First Shot at one of the Big Questions

by Dave on Jul 19, 2007 12:18 AM PDT in News Comment 66 comments

As we roll into the middle part of the summer let's take a first shot at a question I'm sure we'll be repeating up until the end of training camp.

Assuming the roster stays the same as it is right now, who do you think will start at small forward: Travis Outlaw, Martell Webster, James Jones, or someone else?

Right now my money is on Jones because we're playing youngsters at every other position (unless Blake starts, and still...) and Nate won't want to roll the dice completely at all five spots. Plus both Martell and Travis have strong gifts offensively which might be better utilized in the second unit right now while the big scorers on the first unit find their way. Both Martell and Travis have trouble concentrating when they don't score and they might not get a lot of shots with that first group. So Jones is my early favorite. He'll do what Ime did for the starting unit last year.

What's your call?

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

0 recs | Comment 66 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree

I Feel that Jones is the favorite, hes more established than both trout and Web, shoots well and Phoenix loved his Defense so im sure Nate will too. Edge goes to Jones

- BB

by Bucky Blazer on Jul 19, 2007 12:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Gotta be Jones

Jones is that lanky disruptive defensive force that this young team needs on the court. His 3 ball is more consistent and he doesnt need the ball like Trout or Martell.
Even though Oden, Aldridge and Roy will be good defenders, they're not yet. Not by a long shot. They need that poor mans Tay Prince (James Jones) to fill some holes.

by DropstepJ on Jul 19, 2007 12:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you gentlemen.

When your SG is primarily a slasher, I think it makes sense for your SF to be a shooter. Thus, I think Travis is best suited to be a "combo forward" off the bench.

I'd' love to see Martell beat out Jones, but I don't see it happening. Jones is an older, more mature, less athletic but much more steady Martell. He has the edge.

by jksnake99 on Jul 19, 2007 12:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jones

Part of it is political. KP has to show the world that the ZBo trade wasn't as bad as they say, and part of that is to showcase Jones and Frye as much as possible.

Plus it makes basketball sense. Jones is the best spot up guy we have, and Roy needs a target to dish to when he breaks down the defenses.

by howlingfantods on Jul 19, 2007 12:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Outlaw

I think J. Jones is worse than he seemed with the Suns, so the natural guess is Trout. Or Mystery Guy X from the Big Things to Come Deal.
Also Dave's shirt (almost misspelled that) got some props. http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=10516

by morescrillaigots on Jul 19, 2007 12:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Where did that come from?

I want to know where this James Jones is a great defender came from? If he was such a great defender he would be getting some of Raja Bell's minutes. Let's face it, if he were worth a damn Phoenix wouldn't just GIVE him away or they would have tried to develop him more to eventually make the ever available and expensive Shawn Marion expendable. I say stick with developing Trout and Martell and one of the two will make us very happy we did.

by jferg on Jul 19, 2007 1:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Take it for what it's worth...

http://www.82games.com/nichols1.htm

James Jones gets a 71 (third best on the Suns and better than Raja Bell). Outlaw actually gets a 76. Webster gets a...uh...ahem...17.

So obviously take it with a grain of salt, but there are some statistics that back it up.

I think the two competitors for the spot, unless Webster makes a quantum leap this summer, are Outlaw and Jones. And I think Jones is the man because Outlaw is more of a power forward at this point, and because Outlaw knows how to do nothing other than shoot every time he touches the ball. That's fine for instant offense off the bench, but it's not going to jive with the starting lineup.

by HarryManback on Jul 19, 2007 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

curious stats

While they seem to be somewhat accurate in identifying a team's best defender, I'm not sure I buy anyone's rating who is lower than 75 or so. Is Chris Webber and his knee surgeries really almost as good a defender as Sheed--and 30 points better than Tayshaun Prince? Tyrus Thomas is already an elite-level defender--and better than Big Ben? Amare better than Raja Bell? By these numbers, pretty much every Blazer PG as good or better on D than Steve Blake--who was allegedly brought in to help out perimeter D--and our best defensive 1 is Sergio. And we scoff at Martell's 17, but that's notably better than Roy's 11; in fact, by these metrics, Roy is a worse defender than Z-bo.

by abdelnaby on Jul 19, 2007 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

joke of a stat

+- is a joke of a stat. It tells you a lot more about the team then about the player. Good starters on bad teams will have a bad +- because they are playing against the starters of good teams long minutes, when they would be expected to be outscored. Meanwhile bad players on bad teams will often have a good +- because they are getting garbage minutes in blowout games where the winning team will often get outscored badly at the end of a game.

Just look at the +- ratings on that list. They clearly skew in favor of players who play on good teams. So, either the good teams have all the best individual defenders, or the stat doesn't tell you much at all about individual defense. I'm going with the latter.

Not knowing what the 3rd mystery stat is based upon, it too appears to be based much more on the team than the individual. Look at San Antonio. Every guy on their roster ranked int he top 57 in this mystery stat. Meanwhile, our "best" defender in this stat was Joel, and he ranked 108th. Are you seriously buying that Every single person on the Spurs roster is a better individual defender than anyone on our roster? Are you also buying that Ime was the 285th ranked defensive player last year, tied with Sergio and Roy, and that he was a worse defender than Joel, Trout, LMA, Fred, Magloire, and ZACH!!!! Give me a break

Garbage in, garbage out. This stupid stat had 2/3 of it's input based on complete garbage. I would put no faith in it at all

by douglast on Jul 19, 2007 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

J. Jonesie

I was kinda surprised to see Jones so-so numbers from the past few seasons, cause everytime I watch the Suns (they were probably the team I watched second most after the Blazers, cause they is fun), Jones seemed to ME to be pretty solid on both sides of the court. His percentages were good, though, and I probably didn't notice him when doing so-so as much as when he's doing good, so I only remember the good days.

But I like Jones, I think he'll surprise people with a bigger role in Portland. He gets my vote for the starter. It makes sense with Nate's history (he's a vet, decent defender, solid guy, can hit the 3) and he will probably be the most ready/bestest small forward we got.

I like Martell a lot, but I agree that he does best when he gets SHOTS; he won't and SHOULDN'T get shots with the first team, except for the lame pass-around-the-perimter-Ime-shot. Lame for Martell's skills, not lame for Ime or J. Jones...

On the 2nd unit, Martell can be more of a focus and do what he will do best: score.

Having Marty camp out in the corner and wait doesn't help him grow as much as being an important part of the second unit will. But then again, being an important part of the second unit won't help Martell learn how to be good without being the focal point.

Very important year for Martell, even if I don't think it HAS to be. But I am a chump sometimes.

James Jones is better than given credit for by lots of people, if given regular minutes and worked into the offense. He HAS been playing behind Shaun Marion and Raja Bell, after all. I'll be surprised if he doesn't average better than Ime's numbers.

I hope Outlaw and Webster can play well together as the co-1st options in the 2nd unit. Both can put up the numbers when they get going, but would probably get lost with the big boys still.

Like most of us, I am EXTREMELY interested in what our rotation will end up being. It could go 80 billion ways after the core triumverant.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 19, 2007 1:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jones' shooting

I don't know why people keep thinking he's a good shooter:
FG% of Suns, 06-07
M. Banks: .429
L. Barbosa: .476
R. Bell: .432
B. Diaw: .538
S. Marion: .524
S. Nash: .532
A. Stoudemire: .575
K. Thomas: .486
James Jones: .368
Notice anything different? Any outliers? (The closest Rotation player, Raja put up 410 threes and still shot 6.4% higher) JJII and Outlaw were drafted same year, but Trout was a HS Senior and Jones was a college senior. Heed my words before you go to the Rose Garden expecting Jones to be something he is not.

by morescrillaigots on Jul 19, 2007 1:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He's a three point specialist.

You have to look at true shooting percentage or at least effective field goal percentage -- raw shooting percentage is misleading and doesn't provide the basis for the best comparison. His career TS% is a respectable .533, and his career EFG% is again a respectable .494.

by howlingfantods on Jul 19, 2007 2:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A miss is a miss

And James Jones was 6 percent more likely to miss than the next lowest rotation player, and his shot had a 10 % higher chance of not going in then the Sun average. He's not a three point specialist, I don't know where all this stuff is coming from. I'm really frustrated with Blazer nation, I know many of you watched a lot of Suns games so I don't know why this is the case. I'm sure someone from the Suns blog can tell you this guys isn't a starter, he played less minutes last year, shot worse and not just on threes but on all FGs in his career he's less than 40%.

by morescrillaigots on Jul 19, 2007 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Over half his shot attempts in his career

were three point attempts, around 54%. How many more do you expect someone to take before you call him a three point specialist?

I don't think anyone's claiming that the dude is Reggie Miller. But the point I'm making is that it's unfair to evaluate three point specialists by looking at raw FG%, since so many of their FG attempts are three point attempts, and three pointers are always shot at lower percentages but are worth 50% more points. That's why to fairly evaluate shooting or efficiency, it only makes sense to look at EFG or TS. And by those measures, Jones isn't great but he's decent.

by howlingfantods on Jul 19, 2007 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He shot a lower percentage from 2

Then 3, so that would make him a three specialist, except he bricks those. This is my last post regarding Jones' shooting, we'll see come October and we'll find out if the Blazers wanted him or if Phoenix made us take him to clear salary for G. Hill and thanked us for it with Fernandez.

by morescrillaigots on Jul 19, 2007 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Word Up

Perception versus reality

by jferg on Jul 19, 2007 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The new guy

I still am hoping for another trade for a SQ SF.

Failing that, Jones, with perhaps equal minutes for Travis off the bench. Most of Martell's minutes come backing up Roy.

by jscot on Jul 19, 2007 1:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

outlaw

my hope is that travis will pick his spots and will put the ball on the floor and drive, leading either to pull-up indefensible jumpers, getting fouled (and continuing to shoot 80+ % from the line), or (gasp!) dropping it off for some dunks to oden or lamarcus.

i think he's gotten a bum rap about basketball IQ and that hes coachable and this will show when hes given 30 min/gm.

last year he averaged 9.6 in 22.9 min/gm. if he plays more anything above 13 will really have an impact and if it's 15 or 16 that'll mean frequent games with 20 or more.

james jones will have a 15 pt game here and there off the bench and any 3 he hits will be welcome.

but this team is going to move the ball and exploit different match-ups and/or hot-hands each game.

the unselfishness and intelligence (and will) is what will eventually make these blazers great.

ignacio

by ignacio on Jul 19, 2007 6:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know enough about Jones...

but neither Martell nor Outlaw are NBA starters.

Does that mean someone else? Beats me.

by ken on Jul 19, 2007 6:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Our starting SF

will be determined in training camp. I do not think any of the guys currently on the team are a lock for the position. The one player who might have been will likely be suiting up for Memphis or SA.

I also do not understand the feeling of some that James Jones is going to be an upgrade from Ime. Ime's numbers compared very favorably with his counterparts - guys like Raja Bell, Shane Battier and Bruce Bowen. He even shot a higher percentage from behind the arc than Rashard Lewis (although with a third fewer attempts).

by timg56 on Jul 19, 2007 7:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yep. sure wish it was Ime

agree it will be determined in training camp. my guess if roster stays pat is jones because of 'defense' but it will really be '3' by committee. Sure wish it was Ime...

by rburg on Jul 19, 2007 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In my opinion,

the starting lineup of Jones, Blake, Roy, Oden, Aldridge is the way it should be because aside from the two bigs and their advantages inside on offense, you can give it to Roy and have our three best spot-up shooters for him to dish to. Blake can create as well, and Aldridge is going to be big, but the default go-to play is going to be Roy freelancing and either picking and rolling with the bigs, drawing and kicking, or scoring himself. This opens the offense wide for him to do his thing and run the offense through him. It doesn't work nearly as well with Martell or Outlaw at the 3. And then that gives us two very solid perimeter defenders other than Roy so that he doesn't have to work as hard at that end.

by ranma on Jul 19, 2007 8:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think there's a lock either

As of right now, the team seems to be pretty high on Travis. Jones might be a nice role player, but he's not the future and that's what the team is focused on, not next season. Webster is still a huge project, he's nowhere near an NBA starter.

by leeroyjenkins on Jul 19, 2007 8:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

err meant to say there's not a lock, but I vote TO

by leeroyjenkins on Jul 19, 2007 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i vote outlaw

when did jones ever put up 36 and 10? webster hasn't doen that. travis has. i know it was end of the season, and scrub minutes, but 36 is 36. i think he can give us 12-15 a night with 5-7 boards and 1-2 blocks if he plays 30 minutes. his shooting will come, as with all shooters its repetition and confidence. i mean jeeze, hes only what 22, 23. let him play, he might be the fourth best guy on the team...

life is like a bank, you can only take out as much as you put in. -Cal Ripken Sr.

by winnerwinner on Jul 19, 2007 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know, man...

didn't Damon score 52 once? Didn't McDarius do 43? 36 is not 36 when it comes at the end of the year and we are not playing for anything.

I would even go so far as to say that Webster will have a better career statistically than Outlaw.

But you may be right... maybe this offseason he was able to develop the basketball IQ that has escaped him for the last 5 years.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 19, 2007 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damon

was a good player in a bad system for him. Blazers took a scoring point guard and tried to make him something he wasn't. We killed his career.

Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard.

by ratbastird on Jul 19, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would agree with you...

wholeheartedly, but then EnglandDan would accuse me of having some kind of a midget fetish.

by ken on Jul 19, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wern't playing for anything?

Golden State was playing to get into the playoffs. Portland was playing to win. If he scores 36 against a team trying to get into the playoffs while his team is not playing for anything that makes it more impresive not less.

by mrwonderfull on Jul 19, 2007 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

correction...

Portland was most certainly not playing for the win. Look at the box score, dude. We had ONE regular starter log any time! The other 4 didn't even touch the court. We were already down by 15 after 12 minutes!

Look, he had a hell of a game. Good FG%, perfect 16/16 from the line, 10 boards to boot. But our team had packed it in and GS wasn't going to suddenly start playing defense... that's not their MO. They play Pheonix-ball and try to outrun and outscore you.

My point is that one 36/10 performance at the very end of a season that has been essentially given up on (rightfully so... we don't want to injure our future or our trade value when we HAVE NOTHING TO PLAY FOR) is not something to base an argument on.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 20, 2007 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude the day

outlaw averages 15-8 i'll date alicia keys.yeah 36-10 when the games where meaningless.yeah like jscot said,if we can make another trade please do.you guys really put these guys on a pedistal.

by fatty on Jul 19, 2007 9:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ok skinny

you juswt watch what happens. if outlaw starts, he will put those numbers up. get off your high horse and stop talking down to everyone that differs in opinion from you.

life is like a bank, you can only take out as much as you put in. -Cal Ripken Sr.

by winnerwinner on Jul 19, 2007 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The 36-10

game was not a meaningless game for G.S. They had to win.

by TwoDeep on Jul 19, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But that game

was a blowout in the first quarter. The entire game was garbage time.

by howlingfantods on Jul 19, 2007 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not much of a bet

Tell me you'll date Rosie O'Donnell and then I know you are risking something.

by timg56 on Jul 19, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd have to go with Jonesy

I'd love to believe that Webster was ready or that Trout was capable, but that would be wishful thinking. But maybe I've just conditioned myself to think the way that I do because I've been watching those two guys for the last few years and haven't actually seen much of Jonesy.

We shall see.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jul 19, 2007 10:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Throw Webster in the fire

If we were a playoff team, I would start James Jones at SF.

But since we are rebuilding this year, I say you give the starting nod and the bulk of the minutes to Martell Webster. Of all the players carrying over from last year's roster, Martell needs minutes the most. He will undoubtedly struggle this year if he did start against frontline small forwards, but I'm OK with that. If this guy is going to be the long term answer at SF, he needs to start showing people he can improve his game.

Same situation as last year with Ime. Ime and Jones have basically reached their potential ceiling. They are more effective playing for developed, playoff teams.

Last year, Ime deserved to start over Martell because he is a more refined player. However, since we were rebuilding, I thought we should have started Martell last year as well and bring Ime off the bench.

by VegasNed on Jul 19, 2007 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Calming influence.

This is probably premature but I'm going to base my answer on what I perceive to be Nate's tendencies.

Given the relative inexperience of golaroy, I'm going to say he'll want steady veteran (it's relative) guys who are good perimeter defenders, don't make mistakes, and don't need the ball to be effective on offense. Keeping the other team honest with the deep threat so that the big 3 have room to operate will be key for good spacing on offense.

My guess would be Blake and Jones at least to start the year.

"I'm a buffet of goodness."

by TP43 on Jul 19, 2007 11:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Plays well with others

Nate will not look at their individual talents as much as he'll look at how they fit with others around them (since they are the weak link).

Martell (whether sf or sg) will be paired with Joel because weak perimeter defense will get Oden in foul trouble (and who cares if Joel gets into foul trouble?).

I wouldn't know Jones if he threw me a bounce pass so I can't say, but Nate championed Outlaw and has more invested in him. Outlaw goes into camp the early favorite and starts over Jones unless Jones proves to be a far superior defender and a steadying influence in camp or unless Nate figures Outlaw's ability to create his shot is desperately needed on the 2nd unit.

by jon on Jul 19, 2007 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree and disagree

Great point about Martell and Joel,

But I don't agree that Travis can create his own shot. Plus Travis is a ball hog, we don't need him taking shots from our better players in the first unit.

I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. - Charles Wesley

by Earl on Jul 19, 2007 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which Travis were you watching?

Travis can jump higher than anybody and he's got a killer 1-dribble jumper-- if you buy his fake, he dribbles once and drains it, if you don't buy his fake, he's jumping over you to shoot.

As for the ball hog comment, at the end of last year, he was looking for a contract on a team that had pretty much cashed in its chips-- so his ball hogging was justified and possibly encouraged. That's the only time I've seen him take more than his share.

But, even though I disagree with both your statements about Travis, I agree he's better suited to playing in the 2nd unit.

by grizzo on Jul 19, 2007 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think of

a guy that can create his own shot as someone that can get the ball anywhere he is on the court (reasonably) and get a good shot for himself. I don't consider his one dribble and then a jumper good enough (or consitant enough) to be call qualify. He needs more than one move, and as of last year he didn't have it. He either spotted up or took that one dribble jumper. He didn't attack the rim (maybe due to a lack of ball handling skills) and he wasn't able to get post position (probably because Zach was down there). I'd love to see him succeed and have he and Martell hog those minutes at the 3, but I'm not sure it'll happen.

For comparison, I think the only two guys on the team right now that can get a (good) shot without a teammate setting them up or getting them the ball where they can score it is - Brandon Roy and Jarrett Jack.

I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. - Charles Wesley

by Earl on Jul 19, 2007 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Miles!

Ha. Just kidding. I can't believe no one has used the M word yet.

Seriously, I think there will be a decent battle for the starting SF in training camp. Smart money says Jones wins, but could easily lose his job if he doesn't make his 3s. I like Trout off the bench anyway and Martell probably needs at least another season before he's ready to start.

by go52 on Jul 19, 2007 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's simple, folks-process of elimination

TO and Webster are NEEDED in the 2nd unit for their scoring. You don't want to rely on Jones as a primary scorer in your second unit, and you don't want Travis Outlaw hogging the ball for the first unit, and you don't want Martell further developing his complex when he's not the guy. That leaves Jones at the 3. He'll play some D, hit a few 3s, move the ball, and generally stay out of the way for Aldridge and Roy. Exactly the same role as Ime, except with a little better athleticism, and also a leader. He's supposed to be a locker room leader, so that's a good idea to put him in the starting lineup.

Of course, KP may make this all moot when he trades Jack & Jones for a real small forward.

by jamon51 on Jul 19, 2007 11:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

POTENTIAL, Potential, potential

Neither one can be labeled YET as a GOOD Small Forward.
Jones was dumped to make room for Grant Hill. Hill is NOT a 3-pt specialist. He is good at everything else. Hint!
Webster and Trout have demonstrated that they can score (on occasion). But, can they slow down the scoring of other big SFs like Carmelo or Durant?

Like the debate over the Point Guard position, KP will keep the fan interest filling the seats.
We have two years to debate this question.

spencer

by Eugenefan on Jul 19, 2007 11:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

2 or 3

TO is a 3 (PF, wh'the?). Martell is trying to become an NBA 2.

Martell will help backup Roy, trying to earn minutes from Nate in the solid back-court rotation of Blake/Jack/Roy.

TO and Jones will compete in camp. Unless TO shows more than I think he is capable of this year, Jones wins the starting spot. This works better also for the projected pick-and-roll set of Blake to LMA/Oden/Frye. Roy creates on the weak side. Our SF needs to use his range, like Ime did, to draw the defense away from the key.

Question: Is Jones > Ime?

Looks like Ime is gone and we have Jones instead. Aren't they similar players. Don't they have similar drawbacks as mid-career players not expected to start on a championship team? Don't they both "take time away from players we want to develop"?

Comments:

'77

by LaoTzu on Jul 19, 2007 11:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Martell start the 3

and backup the 2. Jones will get 25 minutes a game at the 3 and Martell get 35 minutes a game at the 3 and backup 2.

Travis will play backup 4.

I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. - Charles Wesley

by Earl on Jul 19, 2007 1:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Travis backs up as a Power Forward ???

Travis Outlaw is a Small Forward, a 3. Maybe playing time at 2 in a pinch. The only place in the league he plays 4 is in Phoenix's crazy system, and though I love to watch them, you see where that gets them in the playoffs.

Besides, we have a Frye and Aldrige at the 4 spot, with PrybZilla and Oden at center, and at a minimum LaFrentz waiting in the wings.

Where Travis sees time is at the 3. And Martell is set up to be a classic 2, unless he can't guard the opposing off guard.

'77

by LaoTzu on Jul 19, 2007 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The team

Keeps saying they like Travis at the 4. I'm just going off of what they say.

I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. - Charles Wesley

by Earl on Jul 19, 2007 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It may just be me

but Travis played a lot of time at the 4 last season. Also, I have heard that Nate and Pritchard liked him better at the 4. In the most recent chat Pritchard while rattling off the number of positions players could play said Travis could play 2 positions and maybe the 2 in the pinch. I am pretty sure those two positions are the 3 and 4. Travis's leaping ability make him a good help defender in the low post, and can make up for some of his lack of size and strength.

by TearsforDuckworth on Jul 19, 2007 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By default, Jones.

He seems to be marginally less sucky than the other options. Whoever it is will be easily our worst starter.

by EnglandDan on Jul 19, 2007 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Question?

Since when did James Jones become a good defender??? I've watched the kid since he came in the league with Indiana and he's not that good of a defender.

I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. - Charles Wesley

by Earl on Jul 19, 2007 1:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Outlaw is a 4 or a Combo forward.

For those that have watched closely the past
two years, Outlaw is not a starting 3. I love
some parts of his game, but he does not have the
quick feet required to guard a quick SF who can
handle/crossover. He got torched on D regularily.
Very good SF's and even good slasher/penetrating
SF's would upfake and go around him, or go left
and cross him over and to the hoop. Occasionaly
he would recover to make a great trailer block and people would ohhh and ahhhhh, but he got
torched off the dribble a lot. Travis is what
we call in coaching; a long stepper. He takes
long lanky strides when running, but long lanky
strides in lateral or backup D don't work with
a quicker footed, slashing type SF. Travis may get better if he learns to shorten his steps and
train in quick foot movement, such as Ime, Bowen,
etc. My guess is that he will put on muscle and
size like his dad (Deputy Outlaw) and eventually
be a PF full time. Quick feet (laterally) aren't
as important with PF's, unless you are guarding
the elite 5 or 6, ie. Amare (C ?), LMA, etc.
Many PF's such as Duncan aren't super quick footed, just have good moves with long steps, spins, hooks, etc. that require defensive planning
for those moves and an ability to read and react.
I like what Outlaw has to offer in some areas,
but know he has to continue to improve his D
(quick feet), passing and overall Bball IQ.
Here's to hoping he continues to progress.
P.S. - Whoever thinks he can play backup 2
is in a fantasy land.

It's GO time !

by walkoff41 on Jul 19, 2007 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jones for a while

Jones will probably get the nod to start the season. He's an average at best man-on-man defender, but an excellent weak-side help defender. He's a great practice player/shooter, but tends to turn into a head case in regular games. He needs to see a shrink to get his head together at which point he becomes an excellent scorer. His rebounding is weak, he doesn't know how to pass, and can't dribble. He's a great guy and could be somewhat of a leader on the team. All that having been said, he's not the long-term solution to the 3 position. Don't be surprised if Travis or Martell take over by the end of December.

by Brewer on Jul 19, 2007 4:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

outlaw

I don't think James has even teh potential to put up more than 8-9 pts a game since he wasn't even able to put that up in a Suns offense where Tim Thomas was a stud.

Outlaw averaged a very solikd 10 ppg last season off the bench. He's not a PF, he is a SF. Playing him at the 4 would be counter productive since we've got a solid backup in Frye already. Jones will be a spot player at best, and will be a key bench contributor only if Martell blows even more next year than he did last year.

A starting lineup of:

Jack, Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge, and Oden

will give us the best combination of success, development, and excitment. Jones is a bit player in this league, i agree with previous posters that he was the price we had to pay to get Rudy, and that's how we should look at him. His raw talent level isn't even at Martell's.

by ssa400 on Jul 19, 2007 4:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

isn't even at Martell's?

What is that supposed to mean? His raw talent isn't even equal with someone who was drafted 6th in the draft out of high school?!?! All Martell has is raw talent... and he's got TONS of it.

by danielfarrell on Jul 19, 2007 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry, that came out harsh

That came out harsher than it should have, sorry about that. It should read something like: Martell has lots of raw talent, here's hoping he does something with it!

by danielfarrell on Jul 19, 2007 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

haha

no no, i agree. I meant to say that most of us aren't really super impressed with anything Martell has done thus far, but he is still a better bet than Jones is. Obviousl all Martell has is raw talent, let's hope he does something with it.

It's just that alot of people here are talking about Jones as a vet that we need in the starting lineup. That may be true. But, i think the word "vet" is being used a bit loosely. If the sole reason that he is considered a "valuable vet" is that he's older than everyone else, even though he blows, he should be sitting on the end of the bench. Roy is worth more as a "vet" than whatever Jones is gonna bring to the table.

Again, I hope i'm wrong, and Jones is a Ray Allen type find and we win a championship next year behind his 27 ppg with 65% 3 pt accuracy.

by ssa400 on Jul 19, 2007 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm all in with ssa400

Outlaw and Jack to start... Yes
Martel, Blake, Frye, and occassionally the thrilla off the bench... oh yea..
Everyone else, practice time, garbage time, injury fillers and D-League...

by mrwonderfull on Jul 19, 2007 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I was couch...

Darius Miles would start when healthy. Why, you scoff? Because that's a great place to hide him. If he's got anything in the tank and that knee is healed he might be a solid player but even if he isn't we get something out of a guy we have to pay and is on our team no matter if anyone likes it or not. If he does contribute something, maybe just maybe, someone would take him and his ubur huge contract off our hands and our youngsters will have had time to develop even more which is the main reason I would start him. I want them fighting for time. Fighting to get better. Fighting to get Mile's starting spot. If they can't fight now then they can't help during pressure filled playoff runs.

Besides the way most of you talk about our other three sf's a healthy Darius actually IS the best SF on the team.

I love women and basketball... but not women's basketball.

by T REX on Jul 19, 2007 6:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you were a couch

Miles would be laying on you eating ice cream.

At least from what I've been reading.

by timg56 on Jul 20, 2007 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey Dave.

This would have been better if there was a poll.

by mrwonderfull on Jul 19, 2007 8:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There will be

before the summer's over. No need to overdo the topic in July.

--Dave

by Dave on Jul 19, 2007 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No regular starter

Nate will play the guy who performs best in practice/pre-season/games. James and Outlaw offer different things, but they aren't THAT far apart in their overall effectiveness -- at least for next year. (Outlaw probably has more upside in the longer term.) So I don't think either one will be able to establish himself as the permanent starter: Nate will keep them battling all year, with the guy who defends and boards, runs the court and makes fewer mistakes, getting more time. But if James starts and you're hoping for Trout, just wait a few weeks! I agree that Martell is a 2 and really isn't part of this battle.

by barryj on Jul 19, 2007 8:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

As a side note

Outlaw has said he feels more comfortable coming off the bench. Not as much pressure. Last year he was a better player off the bench than starting. Maybe that carries into this year.

I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul. - Charles Wesley

by Earl on Jul 19, 2007 11:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Webster

I think Webster starts because 1)Really I don't know anything about Jones but the focus seems to be development and theres more upside with Martell, 2)I prefer what Outlaw can do off the bench. Outlaw can create his own shot and score over people. Plus he plays mostly in the midrange along with Roy, and LMA to a lesser extent. The starting five needs a little spacing, and, even though he can shoot the 3 ball, steve blake really won't get the necessary spacing.

by TearsforDuckworth on Jul 19, 2007 11:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs