods of time we could see that combo and see Lamarcus in with the second unit running at different periods too. (not to say frye would start or anything) but I think it could be valuable to have a couple of different attacks we throw at people
My Favorite Non-Blazers: Dwight Howard, Andre Iguodala, Allen Iverson, Andrei Kirilenko, Gilbert Arenas, Elton Brand, Jermaine O'neal, Chris Bosh

by darkhelmit54 on Mar 11, 2008 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Uh, yeah
So it is.

Your comment wasn't there when I started mine, actually.  Either that, or I was blind, but I don't think it was.

I don't know if you are as certain as I am, but you are certainly as right as I am, this time.  Good work (jscot says in his extreme arrogance, assuming that if someone agrees with him, it must be good work).

The main difference is that you said it more efficiently and concisely, while I was overly wordy and verbose, and redundantly repeated myself a few times.  Which I rarely and almost never do.

This comment is declining further as I go along, so I will now sto

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 11, 2008 5:27 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your deliberately
ironic tautology made me laugh. I tip my cap to you, sir.

by BlazersOrBust on Mar 11, 2008 5:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There you go with big words again
I had to look up "laugh" to see what it means.  Twice.
I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 11, 2008 5:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not that I'm a proponent of Eddie Curry
Because Eddie Curry is a disappointment on many levels.  He was a somewhat legit center that Channing had an opportunity to play along side.  The only problem was, Channing could hardly get any minutes because he was consistantly outplayed by David Lee.  The truth is, David Lee is who most people would have preferred to see come over in that trade. This was true both when it happened, and since it happened. Even Isaiah knew that, and that ain't saying much.

As I've said, I like Channing as a person.  I don't like power forwards who live away from the basket though, and I believe I was quite explicit on why that is in the diary.

"Channing was not much of a rebounder in early games.  He saw we were poor at rebounding, and he upped his focus on rebounding..."

Are you really giving Channing a free pass on being a bad rebounder early on because he apparently assumed every one else would do it, or he didn't realize it was a necessary thing for him to be assertive about? Perhaps we were poor at rebounding, because Channing wasn't bringing that aspect to the table.  

A better statement JSCOT, would have been to say, "Channing was not much of a rebounder in early games.  He saw that he was poor at rebounding, and he upped his focus on rebounding"  

Channing Frye and Travis Outlaw have been our biggest culprits all year long when it comes to giving up offensive rebounds.  

I'm going to give Channing the benefit of the doubt here and say that his thought process was not what your quote described above.  The first 1/4 of this season, he looked completely lost on defense because he was in fact completely lost on defense.  Getting outhustled, outmuscled, and out bustled? has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can play next to a center.  Absolutely nothing.  Excuse after excuse after excuse.......I'm tired of excuses.

Is it silly to evaluate Channing?  It would be silly not to.  It would be irresponsible not to.  

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

by silkybrown on Mar 11, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whatever
The guy did what role players are supposed to do -- changed the focus of his game to improve on rebounding.

He has never been a rebounding machine, and he wasn't brought here to do that.  But he changed his focus because that is what was needed.

You don't like PFs who live away from the basket.  OK.  But that's what he is, and that's what they brought him here to be.  So your philosophy is different from Nate's and KP's.  Fair enough.  Either philosophy can work if you have the right players for it and they execute well.

You can't evaluate how well Channing is going to carry out the role for which they brought him here until he's actually given a chance to play in that role.

We were not poor at rebounding early in the season because of Channing's failures.  He's greatly improved his rebounding -- and we're still a weak rebounding team.  Until Oden returns, and LMA improves, and Travis improves, and Channing improves, we will continue to be.

What part of his improvement on rebounding over the course of the season don't you like?

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Mar 12, 2008 3:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Say what you want about Jack,
and his weaknesses are a-plenty, but he is the only guy not named Roy that can get to the hole and finish one on one (Outlaw can finish, but rarely gets all the way to the hole).  Combine that with a quality FT% and good defensive recognition and that is why he plays at the end of games.  

When he is bad you can see it from outer space, but when he is good it's much more subtle.  

I don't know if he stays or not.  But if he goes and we don't pick up somebody with his skillset, he will be missed.

My ignorance is my greatest weapon

by shenanigans on Mar 11, 2008 6:24 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

These anti - Jack or (fill in the blank) player
rants are getting old.

There are many factors that go into determinig a player's performance.  Some of which are out of his control.  Jarrett Jack was a PG in high school.  He was a PG in college.  He was a PG his first two years in the league.  This year he's being asked to play a different role.

Jack's numbers compare fairly well to the two big name PG's taken ahead of him in the draft.  Until this year.  Could it be that his being utilized differently could be a factor in that?  

Jack is a third year PG who is not getting to play PG and having to adjust to the new role.  He's making mistakes and he's not building on his first two seasons, like one would like to see.  But unless someone here has magic connections that can assist in setting up a deal for a better player, please lets stop with the ranting.  Jarrett is not that bad and he still has the potential to get better.

(I didn't bother with Frye, as jscot once again beat me to the punch.  

by timg56 on Mar 11, 2008 6:34 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

If Jack is such a good point guard
then he would be playing point guard.  As it is, the staff has determined that he is adequate at the 2 for now.

Which do you think it is?
Is it

A. Jack is filling in at the 2 out of necessity.
or
B. Jack is filling in at 2 because it is hard to justify him at the 1.

As I've said, I think it is more out of 'default' that we see him at the 2.  We don't have much of a back-up there, plus the hope is that Jarrett will have an advantage there because he should be quicker than a lot of 2-guards, and he has a background ball-handling experience.  Never a bad thing to have an extra ball handler in the game, right?

That brings up the question...Do you really want Jarrett handling the ball?  I don't.  I don't trust him with the ball.  As much as Jarrett helps this team, he is just as good at hurting it.  Jarrett nullifies Jarrett.

So if you are satisfied with getting nowhere and treading water, then put your faith in Jarrett Jack's ability.  If he could solve the turnover problem, that would help a lot.  Unfortunately, he'll never solve his slow feet on defense.

Jack might be very smart on defense as far as recognizing plays and calling things out.  However, it isn't worth very much if there is nothing you can do with your feet to stop what you know is coming.  

Hubbie Brown is good at identifying offensive plays, but you wouldn't see me putting him in the game anytime soon. :) We need better speed, and better care from our point guards.

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

by silkybrown on Mar 11, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know yet if Jack will make a good PG
Last year I thought he did pretty well for a second year player.  He had some holes in his game, running the break being the most obvious, but overall he showed promise.

This year he seemed to get off to a slow start and eventually was replaced by Blake.  I think overall his development has hit a bit of a snag.  But I don't necessarily think that's cause to abandon the guy.  One of the reasons Billups gets used ocassionally as a benchmark is that for the first 4 - 5 years of his career he was though of as mostly a bust.  It took the right opportunity and circumstances and maybe just enough experience, to get things to click.  I'm still in favor of allowing Jack that opportunity.

Overall I think too many folks here are either impatient or have way too inflated expectations of this team and many of it's players.  LaMarcus Aldridge even has been called to task, with some suggesting he should be made available for trading.  I have to admit getting a bit frustrated in Feb with LMA's seemingly lack of agressiveness.  But I never advocated trading him or called into question his future role.

If Portland makes it to 42 wins, I'll consider the season to be wildly successful.  Should Greg Oden give us that 10 win bump that people talked about last summer as the average effect of adding a #1 pick, and we are talking about a playoff team.

All in all, things are good with Portland and they are only going to get better.  I don't see the need for any major changes.  If they happen, I'm sure it's because Pritchard believes it is in the best interest of the team.  If they don't, then I'll be just as sure that it's in the best interest of the team.

by timg56 on Mar 11, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know that I agree
with McRoberts being let go in favor of Freeland. McRoberts actually made the team in his first try!

by t jay on Mar 11, 2008 9:39 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't know if I agree either
I only mentioned it because if we are determined to bring that guy over, it will probably be at the expense of McBob.
I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 11, 2008 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed
I am far more skeptical of Freeland being an nba player than I am of McRoberts...
Rudy > MJ

by myemic23 on Mar 11, 2008 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Freeland
I doubt we will bring Freeland over this year.  We knew he was a long-term project when we drafted him, and even after 2 years he is still pretty inexperienced.  He seems to be getting more playing time in Europe than he was last year, but he is still a backup rather than a starter.  If he isn't good enough to be a starter in the ACB league yet I doubt he will be effective in the NBA, and keeping him in Europe isn't costing us anything.

by trk on Mar 11, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What does Nate have to do with it?
Other than Brandon and LMA, most teams wouldn't take anyone from this Blazer roster and add them to their team.  No good teams anyway.  

I think perhaps some of us get a little carried away with the talent level of this current team.  They aren't that good.  It has nothing to do with Nate.

by leeroyjenkins on Mar 11, 2008 2:25 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I should say they aren't that good .....*yet*
B Roy and LMA are going to be studs.  The rest of the guys, eh.  

I'm not including Oden btw, I won't give an opinion on him until I see him play a bit.

by leeroyjenkins on Mar 11, 2008 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with your fundamental premise
of "they aren't that good and it has nothing to do with Nate". We've got a lot of seasoning left and some people are too impatient to want to believe that. The execution could use a little work though -- the Pistons and the Spurs tried to sign Joel, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a team that wouldn't take Jones, Blake, or Trout into its rotation. Blake started for Denver last year (and I bet they'd like to have him back now...) and Jones was a rotation player on a championship contender and WC finalist.

by BlazersOrBust on Mar 11, 2008 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This series of diaries
is little more than very thinly disguised Jarrett Jack bashing.

It's not very clever but it is very biased and one sided. Definitely thumbs down for this effort.

lickety-brindle

by Billy Ray Bates on Mar 12, 2008 4:08 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Disguised
I have given what I believe to be an honest evaluation of a basketball player.  My evaluation is that Jarrett Jack is not what we need in the long-term and I believe his negatives outweigh the positives.

Why hide behind the old "This is another Jack bashing session" mantra? Why have you failed to realize that there is a difference between observation and bashing?

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

by silkybrown on Mar 14, 2008 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I feel stupid...
But what does it mean to "telegraph" an entry pass? I can't remember ever hearing that, but now I have heard it like 4 times in the past few days.

by TimG on Mar 12, 2008 9:19 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

telegraph
The idea is that you give away your intentions to the defender of what you are going to do, through the use of your eyes and body language.

Kind of like a quarterback that stares at one receiver during the whole play...the defenders begin to assume that the person he is staring at is who he is going to throw the ball to.

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

by silkybrown on Mar 14, 2008 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A site by Blazer fans, for Blazer fans
Start posting about the Trail Blazers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Screen_shot_2009-11-03_at_9
Looking to Consolidate the Blazers Talent? Well Guess Who has the Highest +/-? Also Blazers vs. Grizzlies Game Preview
Small
Guess who has the highest PER for the Blazers? Hint, it isn't who you think.
Small
New B-Roy is the Old Kobe
The_dude_small
Stats 101: Whats The Deal? Let Me Explain...
Broyhope_small
First Rose Garden Game Redux...

Recent FanPosts

Bucket_small
The Case for Making a Trade Now
Small
Making the minutes work
Dsc_6704
"Per 48 Minutes" stats = Good news for Bayless
Copy_of_dcp_2180_small
09/10 junk
Meaccident_small
Most encouraging signs from the early season
Imported_photos_00004_small
Blazers Vs Timberwolves 10/8/09 Review
Small
How to consolidate?
Small
The Sched Ahead -- 11/09/09 Week Three, Primoris Annus Blazerium Dominatium
Small
Is Bynum the New Oden

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

marty's buzzer beating dunk
Brandon Roy Wallpaper
Chad Ford (Insider): Travis Outlaw "Probably Won't Be Re-Signed"
Manu catches a bat during game. live coverage

ps
check out blair at the begining of video he freaks like a girl
Start Miller

Recent FanShots

okay, i know this has been mentioned before... but it's a good visual representation of the likeness.
All Star Balloting!
Kareem has leukemia :(
ESPN Future Power Rankings: Blazers #1 On paper, no other team possesses...
Basketball Stats for Beginners...
So Bayless and T.I. are related right??
This chick will bring the toughness that the Blazers need to stop the other teams best players. Sign her KP!!!!
Rudy openly expresses disgruntlement
Charlie Rosen critiques the Blazers
McMillan said the key to having success on the road comes down to one...

+ New FanShot All FanShots >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Ben_small Ben.

Moderators

Pict1126_small -ken

Polar_bear_small jorga

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Jesus_icon_i_small T Darkstar

Wallpaper_small geoffm