Got Podcast?

by Dave on Jun 18, 2009 2:10 PM PDT

The weekly edition of the Trailblazers.com podcast starring Mr. Gavin Dawson from 95.5 The Game, Mr. Casey Holdahl from the Center Court Blog, and me--El Davo Grande from Blazersedge--is now up. This week we talk draft prospects, Martell Webster's injury situation, the Blazers' small forward battle, why drafting point guards is different than drafting anyone else, KP's penchant for "fun", Blake/Fisher, Kobe/LeBron, the future of the L*kers in the West, Brandon Roy's Olympics prospects, and a bunch of other stuff.

You can download it here or click on Casey's link above to stream it.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As hard of a worker as Bayless is...

I think he may give up if Ty Lawson gets drafted and immediately moves above him on the depth chart.

by Salem Stephen on Jun 18, 2009 3:59 PM PDT reply actions

Great listen...

Casey doesn’t think the L*kers beat the Magic with LeBron instead of Kobe? And his reason is because K*be gets his teammates more involved? That sounds like the opposite of what their actual nature as basketball players are. LeBron is a MUCH MUCH more willing and able passer. All the L*kers are much better than the Cavs were especially in these playoffs. No one on the Cavs besides LBJ did ANYTHING in these playoffs, and they had tons of open looks too. The Cavs not being able to beat the Magic was about zero LBJ’s fault. It also didn’t help that the Magic played out of their mind against the Cavs and not versus the L*kers (Hollinger discussed this).

Take a look at playoff PER’s…
LeBron 37.4
Kobe 26.9

Outside of that the next 3 best guys on either team are all L*kers.
Gasol 21.9 (LAL)
Odom 18.0 (LAL)
Ariza 14.7 (LAL)

When Dave was asked about Darren Collison. He said Collison’s lack of size and lack of shooting worries him. And then in the very next sentence he mentions moving up to try going after Ty Lawson. A point guard that is both smaller and a worse shooter than Darren Collison over his career. It should be noted he’s also a worse defender and slower. I just don’t think the reason for not liking Darren Collison at #24 when trading up for Lawson seems to be on his to-do list. I also didn’t agree with Dave’s take on Jennings when he talked about how he’d rather have a “pure point guard”. In most of the analysis on Jennings you see the terms “true point guard”. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Brandon-Jennings-1114/

by as11osu on Jun 18, 2009 4:00 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

I’ve heard criticism from people about Jenning’s and his being a scoring point guard. A columnist from Sacramento was on 95.5 and made of Jennings for calling himself a pass-first point guard. He said that in the workout Jennings had shot every time he touched the ball.

From Chad Ford’s Jennings article:

"I see a lot more of Iverson to Jennings’ game than I do CP3’s," one veteran American scout who has watched Jennings play in both America and Italy said. "Iverson can dish out assists too, but he controls the tempo of a game with his own game, not by making others better. I see a lot of that in Jennings. He makes the pass if he can make a spectacular one. If he can’t, he shoots the shot. Either way his mentality is what makes him look the best, not necessarily the team."

Link

His “pureness” is definitely still in question.

proud hinrichsheeple

by Cablinasian on Jun 18, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions

He was in the top 10 in the Italian league in assists per possession (34% of his possessions) - Same as CP3

and a lot of his minutes were playing the 2 or the 3. He can’t accurately be described as selfish or a shoot first type of guy.

by as11osu on Jun 18, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions

He was very selfish in high school by many reports, but has matured a bit in Italy

Still AI strikes me as not that bad of a comparison (I compare his showmanship to Amare). Jennings doesn’t strike me as a really good fit with who the Blazers brought in in the last years. He worries about which hot chick he should take to the draft, which side projects he has going on. Basically he is a lot about being his own character, not about team character.

I don’t doubt that he will be a flashy successful player though.

by Norsktroll on Jun 18, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions

My bad

I don’t know what I was talking about. I don’t the Lakers would have won with LeBron instead of Kobe, but I’m not exactly sure why. That’s not much of an argument.

by Lance Uppercut on Jun 18, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the Lakers would have won with LeBron instead of Kobe.

I also think the Blazers would have won if they had LeBron instead of Roy. Actually I think if you took almost any playoff team and replaced their best player with LeBron, they’d be favored to win.

by pualo on Jun 18, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, Casey's take on that is unbelievably off base.

by jksnake99 on Jun 18, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Quoting Dave

On Collison:

If you’re gonna go point guard, I think you have to go all out. You don’t bring in another so-so point guard.

On Lawson:

I guess I kind of reverse my field a little bit when we’re thinking about point guards. If we’re thinking about any other position, I say go for broke, get the guy you’re gonna take a chance on who might be spectacular. Point guard, I just want a guy who can play, and a guy like Lawson makes better sense in many ways [than Jennings]

Huh?

by pualo on Jun 18, 2009 4:40 PM PDT reply actions

Dave was half right

Just stay consistent and say “no” to both Collison and Lawson. If they are ever starters on a championship team, then the NBA will have changed to something that I cannot recognize at this point in time

acquire a veteran point guard who is better than steve blake, please

by two4larue on Jun 18, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Well there's one good reason to get someone like that.

If we:

1. Get a good new starting point guard like Hinrich or Conley or someone.
2. Lose Blake and Sergio in the process.

Then we’ll need a new #3 to put behind Bayless, and a late draft pick would be perfect.

by pualo on Jun 18, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Lose Blake and Sergio in the process.

no, and yes

(Steve’s not going anywhere, except hopfully to Portland’s backup PG)

Depth chart at the 1

Hinrich (or similar)
Blake
Bayless = 5th guard

Like Dave said, the Blazers have been “point guard central” for the last 5 years. It’s time for KP to give Nate a break and let him ficus on developing Jerryd. If Blake or the new #1 PG gets dinged up, you’ve got an “understudy” PG waiting in the wings

by two4larue on Jun 18, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions

My view on the PG is that

yes, the Blazers have been scouring the 1st round for their PG of the future to no avail. However we have to look at the talent we have acquired. In most of the drafts we have had our 1st, usually high and then as KP has said, with the 2nd 1st rd pick you take a chance.

With out 1st 1st rounders we have had great success in the KP era: Roy, LMA and Oden (soon.) People forget that Jack was the 22nd pick, Sergio was the 27th, and Kopo was the 30th.

All players drafted in the 20s are either one of 2 types: senior players with a low ceiling, but high floor(Jack), or really young talented players with some sort of problem with them, be it attitude, injury ?‘s, or contract ?’s ala (Sergio, Rudy, Batum), high risk reward players. So far KP has been hitting .50 so far (I count Jack as the beginning of the KP era).

Bayless however is a different story, the 11th pick who even KP did not think would fall that low according to his draft board. Lotto picks have talent and skill and far fewer ??’s to their game. All he needs is some time to develop.

Collegiate stats:

NCAA Arizona:
Jerryd Bayless: 19.7pts, 4.0 asts, 3to

NAIA Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Terry Porter: 19.7pts, 4.3 asts, 2.33to

by SpyderRyder on Jun 19, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Clarifying:

Going all-out in the first paragraph means basically “not getting a settled-for point guard at 24, but a guy you’re going to go and get”. It’s talking about what the Blazers have to do in order to get a guy they can play.

The second paragraph refers more specifically to the attributes of the guy they do get. You need a guy who is solid and can contribute. You don’t go for that smaller-percentage chance of making it with a point guard like you do with, say, a shooting guard. We’ve done that with Sergio. We’ve done that with Jack. We’ve done that with Bayless. We’ve done that with Telfair. We’ve done that with Koponen. If we’re going to move up and get one we need to get a guy who can play point for sure and contribute soon.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 18, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions

great podcast

dave dave dave

trade up and draft lawson? where did i read that?

what happened to this?

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben Golliver on Jun 18, 2009 5:44 PM PDT reply actions

And KP worked so hard to create that smokescreen.

With any luck, other GMs are too busy to read Blazers Edge, but I suspect they all do.

by MiledAnimal on Jun 18, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions

He already gave you a max contract extension

by Norsktroll on Jun 18, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions

but Ben ...

Did you even READ Dave’s introductory comments? Ooops – been seeing too much of this and it just slipped out… :-)

However, he DID say. “So in the spirit of fun and good debate, I’m going to present the argument that the Blazers shouldn’t draft another point guard, let alone move up in the draft to get one. We don’t do a ton of point-counterpoint on the main page. If it goes well, maybe we’ll do some more. Let us know what you think.” He didn’t really express his opinion, he just presented the other side of the issue. (He’s probably had some wonderful debates with devil’s advocates and took good notes just in case his turn came.)

Dave’s cagey – he hardly ever expresses an opinion but he’s so good with words that he could convince us he believes that Martell is our future at PG. Just be very very sure of yourself when you say “Dave thinks that …”.

New to Blazers' Edge?

by jorga on Jun 18, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Indeed

My job in the counterpoint post was to take the opposite side without reservation. I do happen to believe a lot of what I said and I personally am going to cringe a little if we do draft a point guard but I think there’s enough wiggle room in there for Lawson. My job in the podcast was to come up with a semi-bold prediction of what the Blazers will do. I pretty much knew Casey was going to say we’d trade out, which was my other option. So I went with moving up, not too far, with a guy who has skills we need and is fairly reliable.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 18, 2009 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions

i was just teasing…

but i think you’ve nailed it: semi-bold predictions that make you cringe but can be adopted in order to start a debate with casey… that pretty much perfectly sums up my offseason so far LOL speaking of, fisher > blake LOL

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben Golliver on Jun 19, 2009 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh,

and part of what you’re saying I’d agree with, just put in another way:

I don’t think people read the blog first and foremost to hear my opinion. I believe they read here because we open up all (or at least most) of the possibilities and let them decide. I’ll give my opinion and argue points, of course, but a lot of my writing is taking on different perspectives and seeing what the view looks like from there. I’ve found that most things look decent, it just depends on what you’re looking for.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 18, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions

this is true too. it’s hard to do point counterpoint when everyone sees the benefits of every point. maybe that’s why we don’t do it very often lol

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben Golliver on Jun 19, 2009 1:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Use the Buddy System!!!!

The idea of having Martell jump on Oden’s back to get to his spots!!!

lmao.

I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

by haildablazer on Jun 19, 2009 12:21 AM PDT reply actions

Podcast ideas

Dave, what about taking some questions on the next podcast? They wouldn’t have to be live, you could have them submitted beforehand.

Also, I really enjoyed when you interviewed KP. Do you have plans to have any other guests to interview?

by MavetheGreat on Jun 19, 2009 8:44 AM PDT reply actions

We will always take questions

We’d LOVE them. When we’ve asked before people haven’t really gotten us many. You can e-mail any one of us or just post them here,

I think there will be occasional guests, yes. When we first started we did the guest thing more. But the podcast really flowed better when it was us three shooting the bull. The guest thing seemed a little forced or disruptive. Not the fault of the guests at all, of course. They were great. But our niche is banter. We’ll have KP on again at some point. I think we’re working on some other folks too.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 19, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions