The "Don't Gut our Roster KP" Manifesto

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 12:32 AM PDT Comment 86 comments

It was interesting to see the Blazer's website today. It had Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw, Greg Oden, Lamarcus Aldridge, and Brandon Roy on the front home page. It is my hope to see all of those same faces on this team 8+ years from now. They are all good young players that have shown glimpses of all-star potential, and I think it would be a big mistake to move any of them unless it significantly improves our team's chances to win a championship(s). That is this man's opinion.

Those 5 players are the exact starting lineup that I want to see for the Trailblazers. A lot has been made about our point guard situation. Nobody on planet Earth (or any other planet for that matter), can convince me that Brandon Roy would not be one of the top 10-12 point guards in this league if given the chance. For fun, I'd encourage you to read prezofdeath's popular post on bright point guards in this league. http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/5/21/523860/ranking-the-league-s-brigh
Ask yourself where you think Brandon Roy would rank on that list.

I really doubt we will get the kind of point guard people are drooling over on this roster w/o giving up more than we honestly want to. People have wanted Calderon from Toronto? Why? I really don't understand what Brandon fails to bring that Calderon, or some of the other players mentioned on this site as pg solutions supposedly can do better.

I think this upcoming season should be used to officially try the Brandon Roy experiment. If it doesn't look like it is going to work early on, we can go back to having Blake be the starter. (Kind of like when the Jarrett Jack experiment failed.) I don't want to wait too long to get an improvement in there at our point guard position, but I think the biggest mistake we can make is just making a big roster move for the sake of making a big roster move. If the Roy experiment fails, then it fails. I do think it would be negligent to not try it though. If it succeeds, we won't have to move our young and talented players prematurely and end up creating more Jermaine O'Neal scenarios. If it fails, at least we've had the opportunity to see if Roy can be our 1, Webster can play the 2, and Outlaw can play the 3. That alone will answer a lot of questions, and will help us sort out who will stay on our roster long term. If Roy is not our point of the future, then someone between Frye, Outlaw, Webster, and James Jones is going to have to be moved to avoid playing time logjams at our forward positions, and eliminating the potential for discord on our team. If Roy is our man at point, we can keep them all and not have log-jams at our Forward positions.

If we are really bent on bringing a vetern point guard in, it doesn't have to be the day of the draft. Quite frankly, it could be at any point of the season prior to the middle of February. In fact, Raef's contract will be a more valuable trade asset at that time, as we'll have a good idea of what teams are probably going to blow-up their roster to start over, and would like his expiring deal.

I tend to look at the whole point-guard debate like this:

Jose Calderon-vs-Roy                  Who would win that game?    Roy
Steve Blake-vs- Roy                       Who would win that game?    Roy
Devin Harris-vs-Roy                       That would be fun to watch....It might be a draw.
Kirk Heinrich+$12 Mil -vs-Roy      Who would win that game?    Roy
Russell Westbrook-vs-Roy          Two great athletes, but can Westbrook run a team?
D.J. Augustin-vs-Roy                     Roy would use him as a stool to hang pictures.

Many diaries on this site have said we need a point guard who is a lock-down defender, who is quick, can penetrate, finish at the rim, can run the pick-n-roll, can knock down the open jump shot, etc...Good grief.....sorry I have to break the news to many of you, but those guys aren't exactly a dime a dozen. It has been made to sound by several people on this site that you can find one of those guys at Walgreen's. However, you are pretty much describing an all-star. They aren't exactly easy to come by, and we'd have to give up some players on our roster to get one. We aren't going to get one with our bench players and picks unless 1) They are a headcase, or 2) They have a horrible contract, or 3) They are a headcase with a horrible contract. Even then, we could only pull it off salary-wise with Raef's contract.

If I were a 6'2" 190lb point guard in this league, I would not want to have to defend against a point guard who is 6'6" 229lbs with a 40" vertical leap and above average quickness. I could name about 15 starting point guards in this league who Brandon Roy would turn into his next girlfriend if he really wanted to. Of the remaining starting point guards, half of the remaining starting point guards could probably play ok against Roy, but he'd play ok against them too. The rest of the starting point guards would probably have an advantage....Those would be players like Chris Paul, Tony Parker, and Steve Nash, THOSE PLAYERS HAVE THEIR WAY WITH EVERYONE ELSE ANYWAY!

I think Roy is the way to go at the point. 6'6" Ron Harper did a pretty good job, and Roy is a superior athelete to what he ever was. 6'9" Magic Johnson wasn't getting torched on D every night, and he wasn't exactly the epitomy of blazing fast. So we know it can be done. Roy wouldn't be pushed around, and he could post many of those smaller point guards up and punish them. Perhaps even getting them into foul trouble. (Even though these guys were shooting guards, remember J.R. Rider abusing Jeff Hornacek in the playoffs?) That's what I want to see!

I believe that Both Martell and Travis will be much improved for next season. Martell and Travis have both said in the Media that they seriously want to be All-Stars in this league, and they are finally backing it up by both CURRENTLY being in Summer workout programs designed to improve the areas they are weak in. They are doing this and the NBA season hasn't even ended yet. Heck, summer is techinically a month away! We could get rid of one of these guys, but I'd want nothing less than Danny Granger in return.

Here is what I want to see Mr. Kevin Pritchard

Starters
C- Oden
PF-Aldridge
SF-Outlaw (I'm trusting he'll have more moves and will be in shape by fall camp)
SG-Webster (I believe he will have an added dimension of driving to the basket)
PG-Roy (I'm trusting he will continue to work on his game, and 3 pt. shot)

2nd String
C-Przybilla
PF-Frye
SF-Jones
SG-Fernandez
PG-Blake

Extras
C/PF Raef if he is still here
PF McRoberts if he is still here
PG Jack if he is still here
PG Rodriguez if he is still here
SG Wafer if he is still here
Perhaps a draft pick(s).

I would like to see Jarrett Jack and Raef LaFrentz gone. I'd like to see Sergio stick around and improve his game, because he has better court vision and could POTENTIALLY run an offense as well (if not better) than anyone on our roster. He definitely isn't there yet. At this point, he isn't a good defender, and his shot competes with the old Clyde Drexler clothes hanger shot. ( That would be a reference to flat)

I'm impartial about what to do with our draft picks. I'm not opposed to trading them for future considerations if we aren't able to draft a player that would at least project to break into our second unit.

14 recs | Comment 86 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Excellent

Many great points. Brandon Roy would be an even bigger beast if he proves capable of running the point. Great post!

18 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 0 turnovers, 80% FG, 66% 3PT FG. Can my boy get some love?

by easybig73 on May 28, 2008 1:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There's something to be said for the status quo

and you nailed it.

But I just think that only having one ball handler on the floor is not something Nate is going to go for. Now, replace Webster with Fernandez, and maybe we’re getting somewhere.

by jamon51 on May 28, 2008 1:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

webster isn't a ball handler

Rudy is.

"I got the goose bumps." - Rudy translated by Alamart

by ratbastird on May 28, 2008 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And that is a great point that others have made

Perahaps Rudy will be good enough at the NBA level to be a starting 2-guard. We need to see him play in the NBA, but Rudy being the starter and Webster being his back-up isn’t a bad thought. Again, my post is contingent on Webster improving his handles.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

You make some very valid points. I don’t know if Brandon could keep up with most speedy point guards. I know that he would punish them on the offensive end, but I don’t know if he could contain them in the defensive end. I still like Blake as starter for now and Sergio coming off the bench.

Blake, Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Oden
Sergio, Rudy, Trout/Jones, Frye/Trout, Przybilla

I think Rudy and Roy may work in the future but I’m not sure about it right now. We have to see what Rudy can do off the bench and how his game can compliment someone like Roy.

Fantastic post.

Beaver believer!

by mannyfresh1 on May 28, 2008 1:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've thought about the speed thing a little bit....

At the same time though, it’s not like Blake or Jack are exactly doing a superb job of keeping their guys in front of them, and I have little doubt that Brandon is a quicker and better athlete then either Blake or Jack.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wrote a long post

Saying the same thing, and something happened and my browser crashed. I didn’t even get an error message. Everything just closed and I hit a wrinkle in time and woke up 50 miles and 2 weeks later in an abandoned warehouse in the City of Industry.

But lucky for me, you wrote what I was gonna say.

I’d love Roy as PG, and I don’t think it’d be any worse (and probably a lot better) than how we did against quick PGs this past season. Plus, we handled the BIG NAME Pgs like Deron and Paul just fine, and I don’t think ANY PG can handle Brandon Roy on defense. We’d be able to use our team defense to keep the quick dudes from killing us (more than the best PGs kill everyone, I mean) and Roy would demolish all who would try to match up with him.

Only problem is, like you and others have said, is that Martell needs to be a better ballhandler to be a 2 guard with Roy as the PG. You always need a bare minimum of two ballhandlers and playmakers, especially with our young team. Otherwise the defense can get the ball out of the one playmaker’s hands way too easily, and then we waste the shot clock and throw up a bad shot at the buzzer.

IF Martell becomes a decent dribbler, then this is a do-able and HUGE lineup. Plus, not only would it be huge, it’d be really athletic and no one could out-rebound or out-stop it. It would be awesome.

I also like a Roy/Rudy/Martell/LMA/Oden lineup because we know Roy and Rudy can handle the ball and make the play, and Martell is big and athletic enough for the 3 and can stretch the defense.

I just like our team, dammit. NO, I LOVE OUR TEAM.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 28, 2008 3:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No cussing!

by tominhawaii on May 28, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't

having a good, quick, athletic defender coming off the bench solve any problems we have with Roy at the 1 spot? Sort of like a PG version of Bruce Bowen. Westbrook might fit that mold, and he seems to be slipping in mock drafts, so maybe he will be available at 13 after all.

If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley

by Winchester on May 28, 2008 4:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bruce Bowen is 6'7"

And maybe one of a kind. His ability to guard PGs mostly involves BB IQ to anticipate moves. If we have one of those it will be Martell. Since Coach told him that is the role he wants Martell to develop we will see how that progresses.

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on May 28, 2008 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I recommend this post.

"Besides, AnntheFan will be here any minute to #25 you." T Darkstar

by annthefan on May 28, 2008 2:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

me too.

It never rains for everibody´s pleasure.

by amlmart1 on May 28, 2008 2:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me four

Current team + Greg + Rudy = Blazers losing narrowly to the Spurs in the 2008-2009 Western Conference Finals. Book it.

by prezofdeath on May 28, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work silkybro

When blazersedge is big enough for a 3rd contributing writer you should be on the short list.

by tweener on May 28, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me too

I think that whole line-up is predicated on Travis and Marty seriously upgrading their ball handling skills.

I’d love for that to work out. Brandon and Marty would both be able to manhandle their competition on the block. Can CP defend Brandon on a post up? Nope. Webs is big and physical for a two guard and could do the same thing in the post.

by BlazerD on May 28, 2008 2:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How often do players seriously improve their handle as pros?

I think it’s awfully rare. Shooting? Sure: guys grow in that dept all the time. But the ability to handle the ball-to get where you want to on the court without anyone taking the ball from you-is a combination of a whole slew of individual skills. I think you can improve, but you’re unlikely to go from a klutz with the ball (e.g., Trout & Martell) to a guy who breaks down defenses. That’s why, IMO, anyone who projects Martell as a two is dreaming. And why Trout will probably remain an instant-offense three/four—not a true three.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 28, 2008 3:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I DO agree that Roy/ Rudy might become a great backcourt

I don’t see why Roy can’t do what Billups or Baron Davis have done. He has a similar build and many of the same skills. Sure, cat-quick smaller guys like Paul and Nash are effective. But larger point guards can be also-just in a different way. Remember, one of the greatest players in NBA history-Oscar Robertson—had a game and build similar to Roy, and he played a lot of his career at the point.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 28, 2008 3:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I respectfully disagree

Dribbling is one of the few basketeering skills that can be rather easily improved. I don’t expect Martell to break people down like Chris Paul, but there is no reason he can’t be a good enough dribbler to be a two guard. It is much easier to become a better dribbler than a better shooter or defender, for sure. Just takes practice on real in-game dribbling, and not And-1 style stuffs.

Chris Bosh has become a much better dribbler than when he came into the league, which gives hope for LMA. Lots of small forwards/two guards have improved their dribbling. When I was playing basketball in my younger days, I improved my dribbling greatly through drills and repetition.

I think some players overlook practicing their dribbling, or don’t always practice real functional dribbling skills. If they do, Martell and Outlaw are more than athletic and coordinated enough to become serviceable dribblers.

I won’t hold my breath for Pryzzle to bring the ball up court, but Martell should be able to.

I think Martell is best for us as a SF, but he still should be able to dribble the ball and also get the team into their plays.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 28, 2008 4:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Supporting your position

might be Rip Hamilton who seems to have improved from his early years and still makes a good living as a catch and shoot 2 guard.

I also don’t see Martell announcing (as he did earlier this year) that he is intent on becoming a good ball handler if the coaches have not promised him it can happen. I love his intensity and expect a big jump in his game next year. I still see him as a 3 because Rudy and Roy will finish next year together and Blake likely will spell them both.

by lee3022 on May 28, 2008 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I respectfully agree with you

about the difficulty of going from a poor or mediocre ball handler to a top level one.

As such, I don’t think we’ll see Roy and Martel as our starting backcourt, however I don’t think this limitation would preclude Outlaw from starting at the “3”.

by TwoDeep on May 28, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I respectfully half-disagree

While I don’t think it is easy to go from a poor ball handler (Travis) to an elite one (Roy, Paul), I do think it is a lot easier than becoming a good shooter (for example) to go from a poor ball handler (Martell) to a serviceable ball handler who can dribble the ball up court and be able to penetrate with the ball.

Not slice up the defense mind you, but be able to dribble good enough where the defense doesn’t just take the ball out of the PGs hand and then the ball can’t be dribbled by anyone without it getting stolen.

Because Martell will have to take a big leap dribbling wise, I seriously doubt he’ll be our SG anytime in the near future (let alone Rudy probably being best at SG/PG, like Roy), but he could improve his dribbling to a point that is very serviceable and good for his position at SF. It really, really, isn’t that hard.

As long as a guy is coordinated and athletic, I mean. I’d say Martell has a better shot at being a decent enough dribbler than Travis, as Travis has that loosey goosey kind of wild athleticism that seems hard to rein in sometimes. It’s like his body is TOO athletic to be a good dribbler.

Of course, compared to last year and especially seasons before, Travis is a much, much, much better ballhandler than he used to be. I’m not convinced he knew that you had to dribble, or what dribbling was, when he was a rookie.

More than anything, I want Martell to be confident when dribbling. He always wants to give the ball up when he is put in a position to dribble and create, because he knows that it isn’t his strength. If he is comfortable with the ball, then he can make a lot more happen for himself and the team.

So, while I think it is wishful thinking for Martell to be a SG on this Blazer team, it isn’t unrealistic to think he can improve his ballhandling enough at the SF spot to not be a liability. It’s much more likely than Sergio to become a good shooter, Joel to gain soft hands, LMA to be an enforcer, etc…

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 28, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your summary paragraph at the end of your post is nice .....

it makes it convenient to address your points.

For sure I agree with you that Martel can “improve his ballhandling enough at the SF spot to not be a liability.” And I also agree with 2 out of the 3 scenarios you described in this sentence:

“it’s much more likely than Sergio to become a good shooter, Joel to gain soft hands, LMA to be an enforcer, etc…”

Yep, Joel I’m sure will never have soft hands nor is it likely that LMA will ever be a Maurice Lucas clone. But I like to think there is more than a decent chance that Sergio could become a good shooter. There are a ton of NBA players that have vastly improved their shooting through thousands of repetitions and by having been given the opportunity to gain confidence via increased playing time. A current example among the players in this year’s NBA ‘final 4’ is Bruce Bowen. And how about the 3rd best player to ever play the game …. Michael Jordan? I never thought he’d become a deadly outside shooter, but he did.

As a related aside, I’ve heard multiple criticisms that Sergio can’t finish at the rim. I vividly remember a period of about two years where Drexler was outstanding at getting to the rim but so many times the shot just didn’t drop for him. It was frustrating and I wondered if this would always be a weakness of his. But I had nothing to fear; by about his 3rd year there was no one in the NBA better at finishing those drive to the basket plays. Sergio has demonstrated he can get to the rim and given the chance, he’ll gain the confidence to relax enough to start finishing those drives. .

by TwoDeep on May 28, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I agree

I agree that a player can become a better shooter; it happens all the time. I agree Sergio can become a good shooter as well. I included that example because most people universally accept that a poor shooter can become a decent to good one through hard work, and I feel like dribbling is the same—except even easier to improve at if the person is coordinated.

Joel having soft hands or LMA becoming Mo Lucas is to change their very essence, while shooting and dribbling are things players definitely naturally can be adept at, but can also be improved through hard work.

One thing I thought Sergio did best, when he was ‘on’, was finish at the rim. He just didn’t try to shoot it when he went to the rim sometimes. Remember that Hawks game, in Atlanta? Sergio was killing those phoos with his finishes at the rim, often using a lil’ pump fake and then laid it right in. I think he can finish pretty good.

His shot, on the other hand, just looks wrong—but it can be changed. His mechanics didn’t look this bad, his shot didn’t look this flat, his rookie year. Something happened to throw a kink in his shot. That can change.

I just think being a decent dribbler is easier than becoming a decent shooter, or most other NBA skills. It doesn’t require changing the player’s spots, so to speak (as in, Travis becoming a PG or something else that goes against their very nature).

Almost every player improves their shot as they gain experience in the NBA. Martell might be an iffy dribbler now, but if he is truly working on it like he says he is (and he is a hard worker, from all reports, at least conditioning wise) then I can see him easily becoming a good enough dribbler to not worry about. I think some are looking at dribbling as an either you can or you can’t type thing… and I find it to be the opposite.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 28, 2008 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I respectively, respectively, half-disagree

Gotta step in here. Remember, I defined good ball-handling as “the ability TO GET TO WHERE YOU WANT ON THE COURT without anyone taking the ball from you.” (Caps added for emphasis.) Yes, most reasonably coordinated people can learn to dribble the ball around some cones so that it doesn’t pop loose—that kind of thing. But to get where you want to get with NBA defenders present requires a degree of ball control and elusiveness that’s difficult to achieve.

Here’s my clincher: Karl Malone made himself into a good shooter. But do you really think that big galoot could ever have been a quality ball handler? Picture him crossing over or putting it between his legs. Case closed.

But I do agree with Mort that people can improve their ball handling, and that Martell can certainly improve to the point where he’s a more versatile three. I just don’t see him ever becoming a two. And there’s really no need: at 6-8, with a big NBA body, he’s suitable to play forward.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 28, 2008 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buying in for the moment with your definition

There are determined ball defenders who can take the ball away from anyone some of the time. And there is Tim Duncan defensive rebounding, dribbling the length of the court and shooting. But I get what you mean by the ball handlers able to shield the ball from their defender and moving it across the half-court when needed as a 2 guard must be able to do.

Where you lost me was talking about crossing over or between his legs. Those two skills do not follow your definition of “get to where you want on the court”. Only the ability to work yourself down against one defender in whatever pattern works for you is necessary.

Karl Malone was never going to be a good ball handler. But after his 6th year he stopped going below 1.0 in assists to turnovers for the remainder of his career finishing with a career average of 1.17. So a poor ball handler can improve by becoming a better passer as Malone did and still be a major factor in the game. .

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was making fun of Malone more than anything

But in order to “get to where you want to on the court without someone taking it from you,” you must be able to keep the defenders off balance SOMEHOW. Otherwise you’re a sitting duck: defenders will pick your dribble apart (if they don’t draw a charge first). You keep defenders off balance with a) the threat of your outside shot & passing; and b) some degree of deceptiveness in your ballhandling techinque. (Speed helps too, but isn’t necessary) After they’ve gone for the steal a couple of times and been burned, they stop attacking your dribble.

Techniques such as dribbling between the legs and crossing over are devices of deception. There are other, less flashy ones that also can serve, such as a change of speed, a head fake, etc. But some way or another, you have to avoid being a sitting duck for defenders with quick hands. Just being able to dribble the ball without it squirting away from you won’t get it done in the NBA.

By the way, I don’t understand your statement, “only the ability to work yourself down against one defender in whatever pattern works for you is necessary.” Unfortunately, anytime an NBA player takes off on the dribble, he attracts attention from defenders other than his own-especially if his dribble appears vulnerable. Most of the time when Martell and Travis get stripped, in fact, it’s not by their primary defender. So to be a good ballhandler in the NBA, again, you must be able to keep defenders off-balance. As I said originally, this isn’t easy to do; I believe becoming a competent shooter is much easier.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 30, 2008 2:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You make a good case

and my old-fashion beliefs are leaking out in favoring good passing over good dribbling; good teamwork over good iso. Somehow I have gotten the impression that Coach Nate shares some of those old-fashioned beliefs. Am I wrong?

by lee3022 on May 30, 2008 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't virtually every player in the NBA really coordinated?

NBA players who have a bad handle isn’t because they couldn’t develop a good handle, it is they focus on those skills that they will use in games. Shaq probably could have developed a crossover that would have crossed up more players than just Shawn Bradley, but instead he worked on his post game.

by tingeyga on May 29, 2008 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting question

It seems you can improve your ball-handling if you’re willing to work at it. Of course, guys like Pistol Pete used to take the ball with them everywhere they went as kids, dribbling 12-14 hours a day, I’ve heard. Still, you could probably obtain a modest improvement through 1-2 hours practice every day throughout the summer.

Somebody once asked me to guess what the score would be if the best college team played the worst NBA team. The correct answer, according to this guy, was that the college team would not score a point. They’d be unable to get the ball over center court in the face of pro-level defense. I had my doubts about that, since at least some college guys (and high school guys) seem to be able to play right away in the NBA. So what kind of dribbling skills would Martell or Travis really need? I dunno…

by CatMan2 on May 28, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I broke my right arm when I was younger

but I didn’t want to stop playing basketball with my friends. I couldn’t use my right arm at all for anything though. As a result, I had to dribble with my left hand, pass with my left hand, and shoot with my left hand. I casually played ball maybe for an hour a day, and that only lasted about two months. I got really good at using my left hand because of that. That was about 17 years ago. Now, I actually prefer to drive with my left hand and lay the ball in with my left hand.
So if I got that much better just casually playing, I believe a player can significantly improve if they were really focused and dedicated to improving.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have been thinking about what you said

about college against pro teams. I agree with you that your friend is wrong. He is thinking about one-on-one basketball handling but the best college teams are teams is every sense of the word. Breaking the press is easy with good coaching and good athletes. Spacing and passing is what makes this happen, not dribbling skills. There are pro teams who simply do not have the athletes to compete or the teamwork to compete with some college teams. It is not ball handling that separates them.

What does separate them is basketball IQ and toughness. Rebounding against pro teams toughens the pro players and forces them to use footwork for position. Even the best college teams rarely have this together because of the competition. There is no substitute for competition. This is why young players in the NBA can improve on skills in nearly every category and why teams should not give up on them. Silkybrown has it right that this team does not need to gut the roster but keep adding shooters and rebounders to the bench and let them gain the experience needed. It is also the major factor in championship contender status. I don’t see us ready to win the championship for at least 2 more years as these guys play together and grow int their team and individual skills.

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This

is my favorite fan post of the month. Prezofdeath was close, but I really wish he would switch Davis and Ellis in the PG rankings (Who would you rather build a team around?)

If somebody hits you with an object you should beat the hell out of them.-Charles Barkley

by Winchester on May 28, 2008 2:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Heck

This IS THE fanpost of the month in my opinion. I just took a list of names, juggled them around, made some comments about each player….this plan is what I’ve been wanting since I heard BRoy say, “I can distribute, as long as we’ve got scoring options.” Well done, sir. Your silky writing is truly suave.

Current team + Greg + Rudy = Blazers losing narrowly to the Spurs in the 2008-2009 Western Conference Finals. Book it.

by prezofdeath on May 28, 2008 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great Post!

I also like the idea of B.Roy playing the point on offense. On Defense he should be guarding the opposing teams sg. Let 180 lb. Rudy guard the opposing pg.

lol, I think Clyde had a clothes LINE shot, not a clothes hanger shot.

by snudger on May 28, 2008 5:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

OK

You got me there.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree with (nearly) everything.

The whole general don’t-do-any-adding-now tack is one I’ve always wanted,
but never really figured out how to phrase in a coherent, cogent post.
You nailed that, and so big freaking bravos.

A minor tweak, though: I’m not sure who’s more likely to crack the starting lineup
alongside Roy/MarWeb/LMA/Oden, Trout or Rudy.
Obviously, you can’t take the Blazers banner as evidence that it’s Trout, not Rudy,
as Rudy isn’t yet signed and therefore can’t make that banner at this date.

I’d say training camp and a good run of the season can be used
to decide who the two wings are between Roy and the two bigs:
MarWeb/Trout, or Rudy/MarWeb.

But that’s a small difference that doesn’t really change the thrust of your post at all.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on May 28, 2008 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or, for that matter, Rudy/Trout.

If you put Blake on the backup unit, there’d be a three-way competition for two starting spots
among Rudy Fernandez, Martell Webster, and Travis Outlaw.

THAT’D be fun. Bump up all their games.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on May 28, 2008 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I have been arguing with my inner circle since Brandon’s rookie season. We need to test him at the point for more than late game situations. He has vision and an uncanny way of making it look easy. I say yes to the experiment

BLAZERNATION!!!!

by wiseblazer on May 28, 2008 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One more season

I guess the reason I’m for being conservative is I like two things in place if I’m making a trade. #1, I like to know what I’m giving up, and #2, I like to know what I’m getting and exactly how it will improve the team. The way I see it right now this team has been assembled always with the idea that the nuculeus will be Oden, Aldridge and Brandon, and we haven’t even had a chance yet to see that core in play. Many of the young players that we are speculating about giving away in a trade could violate my rule #1, know what you are giving away. I don’t think we know how good Webster, Outlaw, Jack, Sergio could become. So I’m for adding Oden, adding Fernandez and giving our core a season together and perhaps getting a better idea of what it is we REALLY need to add. Sure go ahead and try the Brandon experiment. I’m not against a trade, this season or next but it seems to me we have sacrificed and struggled with our youth for the past few seasons and are right at the point where some of these guys should be growing and showing. I still think the “big” move or moves should be saved for next season, after we have another season to evaluate the development of some of our younger players and give Oden and Fernandez the chance to show what they bring to the team and what skills we need to add to the roster.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on May 28, 2008 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

I agree

That is really the biggest reason it sucks so bad that Greg Oden got hurt, because it kind of set us back a bit in that regard. The bright side though, was that it allowed Lamarcus to thrive in ways I don’t think he would have. I think it will all be for the better in the end.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For those that want to move Webster to guard, keep in mind that would give us six (Roy, Blake, Jack, Fernandez, Sergio and Webster – but only three will play most of the minutes. The 4th, like Sergio this year, will be a 5 – 10 minute man. As far as Roy, maybe management is listening. From the point that they demonstrated that they were high on Fernandez, you had to believe that they were thinking of moving Roy more to point. Too much is made of “assist oriented guards”. A good post pointed out that guards like Parker, Fisher or Billups rarely get more than six a game – but the teams win championships. And that’s related to having a team that can handle and pass the ball – meaning they all get assists. Like many, I can see that with two new rookies, and a third in the draft, that’s about all we need for the year. Other than seeing if some of the extra people we’ll have due to adding three players can be packaged to help us move up in the draft, my attitude is let these players develop, build your cap, and then do your deals next year – which seems to be how KP is thinking.

by Eben Calder on May 28, 2008 1:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Roy and Rudy have similar skill sets

and both can play point guard. Blake is the logical 3rd guard because he can spell either Roy or Rudy off the bench allowing Coach Nate to have one (Roy or Rudy) on the floor at all times. Sergio will likely take the foul problem/injury problem extra minutes as the 4th guard and Martell will continue to start at the 3.

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Keep 'em all, unless a killer deal comes down.

Expiring contracts are valuable in trade, but no where near as valuable as cap space. Cap space allows us more than just being able to sign a free agent, which is not the best option in 2009. But cap space is a tradable asset, just as an expiring contract would be, except that the other team doesn’t actually have to pay anyone.

If we stand pat, we have $15-$33 million (depending on whom we keep and whom we don’t) in trade exceptions to dole out in any increments that made any trade possible. On top of that, three team trades are hardly a nightmare anymore, so we could feasibly get anyone. Anyone! Well, with the exception of guys who will never be traded, for any reason, like Lebron James, although we would have a “better” shot than anyone else. And you never know who will become discontent and want to leave Cleveland, er, wherever they are.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on May 28, 2008 1:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Delonte West is a good on the ball defender

and I remember Roy just punishing him in the 2nd half of that pre-season game against the Sonics when Brandon woke up from his pre-season slump and took over the game. He repeatedly took West down on the block and pushed him around and scored with ease. Sure, Bradon may have some trouble with a few of the quicker guards but they will have more trouble with him. If and when they do get past Brandon we are gong to have a lot of length in the paint waiting for them.

Let’s give em’ a run as our starting 1.

by oderiferous emanations 74 on May 28, 2008 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I totally smell ya on this one oderiferous.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of 'Bron,

(perhaps this is completely ridiculous, so if it is, just say so) what about letting Raef’s contract lapse and having all that cap room and NOT signing someone big in 2009? Would that put us in the LBJ sweepstakes for 2010?

Current team + Greg + Rudy = Blazers losing narrowly to the Spurs in the 2008-2009 Western Conference Finals. Book it.

by prezofdeath on May 28, 2008 3:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Heck Yeah

I’ve been preaching that for a while. It’s a pipe dream but it’s nicer pipe than some of the other pipes I’ve seen. I think I want to add silkybrown to my 5. Super cool post silkybrown.

by tominhawaii on May 28, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Tom

The number is 1-900-MIX-A-LOT

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 28, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The argument that LBJ leaves Cleveland

involves three factors:

1. He takes less money

2. He wants to win championships

3. He want to be in a bigger market

The first factor can be offset by the third factor – hence the speculation the NY or NJ will be his destination (of course by then NJ will be NYN).

The problem with the New your market is that both teams are rebuilding and may actually be worse than Cleveland by dropping below the cap.

The problem with Portland is that we fail both the first and third factor so factor 2 must be the determinant. That also presupposes that LBJ will be willing to sublimate part of his game for teamwork (which I cna see him doing). (Sign and trade is not going to happen for anyone with Cleveland).

Pretty much the same argument applies to Dywane Wade.

I addition should Rudy turn out to be the player we hope he is in the NBA and Martell and Travis continue to develop as the presuppositions of this post suggest then there is little need for LBJ in order to win championships and we do not live in bloated salary hell for the next 10 years.

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The big market thing is silly

Colin Cowherd often points out that all the big markets are short flight away. I honestly think LeBron will go where he can win the most rings. He doesn’t need more money even though he said he want to be a billionaire. LeBron and Oden could rule the world.

by tominhawaii on May 29, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you think LBJ was lying

when he admitted his endorsement contracts will escalate if he is in a big market? Or maybe I remembered that wrong….

by lee3022 on May 30, 2008 2:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He Wasn't Lying

Wade is doing quite well off endorsement down in Miami. LeBron is smart enough to know that the best way to stay as a global icon is to win some rings. He’s not going to move to NY or NJ just to be in the same situation he currently is in Cleveland.

I think I have a man crush on Bobby Flay.

by tominhawaii on May 30, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are correct sir

so can Cleveland pay deeply into the luxury tax to field a championship team? See Phoenix and San Antonio and the gyrations they have endured trying to stay under.

Of course Quicken Loans was pretty profitable when Dan Gilbert bought the Cavs. But he has gotten more salary and less production in the past year while the loan business may not be as robust in coming months Mr. Gilbert is still listed as a billionaire (1.0) by Forbes. The point of New York being attractive is that local media revenue streams for MSG (Knicks) exceed 300 million and so the luxury tax is not an issue. I doubt that Cleveland exceeds Philadelphia, Atlanta, Phoenix or Houston all of whom limit total salaries to stay close to or under the luxury tax. So New York can afford to make the kind of errors that Isiah made and survive. They can buy players (as LA did with Pau) earning large contracts while even Chicago had to pass over the salary cap. There are four teams more than 10 million over the luxury tax threshold this year according to Hoopshype.com. Dallas, New York, Denver and Cleveland. Even so the other three are likely to blow up a significant portion of their roster this summer as their results are not justifying the cost. Cleveland has lured free agents there to play with LeBron but most have failed to produce. That same effect will occur in New York if LeBron signs there (including the Nets moving to Brooklyn) and either team will rebuild quickly after signing him. The difference is Cleveland has been terrible in choosing talent and now that the Knicks have a new GM may be a better prognosis. New Jersey is also run by experienced talent evaluators and have a better track record than Cleveland.

More than LeBron is at stake as Wade, Bosh, Anthony, McGrady, Johnson (Atlanta), Nowitzki, Stoudemire, O’Neal (Indiana), O”Neal (Phoenix) Ginobili, Bowen, Redd, Boozer, Okur, Williams (Utah), Chandler, Paul, Hamilton, Miller (Memphis) and Allen are all free agents or can opt out in 2010. A good number of those may form a synergy around one or two teams under the cap and both New York teams are prime targets.

Wow – what a list! Imagine LeBron calling a few of those and saying we can all play together in New York and everyone sacrifices some dollars to get the rings with some of the older players signing for veterans’ minimum to be part of this. Teams can’t tamper but players can and do.

by lee3022 on May 31, 2008 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice Post

I don’t know LeBron, because that cell number I saw on the bathroom wall turned out to be a prank. Anyhow, I imagine he’ll make his decision based on what players are already there and the GM. I’m sure there will be one or two GM’s with a sack of money and a roster full of scrubs that will go at LeBron and be turned away. Luckily for him, he is learning first hand the importance of a competent GM.

I think I have a man crush on Bobby Flay.

by tominhawaii on May 31, 2008 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lyndon Baines Johnson?

Nawww…he’d get us into a land war in Asia.

by DonkeyShins on May 29, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point!

Although it was John Kennedy that committed us to Vietnam and LBJ who escalated it beyond all need.

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True dat.

And I should know better, I was a history major in college. However, I couldn’t pass up the good one-liner.

by DonkeyShins on May 29, 2008 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't we have a pretty big net when it comes to defending guards that can get into the paint?

I think if we were talking about Roy’s ability to play quicker guards at the point, we could probably feel better about that knowing that Oden and LMA are lurking in the paint.

As for Martell being a bad ball handler, I think it has to do more with what he was expected to do with the ball, more than the skills that he has. When Marty took the ball to the hole, it’s not like he was turning it over. Most of the plays, where Martell was involved, usually had him hovering around the three. On many occassions, he took the ball to the rim for some monster jam.

I think it boils down to ball handling confidence, rather than the actual skill. If coach told him to drive everytime he had the ball, I’m sure that most of us would change our minds about Martell playing the ‘2’. Martell needs to work an getting his own shot, without the ball. Once he has that mastered, his skillset and athleticism will be at the level we need it to be for our championship team. Athletically, he matches up with just about every other two or three in the league.

Now Travis is another story. He needs to work on his ball handling. He rarely drove it into the paint, instead, settling for his high rising jumper. Defenders knew that when he put the ball on the floor, he wasn’t gonna move towards the basket or get around the defense. His linear approach would always move him into range, keeping only the primary defender to try and stop him jumper. If he adds the ball handling and some aggressiveness in moving towards the basket, he could become unstoppable.

But that it where the basketball IQ and confidence in ball handling will play a bigger part in his career. How many Offensive Rebounds could Trout get if he shot the ball from two feet, rather than fading from 12 to 15 feet?

I like the idea of putting Martell at the 2 and Travis at the three, with Brandon running the point. Defensively, they are long and can funnel opposing players towards the middle where Oden and LMA are ready for them.

Offensively, having three effective offensive weapons at your disposal also makes life easier for GO and LMA to work in the paint.

Just thinking about it gives me a shiver….

Was Damon really a bad Blazer, or did he get the short end of the stick?

by rpxxxiv on May 28, 2008 3:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

chiha chika..(wisper)

Oooyah…(deep voice)

What did Oden say to the stork?. "Admit that you have got lost". amlmart

by ptwnblzr on May 31, 2008 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And it may cause tingling

in the spines of opposing players as they salivated over what a full court press might do to that lineup.

by TwoDeep on May 28, 2008 5:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I was just thinking

The other problem with having web and roy in the backcourt besides defens would be that i cant really see them running a fast break. That is one of the few downfalls of roy slowing the game down so much. (but Rudy might be able to do it some though). This is why i think we should draft Westbrook, he can solve our two problems, the defense( pac-10 dpoy) and fast breaking, he was good at fast breaks, especially after those Love outlet passes. I am really not sure where he would fit into the rotation behind Roy, blake and whoever else is there at the point or the two spot. We could put him in for a while just to match up with the qiuck guards that might give roy a problem and give him a break.

by raging WebTed on May 28, 2008 7:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Westbrook.... or Mayo.

I say Mayo.

by BlazerD on May 28, 2008 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

very nice post.

you got a rec from me.

"Honor Terry Porter." Email me with your TP stories and memories.

by Ben. on May 28, 2008 9:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You rec me baby!

Ya break me in two
ya move me honey
yes you do

Tom Petty

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on May 28, 2008 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roy will never play point in the NBA

You lovely folks need to give up that fantasy. Ron Harper had Scottie and MJ. Roy would be hounded all game long if he was the sole point. He might not make a single turn over but his jump shot would be gone by the forth quarter and you don’t want him guarding speedy points all game. Even a center can guard a point guard once in a while but not a whole game. You could call him point guard if Rudy can dribble and play point guard D and insists his 24 a game should get him the the starting lineup but beyond that Roy will never, ever, play consistent point in the NBA.

MARK IT!!!!!.

Oh and good post. Keep our team intact!!!! agree, agree, agree.

by Blazersaurus on May 28, 2008 9:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree.

As I stated before, although Roy is a good ball handler he cannot go the whole game as the sole point. He needs the other guard to be able to handle the ball which Martell can’t do yet unless he improves a LOT during the summer. That’s why I think Steve Blake or another PG needs to be out there with Roy. As much as I like that huge, athletic line-up, it’s not going to work unless Martell/Rudy can become decent ball-handlers.

Beaver believer!

by mannyfresh1 on May 28, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right......I may be crazy. (Think Billy Joel)

Concerning Ron Harper, It wasn’t just the Bulls he played point for. Didn’t he play for both the L*kers and the Clippers? I don’t remember him stinking it up in either of those places. I’d like to see the Blazers at least give it a try with Roy. Your predictions may be right, but I think it is a mistake to assume that Roy isn’t capable to handle point guard duties. KP believes Brandon is a point guard. Nate believes Brandon is a point guard. Did I mention that both of those guys themselves were point guards, and pretty solid ones at that?

I believe Brandon is capable, and I am not ready to write him off before he even has a chance to prove one way or another. As I said, if the experiment fails, then so be it. At least we’d then know for sure, and we wouldn’t have to second guess any trades we might make over the summer including Martell, Travis, Jack, or Frye. I’d also be willing to sacrifice a few Brandon jumpers if it meant we didn’t turn the ball over. If we didn’t turn the ball over, perhaps we wouldn’t have to rely on Roy to salvage a win at the end of games. Maybe we’d be up by 10 instead.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 29, 2008 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to see it too

And I think having a good second ball handler alongside Roy will alleviate a lot of the worry some Anti-Roy-as-PG folks have.

Help with playmaking, help with bringing the ball up court, etc. Rudy may be that guy. Blake is that guy now. We say we want a PG upgrade, but since Roy will always be the guy doing most of the playmaking, we might really be hoping for a fellow playmaking good dribbling SG. That could be Rudy. Martell would have to make a big jump to be like that, but crazier things have happened.

Whoever we do get to play PG, if anyone, will have to defer to Roy because Roy will do so much PGing throughout a game.

I think Roy will likely always be our best PG, even if he isn’t technically the PG.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on May 29, 2008 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One problem...

........................ Roy runs things SLOWLY.

Which means, when teams start to play defense in the post season, you are looking at some 95-67 losses…

"You don't live by the jumpshot, you die by the jumpshot." ---Charles Barkley, 2/7/08

by timbo on May 29, 2008 8:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Why losses? I don’t see the connection

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on May 29, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Roy's game is slow

He can still fast break.

by tominhawaii on May 29, 2008 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even if Roy were slow...

Don’t the playoffs tend to be a more grind it out style anyway? I’d also try to point out that just because the perception is there that Roy runs things slowly, it doesn’t mean he can’t push the tempo or run things faster. Is Roy slow? Is he controlled? Is there a difference between the two? If emphasized and instructed to, there really isn’t much I can think of to suggest that Roy is unable or unwilling to push the tempo on offense. I’ve seen Roy on the end of fastbreaks, so I have no doubt he can get up and down the floor. He’s no Steve Nash though, and I’ll never deny that.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 29, 2008 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree - Roy is very fast when he want to be

His time in the 3-quarter court sprint (3.27) was among the leaders in his draft class and 2nd best (tied with Greg) among the Blazers to Jack (3.24). (Sergio and Travis were not measured.).

The playoffs are the key as you stated because teams get back to prevent the fast break. Perhaps the best fast break team this year was Denver and that team will never advance deep into the playoffs.

A team adjusts to its best player and Roy is that player. Roy does not have to bring the ball up every time to be the playmaker. With Rudy and Roy together they both require a double team to pick up their dribble and the other will be open. The press is not our worry because we have heavy weapons down low that can catch a deep lob and stuff for an easy shot out of the press. It is passing skills and not dribbling that break the press. And pace is not our worry – San Antonio has a slower pace and has some success!

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gonna have to respectfully disagree WRT Jack

Keep him. Keep him. Keep him. He’s one of the only players who drives to the rack on this team. Yes he has his flaws, but he does add a lot as a combo guard. By 2010, we may have enough people who drive to allow us to let him go, but I feel he’s necessary for next season.

by DonkeyShins on May 29, 2008 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jack genuinely struggles to run the team at point.

And this is during the regular season when the defensive intensity shown by teams is not all that breathtaking. Imagine if Jack was trying to play point guard against the Pistons or the Celtics right now in the playoffs. After watching Game 5 yesterday, I’m even more convinced he’d be eaten alive.

In professional sports, you need to be ready to play when your number is called. Jarrett was given charge of running this team at the beginning of the season last year, and he was so badly exposed, that McMillan was forced to pull him after just three games.

I believe Rudy Fernandez’s style of play will cause most people to be content with letting Jarrett Jack go. Not only was Rudy probably the best player in Europe this last year, but he was one of the best players at driving to the hoop and drawing fouls on the other team.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 29, 2008 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Each year brings improvement and adjustment

Last year Jack was charged to play SG and he give it a good effort. With Rudy here, Jack will not be needed much in that capacity but still has the opportunity to improve and compete against Blake to become the 3rd guard in the rotation. Jack was a very high quality PG in college and only Chris Paul was better in the ACC during his time. He brings size when needed and will, I believe, become a Chauncy Billups type PG. While Blake is pretty much peaked in his skills, Jack still will improve his for a couple more years, especially his outside shooting,

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hence my COMBO guard comment

He can play point in a slow tempo game (as proven when Zach ‘The Human Black Hole’ Randolph was the primary scorer), and he can drive and shoot as a two. Not to mention that is is extremely good at memorizing and reading opposing teams’ plays which makes him valuable on the defensive end. On the other hand, his individual defensive effort is only slightly better than Sergio’s, so that needs work…

by DonkeyShins on May 29, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great discussion

You bring solid arguments on several key questions and build on previous posts concerning PG and Center among others to establish status quo patience.

by lee3022 on May 29, 2008 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You dawg

Those are both your diaries. Have you ever heard the Tenacious D song “Lee?”

by tominhawaii on May 29, 2008 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's part of the "Me" movement

I just heard his new album yesterday, called “Me Worship”
It includes the hit tracks

“It’s all about me”
“Now I lift my name on high”
“I exalt me”
“There is none like me”
“How great I am”
“I am why I sing”

Current team + Greg + Rudy = Blazers losing narrowly to the Spurs in the 2008-2009 Western Conference Finals. Book it.

by prezofdeath on May 29, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sigh

I stand accursed! Actually we all feed off each other and it is what makes this a great blog!

by lee3022 on May 30, 2008 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was freaking awesome!

As a Master of Divinity student, I can say with out a doubt, that sums up just about everything that is wrong with American Protestantism. The satire is not as far over the top as people think.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on May 31, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you likely know that when we judge others

we are actually judging ourselves? (Matthew 7:1-5)

by lee3022 on May 31, 2008 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ooh! Theology! I've been waiting for someone to go here!

This passage is often used as an excuse to never involve one’s self in any judging, or worse, to protect one’s self from any and all criticisms. I’m not saying that’s what you are doing, but it is a huge tendency. By doing this, we are badly misapplying this passage.

After all, Paul judges people in Romans and Galatians especially. Peter’s sermons in act cast judgment on the people. Jesus Himself is quite judgmental against the Pharisees. That incident with the moneychangers (John 2:13-21) seems to be the exact opposite of what people understand Him to be saying in Matthew 7. Even by looking at this very context, Jesus proceeds in chapter 6 to pass judgment on hypocrites and worriers. Later in Chapter 7, He passes judgment on those who do not build houses in correct places. Even in this passage, he is passing judgment on those who pass judgment.So, either Jesus is a hypocrite Himself, or we have misunderstood what Matthew 7:1-5 is saying.

The point here is not “never pass judgment” but rather, “be aware of what you are passing judgment on.” After all, it may be something that you yourself are guilty of. But Jesus says to Love your neighbor as yourself. Is is loving to let the irritant in your neighbor’s eye, that is, their errors, stay there and let their suffering continue? Having a speck removed from your eyes is not always pleasant for both parties involved, but it provides relief when finished. Helping others resolve their errors is likewise not a pleasant process, but is beneficial in the long run. I would hope that people do that for me, instead of letting me suffer with my specks (or even logs).

There are also times when one must stand up for what is right, and that involves judging.

This is far and away my favorite subject, and I could get really carried away with this. But this is not really the forum to be engaged in confessional debate, so I try to limit it somewhat.

One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season

"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus

by T Darkstar on Jun 1, 2008 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Couldn't Agree More...

There’s always something a bit sleazy about this current trend of over-the-hill NBA vets who sit out 2/3 of the regular season, then hope to latch on with the whatever team is the Title contender du jour for the second half simply to make a run for a ring. More often than not, these guys really don’t contribute much. See exhibits below:

Sam Cassell – although PJ Brown is doing his thing.
Damon Stoudamire (didn’t he wind up with the Spurs?)
Chris Webber – I think he tried that maneuver twice.

I would much rather see the guys who put in the time, sweat, and energy win it together, or lose it together, than win it because you stacked the deck in your favor. Call me crazy.

by Benjow on May 29, 2008 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE POST THE PICTURE REFERRED TO AT THE TOP

Sorry to shout, but I wasn’t sure anybody was home. I saw the photo on Blazers.com, but they took it down the next day. I thought it was really cool, and wanted to show somebody, but … sacre bleu!

On the subject of this fanpost, I agree 100%. It’s basically what I’ve been trying to say since I got here. Thanks!

by CatMan2 on May 31, 2008 9:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs