Might Rush be better than Webster?

by T Darkstar on Jun 23, 2008 2:00 PM PDT

Dave's post really got me thinking on what the best course of action might be. Of course I want to keep all of our guys, but I also recognize that capspace is possibly more valuable than they are. Dilemmas, dilemmas. The problem is that Steve Blake, Martell Webster, Jarrett Jack and Channing Frye could be exactly what we need on our team. But will they be worth the cost?

This dilemma reminded me of what Pritchard said in an interview after the Brandon Rush workout. "This kid could come in right away as a starter in this league." Of course, Pritchard never has anything bad to say about anyone, especially players. And it is highly possible that those words don't mean anything. Still, I don't think he was lying about Rush. For some teams, he could very well come in and start right away. Is one of those teams Portland?

Another way of asking it is this: Is Rush better suited for the Blazers' starting SF position than Webster is as this point?

To be honest, I have no idea. Some of you may be better informed on Rush and Webster than I, and I would love to hear your comments on this, because that is how I find out.

But, if Rush is better than Webster, and Rush is available at #13, does that make Webster expendable? And if Webster is expendable, what do we get that isn't the equivalent of giving him away?

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

tough question

I see the two of them as very comparable players. I’d rather have Martell than Rush but not by all that big of a margin.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jun 23, 2008 2:29 PM PDT 0 recs

Zandar the fortune teller says

Yes.

Worse shooter, better all around player.
But that doesnt answer the question: Do we want a player at the 3 who isnt a sharpshooter?

Discuss amongst yourself, I will be back for your results later

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 23, 2008 3:05 PM PDT 0 recs

Answer to my own question

Yes I want webster shooting the rock. Do I think Rush will be a better player? Yep. But for OUR team, webster is the better fit.

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 23, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

Web's shot

is certainly prettier but is it more accurate? Rush is a career 44% 3 pt shooter. I have no idea how that will translate to the NBA’s longer distance and increased defensive pressure, but it seems at least possible that he’ll be better than Web’s career 37% mark.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jun 23, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

Then

if he is so good, why is he being drafted so low? especially when somone like westbrook could go as high as #4/

by raging WebTed on Jun 23, 2008 4:21 PM PDT up 0 recs

Ceiling.

That is why Brandon Roy got drafted as low as he did. I’m not saying that Rush is the next Roy, but potential sells draft picks.

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

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"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 23, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up 0 recs

but rush

couldnt come in and contibute as much as Webster. There is a big diference between roy and rush.

by raging WebTed on Jun 23, 2008 5:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

Granted, there is a big difference between the Rush and Roy.

But how big is the difference between Rush and Webster? Webster is living on flashes of brilliance and potential. Would Rush be more consistent? A better defender? An adequate enough shooter to not leave wide open? Easier on our salary cap? Quite possibly, which is why I asked the question. I don’t know if I buy the argument that Rush could not contribute as much as Webster, at least compared with last season. Though, if Webster significantly improves this summer (which is possible), I might buy it then.

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

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"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 23, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

How do you know?

If you look at past drafts you find that even the guys whose job it is to evaluate talent are not necessarily very good at it. In fact organizations like San Antonio, and perhaps now the Blazers, standout, in large part because everyone else is average at best. So if the guys who are getting paid to be right miss at least half the time, what do you think the chances are any of us know what we are talking about?

by timg56 on Jun 24, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

Rush a better all-around player?

Wait a minute dude. Brandon Rush is 22 years old and a three year college player who averaged 13ppg, 5rpg, 2apg. Martell Webster is a 21 year old three year NBA veteran who averaged 10ppg, 5rpg, 2apg. Webster is ALREADY defending the best players in the world on defense (whether he is a “stopper” yet or not, he is doing it). Webster has already started in the NBA for one full season and is one full year younger. I do like Rush as a player, but right now Webster is better and Webster has a much higher ceiling.

Comparing Martell Webster and where he would go if this were the end of his Junior year… next to Galinari, Alexander, Rush, Greene and all the other small forwards in the draft… Webster would be top 3 pick to top 5 pick at worst in this draft.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 24, 2008 9:58 AM PDT up 0 recs

false

Web would not go above Rose, Beasley, Mayo, Bayless, Gordon, Love, Alexander, Westbrook or Lopez. I’m not saying all those guys will be better than Web (in fact, its almost guaranteed at least 1 or 2 won’t be) but upside would get them all picked ahead of Webster.

Web is a better player than Rush right now, no question about it. However, It’s reasonable to argue that Rush will have a better NBA career. I don’t think he will, but it wouldn’t shock me.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jun 24, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

I am guessing....

that your “false” actually means IMHO: False, because…

in my humble opinion he would be with Beasley Rose and Mayo. It is impossible to tell because he hasn’t played college ball, but at 6’7” 228lbs Martell has an NBA ready body and scouts would say he tests well (good enough 3 years ago to go lottery #6) is a Pure Shooter (on scouts standards) and has as much upside as those other players to be an NBA elite scorer.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 24, 2008 1:25 PM PDT up 0 recs

True...

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 24, 2008 1:35 PM PDT up 0 recs

I wish...

I could talk smack back to you about this clever title “false” But I seem to be being roadblocked.

Drats. At least you know I wanted to talk smack.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 24, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

If Webster is expendable?

there’s a question?

If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?

by bow4meow on Jun 23, 2008 3:12 PM PDT 0 recs

No way

Man, people are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy over valuing this draft. I think he’s a good pick-up at the 13 but man, everyone seems to think that every player in this draft up to the #20 is going to have an impact on the NBA, the honest truth is a lot of these players won’t get significant playing time ever in their career.

And yes I do think Sharshooting is necessary for the way that we play, without being able to spread the defense Roy is not nearly as effective, we have to be able to make them pay both ways, and a sharpshooter is the only answer to crowding the paint.

Jaws were hitting the floor as Greg repeatedly attempted to tear the rim off the backboard...

by TheOdenator on Jun 23, 2008 3:31 PM PDT 1 recs

Thank you

I totally agree with everything you said, I’m glad I’m not the only one…

by TimG on Jun 23, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

I second

The pictures kinda small, but Im giving the C's a big thumbs down

by Blazermaniac77 on Jun 23, 2008 4:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

Not that you need it...

... but I thirded it.

by timg56 on Jun 24, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think rush was a junior last season

and web would have been too,... Who is better, someone who has played a solid in college, 13ppg, but has proved nothing on the pro level, vs. web, who has a starting spot, is longer, better shooter, fits in with our team, can play D, and has already proved that he can play, 10ppg in the NBA, and is still getting better. Why would Rush be better than Web? And, you cant take things that prichard says about players before the draft too seriously. -“This kid could come in right away as a starter in this league.” ... That doesnt mean anything. and have you heard of memphis, t-wolves and heat, anybody could start for them. Some of the media who watched were not very impressed with his shooting. And why would a mid firstround rookie step in and be that good. Wouldnt people take him earlier.

by raging WebTed on Jun 23, 2008 3:51 PM PDT 0 recs

Hmm...

I’m gonna say it’s a big fat Maybe.

Trail Blazers are really cool

by Outlaw is Rejector on Jun 23, 2008 3:58 PM PDT 0 recs

You are wise beyond your years grasshopper

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 23, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

No.

"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez

by bfan on Jun 23, 2008 6:13 PM PDT 0 recs

webster is definitely a better starting 3 right now than rush

hands down. no question about it.

i consider myself to be higher than most on rush and lower than most on martell.

but no way rush beats webster for that spot…. not this year and not next year.

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

by Ben. on Jun 23, 2008 7:25 PM PDT 1 recs

Don't Rush into anything

I am a jayhawk alum. I like Rush. He is equally as inconsistent as Webster. He would disappear for long stretches, even a few games at a time…sounds a lot like Webster. For all of Webster’s inconsistencies, I believe he can be really special. No other current blazer has done, or probably will do, anything like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMVXnJDBtnI

Rush would be a great draft pick, but I can not give up on Webster so quickly just yet.

by clonigro on Jun 23, 2008 9:37 PM PDT 0 recs

The question was "might?"

I would say yes. Rush might be better.

I might rule the world someday.

Kobe might be a decent human being someday.

KG might go through an entire season without uttering profanity.

Phil Jackson might admit he’s a lousy coach, and it was just that he had overwhelming talent.

Obama might say that McCain would be a better president.

Gordon Brown might ask Tony Blair to come back and be Prime Minister again.

We might all convert to L@ker fans. Well, ok, I jumped the shark on that one.

Someday, Rush might be very good, and Martell may regress. But they aren’t even in the same ballpark right now. Martell’s a starter in the NBA ballpark. Rush will probably see some minutes in that ballpark once he gets there.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 4:01 AM PDT 0 recs

One out of eight.

In some circles, that’s not a bad percentage.

by timg56 on Jun 24, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

Thank you all for your input.

It gives me a better idea what to expect.

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

Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club

"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 24, 2008 5:23 AM PDT 0 recs