# Why not draft Morrison...



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

I'm as big as Blazer fan as they come...it hurts me to see the team lose as much as we are. My reasoning for drafting Morrison...HEART! He has it and he is, I believe, what we need for both the fans and the organization.

Yea, we are losing games and no one likes to lose...but from Adam Morrison's play, he will play not to lose...as I'm sure no one wants to lose...but from a fans point of view...you want to see the players hurt and play to win.

My suggestion draft Morrison and his heart. I love his style of playing!

PG Blake
SG Morrison
PF Randolph
SF Outlaw
C Pryzbilla

There's my lineup for opening night 2006-2007! I will be there!


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

We can't draft Morrison while keeping Telfair and Zach. Pryzbilla would get in foul trouble for trying to make up for all of them playing horrible defense. If we draft Morrison, Zach must go.


----------



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

Letting go of Randolph...that wouldn't be so sad...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

ptownblazer1 said:


> I'm as big as Blazer fan as they come...it hurts me to see the team lose as much as we are. My reasoning for drafting Morrison...HEART! He has it and he is, I believe, what we need for both the fans and the organization.
> 
> Yea, we are losing games and no one likes to lose...but from Adam Morrison's play, he will play not to lose...as I'm sure no one wants to lose...but from a fans point of view...you want to see the players hurt and play to win.
> 
> ...


If you want heart, sign Mark Madsen or somebody like that.

If you want talent, take Aldridge, Bargnani or Gay.

Morrison won't be that good at the NBA level.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Q. Why not draft Morrison?

A. Same reason an organization would pass over anybody... someone else projects to be a better NBA player (in their opinion). I can easily see why a team could select any of the other top prospects (and a few more) ahead of Morrison, but I'd guess he'll go 3-5. 

Why shouldn't Portland draft Morrison? Well I'm a big proponent of taking the best available player (see above), but I don't think that Adam is exactly the missing piece chemistry wise with whats already in place either. He'd be another defensively challenged player, and the 4th SF (or 5th if Webster is more of a 3). The 3 is not exactly a position of need IMO compared to other spots. 

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> If you want heart, sign Mark Madsen or somebody like that.
> 
> If you want talent, take Aldridge, Bargnani or Gay.
> 
> *Morrison won't be that good at the NBA level.*


 I disagree with your assertion fork, and I challenge you to a game of horse


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I disagree with your assertion fork, and I challenge you to a game of horse


Dude, people are entitled to their opinion. I don't agree with it, but so what? I'd still like us to draft Morrison because I think he will be really good, but he might not be too.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> Dude, people are entitled to their opinion. I don't agree with it, but so what? I'd still like us to draft Morrison because I think he will be really good, but he might not be too.


he says stuff like that just to make me mad...

there's a history behind it, its not just one isolated incident...I wouldn't respond like that to somebody who just says that...

and he never brings any valid reasons why he won't be good, just blanket statements to piss me off...


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I disagree with your assertion fork, and I challenge you to a game of horse


Calm down man, it's a message board. People aren't going to agree with you 100% of the time. Try not to take things personally, even though you love the Zags and Morrison.

And to address an earlier post, Morrison at SG?

So we drafted Webster as a project only to replace him the next year (at the age of 19)? That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Here's a reason: he's too slow to play in the NBA, especially at SG, but also at SF. Can anyone name 1 starting SF in the NBA who is as slow as Adam Morrison? I can't. So that means either we think: a) Morrison will be a very rare and unique player who is able to overcome his physical limitation to be the caliber of player who is worth a top 5 pick, or b) Morrison will struggle to compete on both offense and especially defense against bigger faster and stronger NBA players, compared to the college game. I think it is the latter, which is why I really hope we don't draft him. Sorry Zag fans.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

That "slow" guy burns by his man to the hoop quiete a bit....

He's not as slow as people desperately want to make him out to be...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Lemarcus Aldridge brings a larger (pun intended) impact to the game, is more athletic, has more upside, and gives the Blazers an inside presence (with Zach drifting outside) that they will need desperately in order to "Take back the paint".


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> he says stuff like that just to make me mad...
> 
> there's a history behind it, its not just one isolated incident...I wouldn't respond like that to somebody who just says that...
> 
> and he never brings any valid reasons why he won't be good, just blanket statements to piss me off...


You are incredibly egocentric. Why the hell would he care whether you're mad or not?

Some of us aren't big Morrison fans. At least in my case, and I'm guessing in others', too, it has *nothing* to do with you, or your feelings.

Ed O.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I've only seen Morrison play twice; last night and an earlier game against UP. Both times I simply watched him, trying to imagine him in the NBA. 

He can certainly shoot the ball, and shoot over people (in college). He can make a shot even when he isn't really open. Sometimes he just decides to shoot and shoots, no matter if someone is in his way or not. And he makes of lot of those. I don't really see him with that kind of freedom in the NBA, though.

But his overall play just didn't scream out to me that he would be a "special" player in the NBA. I just didn't see a lot of other skills or attributes that make me think he'll be a star, or as successful as a Reggie Miller (maybe in the right system?). He could turn out to be just a better shooting, less athletic Luke Jackson. 

It won't bother me if it turns out I'm mistaken, though. I'd love to have a SF who can shoot lights out from the outside and compliment Martell at SG (and open it up for Zach underneath). But unless he really impresses in workouts, I'm a little nervous about picking him in the top 3.

In the end I'll leave it up to the pros. 

Are we really going to talk about this for 3 more months? Things could get a little testy around here. :clown:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

How anyone could watch last nights game and not be impressed with Morrison is beyond reason..

I swear some of you are just plain basketballs...you hate on a guy, just to hate on him....or b\c others (usually a majority) like the guy...

grow up...crap like this is why I cannot stand the posters on this board at times...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Here's a reason: he's too slow to play in the NBA, especially at SG, but also at SF.


how does one quantify someone being "too slow" to play in the NBA? Is there a 40 yard time requirement?

He's not speedy claxton (no relation to speedy gonzales), but a lot of the "too slow" to play in the NBA players, actually play in the NBA. Darius ain't exactly fast, nor is Billups. Or Ray Allen. 

We shouldn't be comparing the cream of the crop (as far as speed wise) to a new player. Otherwise, we'd be not picking players because they're not as good as the best.

Plus, if he's too slow to play in the NBA, why do so many GM's think he's worthy of a pick?

I guess us fans know more than they do.



> Can anyone name 1 starting SF in the NBA who is as slow as Adam Morrison? I can't.


Can you explain to me, how exactly you've deciphered how 'slow" he is? I could understand if he was like Priest Lauderdale, or Vladdie Stepnia..



> So that means either we think: a) Morrison will be a very rare and unique player who is able to overcome his physical limitation to be the caliber of player who is worth a top 5 pick, or b) Morrison will struggle to compete on both offense and especially defense against bigger faster and stronger NBA players, compared to the college game. I think it is the latter, which is why I really hope we don't draft him. Sorry Zag fans.


the team might think that, but they also might think that Gay isn't too interested in playing ball with much heart or intensity. they also might think that Aldrige is too small to be a real force in the NBA.

Or, and I kno this might be hard to grasp for some fans, they realize that you're not getting a complete player now, but what he'll be in 3-4 years. Morrison can add weight (he's already heavier than he was last year, and the year before). Gay might "turn that switch on", and Aldridge might bulk up.

I'm still wondering how we quantify someone being too slow. Or if it's just a "visual" thing. White kids with floppy hair look slow. Dirk doesn't look to be very fast. 

I think a big reason why Morrison looks slow (I'm not saying he's Telfair fast) is because he jogs back up court (which he won't be able to do in the NBA).


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> I'm still wondering how we quantify someone being too slow.


Critics of Morrison's speed have cited the fact that although he can work up a head of steam, his first step isn't fast enough to get around quick defenders.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Critics of Morrison's speed have cited the fact that although he can work up a head of steam, his first step isn't fast enough to get around quick defenders.


Im not sure how true or untrue that is.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> How anyone could watch last nights game and not be impressed with Morrison is beyond reason..
> 
> I swear some of you are just plain basketballs...you hate on a guy, just to hate on him....or b\c others (usually a majority) like the guy...
> 
> grow up...crap like this is why I cannot stand the posters on this board at times...



Oh we're just here so that we can read your endless posts berating other posters. That's what gives the room a pleasant and refreshing atmosphere. Talk about needing to grow up...


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> Im not sure how true or untrue that is.


Read up on it, then. That's what they've been saying.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Morrison is slow off the dribble becuase he dribbles so up right. The only way he beats people is by using his off arm which he does everytime he drives and he aint gonna get away with that in the NBA. I dont know how anyone who watched him play last night cant see he is always using his off arm to beat people off the dribble, name one NBA player that does that?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Read up on it, then. That's what they've been saying.


well, nbadraft.net's profile on him is 15 months old and draft express was a little vague about things.

He's not going to blow by his man, but thats horribly overrated. Thats a small part of what makes or breaks a good player. Smarts, hustle, heart, intelligence and tenacity also play a part.

You can't just have atheltic freaks and expect to win, or expect that to be enough to make them a star.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Starbury03 said:


> Morrison is slow off the dribble becuase he dribbles so up right. The only way he beats people is by using his off arm which he does everytime he drives and he aint gonna get away with that in the NBA. I dont know how anyone who watched him play last night cant see he is always using his off arm to beat people off the dribble, name one NBA player that does that?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> He's not going to blow by his man, but thats horribly overrated. Thats a small part of what makes or breaks a good player. Smarts, hustle, heart, intelligence and tenacity also play a part.


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46398



> You can't just have atheltic freaks and expect to win, or expect that to be enough to make them a star.


I don't think he was saying that.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> well, nbadraft.net's profile on him is 15 months old and draft express was a little vague about things.
> 
> He's not going to blow by his man, but thats horribly overrated. Thats a small part of what makes or breaks a good player. Smarts, hustle, heart, intelligence and tenacity also play a part.
> 
> You can't just have atheltic freaks and expect to win, or expect that to be enough to make them a star.


You know, no offense Hap, but weren't you just saying the other day that his defensive liabilities were also "overrated". Is there anything brought up about him that isn't overrated one way or the other?


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Are you saying Maun uses hsi off arm like Morrison? If so that is completly wrong Manu blows by people with his ball handling. Occasionaly he might use his off arm but not every single time hs tries to drive. Morrison will be good coming off screens and hitting open jumpers. But he isnt gonna be a great scorer in the league if he cant beat people off the dribble.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Starbury03 said:


> Are you saying Maun uses hsi off arm like Morrison?


Yes. His ball handling is good, too.



> Morrison will be good coming off screens and hitting open jumpers.


That's more Redick than Morrison. Morrison was good because he created his own shot.



> But he isnt gonna be a great scorer in the league if he cant beat people off the dribble.


I agree with you on that. You don't have to be an explosive player, but you need to create room for yourself. Morrison had trouble doing that with some faster defenders.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> You know, no offense Hap, but weren't you just saying the other day that his defensive liabilities were also "overrated". Is there anything brought up about him that isn't overrated one way or the other?


considering that people acted like it was a reason enuogh not to take someone, something like that is overrated as it's importantess. It's not to say it's not important, but it's being over-blown.

Thats not to say he's a "sure fire stud" but that people are often coming up with small holes (relatively speaking) about a player, and glossing over the holes in other players.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46398
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think he was saying that.



when did the onion become a paper to be taken seriously?

might as well have linked me national lampoons.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Morrison can hanlde the ball good but he doesnt have the explosiveness to use that becuase he makes a move then his man can catch right up. He is going to be able to score with hsi shot by temas closing out and he beats them off the dribble or making jumpers off curl or open jumpers. If he comes into the league and struggles with his jumper he is going to be a big time bust, because he doesnt have much else and that is a huge risk when picking so high.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Starbury03 said:


> Morrison can hanlde the ball good but he doesnt have the explosiveness to use that becuase he makes a move then his man can catch right up. He is going to be able to score with hsi shot by temas closing out and he beats them off the dribble or making jumpers off curl or open jumpers. If he comes into the league and struggles with his jumper he is going to be a big time bust, because he doesnt have much else and that is a huge risk when picking so high.


the same can be true of bargani, gay and aldridge.

if they come into the league and struggle with their best part of their game, do they have enough all together talent to not be a bust?


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Gay and Aldridge yes because they can do other things especially on defense. Aldreidge can score down low and still struggle with his jumper and Gay si athletic to get in the lane and finish on the break, plus his arms can make him very good on D. I am not very high on Gay either though if you add Morrisons fire with Gay's talent then that is a very good player but seperate both leave me wanting something more.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Starbury03 said:


> Gay and Aldridge yes because they can do other things especially on defense.


so..one player is really good on offense and it might not transfer over...but 2 players are decent on defense (decent and good) but it WILL transfer over?

Seems to me, that if their defense transfers over, his offense should since he's playing against the same level of defense they're playing.



> Aldreidge can score down low and still struggle with his jumper and Gay si athletic to get in the lane and finish on the break, plus his arms can make him very good on D. I am not very high on Gay either though if you add Morrisons fire with Gay's talent then that is a very good player but seperate both leave me wanting something more.


If Morrison isn't hitting, he can hit other players on the team. The indiana game showed that he has the ability. NONE of the guys are going to be (well I shouldn't say none, as that's too finite) "take over the games" players right now.

They'll each struggle to get their games off, because they're playing against lesser talent (in college).

Morrison might struggle to start out (so will probably the others) but he has the ability to hit shots when defended (and it won't be as tightly as it is college, as thats a different game) and he can create his own shots. Will he average 28? Nope. But he can get himself 10-15 ppg (as can gay, and aldridge) and over time improve his game to the point where he's strong enough and capable of getting his shot off.

maturation is what helps that.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

I dont think Morrison is a very good passer though, and what is gonna happen when one player can shut him down on the NBA level, he isnt gonna be double teamed to find open guys. Defense isnt as much of an incosistnet skill as shooting, your defense can always be there no matter what that is where Gay and Aldridge have an advantage.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

I just end of comment by saying that Morrison is not a bad player but this weak draft at top is gonna make him a top pick with big expectation and that might be very bad for him he can be a solid player in the NBA but he isnt gonna be great and will the fans of a team accept that if he is drafted 3rd. I just dont think he is a good enough player to be drafted that high but they arent many other options.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Starbury03 said:


> I dont think Morrison is a very good passer though, and what is gonna happen when one player can shut him down on the NBA level, he isnt gonna be double teamed to find open guys.


well, then that means that a player will be stuck on him, and it'll mean that the opponent won't be able to double other players as easily. 

Whats going to happen when Aldridge plays against Shaq? or KG? Or Duncan? 



> Defense isnt as much of an incosistnet skill as shooting, your defense can always be there no matter what that is where Gay and Aldridge have an advantage.


thats still an illogical argument. Your defense isn't going to hit a 3 (or deep 2) to open up the paint making it easier for your offense to flow. Your defense isn't going to hit a shot to spread the offense or break a zone. 

this team can't afford to pass up a guy who can hit outside shots. Defense can be taught easier than outside shooting.

they might have an advantage on defense, but being able to out-score your opponent is pretty important.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> this team can't afford to pass up a guy who can hit outside shots. Defense can be taught easier than outside shooting.
> 
> they might have an advantage on defense, but being able to out-score your opponent is pretty important.


Have you taught either? Outside shooting is just mechanics. It's easier to teach a guy to make a basic motion with his hands,arms, and body in a repetitive fashion than it is to suddenly bless somebody with enough speed and instinct to be able to match the person he is defending.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Have you taught either? Outside shooting is just mechanics. It's easier to teach a guy to make a basic motion with his hands,arms, and body in a repetitive fashion than it is to suddenly bless somebody with enough speed and instinct to be able to match the person he is defending.


why do you think teams hire coaches who can run drills and instill the mechanics of defense, but don't bring in coaches who can "teach the guys how to shoot outside shots"?

Somethings just take longer to know how to do. Look at Martel, he's already improved his defense significantly this year. Same with Telfair, people thought he'd never be able to play defense (well, those who just say things to piss of people) and he's already an average defender.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> why do you think teams hire coaches who can run drills and instill the mechanics of defense, but don't bring in coaches who can "teach the guys how to shoot outside shots".


Because learning to shoot is just practice for most people. Learning defense is a lot harder.

Becoming a shooter like Morrison takes a lot more than just practice, but I think that the same thing can be said about becoming a defender like, say, Bruce Bowen. And Bowen's been able to become a decent enough perimeter shooter while I don't see any way Morrison can become a defensive player of the same level Bowen is as a shooter.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Because learning to shoot is just practice for most people. Learning defense is a lot harder.
> 
> Becoming a shooter like Morrison takes a lot more than just practice, but I think that the same thing can be said about becoming a defender like, say, Bruce Bowen. And Bowen's been able to become a decent enough perimeter shooter while I don't see any way Morrison can become a defensive player of the same level Bowen is as a shooter.
> 
> Ed O.


I disagree.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I am going to have to disagree with ya Hap! I think Aldridge probably has a much higher upside then any of those players, and I don't think that offense translates over to the NBA as easily as defense. I honestly can't remember one player who was an excellent defender in college and wasn't a good defender in the NBA, but I can think of scores of times where guys who could score a lot in college could not carry any part of a scoring load in the NBA. Also with Lemarcus Aldridge you have about 7' of size that will always be there no matter what pick he is taken at. He has shown an excellent ability to control the paint, has the type of length that Tim Duncan, Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnette and Chris Bosch posess, which after a few years of running Zach as the main big guy, should make the advantages obvious. These are physical tools that are there even if the talent ends up not being there. 

Now here is something to think about as well: The number of dominant big men, especially centers in the western conference has plummetted over the last few years. By obtaining a solid big man the Blazers could help themselves establish a base for building the team around. A solid big guy would be an advantage Portland could use most nights, as the actual matchup against an aging Duncan, Nowitzki or Garnett will be few and far between. 

Last but not least, since Zach has drifted to the outside, Portland needs an inside presence. The Blazers get outrebounded badly almost every night, and have hardly any inside presence scoring. Aldridge will shore that up. 

The guys is a double double machine waiting to happen, and possibly a 20-10-3 guy every night.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Because learning to shoot is just practice for most people. Learning defense is a lot harder.
> 
> Becoming a shooter like Morrison takes a lot more than just practice, but I think that the same thing can be said about becoming a defender like, say, Bruce Bowen. And Bowen's been able to become a decent enough perimeter shooter while I don't see any way Morrison can become a defensive player of the same level Bowen is as a shooter.
> 
> Ed O.



You're on point.

And Re: Hap, I think the distance between the worst player at defense in the league and an average one is a lot smaller than the difference between an average defender and Bruce Bowen.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> I disagree.


Anything to back it up? 

We discussed this a couple weeks ago and not one person could come up with even ONE example of a poor defender at the college level blossoming into an average defender at the NBA level. Not one. 

You used Telfair and Webster as examples of how a player can improve their defense, but they're excellent examples of why Morrison WON'T improve defensively.

Telfair is probably one of the 5 quickest players in the league. He's strong, his reaction time is incredible. He has all the physical tools to be a slightly above average defender. 

Webster is big, fast and strong. He has the tools to be an above average defender. The scouting report on him before we drafted him was that he could already play solid defense against college seasoned guys like Rashad McCants. 

Since both of them came out of high school, it took a while for them to start playing up to the speed of an NBA game. But once they did, their defense started to improve and it will continue to do so.

Morrison, on the other hand, has played college ball for three years, so he should be used to the speed of the game, yet guys blow right around him repeatedly in games. He may improve slightly as a defender, but even if he maximizes his potential as a defender, he'll still be well below average, because he doesn't have the tools to become even an average defender.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Well I'm not willing to say Morrison is a poor defender because I haven't seen enough of him. I doubt anyone (unbiased) on this board has. I'm just saying that I think, IMHO, that it's harder to learn defense if you don't have the physical skills than it is to just shoot outside jumpers. Notice I'm not saying learn offense, just an aspect of that - shooting outside jumpers.

As to Morrison's ability there are always subjective viewpoints. I'm not sure of the best way to objectively analyze his abilities. Perhaps do a comparison of the PPG by opposing players he defended vs their average?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I am going to have to disagree with ya Hap! I think Aldridge probably has a much higher upside then any of those players, and I don't think that offense translates over to the NBA as easily as defense. I honestly can't remember one player who was an excellent defender in college and wasn't a good defender in the NBA, but I can think of scores of times where guys who could score a lot in college could not carry any part of a scoring load in the NBA. Also with Lemarcus Aldridge you have about 7' of size that will always be there no matter what pick he is taken at. He has shown an excellent ability to control the paint, has the type of length that Tim Duncan, Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnette and Chris Bosch posess, which after a few years of running Zach as the main big guy, should make the advantages obvious. These are physical tools that are there even if the talent ends up not being there.
> 
> Now here is something to think about as well: The number of dominant big men, especially centers in the western conference has plummetted over the last few years. By obtaining a solid big man the Blazers could help themselves establish a base for building the team around. A solid big guy would be an advantage Portland could use most nights, as the actual matchup against an aging Duncan, Nowitzki or Garnett will be few and far between.
> 
> ...


The other thing about decent big men is (and by that I mean players other than Kwame Brown) their value is usually always high. Teams are always looking for guys with size, and if we get Aldridge and resign Przybilla, we'll finally be able to deal from a position of strength. If Aldridge pans out, we can move Przybilla for a backup PF or another need.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Why are people so caught up in Morrison's lack of quickness or explosiveness? If guys like Wally Z and Richard Hamilton can score 20/game and shoot close to 50%, why can't Morrison? I don't think Morrison will be a 25-30 ppg guy, but he'll be an 18-22 guy. And he CAN pass the ball. Did anybody watch the 1st two games of the tourny? He made some passes that I didn't know he could make. Defensively, I've seen him get beat. But he usually makes an adjustment - I've never seen anybody abuse him. Sometimes I think he's a little over-active on D, and could stand to be more patient. He gets out of position sometimes and gets beat - so what? Is Dirk ever going to be an all defensive guy? Morrison is no Larry Bird, but he's going to be a good (maybe not great) player in the league. I have no doubt he won't bust. I can't say that about Gay, and Aldridge could be dissapointing as well - both of them seen a little soft to me. I've never seen Bargnani play, so I can't comment about him. I just love Morrison's toughness and competative fire - I think it's something this team desperately needs. I wouldn't care if he was coming from Duke, or Florida, or Kentucky . . . I'd still feel the same way about him - it's got nothing to do with the NW conection. I just like the way the kid plays. I like his attitude, the fact that he gets himself fired up by running a little smack. Hey, at least he cares. Something you can't necesarily say about our current SF.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

kaydow said:


> Why are people so caught up in Morrison's lack of quickness or explosiveness? If guys like Wally Z and Richard Hamilton can score 20/game and shoot close to 50%, why can't Morrison?


Wally and Rip weren't top 3 picks, which is what we're staring in the face. If we held a 7-10 pick and Adam Morrison is on the board, I'd love to see us grab him. But to be a top 3 pick, a player needs to be able to do more than just score. There are a handful of guys in this draft who look like they can be stars at both ends of the court, and would be worthy of a top 3 pick...Adam Morrison isn't one of them.

Besides, both Wally Szczerbiak and Rip Hamilton are both better athletes than Morrison.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

kaydow said:


> I just like the way the kid plays. I like his attitude, the fact that he gets himself fired up by running a little smack. Hey, at least he cares. Something you can't necesarily say about our current SF.


I like the way he plays too...on offense.

Maybe the scouts will figure out that he can actually improve his quickness and become a good defender. If that's the case, I'd love to see us get him. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

He has tons of emotion and heart thats a reason to draft him.Atleast he cares and doesnt slump around the court saying yeah i got guarnteed money and i dont have to do ****.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Zidane said:


> He has tons of emotion and heart thats a reason to draft him.Atleast he cares and doesnt slump around the court saying yeah i got guarnteed money and i dont have to do ****.


Well...he doesn't HAVE guaranteed money. He doesn't have ANY money, he's a college player. 

Ruben Patterson has at LEAST as much emotion and heart as Adam Morrison, but would Patterson have been worth a top 3 pick? Hell no. It takes more than emotion and heart to make a guy worthy of a top pick.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Well...he doesn't HAVE guaranteed money. He doesn't have ANY money, he's a college player.
> 
> Ruben Patterson has at LEAST as much emotion and heart as Adam Morrison, but would Patterson have been worth a top 3 pick? Hell no. It takes more than emotion and heart to make a guy worthy of a top pick.


patterson didn't have a decent outside shot (hell, eh doesn't HAVE an outside shot). He's also not terribly bright, or offensively gifted outside of bullying his way into the hoop.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Samuel said:


>


Look at who's defending him...the biggest flopper in the league.



Kmurph said:


> How anyone could watch last nights game and not be impressed with Morrison is beyond reason..
> 
> I swear some of you are just plain basketballs...you hate on a guy, just to hate on him....or b\c others (usually a majority) like the guy...
> 
> grow up...crap like this is why I cannot stand the posters on this board at times...


That and people that are too busy being super opinionated are what get me frequently (not directed at anyone).


Morrison...I don't know what to think. He's such an odd (unique?) player that it's difficult to imagine how he'll be utilized in the NBA. Not to say he can't be useful, but it's just hard to figure out in what way.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> You are incredibly egocentric. Why the hell would he care whether you're mad or not?
> 
> Some of us aren't big Morrison fans. At least in my case, and I'm guessing in others', too, it has *nothing* to do with you, or your feelings.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm egocentric?

I'm not the one who has issues with admitting I was wrong....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm egocentric?
> 
> I'm not the one who has issues with admitting I was wrong....


Are you talking about me?

If so, please point out where I've failed to admit I was wrong. This is something that is oft-repeated and rarely (never?) verified. 

Please, I'm interested in knowing if I do this. Find an example and I'll use it as a way to improve myself.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Are you talking about me?
> 
> If so, please point out where I've failed to admit I was wrong. This is something that is oft-repeated and rarely (never?) verified.
> 
> ...


I can find numerous times last year before the Morrison "craze" that you said he wasn't good, overrated, shouldn't even be considered as an All American and on and on...

I'll have more time later tonight to search for examples if you don't remember this...


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

> And in the end, to see Morrison and refuse to let him lie on the floor.
> 
> "That's just a sign of obviously a great program, you know, great people," Morrison said of Afflalo and Ryan Hollins seeing after him at game's end. "They had enough guts (as men) to come over in their moment of victory and pick someone up off the floor. That's just a sign of great people and great players. That's more than basketball."


from http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=BKC-RATTO-03-24-06 

Interesting quote from someone who just lost. The kid has guts and is a competitor but not a sore loser.


----------



## Bookworm (Feb 23, 2005)

With miles on the team there is no time for Morrison..Bird was slow, Wally
is slow and Peja doesn't understand what defense is..as long as you can do
one thing far better than avg you have a chance at being an impact player


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I can find numerous times last year before the Morrison "craze" that you said he wasn't good, overrated, shouldn't even be considered as an All American and on and on...


He wasn't an all-american, except as an honorable mention, iirc. And, again iirc, there was someone from his conference that _was_ all-american, so the weak conference excuse didn't hold water.

(Edit: I think the player I was thinking of was Fazekas, who plays in the WAC rather than the WCAC. See? I can admit when I'm wrong. )

He was (and is, IMO) overrated.

I don't recall saying he wasn't good, but I know that I said he wasn't a good three point shooter.



> I'll have more time later tonight to search for examples if you don't remember this...


One of the things you list I am right about. One is pure opinion and the last, while based on opinion, is something that I don't recall saying.

I'm happy to admit that I'm wrong when I am. Please correct me.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm happy to admit that I'm wrong when I am. Please correct me.
> 
> Ed O.


*grabs Ed by the hair and gets him in a headlock and starts giving him a noogie*

"say it! say it! Hap is great!"


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> *grabs Ed by the hair and gets him in a headlock and starts giving him a noogie*
> 
> "say it! say it! Hap is great!"



"slaps Hap" he said wrong not dilusional


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I can find numerous times last year before the Morrison "craze" that you said he wasn't good, overrated, shouldn't even be considered as an All American and on and on...
> 
> I'll have more time later tonight to search for examples if you don't remember this...


about a month back you hijacked another thread to pull the same bleep with me, accusing me of saying stuff _"constantly"_ the year before I had zero recollection of. Not surprisingly the two links you provided as exibit A and B didn't have me saying anything of the sort.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=242737&page=3

it will be interesting to see your examples later tonight 

STOMP


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm egocentric?
> 
> I'm not the one who has issues with admitting I was wrong....






























etc.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Fork said:


> Wally and Rip weren't top 3 picks, which is what we're staring in the face. If we held a 7-10 pick and Adam Morrison is on the board, I'd love to see us grab him. But to be a top 3 pick, a player needs to be able to do more than just score. There are a handful of guys in this draft who look like they can be stars at both ends of the court, and would be worthy of a top 3 pick...Adam Morrison isn't one of them.
> 
> Besides, both Wally Szczerbiak and Rip Hamilton are both better athletes than Morrison.


Who are these "handful" of guys you speak of? I don't see any "both end of the court stars" in this draft - I think most people agree with me. Are you talking about Rudy Gay? Aldridge? Please!! I'm tired of drafting potential - which is what those guys are. I'm not saying take Morrison over Labron here!! I'm saying this is a weak draft, and even if we end up with a top 3 pick Morrison is a safe bet IMO. And Wally Z and Rip Hamilton aren't better athletes than Morrison, at least not by a signifigant amount. This is exactly how a guy like T. Prince last until pick #23. He was All-American at UK, nice stroke, solid game. Come draft day, he gets drafted two picks after Dog Woods. I just don't get it. I'm tired of swinging for the fences on draft day - I'd rather pick a guy who's a lock to be solid.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

kaydow said:


> Who are these "handful" of guys you speak of? I don't see any "both end of the court stars" in this draft - I think most people agree with me. Are you talking about Rudy Gay? Aldridge? Please!! I'm tired of drafting potential - which is what those guys are. I'm not saying take Morrison over Labron here!! I'm saying this is a weak draft, and even if we end up with a top 3 pick Morrison is a safe bet IMO. And Wally Z and Rip Hamilton aren't better athletes than Morrison, at least not by a signifigant amount. This is exactly how a guy like T. Prince last until pick #23. He was All-American at UK, nice stroke, solid game. Come draft day, he gets drafted two picks after Dog Woods. I just don't get it. I'm tired of swinging for the fences on draft day - I'd rather pick a guy who's a lock to be solid.


I think Aldridge is the 'safest' bet. Here's my 'safe' to 'risky' spectrum based on what I've seen of these players. 

*Safest Bet*
Aldridge (lack of O)
Morrison (athleticism/defense)
Gay (inconsistency)
Bargnani (Europe)
*Riskiest Bet*

That said, I'm leaning towards a pick of Gay or Bargnani.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kaydow said:


> I'm saying this is a weak draft, and even if we end up with a top 3 pick Morrison is a safe bet IMO.


I don't want a player who's "safe" in that, at worst, he'll be an NBA role-player but is almost certain not to be a superstar.

Anytime you have a disaster that drops you into the top-five (or three), you should be taking your best shot at getting a superstar, even if it means taking risk. Superstars rarely get traded and even more rarely are available on the free agent market. You pretty much have to draft them if you want one.

Morrison just doesn't seem to have superstar potential. His upper end is probably a player the caliber of Rashard Lewis: nice, but not a franchise player and possible to get in a trade.

Gay and Bargnani have bust potential, but they also have that small chance (small chance is about as good as it gets, outside of phenoms like Duncan or James) of putting it all together and becoming superstars.

That kind of potential is what I want Portland to go after. Portland can always get Morrison in five years when his team wants to dump his salary because he doesn't do much more than score 20 PPG with poor defense.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I don't want a player who's "safe" in that, at worst, he'll be an NBA role-player but is almost certain not to be a superstar.
> 
> Anytime you have a disaster that drops you into the top-five (or three), you should be taking your best shot at getting a superstar, even if it means taking risk. Superstars rarely get traded and even more rarely are available on the free agent market. You pretty much have to draft them if you want one.
> 
> ...


So, if we got the number 1 pick, and could draft a player the caliber of R. Lewis - you'd pass? Gay and Bargnani have TD/Labron potential? Get real, there are no TD's or Labron's in this draft. If Adam Morrison turns out to be R. Lewis - I'd grab him and run.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kaydow said:


> So, if we got the number 1 pick, and could draft a player the caliber of R. Lewis - you'd pass?


Uh, no. I'd pass on a player who's _ceiling_ was the current Rashard Lewis. Not a player who was guaranteed to be the current Rashard Lewis.



> Gay and Bargnani have TD/Labron potential? Get real


I said nothing of the sort. I said that Gay and Bargnani have a small chance of being a superstar and a small chance at superstardom is the best chance you can get from a draft pick _outside of phenoms like Duncan and James_.



> If Adam Morrison turns out to be R. Lewis - I'd grab him and run.


If he "turns out to be"? You mean, in three years, when we find out what he turned out to be, you'd travel back in time and draft him? Cool. I probably would too.

In the present, where we don't know what he'll turn out to be, I don't like his ceiling, as I perceive it.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Uh, no. I'd pass on a player who's _ceiling_ was the current Rashard Lewis. Not a player who was guaranteed to be the current Rashard Lewis.
> 
> In the present, where we don't know what he'll turn out to be, I don't like his ceiling, as I perceive it.


Like I said, I haven't seen Bargnani - so I can't comment on him. But the "ceiling", or upside to Gay, or Alrdridge doesn't look like superstar potential to me. They didn't play like lottery picks this year. Morrison on the other hand; nobody was able to stop him all season. Not athletic enough? He put 43 on Michigan St., 43 on UW, and 34 on Memphis. All three of those teams have superior athletes at the forward position. Anyways, we could go around and around. Nobody can polorize this board like Adam Morrison these days.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kaydow said:


> Morrison on the other hand; nobody was able to stop him all season. Not athletic enough? He put 43 on Michigan St., 43 on UW, and 34 on Memphis.


A lot of guys dominate at the collegiate level that don't pan out at the NBA level. Some players' games are well-suited to exploit the slower, inconsistant college zones but don't translate well when they can't gain separation from quicker, longer NBA players.

I felt the same way about Luke Jackson and Josh Childress, and their great college performances have definitely not translated. And, as a Stanford fan, I _liked_ Childress. So these appraisals have nothing to with like or dislike of the players.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> A lot of guys dominate at the collegiate level that don't pan out at the NBA level. Some players' games are well-suited to exploit the slower, inconsistant college zones but don't translate well when they can't gain separation from quicker, longer NBA players.
> 
> I felt the same way about Luke Jackson and Josh Childress, and their great college performances have definitely not translated. And, as a Stanford fan, I _liked_ Childress. So these appraisals have nothing to with like or dislike of the players.


Jackson and Childress weren't exactly POTY material, where they?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> Jackson and Childress weren't exactly POTY material, where they?


No. Redick is also POTY material. How much would you invest in _his_ NBA future?

Christian Laettner was far more decorated in college than Morrison. It's not really _that_ hard to find examples of POTY-caliber players that failed to amount to much at the NBA level.

My point is still the same; I don't think his game translates well, even if he's a better collegiate than Jackson or Childress.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Walter Berry anyone? No I don't think Morrison will be a bust like Berry, merely pointing out another player of the year guy that didn't do well at the next level.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Walter Berry anyone? No I don't think Morrison will be a bust like Berry, merely pointing out another player of the year guy that didn't do well at the next level.


hm...the "player of the year" award list I found didn't list Walter Berry as a winner. Some off-shoot "player of the year" did list him tho (Kodak "player of the year", the 'sports network', and the national junior college "player of the year")...but not the Naismith POTY, which is the only one that counts.

*also the "wooden award" had him, but thats not the national award, and it's an award from the "Los Angeles Athletic Club".

Not the same.

* 1969 - Lew Alcindor, UCLA
* 1970 - Pete Maravich, LSU
* 1971 - Austin Carr, Notre Dame
* 1972 - Bill Walton, UCLA
* 1973 - Bill Walton, UCLA
* 1974 - Bill Walton, UCLA
* 1975 - David Thompson, NC State
* 1976 - Scott May, Indiana
* 1977 - Marques Johnson, UCLA
* 1978 - Butch Lee, Marquette
* 1979 - Larry Bird, Indiana State
* 1980 - Mark Aguirre, DePaul
* 1981 - Ralph Sampson, Virginia
* 1982 - Ralph Sampson, Virginia
* 1983 - Ralph Sampson, Virginia
* 1984 - Michael Jordan, North Carolina
* 1985 - Patrick Ewing, Georgetown
* 1986 - Johnny Dawkins, Duke
* 1987 - David Robinson, Navy
* 1988 - Danny Manning, Kansas
* 1989 - Danny Ferry, Duke
* 1990 - Lionel Simmons, La Salle
* 1991 - Larry Johnson, UNLV
* 1992 - Christian Laettner, Duke
* 1993 - Calbert Cheaney, Indiana
* 1994 - Glenn Robinson, Purdue
* 1995 - Joe Smith, Maryland
* 1996 - Marcus Camby, UMass
* 1997 - Tim Duncan, Wake Forest
* 1998 - Antawn Jamison, North Carolina
* 1999 - Elton Brand, Duke
* 2000 - Kenyon Martin, Cincinnati
* 2001 - Shane Battier, Duke
* 2002 - Jason Williams, Duke
* 2003 - T. J. Ford, Texas
* 2004 - Jameer Nelson, Saint Joseph's
* 2005 - Andrew Bogut, Utah


of those, 13 have been "busts" (and 5 of those came in the last few years).


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> hm...the "player of the year" award list I found didn't list Walter Berry as a winner. Some off-shoot "player of the year" did list him tho (Kodak "player of the year", the 'sports network', and the national junior college "player of the year")...but not the Naismith POTY, which is the only one that counts.
> 
> *also the "wooden award" had him, but thats not the national award, and it's an award from the "Los Angeles Athletic Club".
> 
> ...



Fair enough, I just remember hearing player of the year. Obviously they were refering to the Wooden award and such. He was awarded POY in 86' by the AP, UPI, NABC and the Wooden award iirc

Actually looking at his carreer I was right, but was his problem all attitude? I remember in Portland it was. He seemed to have some decent numbers here and in Europe


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Fair enough, I just remember hearing player of the year. Obviously they were refering to the Wooden award and such. He was awarded POY in 86' by the AP, UPI, NABC and the Wooden award iirc
> 
> Actually looking at his carreer I was right, but was his problem all attitude? I remember in Portland it was. He seemed to have some decent numbers here and in Europe


he was, iirc, what so many fans are desperate to make telfair out to be. A typical NY self centered *** clown, who thought he walked on water.

but unlike Telfair, Berry actually WAS a total self centered *** clown who thought he walked on water.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> of those, 13 have been "busts" (and 5 of those came in the last few years).


Which totally makes sense, as the best players leave college early, leaving lesser prospects behind to fight (against inferior competition in the form of inferior prospects or younger players) for the player of the year award. 

Ed O.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

You know...growing up I never watched the NCAA tourney, but I've watched it this last year and really loved it.

Morrison is a good scorer...obviously. But, he lacks defensive presence and he slowness will hurt him. I'm much higher on players that bring it...show that level of intensity. Personally, from watching the NCAA tournament the person that I am most impressed with is Brandon Roy. He projects an aura of leadership and seems like he could end up being a really good, versitile player that could play spot minutes at PG/SF in addition to SG. 

While I don't think we should nececessarily take Roy (though I wouldn't be opposed to it depending on where we draft) we need to take someone that not only has great potential but that is also a proven player. Barangi (sp) the Euro...never seen him play but if he's at all like Dirk then I think we might want to seriously grab him. I'm not too high on Alderage because he doesn't seem to bring it on a consistent enough basis. 

Rudy Gay is gonna be a special player too. Pretty much, you can't seem to go wrong with a player from UConn...at least not in recent history.

Blazers need to start over. I've always been a fan, but this is a real rough time and I don't go or watch any of the games because they just aren't entertaining for me. Randolph and Miles need to go. I'm not high on Telfair either...damn I wish we had Chris Paul when we had the chance. 


I just think that it is pathetic that we're starting Blake...a guy who was like the 3rd string PG for Washington last year....ugg.

Anyways...just my 2cents.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> he was, iirc, what so many fans are desperate to make telfair out to be. A typical NY self centered *** clown, who thought he walked on water.


What fans would that be? 

I'm seriously asking. I haven't seen anyone like that on this board. Even tlong has different reasons than that.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What fans would that be?
> 
> I'm seriously asking. I haven't seen anyone like that on this board. Even tlong has different reasons than that.
> 
> Ed O.


well, basically it's only a few people. Haven't you read where people compare him to Marbury, or that he's a "shoot first PG/typical NY baller"?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Perfection said:


> Personally, from watching the NCAA tournament the person that I am most impressed with is Brandon Roy. He projects an aura of leadership and seems like he could end up being a really good, versitile player that could play spot minutes at PG/SF in addition to SG.


Same. I don't think Portland will select him as early as they're likely to be picking, but I've also been very impressed by Roy. Not only is he smooth offensive player, he also brings some excellent defensive skills. He's got a good chance of being a talented all-around player at the NBA level.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Same. I don't think Portland will select him as early as they're likely to be picking, but I've also been very impressed by Roy. Not only is he smooth offensive player, he also brings some excellent defensive skills. He's got a good chance of being a talented all-around player at the NBA level.


I agree. But I also think he has the chance to be the "kirk snyder" of this years draft. Someone who if Portland doesn't pick, certain posters will trumpet him out as proof that he should've been taken instead of who Portland picked. Especially if who Portland picked isn't "lighting things up" and someone else drafted is.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

take Ammo bottom line...we need guys who have a passion for the game, and he does. LaMarcus is so intriguing but you gotta wonder if he has the fire? Gay is a damn enigma. He looks lost out there at times, doesn't take clutch shots, and kinda gets overshadowed by teammates. I know he could be another Charlie V situation, but are you willing to risk that at pick #2/3?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I'd take Morrison over Gay every time....

Minstrel -

You talk like having Rashard Lewis is a bad thing....Look, if Wally Sczerbiak can excel in the league, then surely Morrison can, and he is a better player than Sczerbiak is IMO...POR needs a star playe for sure, but Morrison has as good or better chance IMO if being one than any of the other players in this draft, and at worse he can p[rvoide the scoring and fire this team sorely lacks in...

Gay is an enigma...great athletic talent, but questionable motor...hmm....where have we heard that before? But I guess THIS time it will go according to plan, right?

Brandon Roy is a nice player, but he isn't better than Morrison is. 

I have watched Aldrige several times and every time I have been unimpressed...but he is big, so he has that going for him.....

After all the POR has been through and given an equality in terms of talent, I'd rather go with the guy who has consistently displayed a competitive fire and produced results b\c of that fire, than guys who are seen as more athletic, but who cannot seem to find consistency...

Where was Rudy Gay for 3 quarters last night? 

I'd lean more towards Brandon Roy before I'd take Rudy Gay I think...But I wouldn't even consider either of them before Morrison.

Morrison #1 or Aldridge #2

After that I think it is wide open amongst Bargnani, Gay, T.Thomas, Roy and yes Randy Foye...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I'd take Morrison over Gay every time....
> 
> Minstrel -
> 
> You talk like having Rashard Lewis is a bad thing....


No, I don't. That's the same mistake kaydow made. I say that a prospect having the _ceiling_ of the current Rashard Lewis is a bad thing, as a top-three pick. Rashard Lewis, when he was in the draft, had a higher ceiling than the level he's playing at now. This is where he ended up. If by magic I could be assured that Morrison would end up as good as Lewis, I'd be happy to select him. But when I feel his ceiling is Lewis, that makes his expected value considerably lower. Which is a bad thing.



> Look, if Wally Sczerbiak can excel in the league, then surely Morrison can, and he is a better player than Sczerbiak is IMO


I don't agee that Szczerbiak "excels." He's an above average player, the type that is available on the trade market and in free agency. That's not the type of player I want to get with a top-three pick.



> ...POR needs a star playe for sure, but Morrison has as good or better chance IMO if being one than any of the other players in this draft


That's where we disagree. I think Morrison is the likeliest among the top prospects to be at least average, but one of the least likely to be a superstar. In some sense, that's valuable...but I prefer a higher risk/higher reward strategy for such a high pick.



> and at worse he can p[rvoide the scoring and fire this team sorely lacks in...


That wouldn't be his worst. His worst is that he provides very little scoring because he can't get separation to create his own shot and becomes a Eric Piatkowski type of player.

I think even at his best, in my estimation, he'll be a small forward equivalent to Zach Randolph: a guy who can score, but doesn't create for others or play plus defense. Those guys have some value, but can definitely be acquired in trade, when their team wants to dump their salary.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Speaking of Randy Foye, now theres a player. He's like Deron Williams but better. We would have to get rid of JJ and Blake before even thinking of taking Foye, but I do love Foye's game. I also love Kyle Lowry's game, too bad we have good pg talent and Bassy is just scratching the surface.
Back to Ammo; he is twice hte college player Wally was and even Wally made an AS team in the NBA. Ammo is a better shooter and a more diverse scorer. I think the fact Wally has been pretty good in the NBA is a great reason to draft Ammo considering how much better Ammo was in college. Ammo's passion can not be measured by any 40 time, vertical jump, or iq test...he just flat out wants to win...I can not say this enough. When we had Clyde, Terry, Jerome, etc...THEY ALL HAD IT IN THEM TO WANT TO WIN! They would do whatever it took to win, when you surround young players with that type of mentality, its a feeding frenzing and it makes the team grasp that mentality. We know Bassy has it in him; he got it from playing in New York. Zach and Martell have the work ethic, as does Travis. Viktor plays his *** off every night, we know he's got it. We need to keep adding guys like this. I really think Ammo could show Travis how to play more confidently and with emotion. On a final note, I love Ammo's killer instinct. If you don't put your opponent away, they will make a run on you.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> On a final note, I love Ammo's killer instinct. If you don't put your opponent away, they will make a run on you.


Where was that killer instinct the other night?

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Didn't know it was HIS fault his team lost? I didn't see the game, but from what I've heard, UCLA was getting away with a lot of physical defense and that Batista should have gone to the FT line,instead a no call.
Also, where was MJ's killer instinct in the 95 playoffs vs Orlando? Not even one of the greatest can do it by themselves or they could have simply played a bad game...IT DOES HAPPEN YOU KNOW?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Where was that killer instinct the other night?
> 
> Ed O.


yep. he has none because he didn't "display" it the other night.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

kaydow said:


> Like I said, I haven't seen Bargnani - so I can't comment on him. But the "ceiling", or upside to Gay, or Alrdridge doesn't look like superstar potential to me. They didn't play like lottery picks this year.


Morrison didn't play like a superstar when he was a sophomore either. He disappeared as much as Gay did this year, and his Gonzaga team wasn't even CLOSE to being as talented as the Connecticut team is this year. 

Same can be said for Aldridge.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> yep. he has none because he didn't "display" it the other night.


I thought the point was that Morrison brought his A+++ game EVERY NIGHT, unlike Rudy Gay who wets himself and sucks his thumb at the first sign of danger.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I thought the point was that Morrison brought his A+++ game EVERY NIGHT, unlike Rudy Gay who wets himself and sucks his thumb at the first sign of danger.


was gay the guy that UW defended with their best players and still scored 24 points?

Plus, I don't know if i'd be acting as if a few games where he didn't bring his "A+++" game is proof of anything to get all snotty about.


I'm actually not sure that what can be made out of the whole tournament is really worth the effort some people put into it (on both sides of the argument).


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Randy Foye is not better than Deron Williams.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

HKF said:


> Randy Foye is not better than Deron Williams.


Uh, yes he is. DW is not all that grand,imo. Not only is FOye better, but Lowry is gonna be better too. Nova is loaded.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I don't want a player who's "safe" in that, at worst, he'll be an NBA role-player but is almost certain not to be a superstar.
> 
> Anytime you have a disaster that drops you into the top-five (or three), you should be taking your best shot at getting a superstar, even if it means taking risk. Superstars rarely get traded and even more rarely are available on the free agent market. You pretty much have to draft them if you want one.
> 
> ...



I really like Minstrel's analysis. Thats basically how I feel. If you have a decent shot at acquiring a superstar, you take it because it is so dang hard to get one.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> yep. he has none because he didn't "display" it the other night.


If his "killer instinct" can't "will his team to victory" or "refuse to fail" or whatever nonsense you Morrison jockers have been spewing for the past week enough to get a pretty good Zags team against a young UCLA team... how on earth is he going to be able to do it for the Blazers in the NBA?

The beautiful thing about intangibles is that fans can rant and rave about a player and then, when the player's intangibles fail them they can simply dismiss that failure without having it diminish their original point. Because intangibles can't be measured and aren't subject to disproval.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> If his "killer instinct" can't "will his team to victory" or "refuse to fail" or whatever nonsense you Morrison jockers have been spewing for the past week enough to get a pretty good Zags team against a young UCLA team... how on earth is he going to be able to do it for the Blazers in the NBA?


1. not all of us are "morrison jockers". 
2. I'm not sure that his team not winning is as much his "fault" as what it seems you're implying. 
3. refusing to fail (while a poorly thought out phrase and also a cliche) does not mean that the team will always win, or that it's a guarantee that whoever is labled as having that "trait" will always win. Saying that someone will do whatever it takes to win (as thats what the trait, imho, implies) does not mean that because he's doing so the team WILL win, but that he's doing all he can to help his team win. Thats generally good to have as a personality of a player, and it's an added bonus to have one of a player who's arguably the best player on your team and maybe in college basketball. It wouldn't hurt to have that mentality.
4. So if UConn lost last night, would that mean that Gay couldn't "get it done in the NBA"?



> The beautiful thing about intangibles is that fans can rant and rave about a player and then, when the player's intangibles fail them they can simply dismiss that failure without having it diminish their original point. Because intangibles can't be measured and aren't subject to disproval.
> 
> Ed O.


a lot of things can't be measured that fans put stock into. Potential and athleticism for one. Who's the super athletic freak on the Spurs or Pistons? I'd say it's Manu, but imho he uses his smarts to get points more so than his athleticism.

I'd say brains played as big a role in the last 2 NBA titles (and potentially a 3rd one) as being "athletic" did.

Now, I'm not saying that Morrison himself is in that "class" of brains (but I would bet you all the money paul allen lost just this second, that no one thought that Rip Hamilton or Billups had the game to win a title either when they were rookies), but i think it's being under represented on this team.

Is he a for sure pick for the Blazers? Nope, and I've never said he is. It's still too soon to know who's the best for the team, and who the team thinks (which despite what we fans think, they do know more than we do) can fit into their system. They might think someone who's completely different from the group that "out there" is who they want. Of course, thats not necessarily what you're saying or whats being discussed.

I think you're taking things ("he refuses to lose") way to literally so you can argue for the sake of arguing just as those who say that as a bigger factor in why they want him, are being too liberal in their reasoning (uh oh, I hope that doesn't cause talkhard to start another political rant).


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i agree with Hap 

I am not sure who we should draft yet mainly cus of two things we dont know where we are drafting and who will declare for the draft.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> 1. not all of us are "morrison jockers".


Self-awareness is not a prerequisite for jocking a player.



> 2. I'm not sure that his team not winning is as much his "fault" as what it seems you're implying.


I'm not blaming him. I'm pointing out that, in spite of the near-miraculous intangibles some of you are willing to ascribe to Morrison, his team lost.



> 3. refusing to fail (while a poorly thought out phrase and also a cliche) does not mean that the team will always win, or that it's a guarantee that whoever is labled as having that "trait" will always win. Saying that someone will do whatever it takes to win (as thats what the trait, imho, implies) does not mean that because he's doing so the team WILL win, but that he's doing all he can to help his team win. Thats generally good to have as a personality of a player, and it's an added bonus to have one of a player who's arguably the best player on your team and maybe in college basketball. It wouldn't hurt to have that mentality.


I don't think that he has that mentality more than the vast majority of prospects. I think that it's just a label people put on him because he's a guy who is emotional and relatively well-spoken and because people want to root for him.



> 4. So if UConn lost last night, would that mean that Gay couldn't "get it done in the NBA"?


Has anyone said that Gay is going to succeed because of his intangibles? Because he simply won't let his team lose and/or because of his killer instinct? 

I don't think so.

If people are saying that Gay is going to succeed because of his youth and his height and his athleticism and then he turns out to be 6'4" when he's measured in pre-draft, then that would be a strike against him to me. The same way Morrison's inability to halt his team's choke--while not his fault--undercuts the argument of those that are willing to give him legendary unmeasurables.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Self-awareness is not a prerequisite for jocking a player.


being a cocky little twerp isn't a prerequisite for being a poster, but you're one anyways.



> I'm not blaming him. I'm pointing out that, in spite of the near-miraculous intangibles some of you are willing to ascribe to Morrison, his team lost.


again, because someone said they have the trait of refusing to lose, it doesn't mean they'll always win. Bird probably had the same mentality, and guess what..they lost in the finals too. Same with Magic. Same with Jor..wait, he never lost, nm.



> I don't think that he has that mentality more than the vast majority of prospects. I think that it's just a label people put on him because he's a guy who is emotional and relatively well-spoken and because people want to root for him.


thats some of it. but it's also that there seems to be a lot of big clutch shots he's hit in his career. And him not doing so the other night, does not wipe away the games he did. Would it have been better HAD he had them the other night? Yah, but no one is that great, and it's not been said that he is.



> Has anyone said that Gay is going to succeed because of his intangibles? Because he simply won't let his team lose and/or because of his killer instinct?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> If people are saying that Gay is going to succeed because of his youth and his height and his athleticism and then he turns out to be 6'4" when he's measured in pre-draft, then that would be a strike against him to me. The same way Morrison's inability to halt his team's choke--while not his fault--undercuts the argument of those that are willing to give him legendary unmeasurables.


I like how you're taking the argument and ever increasing the level of what people say about him. Thats not normal Ed O talk, thats borderline "baiting" Ed O talk.

you know that what they said about him wasn't a declaration of him being the greatest thing ever, nor was it a sign that he'll always make huge shots every game. His track record isn't erased because of a game where despite being defended incredibly well he still scored 24 points and had his team in a position to win (and they should've, but thats poor play by his teammates) against a team that a lot of people expected to completely shut him down and win the game easier than they did.



> Ed O.


smells!

ha! burn!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> again, because someone said they have the trait of refusing to lose, it doesn't mean they'll always win. Bird probably had the same mentality, and guess what..they lost in the finals too. Same with Magic. Same with Jor..wait, he never lost, nm.


Whether those guys had that attitude or not doesn't matter. They were damn good players. You didn't have to look at Jordan coming out of college and say, "That guy just won't give up!"

The fact that you have to do it for Morrison shows that he's not the uber-prospect that some would have him be.



> thats some of it. but it's also that there seems to be a lot of big clutch shots he's hit in his career. And him not doing so the other night, does not wipe away the games he did. Would it have been better HAD he had them the other night? Yah, but no one is that great, and it's not been said that he is.


Almost every player, and especially almost every Player of the Year candidate, has hit big shots. But not every PotY (as you posted) goes onto succeed in the NBA.



> I like how you're taking the argument and ever increasing the level of what people say about him. Thats not normal Ed O talk, thats borderline "baiting" Ed O talk.


Oooh... the specter of "baiting". I know that we've had people kicked off the board for that before, but I'm not going to agree with you because of that bull****.

You can't deny that people ARE ascribing him legendary unmeasurables. John Stockton? Larry Bird? Magic Johnson? Michael Jordan?

These are just some of the players that you and others have mentioned when talking about Morrison's intangibles.



> you know that what they said about him wasn't a declaration of him being the greatest thing ever, nor was it a sign that he'll always make huge shots every game. His track record isn't erased because of a game where despite being defended incredibly well he still scored 24 points and had his team in a position to win (and they should've, but thats poor play by his teammates) against a team that a lot of people expected to completely shut him down and win the game easier than they did.


UCLA was 3 or 3.5 point favorites. It was a 2 vs. 3 seed. I don't think the "Gonzaga as underdog" defense makes much sense here.

And I don't think the "poor play by teammates" defense has much to do with it, either, considering the premise that I'm attacking is that Morrison's mental tenacity won't let a team make a run.

Ed O.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Ladies, lets keep it civil here. :cheers:


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

tyrus thomas we will have to wait to see who declares for the draft.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Whether those guys had that attitude or not doesn't matter. They were damn good players. You didn't have to look at Jordan coming out of college and say, "That guy just won't give up!"


true, but considering there isn't a jordan in this year class, I'm not really sure why you're acting as if it doesn't matter. If there was a clear cut best player, that's one thing. 



> The fact that you have to do it for Morrison shows that he's not the uber-prospect that some would have him be.


not really. It shows that above the other things he has going for him, he as that trait. It's not as if people are liking SOLEY because of that, but because in addition to what he brings offensively, he also has that trait. 

Hopefully, it'll make him work on his defense. 


> Almost every player, and especially almost every Player of the Year candidate, has hit big shots. But not every PotY (as you posted) goes onto succeed in the NBA.


true. But at the same time, almost all of them at least went onto have decent games in the NBA. And not every player who's has the positives that people associate with Aldridge and Gay succeed in the NBA either. It's a game (drafting I mean) that entails far more than what simple things we fans think it does. 



> Oooh... the specter of "baiting". I know that we've had people kicked off the board for that before, but I'm not going to agree with you because of that bull****.


huh?



> You can't deny that people ARE ascribing him legendary unmeasurables. John Stockton? Larry Bird? Magic Johnson? Michael Jordan?


never said that those who are making the comparisons to those players, at least in the manner you're implying, are off base. But considering that currently we have SF who's supposed to be a better prospect and has a "higher ceiling" who doesn't have the trait of "refusing to lose" (or always improving his game) seems to be a rather important issue.

Imagine if you will, Darius actually gave effort every game (or hell, 75% of the games). Imagine if in the 6 years he's been in the league, he actually a consistent game. he may be more athletic than Morrison is, but considering Morrison has shown more interest in improving his game, I'd take Morrison over Miles. Adam has shown he actually is willing to improve, I'm waiting for darius to show that.



> These are just some of the players that you and others have mentioned when talking about Morrison's intangibles.


what, you think they're going to mention Chris Dudleys refusing to lose? you expect people to name positive traits of players and then mention players who stunk? It's why Rudy Gay is being compared to (at least on one site) to Scottie Pippen and not Stacey Augmon.



> UCLA was 3 or 3.5 point favorites. It was a 2 vs. 3 seed. I don't think the "Gonzaga as underdog" defense makes much sense here.
> 
> And I don't think the "poor play by teammates" defense has much to do with it, either, considering the premise that I'm attacking is that Morrison's mental tenacity won't let a team make a run.
> 
> Ed O.


you're making an argument against a premise that wasn't made.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> huh?


Breathe in. Breathe out.

Step away from the keyboard.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Why keep it civil?

Your full of crap Ed....

Using Gonzaga's loss as part of your ridiculous arguement as to why Morrison's "intangibles" are overated is piss poor...

I watched that UCLA game, did you? b\c if you did then your either are obviously trying to bait people by taking the devil's advocate or you clearly don't know as much about bball as you try to imply you do....

Morrison was ROUTINELY double teamed for the majority of the night, and unlike our resident chucker, he routinely took advantage of it for the betterment of his team, he passed very well out of the double team, much better than I would have expected him too...He had a rotation of players on him all night, some very athletic and big players, and yet he still managed to put up 24pts and shoot a respectable %.

Since your determined to hang this loss on his head as part of your "evidence" as to why he is a sub-par player, I do think it is important to note that when he did get the ball at the end of the game, he was immediately double teamed, and just as HE SHOULD, he passed to the open man...but of course that is his fault...clearly, b\c
according to Ed's ridiculous logic, he should have dribbled up the court through 2-3 guys and taken the shot himself..... 

"refuse to lose" FTW!!!!!

Refusing to lose may be an exaggeration in terms, especially to those whose arguements soley rest on the flimsy ground of analytically picking apart their literal definition, instead of addressing the thought behind them...something which you seem to relish...

But the meaning behind the phrase rings very true in regards to Morrison, he plays with a ton of heart and passion and it fuels his game and makes those around him better....and yes he has made SEVERAL big\"clutch" shots in his college career to add to his resume..Moreso than any other player in the draft...

He may not be the most athletic player, but to draw the conclusion that he will stuggle b\c of his athleticism in the NBA has little merit, particularly when he has been defended by some extremely athletic players in college...future NBA'ers, and has routinely demonstrated his ability to score on them.

Trouble getting his shot off? Are you kidding me? He has good size and a very high release point, he can fade away or use his body to create space very effectively and his herky-jerky motion and non stop movement are very deceptive in creating offensive opportunities for him...He has more offensive tricks than most NBA players have ever dreamed of...He will score in the NBA, and he will likely score a lot....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Why keep it civil?
> 
> Your full of crap Ed....
> 
> ...



Excellent post!...

Its nice to see that someone else actually watches the games....

:cheers:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Morrison didn't play like a superstar when he was a sophomore either. He disappeared as much as Gay did this year, and his Gonzaga team wasn't even CLOSE to being as talented as the Connecticut team is this year.
> 
> Same can be said for Aldridge.


HAHAHA.....

Quit making up things to make your argument look good....

Morrison averaged 25ppg in the two tournament games in 05'....He was the only guy who was playing good on that team, Turiaf was choking away and clanking foul shots....

please, for the love of God, quit making stuff up!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> HAHAHA.....
> 
> Quit making up things to make your argument look good....
> 
> ...


Two games? Nice 'evidence.' 

The fact is, A_am Morrison averaged only slightly more points as a sophomore than Gay did as a sophomore. And it's not 'making stuff up' to say that this year's UConn team has a TON more weapons than Gonzaga had last year, which explains the advantage in scoring by Morrison. And Rudy Gay is a much better defender.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> HAHAHA.....
> 
> Quit making up things to make your argument look good....
> 
> ...


box scores 

last year he had 10 games where he scored under his average (14 against PSU, 13 against Idaho, 12 against WSU, 12 against Missouri, 12 and 16 against LMU, 9 against SFU, 6 and 9 against SD (one off the bench and in 22 minutes..don't know why) and 8 against Northern Colorado (off the bench)).

But he had 20 at 18 or above (19 ppg was his average). 

Gay at 14 under his average (between 8 and 13) and 15 above his average.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Two games? Nice 'evidence.'
> 
> The fact is, A_am Morrison averaged only slightly more points as a sophomore than Gay did as a sophomore. And it's not 'making stuff up' to say that this year's UConn team has a TON more weapons than Gonzaga had last year, which explains the advantage in scoring by Morrison. And Rudy Gay is a much better defender.


What does it have to do with Connecticut?...You said Morrison diseappeared in big games like Gay does, and its simply not true....

Gay is an an athletic overhyped, overrated piñata....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Two games? Nice 'evidence.'
> 
> The fact is, A_am Morrison averaged only slightly more points as a sophomore than Gay did as a sophomore. And it's not 'making stuff up' to say that this year's UConn team has a TON more weapons than Gonzaga had last year, which explains the advantage in scoring by Morrison. And Rudy Gay is a much better defender.


4 points isn't "slightly", but it's not monumental.

I wonder how Gay would do if the teams concentrated as much on him as they did on Morrison. Thats not a "jab" at Gay, I'm just wondering how he'd do to have the ball in his hands as much and be guarded as hard, and almost doubled constantly.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> What does it have to do with Connecticut?...You said Morrison diseappeared in big games like Gay does, and its simply not true....
> 
> Gay is an an athletic overhyped, overrated piñata....


I didn't say A_am Morrison disappeared in big games. If you care to re-read my post, you'll see what I actually said.

"[A_am Morrison] disappeared as much [as a sophomore] as Gay did [as a sophomore,] and [A_am Morrison's] Gonzaga team wasn't even CLOSE to being as talented as the Connecticut team is this year."


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Adam Morrison "disappearing act" in big games during his sophmore year

26 points and 11 rebounds against Illinois who went on to play in the championship game...

19 points against Joey Graham and top rated Oklahoma St.

26 and 8 rebounds against eventual #1 seed Washington

24 points against at the time #3 rated Georgia Tech...

Not to mention averaging 26ppg in the tournament....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Why keep it civil?


Um. Because it's, like, the rules.



> Your full of crap Ed....


What about my full of crap?



> Using Gonzaga's loss as part of your ridiculous arguement as to why Morrison's "intangibles" are overated is piss poor...
> 
> I watched that UCLA game, did you? b\c if you did then your either are obviously trying to bait people by taking the devil's advocate or you clearly don't know as much about bball as you try to imply you do....
> 
> Morrison was ROUTINELY double teamed for the majority of the night, and unlike our resident chucker, he routinely took advantage of it for the betterment of his team, he passed very well out of the double team, much better than I would have expected him too...He had a rotation of players on him all night, some very athletic and big players, and yet he still managed to put up 24pts and shoot a respectable %.


Yes, he took advantage of it all the way to the loss. Boy, I wish that the Blazers could "take advantage" of things like that! If only the Blazers could add someone like that.

Hehe. 

In case you weren't paying attention, I wasn't attacking the rest of his game. I was attacking the ludicrous suggestion that Adam's intangibles are the reason we should draft him. That his will to win is so much greater than his peers'.



> Since your determined to hang this loss on his head as part of your "evidence" as to why he is a sub-par player,


Please point out where I said that he was a sub-par player. I'm dying to see who got onto my account and posted that, because it wasn't me.



> I do think it is important to note that when he did get the ball at the end of the game, he was immediately double teamed, and just as HE SHOULD, he passed to the open man...but of course that is his fault...clearly, b\c
> according to Ed's ridiculous logic, he should have dribbled up the court through 2-3 guys and taken the shot himself.....


That's my logic? Really? Wow. I learn more about myself every time I read some horribly distorted rant of why I'm full of crap.



> But the meaning behind the phrase rings very true in regards to Morrison, he plays with a ton of heart and passion and it fuels his game and makes those around him better....and yes he has made SEVERAL big\"clutch" shots in his college career to add to his resume..Moreso than any other player in the draft...


What big shots? Against Loyola Marymount? University of Portland?

Forgive me if I am not bowled over.

He is a good player. He's hit his share of game-winners, I'm sure. But as I pointed out to Hap in a previous post, EVERY Player of the Year candidate has hit game-winning shots. It's not adding anything to the debate.



> He may not be the most athletic player, but to draw the conclusion that he will stuggle b\c of his athleticism in the NBA has little merit, particularly when he has been defended by some extremely athletic players in college...future NBA'ers, and has routinely demonstrated his ability to score on them.
> 
> Trouble getting his shot off? Are you kidding me? He has good size and a very high release point, he can fade away or use his body to create space very effectively and his herky-jerky motion and non stop movement are very deceptive in creating offensive opportunities for him...He has more offensive tricks than most NBA players have ever dreamed of...He will score in the NBA, and he will likely score a lot....


*yawn* You Morrison-lovers keep the same mantra up over and over... you just seem to get more and more frustrated when not everyone sees the same thing you do.

It's kinda funny, really.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

*edited: Please attack the points, not the poster. Pejoratives like "collossal idiot" and "*******" don't add anything to the debate and worsen the experience of the site. Thanks*


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> *edited: Please attack the points, not the poster. Pejoratives like *"collossal idiot"* and "*******" don't add anything to the debate and worsen the experience of the site. Thanks*


but are sometimes necessary for stubborn narrowmindedness.....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

That is garbage...they do have merit, and there were good points intermixed with a few barbs thrown Ed's way...but tks for deleting it all..

Ed is being an a-hole and he knows...and I am going to call him on it, even if the mods don't have the balls to do it...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

wow this thread will be locked very soon

why arepeople getting all personal about a player? seriosly you guys need to lighten up on bothsides or go and argue like taht in the olveits ok to state whats on your mind but this is going to far.

Edo i dont know what your beef is with morrison why do you only look at the negetive or what you think are negetives? 

I know being worse than last yearis grinding on some people but it doesnt effect the team one bitonly hurts yourself and the community of the board which has got worse as the season has ground us into dust. 

how about we all hug breath deep and wait till we know who has declared to be in draft before we tear each other down?

lets go back to respecting each other before we before like the olive a place i dont want to go.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Again, Ed for the 3rd time....did you even watch the game?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> but are sometimes necessary for stubborn narrowmindedness.....


So...believing that A_am Morrison is an underathletic and one dimensional player is being stubborn and narrow minded?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> Edo i dont know what your beef is with morrison why do you only look at the negetive or what you think are negetives?


He's not "looking only at the negative." He's arguing a very specific issue being claimed, that Morrison has some preternatural ability to will his teams to victory. I agree with Ed that that's a very sketchy claim that generally gets argued with selective use of the evidence.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> He's not "looking only at the negative." He's arguing a very specific issue being claimed, that Morrison has some preternatural ability to will his teams to victory. I agree with Ed that that's a very sketchy claim that generally gets argued with selective use of the evidence.


thats either arguing against a premis that was never presented, or arguing a minor fraction of an argument that someone presented as though it is a much bigger part of the overall argument.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> thats either arguing against a premis that was never presented, or arguing a minor fraction of an argument that someone presented as though it is a much bigger part of the overall argument.


It's arguing a premise that was presented. Morrison's intangibles, mostly mental toughness, give him an advantage. It's debateable how important that argument is to people.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> It's arguing a premise that was presented. Morrison's intangibles, mostly mental toughness, give him an advantage. It's debateable how important that argument is to people.


it was presented as an part of a whole circle, and not 345 degree's of said circle.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> it was presented as an part of a whole circle, and not 345 degree's of said circle.


Sure, I know that. And some of us feel that part of the circle doesn't exist.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Sure, I know that. And some of us feel that part of the circle doesn't exist.


no, you're thinking that coming up with false paradoxes will prove that that portion of the cirlce doesn't exist, when you're really trying to explain things away by coming up with examples that don't really prove or disprove the existence of god.

er..I mean, jesus.

er..lincoln?

what are we talking about again?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> no, you're thinking that coming up with false paradoxes will prove that that portion of the cirlce doesn't exist, when you're really trying to explain things away by coming up with examples that don't really prove or disprove the existence of god.


Hey, the circle has other corners. Just not that one.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Hey, the circle has other corners. Just not that one.


circles don't have corners, einstein.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> circles don't have corners, einstein.


And Morrison doesn't have special intangibles.

I think we've reached agreement.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> And Morrison doesn't have special intangibles.
> 
> I think we've reached agreement.


than no player does.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

While drafting Morrison would give the Blazers an immediate offensive lift, I'm not sure his talents fit this team as it's currently put together.

Consider if you will:

This team lacks perimeter scoring and a go to guy to complement Zach in the closing minutes of games: Morrison nails this.

The team lacks rebounding at the SF and SG positions: Adam really doesn't have the ability to rebound at the level required for the typical NBA SF.

The team lack perimeter defense: Adam has not proven the ability to defend on the perimeter at the NCAA level.

The team needs a vocal leader who can rally the team around him: Adam nails this.

Ideally a team built around Adam Morrison at the NBA level would need perimeter defenders at the 1-2 positions and a shot blocker at the 4-5. Adam and Zach paired at the 3-4 could be a disaster on defense. However, Morrison brings the skill set that could easily improve Zach's game.

Adam, like JJ Redick, would fit better on a team with a dynamic, athletic PF. Minnesota and Indiana would be possibilities. Charlotte could use Morrison, especially if they move Wallace to SG.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> So...believing that A_am Morrison is an underathletic and one dimensional player is being stubborn and narrow minded?


No, but saying that he disappeared in games as Sophmore anywhere near the degree that Gay does without bringing any facts, and saying that he didn't do well in the tournament his sophmore year without bringing any facts just to try and help your case is narrowminded and stubborn....

Especially when I refute your false accusations with facts that negate that argument and you banish and don't respond to it and then come back later with some other straw to grasp at to try and demean his game....That is very stubborn and narrowminded.....You're just trying to make him look bad any possible way because for some reason you don't want us to pick him....Thats narrowminded and stubborn...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> The team lacks rebounding at the SF and SG positions: Adam really doesn't have the ability to rebound at the level required for the typical NBA SF.


I just don't understand where people come from with this rebounding thing...Morrison is an average rebounder for his position at the college level...

Other SF pro prospects in this draft and recent drafts:

Rebounding Avg's:
Rudy Gay, 6 rpg
Rodney Carney, 4rpg
Julius Hodge, 6 rpg
Joey Graham, 5 rpg
Jarvis Hayes, 5 rpg
Josh Howard 6 rpg
Luke Walton, 5 rpg
Trevor Ariza, 6rpg
Mike Dunleavy, 5 rpg
Caron Butler, 7 rpg
Tayshaun Prince, 5 rpg

The exceptions:
Danny Granger, 9 rpg
Carmello Anthony, 10 rpg

Ex highly successful NBA players college rebounding #'s:
Chris Mullin, 4 rpg
Dominique Wilkins, 7 rpg
Michael Finley, 5 rpg
Richard Jefferson, 5 rpg
Ron Artest, 6 rpg
Paul Pierce, 6 rpg
Grant Hill, 6 rpg
Antoine Walker, 6 rpg


So can we please debunk this notion that he's not a good rebounder...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Getting back to the original question, the reason(s) not to draft Morrison are these. 

1. He's not as fast as you'd like in a SF
2. He's not as good defensively as you'd like a top pick to be


That's really it. There are several reasons to draft him.

1. He's a great shooter
2. seems to be a smart player
3. Plays with fire and emotion
4. Seems like a good "character guy" 



It would be interesting to see Gay and Morrison's stats if they switched teams. Had Morrison play against the Big East all year where they had 9 tourney teams, the most by any conference by far. Then had Gay play at Gonzaga where they had well themselves go. Now I realize that RPI speaking there isn't a big difference. UCONN at #3 Gonzaga at #9. The records were identical, and I mean at home, away and neutral site. Just thinking allowed here. Would be fun to see the stats of Gay if like mentioned by someone else was the man like Morrison is and visa versa


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Quit making up things to make your argument look good....
> 
> Morrison averaged 25ppg in the two tournament games in 05'....He was the only guy who was playing good on that team, Turiaf was choking away and clanking foul shots....
> 
> please, for the love of God, quit making stuff up!


Speaking of making things up, remember this from earlier in the thread?



zagsfan20 said:


> I can find numerous times last year before the Morrison "craze" that you said he wasn't good, overrated, shouldn't even be considered as an All American and on and on...
> 
> I'll have more time later tonight to search for examples if you don't remember this...


You promised to link these imaginary threads 2 nights ago. Even with your claimed photographic memory  it's pretty much impossible to link threads that don't exist. I presume you've come up empty on the search you promised to perform... or did you just forget? Maybe you could show a bit of class and appologize for repeatedly calling out posters for things they never said?

...or you could just keep attacking.

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Morrison scored 24pts against UCLA's defense and was often double teamed...

The super athletic Rodney Carney scored 4pts against that same defense...2pts of which were in the final minute...so saying that Morrison will struggle b\c of his apparent lack of athleticism doesn't hold water.....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Speaking of making things up, remember this from earlier in the thread?
> 
> 
> You promised to link these imaginary threads 2 nights ago. Even with your claimed photographic memory  it's pretty much impossible to link threads that don't exist. I presume you've come up empty on the search you promised to perform... or did you just forget? Maybe you could show a bit of class and appologize for repeatedly calling out posters for things they never said?
> ...


Actually, I haven't had time, I actually have a life...

Believe it or not, I don't make room out of my day to look up some past things said on a message board to prove someone wrong that I most likely will never see....

Now I know, you like to follow me around this message board and claim that I drop "insults" at you and your good buddy Ed O. all the time....

Well, if I do...Too bad, grow up....

How embarassing that you're letting me, the big, bad, cyberbully, tease you in the online forums....How do you sleep at night, knowing that I "insulted" you....  

Please give me a break...

When I have the time and feel like getting around to it, I will look through posts from last year when he said that...I have to go to work in about an hour and I have other things that are a little bit higher on my importance list than proving someone on message board wrong....

Now come again some other time, STOMP...Or are you too busy running your marathons.....(haha yea right)


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

you guys are getting too serious really bothsides need to calm down


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Actually, I haven't had time, I actually have a life...



I'm callling BS on that one.

You joined Dec. 2004, so about 15 months ago. You've made 4537 posts during that time, averaging 9.91 posts per day. Let's assume each post on average takes 8 minutes to create. That comes out to 79.28 minutes per day. Let's further assume, that you spend at least double that amount of time looking at other peoples posts. That comes out to a minimum of 158.56 minutes per day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. I believe I made my point. :gbanana:


----------



## EFT (Mar 27, 2006)

I got some reasons why you should not draft Adam Morrison.

1)--> The boy is your average white boy, not athletic, can't make his own shot.

2)--> Played in a weak conference and that inflates his stats.

3)--> I could not believe he gave up before the game was over when they lost to UCLA. He should have kept his composure but didn't and the team lost. He also cried like a cry baby after the game.

4)--> Seems very immature, makes T.O. look like a good teammate.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

EFT said:


> I got some reasons why you should not draft Adam Morrison.
> 
> 1)--> The boy is your average white boy, not athletic, can't make his own shot.
> 
> ...



Well, as a non Morrison kool aid drinker I will take some issues with everything you said. 

First, race has zero to do with getting your own shot

He has played against great competition all year. See their RPI ranking at #9

He cried becaue he actually cares. Something no black player does.....( see it sounds ignorant to bring race into something where it doesn't belong. Doesn't it?)

The only immaturity I can see is your signature. You said holla so I'm yelling........YOU ARE A RACIST IDIOT.......IMHO.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

EFT said:


> I got some reasons why you should not draft Adam Morrison.
> 
> 1)--> The boy is your average white boy, not athletic, can't make his own shot.
> 
> 2)--> Played in a weak conference and that inflates his stats.



are you trolling, or just clueless? explain why his stats outside of conference are better (more ppg)?



> 3)--> I could not believe he gave up before the game was over when they lost to UCLA. He should have kept his composure but didn't and the team lost. He also cried like a cry baby after the game.
> 
> 4)--> Seems very immature, makes T.O. look like a good teammate.


ok, you're baiting. everyone ignore this.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

EFT said:


> I got some reasons why you should not draft Adam Morrison.
> 
> 1)--> The boy is your average white boy, not athletic, can't make his own shot.
> 
> ...


I don't like his game either, but your post is completely ****ing stupid.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

he is a sonics fan so he must want ammoo


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> he is a sonics fan so he must want ammoo


Wait... he's a Storm fan.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Actually, I haven't had time, I actually have a life...
> 
> Believe it or not, I don't make room out of my day to look up some past things said on a message board to prove someone wrong that I most likely will never see....


To butt in a bit, it seems like you at least take the time to type in "Adam Morrison" into the search function and post wherever his name comes up. Plus, if you're gonna argue with someone at least back it up with facts instead of coming out with the typical "I actually have a life" routine. Everyone here knows they spend way too much time on this site that they'd like to admit.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

lol sheed so so true P

wish the ping pong balls would drop and the ownership issue contract crap was revolved.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

someone brought up (at least I think) how SI did an article in the 80's on leading scorers in NCAA being busts in the NBA

http://hoopsanalyst.com/ncaa.htm

here is a list from 70-2003. Notice how many come from lower division schools, and probably not ranked schools (or known players). * indicates what is an obvious "smaller" school/lower level schools. You'll also notice Kimble and Gathers from LMU's running gimmick offense from the early 90s.

This isn't meant to prove anything, but it's an interesting stat.


> 1970-71 Johnny Neumann Ole Miss 40.1 455 games* 0 times
> *1971-72 Dwight Lamar SW La 36.3 273 games* 0 times
> 1972-73 Bird Averitt Pepperdine 33.9 236 games* 0 times
> *1973-74 Larry Fogle Canisius 33.4 2 games 0 times
> ...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I don't like his game either, but your post is completely ****ing stupid.


Word up.

Ed O.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

EFT said:


> I got some reasons why you should not draft Adam Morrison.
> 
> 1)--> The boy is your average white boy, not athletic, can't make his own shot.
> 
> ...


EFT = Everyone's Favorite Troll?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> That is garbage...they do have merit, and there were good points intermixed with a few barbs thrown Ed's way...but tks for deleting it all..
> 
> Ed is being an a-hole and he knows...and I am going to call him on it, even if the mods don't have the balls to do it...


Actually, I don't think I'm being an ******* or unreasonable in the least. I find it horrific that you and some others have personalized the thread for no reason.

I don't think Morrison is that good of an NBA prospect. I don't think that he's capable of "willing his team" to anything. I don't think that his alleged "refusal to fail" has any merit as a reason to draft him.

I watched the game. I saw him disappear. I saw his team choke. I saw him start to cry before the game was over and then I saw him collapse on the floor after it ended.

The game didn't change anything about how I saw him, but it definitely seemed to be evidence for those that ascribe marvelous intangibles to him. Where were they? If they don't show up in a close game like that, what good are they?

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Actually, I don't think I'm being an ******* or unreasonable in the least. I find it horrific that you and some others have personalized the thread for no reason.
> 
> I don't think Morrison is that good of an NBA prospect. I don't think that he's capable of "willing his team" to anything. I don't think that his alleged "refusal to fail" has any merit as a reason to draft him.
> 
> ...


why must the world be black and white for you? as if when someone says he "refuses to lose" that if he loses a game, it viods that?

or that it means they'll win every game?

seems like you're purposely taking things to an extreme, just to prove a point. You don't like him (but did like wingfield  ) and seems to be willing to ignore common sense when it comes to arbritarily over dramatizing the use of a cliche used to describe a trait in him, which was never, has never been, and never will be a 100% finite way that things are.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Actually, I don't think I'm being an ******* or unreasonable in the least. I find it horrific that you and some others have personalized the thread for no reason.
> 
> I don't think Morrison is that good of an NBA prospect. I don't think that he's capable of "willing his team" to anything. I don't think that his alleged "refusal to fail" has any merit as a reason to draft him.
> 
> ...


hATER!!!!!!

But seriously, I agree. I don't get why not drinking the 'Adam Morrison Kool Aid' causes some people to go on the warpath.

The kid can score. He can't play defense. He doesn't have superhuman intagnibles. He's not a top 3 prospect. 

I'm sure the reponse will be "At least he shows up more than Rudy Gay!!!" but that's a pretty weak argument.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> why must the world be black and white for you? as if when someone says he "refuses to lose" that if he loses a game, it viods that?
> 
> or that it means they'll win every game?
> 
> seems like you're purposely taking things to an extreme, just to prove a point. You don't like him (but did like wingfield  ) and seems to be willing to ignore common sense when it comes to the arbritarily over dramatizing the use of a cliche used to describe a trait in him, which was never, has never been, and never will be a 100% finite way that things are.


I don't agree.

There are MANY people out there (and on this board) who were willing to ascribe SUPERMAN intangible powers to Morrison. People seemed to take "He refuses to lose!" absolutely literally. Of course use of a phrase like that is not true 100% of the time, but with Morrison, people seemed to actually BELIEVE that it was always 100% true. And I think it was proven to be untrue. 

If you take away those SUPERHUMAN intangibles, what are you left with? A better ball handling Wally Szczerbiak. Not a top three pick.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> There are MANY people out there (and on this board) who were willing to ascribe SUPERMAN intangible powers to Morrison. People seemed to take "He refuses to lose!" absolutely literally.


I think that those who have said it (and lets be honest, it's mostly zagsfan) don't mean it literally. But for the counter argument to take place, the opposite opinion takes it to mean literally, so that when it turns out his team loses a game, or he "dissapears" late in a game they can trumpet it out and act like it disproves it.

Saying someone refuses to lose, means that they're not content with losing or the status quo. 



> Of course use of a phrase like that is not true 100% of the time, but with Morrison, people seemed to actually BELIEVE that it was always 100% true. And I think it was proven to be untrue.
> 
> If you take away those SUPERHUMAN intangibles, what are you left with? A better ball handling Wally Szczerbiak. Not a top three pick.


You could make the argument for each of the players that if you "take away" a certain intangible (whatever the hell that can mean) or something that makes them "better" (while not entirely measureable..like athleticism. How do you measure that, and how do you know if that means a player can or can't be good if he has it or doesn't? And at what level of athleticism is the cut off? Who decides what player is at that cut-off point?)

Whats one of the things that people give certain players credit for? Being clutch and hitting 'daggers'.

Kobe's clutch shooting and want and ability to get better every year. 

But him missing out on certain game winning shots, or scenarios, does not take away his knack for hitting big shots.

It seems that if you really wanted to, you could take away all the positives of a player and then ask "is he worth a top 3 pick?"


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Fork said:


> hATER!!!!!!
> 
> But seriously, I agree. I don't get why not drinking the 'Adam Morrison Kool Aid' causes some people to go on the warpath.
> 
> ...


He is better then any sf prospect we have.He would be the number one prospect we have.
Outlaw with be a mediocre player at best.Miles has skills but doesnt have the brains to win.Kryapha the brains and heart to win but not the skills.If we could put kryaphas brain in miles body= instant pwnage.Telfair can be good with an improved jumper.Jack better passing.Webster confidence.Ha needs confidence.Morrison has heart brain and mad offensive skills just needs to improve defense.

There is so many good people that i would love to have on the team i would love to be in chitowns shoes with most likely the first pick and the 12th pick.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Whats funny is that he *IS* going to be a top 3 pick....and most likely Portland *IS* going to draft him....

and all you **** talkers, who have been talking **** about his game for the past 2 years *WILL* look like the crow eaters that you are.....or you can just deny that you ever said anything bad about him and act totally naive....


btw, Fork it must have been a big blow to your General Managing superpowers when Gerald Green was that T-Mac type player that you were talking about all last spring and summer...he fell to 18 for a reason....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> Saying someone refuses to lose, means that they're not content with losing or the status quo.


What player IS content with losing or the status quo? It's a distinction without a difference, man (not sure to call you Hap or D** or what).



> It seems that if you really wanted to, you could take away all the positives of a player and then ask "is he worth a top 3 pick?"


I'm not trying to take away anything from Morrison. I'm simply questioning the intanglibles that many think he has and discussing whether (a) he has them (b) he has them more than other prospects and (c) they make a difference.

I understand that you and others might disagree with me. I don't understand why I'm called narrow-minded and an ******* and why those adjectives aren't edited out.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Whats funny is that he *IS* going to be a top 3 pick....and most likely Portland *IS* going to draft him....
> 
> and all you **** talkers, who have been talking **** about his game for the past 2 years *WILL* look like the crow eaters that you are.....or you can just deny that you ever said anything bad about him and act totally naive....
> 
> ...


So angry. 

Don't take this **** so personally dude.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Szczerbiak has been an All-Star and a 20ppg (or close) scorer...Suddenly that is a BAD thing? Last time I checked, POR could use one of those guys...Where does POR rank in Offense again?

I don't recall stating he "refuses to lose"...and I certainly never inferred the LITERAL interpretation of the phrase, a position which I find ludicrous for some of you even suggesting....

So refusing to lose means you should NEVER lose? What sort of nonsensical logic is that? Sounds like people going to an extreme to unsuccessfully (IMO) make a point...

Morrison is a heck of a player\competitor....whose presence raised the level of play of his teamates (IMO)...As good as he is, he cannot be expected to lift his team to victory EVERY night...I don't know ANY players, whom that can be said of their ENTIRE career...Even great players lose from time to time....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Whats funny is that he *IS* going to be a top 3 pick....and most likely Portland *IS* going to draft him....


What's funny is that the team was blown up after Whitsitt left and, in spite of me taking untold heat for being negative, things that I predicted have come true.

That's funny.



> and all you **** talkers, who have been talking **** about his game for the past 2 years *WILL* look like the crow eaters that you are.....or you can just deny that you ever said anything bad about him and act totally naive....


If Portland takes him with a top 3 pick, though, I won't necessarily think it's a bad pick. I'm on record as preferring him to Brandon Roy and I think that I might prefer him to Thomas, too.



> btw, Fork it must have been a big blow to your General Managing superpowers when Gerald Green was that T-Mac type player that you were talking about all last spring and summer...he fell to 18 for a reason....


How's Rudy Fernandez doing? And then you can ask me how Pavel's doing.

We all make mistakes when we go out on a limb predicting good things for players. Most simply don't pan out. 

The difference, of course, is that some of us can avoid getting emotional and personal over things. And some of you cannot.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What player IS content with losing or the status quo? It's a distinction without a difference, man


I'd say that darius is content with the status quo, and he's done nothing to really improve his game greatly in 6 years. Travis, so far, hasn't done enough to show he's unwilling to accept things as they are.



> (not sure to call you Hap or D** or what).


whichever you feel like calling me.


> I'm not trying to take away anything from Morrison. I'm simply questioning the intanglibles that many think he has and discussing whether (a) he has them (b) he has them more than other prospects and (c) they make a difference.


I think they do make a difference (on the whole). It's why certain players become "superstars" and others just become really good. It's wht seperates those who can and those who should and those who do. 

It's what made Clyde Drexler a superstar (altho compared to Jordan, his "refuse to lose" attitude was lacking).



> I understand that you and others might disagree with me. I don't understand why I'm called narrow-minded and an ******* and why those adjectives aren't edited out.
> 
> Ed O.


I thought they were (I might've missed it) but jeesh Ed..it's obviously because you don't agree with me..


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Zidane said:


> He is better then any sf prospect we have.He would be the number one prospect we have.


Show me where I've said anything to disagree with any of that? (Not that I agree with it, I just haven't said it.)

Unfortunately, he's not the best prospect in this draft. I don't believe he's even the best SF prospect in this draft.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Szczerbiak has been an All-Star and a 20ppg (or close) scorer...Suddenly that is a BAD thing? Last time I checked, POR could use one of those guys...Where does POR rank in Offense again?


Where does Portland rank in everything? We suck. Adding a shooter won't change that.

Drafting Wally Szczerbiak as a top 3 pick would be a disaster for Portland. We can't afford any more disasters if we want to escape this tough spot we're in any time soon.



> I don't recall stating he "refuses to lose"...and I certainly never inferred the LITERAL interpretation of the phrase, a position which I find ludicrous for some of you even suggesting....


Then don't address it. I don't think that I said you said it, did I? On the other hand, you *did* call me an *******. You *did* think it was best to shed civility to make your points.

That is more ludicrous than you taking things that others have said and believing that we're saying you said them.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> How's Rudy Fernandez doing? And then you can ask me how Pavel's doing.


Rudy is 20 and decided to stay another year in Spain....

I still think he'll be a great player...


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Whats funny is that he *IS* going to be a top 3 pick....and most likely Portland *IS* going to draft him....


 What makes you think it's "most likely" Portland gets a top three pick?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> What makes you think it's "most likely" Portland gets a top three pick?


We have a very difficult schedule and I don't see us winning more than 1 game from here on out....That leaves just Charlotte and New York with worse records than us.....I can see both of them winning more than a couple games....

Then the lottery balls will roll are way...I'm not math expert, but I think the odds of us getting a top 3 pick are pretty dang good...


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

meh...you drip your posts in sarcasm Ed and I am sure you know it...

So do I at times...

I think your being unreasonably truculent in this thread, and using ridiculous extremes to try and emphasize your opinions...I think mocking Morrison's competitiveness by pointing out that he cried at the end of the game or b\c his team lost is a low blow, and really has little (if any) merit on his competitiveness...

It bugged me, so I responded..

I am not a Morrison lover per se, but yours and others constant bashing of him I find pretty disingenuous ...

I swear some people hate on a player just for the thrill of being a non-conformist.....


Oh yeah...and for the 4th time...Did you watch that UCLA\Gonzaga game?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> meh...you drip your posts in sarcasm Ed and I am sure you know it...
> 
> So do I at times...
> 
> ...


So true.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> I think mocking Morrison's competitiveness by pointing out that he cried at the end of the game or b\c his team lost is a low blow, and really has little (if any) merit on his competitiveness...


I don't think that I mocked his competitiveness by pointing out that he cried. I pointed out that he cried as part of the list of things I saw... which was in response to your question about whether I watched the game.

Him crying is totally fine by me. I felt bad for him that his team didn't get it done. Clearly I've never been on that big of a stage before, but I've cried following a loss on the court and also a loss by my team on the television.

I don't think that him crying meant that the game meant more to him than to his teammates, though. Or his opponents. Or his fellow NBA prospects.

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> We have a very difficult schedule and I don't see us winning more than 1 game from here on out....That leaves just Charlotte and New York with worse records than us.....I can see both of them winning more than a couple games....
> 
> Then the lottery balls will roll are way...I'm not math expert, but I think the odds of us getting a top 3 pick are pretty dang good...


If we end up with the third worst record, then it would only take one team jumping up to knock us out of the third position . . . unless the team jumping up is us. It would be interesting math, I haven't figured it out either, but if we have the third worst record, I think it is more likely we don't get the third pick. 

To me it's not the number Morrison gets picked but how he adjust to the NBA that will determine who has been right and wrong about him. My two cents is he will be a scorer in the NBA but I question if he will have the physical toughness to last in the NBA. Not a personal knock on your boy, but the physical game in the NBA is a different degree than college and I wonder this about a lot of college players. I rasied this concern about Luke Jackson and Luke Rid . . . one showed they could handle the physical play the other is having a tough go. But I'm guessing scouts go through this analysis with almost every player.

So what's your take on this issue? Putting aside you love the guy, what is the book on his ability to bang bodies with the big boys. Has he been injuried in college?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> If we end up with the third worst record, then it would only take one team jumping up to knock us out of the third position . . . unless the team jumping up is us. It would be interesting math, I haven't figured it out either, but if we have the third worst record, I think it is more likely we don't get the third pick.
> 
> To me it's not the number Morrison gets picked but how he adjust to the NBA that will determine who has been right and wrong about him. My two cents is he will be a scorer in the NBA but I question if he will have the physical toughness to last in the NBA. Not a personal knock on your boy, but the physical game in the NBA is a different degree than college and I wonder this about a lot of college players. I rasied this concern about Luke Jackson and Luke Rid . . . one showed they could handle the physical play the other is having a tough go. But I'm guessing scouts go through this analysis with almost every player.
> 
> So what's your take on this issue? Putting aside you love the guy, what is the book on his ability to bang bodies with the big boys. Has he been injuried in college?



I don't think he'll have a problem at all.....Considering the abuse he has taken at the college level and being the number 1 option that teams try and defend as hard as they can with their best players and some of the abuse and horrible tactics (dirty at that, but its part of the game and he's just as dirty) they use towards him....elbowing, tripping, pulling and he still gets his points constantly...and through all that he has never missed a college game due to an injury....

When comparing him to Jackson is comparing apples and oranges IMO....

Jackson wasn't near the scorer that Adam is as junior, during even Jackson's senior year....

Morrison is most likely going to be NPOY, while Jackson wasn't even POY in his own conference....

I'm watching an NBA game as I'm typing this (Pistons vs. Mavs) and I don't see how Morrison is going to have a tough time in the league...Morrison is deadly if you give him even the slightest amount of space and just as good when defenders are draped over him at the college level....In the NBA its going to be a whole different ball game because defenses aren't (can't) going to be keying in on him like they do at the college level because their is so many more threats around him....


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> So true.


At the risk of fanning flames after Chicago has already burnt down.

I tend to agree with Ed. Certain people are just getting too riled up over everything.

If person X were to come on the board and every day post something about how the triangle offense is the best thing in the world, and you're stupid if you don't love it, and every other offense has flaws but oh not the triangle offense and if you don't agree then no one else agrees with you then I'm pretty sure at least a few individuals would post the triangle offense sucks just because they're tired of having that opinion rammed down their throat. But the thing of it is, there would be a certain percentage of posters who just naturally think the triangle offense really does suck. Unfortunately, because zealotry seems to be taking over, these people would be accused of just faking an opinion to be disingeneous and various other supporters would wholeheartedly agree. At some point people just have to accept that others have different opinions and only time will bear one out to be the truth (although the success or failure of the "triangle offense" will have many evaluations, I'm sure).

Is it that hard to believe that Ed or anyone else can have an opinion that isn't EXACTLY like yours and yet STILL MAY BE CORRECT?


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Sorry if this has been asked already but isn't Morrison just a junior? Why is everyone so sure he's coming out?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Is it that hard to believe that Ed or anyone else can have an opinion that isn't EXACTLY like yours and yet STILL MAY BE CORRECT?


If an opinion is brought about by untrue facts or unrealistic expectations that aren't on par with other top prospects, then yes....


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> If an opinion is brought about by untrue facts or unrealistic expectations that aren't on par with other top prospects, then yes....


I think your analysis of facts or expectations probably differs with others as well. A perfect example is the assist to turnover ratio, and I don't mean of Morrison. There are those who think it is important, there are those who think it isn't. From what I have seen in the thread, Ed (and some others, not all) hasn't taken any cheap shots against Morrison, he just doesn't agree with you.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Anima said:


> Sorry if this has been asked already but isn't Morrison just a junior? Why is everyone so sure he's coming out?


part wishful thinking and part "dude, you need to not look like someone who's afraid to play in the NBA"


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> I think your analysis of facts or expectations probably differs with others as well. A perfect example is the assist to turnover ratio, and I don't mean of Morrison. There are those who think it is important, there are those who think it isn't. From what I have seen in the thread, Ed (and some others, not all) hasn't taken any cheap shots against Morrison, he just doesn't agree with you.


Ed has basically said that Morrison choked during the UCLA game.....

When in actuality he didn't...He scored 24 points on 58% shooting against the best defensive team in the country, hardly choking IMO....Especially considering he had 3 different defensive players coming at him during that game at different periods of time....

Yet, then we have players who have worse performances against worse teams and they lose their game despite the fact that they have 5 future NBA players on his team with him....20 points in 6 rebounds is a huge game for that certain player, but for Morrison, people bleep out that he's overrated and since he didn't single-handedly carry his team on his shoulders to the championship game, well he's considered a failure, even though he's probably the only player on his team that has a future in the NBA, and not a on a team piled with them....

another example of people who stubbornly overlook Morrison's big games throughout the season and continually bring up that he is as good as he is, because he plays in a weak conference....and the people who say that he will get shut down by more athletic players and Carney, Ager, Gay and Afflalo who are as athletic of defenders as you'll find at the NCAA level couldn't do it...

another example is people who always bring up the rebounding issue....I compared his rebounding #'s to other SF's college rebounding #'s and current pro players who were drafted in the first round rebounding #'s in college....His rebounding is on par with other SF's....

So on to the next straw to grasp at...

Defensively he is average...

and I can name a handful of NBA stars who are defensive liabilities...its not an issue with them, but its a huge issue with Morrison, because, well because heck I guess they're running out of straws to grasp at...

So onto the next fault...


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I don't think he'll have a problem at all.....Considering the abuse he has taken at the college level and being the number 1 option that teams try and defend as hard as they can with their best players and some of the abuse and horrible tactics (dirty at that, but its part of the game and he's just as dirty) they use towards him....elbowing, tripping, pulling and he still gets his points constantly...and through all that he has never missed a college game due to an injury....
> 
> When comparing him to Jackson is comparing apples and oranges IMO....
> 
> ...


 I wasn't comparing Morisson to Jackson, I too do not think that is an accurate comparison. I was pointing out that Luke appears to be too fragile for the NBA and wondering if that could be a problem with Morrison (and I think they get compared because on top of both being white and shooters, they appear to have the same body frame) 

I understand your position on it (not too fragile), just clarifying.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Ed has basically said that Morrison choked during the UCLA game.....


He didn't say anything of the sort. He said Gonzaga choked, by giving up a large lead late in the game. He said that if Morrison actually had some magical "refuse to lose" quality, it is odd that he didn't prevent his team from choking, which obviously they did.

In other words, we really don't have evidence of a magic intangible quality to Morrison. The point was not that Morrison choked.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> He didn't say anything of the sort. He said Gonzaga choked, by giving up a large lead late in the game. He said that if Morrison actually had some magical "refuse to lose" quality, it is odd that he didn't prevent his team from choking, which obviously they did.
> 
> In other words, we really don't have evidence of a magic intangible quality to Morrison. The point was not that Morrison choked.


for the love of ****ing pete, can you guys stop missrepresenting what the "refuse to lose" cliche ****ing means? It's like you're purposely being dense because it just feeds the argument.

refusing to lose does not, and never has, and never will, mean that the team will always win or that he'll always find a way to win or that he'll always make the clutch shots.

So quit making it out to be, will yah? it's getting very old.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> He didn't say anything of the sort. He said Gonzaga choked, by giving up a large lead late in the game. He said that if Morrison actually had some magical "refuse to lose" quality, it is odd that he didn't prevent his team from choking, which obviously they did.


One more pass by Batista and they wouldn't have lost that game...

Hmmmm,

How can it be a fault of Morrison that Batista didn't pass it to Raivio to end out the game....

Not God himself could have done something about Batista's play at the end...


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> One more pass by Batista and they wouldn't have lost that game...
> 
> Hmmmm,
> 
> ...


 Morrison didn't exactly light it up at the end of the game. Had he made that last shot of his, it wouldn't have come doen to the Batista pass. I know you don't want to hear it, but Morrison had a chance to ice the game.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Morrison didn't exactly light it up at the end of the game. Had he made that last shot of his, it wouldn't have come doen to the Batista pass. I know you don't want to hear it, but Morrison had a chance to ice the game.


and if it wasn't for Morrison they wouldn't even be close to being in the Sweet 16 and within a minute from playing in the Elite 8....


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> and if it wasn't for Morrison they wouldn't even be close to being in the Sweet 16 and within a minute from playing in the Elite 8....


I agree, but the issue was whether Morrison could have done anything at the end of the game. I'm guessing god hits one of those last minute shots. :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> for the love of ****ing pete, can you guys stop missrepresenting what the "refuse to lose" cliche ****ing means? It's like you're purposely being dense because it just feeds the argument.
> 
> refusing to lose does not, and never has, and never will, mean that the team will always win or that he'll always find a way to win or that he'll always make the clutch shots.
> 
> So quit making it out to be, will yah? it's getting very old.


It's just as old for people to make up nonsensical intangibles like "refusing to lose" and then getting defensive when it turns out to be not only undefinable and unprovable but ineffective.

I'm interested to see where I said that Morrison choked. I'm also interested to see where I refuse to admit I'm wrong.

zags seems to find it easy to cast stones but, but much like many of the attributes he gives to Morrison, they seem to be just pixels on the screen with no basis in reality.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> It's just as old for people to make up nonsensical intangibles like "refusing to lose" and then getting defensive when it turns out to be not only undefinable and unprovable but ineffective.


When did I say Morrison was "refusing to lose"...?

I don't remember ever saying that...

Every player can only play up to the ability that his teammates allow him...when its not in his hands, its simply not in his hands...There was nothing that Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson or any of those guys could do about his teammates bone-headed mistakes at the end of games....



> I'm interested to see where I said that Morrison choked. I'm also interested to see where I refuse to admit I'm wrong.


You said the Zags choked and insinuated that it was Morrison's fault for not doing anything about it...



> *Ed O.* I watched the game. I saw him disappear. I saw his team choke. I saw him start to cry before the game was over and then I saw him collapse on the floor after it ended.





> zags seems to find it easy to cast stones but, but much like many of the attributes he gives to Morrison, they seem to be just pixels on the screen with no basis in reality.


Keep on stroking...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It's just as old for people to make up nonsensical intangibles like "refusing to lose" and then getting defensive when it turns out to be not only undefinable and unprovable but ineffective.


not really. It can be definded as someone who continually wants to improve.And thats basically what was meant by it.

But if you take the definition of a cliche to the extreme (one way or the other) you're not being intellectually fair or honest.

was it a poorly thought out cliche? probably. But attacking from a position that's not how it was implied, and has since been talked about as not being the manner it was implied? That's just being lazy.

If you make the cliche to be of the extreme nature, you're of course not going to be able to use any cliche.

he has a motor!

well, he got tired late in the game, so obviously he doesn't have a "motor".

he plays smart!

well, he made a bad turnover late in the game, so obviously he's dumb.

It's really not something that's a good way to counter an argument, by expressing things in such an extreme manner that the cliche wasn't intended to be. 

Disagree with it, sure. But to act as tho something voids it, that itself wasn't actually meant as a definition of the cliche, is bad form.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> When did I say Morrison was "refusing to lose"...?
> 
> I don't remember ever saying that...


Did I say you did?



> You said the Zags choked and insinuated that it was Morrison's fault for not doing anything about it...


The Zags DID choke. Deny it.

And if Morrison were as good as you claim he is, and he has the intangibles that you and others say he does, then you can give him as much of the blame as you want. I don't think he's a special college player, and I have never thought he was capable of carrying his team to anything significant, so I'm not particular about blaming him.



> Keep on stroking...


I don't even know what you're say there.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> not really. It can be definded as someone who continually wants to improve.And thats basically what was meant by it.


It can be defined by a lot of things. Unfortunately, I can define it as one thing and you can define it as another and we can each make the definitions beyond disproof. Which makes them essentially worthless.



> Disagree with it, sure. But to act as tho something voids it, that itself wasn't actually meant as a definition of the cliche, is bad form.


I don't think that a player "refusing to lose" is a cliche. I don't ever remember hearing it used by announcers, at least not on a consistent basis. I think that you're limiting its applicability to cover up for the fact that Morrison's alleged intangibles failed him and his team against UCLA.

But "refuse to lose" is just a label. Call it "killer instinct" or "superior will power" or whatever other phrases you want to use. Morrison has been repeatedly compared to Bird, Stockton, Jordan and other all-time NBA greats for these "little things that don't show up in the box score" (now *that* is a cliche). I thought that it was nonsense even before Gonzaga lost and I find it amusing that he can be part of such a massive choke job and Morrison supporters can attack me (and others) personally for pointing it out.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Keep on stroking...


You managed to prove _yourself_ wrong with your quote of Ed. He clearly said the Zags choked, not Morrison.



> You said the Zags choked and insinuated that it was Morrison's fault for not doing anything about it...


No, he said that his magical intangibles didn't evidence themselves to prevent his team from blowing a lead late. That's exactly the sort of things intangibles are supposed to be good for.

If there weren't this silly hyperbole of magical powers that Morrison possesses, stemming from his will or intangibles, we wouldn't have these posts showing Morrison to be nothing special.

Let's be clear: Morrison is as good as his production, no better. Just like every other player. He doesn't have special qualities that make him a brighter prospect. I realize that it's nicer for you if the guy from your favourite school had a nobility of character that makes him a better basketball player, but until you can show some evidence of it there's no reason to believe it.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> If there weren't this silly hyperbole of magical powers that Morrison possesses, stemming from his will or intangibles, we wouldn't have these posts showing Morrison to be nothing special.


I thought his magical powers stemmed from his 'stache. Or, at the very least, from his haircut.

Kind of like Samson, but with better range from 3.

Stepping Razor


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Let's be clear: *Morrison is as good as his production*, no better. Just like every other player. He doesn't have special qualities that make him a brighter prospect. I realize that it's nicer for you if the guy from your favourite school had a nobility of character that makes him a better basketball player, but until you can show some evidence of it there's no reason to believe it.


You're right, which makes him the most prolific scorer to play on a top 10 nationally ranked team in years...

things are measured by people in the business when drafting players that many of us don't know about, thats part of the reason we drafted Webster because they liked his approach to the game and how good of a guy he is, of course going along with his incredible skill level....

Here is a little example of those qualities that make him have that edge that other players don't have:

Nbadraft.net:


> Great intangibles, competes and inspires others to play hard ... Hard worker ... Plays with great intensity and aggressiveness ... Fundamentally solid, does all the little things to help his team win ... A true competitor. Will not back down from anyone ... Wants to take the big shot ... Sees the floor well, and is creative finding teammates for baskets


Nbadraft.net 

Draftexpress.com:


> Morrison is always the most competitive player on the court. He will do anything to win, and his emotional on-court displays electrify both his team and the crowd.


draftexpress.com 


Its not just me, so quit insinuating that its not just me acting as if "the guy from my school has some nobility in character"....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> You're right, which makes him the most prolific scorer to play on a top 10 nationally ranked team in years...


Sure. I have no problem with that...my point has never been that Morrison is a bad college player. He's been a great player in college.



> Its not just me, so quit insinuating that its not just me acting as if "the guy from my school has some nobility in character"....


I didn't say it was just you, and I'm not insinuating anything. I'm explicitly saying that you are pimping his intangibles because you have an emotional investment. If Rudy Gay had attended Gonzaga and Morrison had attended UConn, I don't think you'd be extolling Morrison's ethereal qualities.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Stepping Razor said:


> I thought his magical powers stemmed from his 'stache. Or, at the very least, from his haircut.
> 
> Kind of like Samson, but with better range from 3.


But lacking the size and athleticism of mighty Ralph Sampson.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Sure. I have no problem with that...my point has never been that Morrison is a bad college player. He's been a great player in college.
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say it was just you, and I'm not insinuating anything. I'm explicitly saying that you are pimping his intangibles because you have an emotional investment. If Rudy Gay had attended Gonzaga and Morrison had attended UConn, I don't think you'd be extolling Morrison's ethereal qualities.*



True, but I wouldn't be taking claim as him being the greatest offensive player in the country, like I'm not trumpeting out how Morrison is the best defensive player in the country....


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> True, but I wouldn't be taking claim as him being the greatest offensive player in the country, like I'm not trumpeting out how Morrison is the best defensive player in the country....


But then again, no one else is saying he isn't a great offensive player and I think that's where they take exception. They say Morrison is great offensively, but he's a little bit lacking over in this dept. You tend to take it personally and run with it and while you do present some facts in your analysis, you also take time to put in little pot shots here and there. I realize the Gonzaga "family" is all close and all that, and they feel that they have a big chip on their shoulder being the small, continual-Cinderella school that never gets the respect they deserve (which I could also say about a dozen other schools) and that Morrison would embrace you like a brother on the street but you also need to realize that this is a Blazer board, Gonzaga is not our minor league team, and therefore many of us tend to take an objective approach to analysis of players.

Actually, I think that's what a lot of it boils down to - some of you want only the facts when it comes to any player - only the hard evidence that can be proved or disproved, and the others want to introduce "gut feelings" and emotional reads on players, possibly in addition to facts.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> But then again, no one else is saying he isn't a great offensive player and I think that's where they take exception. They say Morrison is great offensively, but he's a little bit lacking over in this dept. You tend to take it personally and run with it and while you do present some facts in your analysis, you also take time to put in little pot shots here and there. I realize the Gonzaga "family" is all close and all that, and they feel that they have a big chip on their shoulder being the small, continual-Cinderella school that never gets the respect they deserve (which I could also say about a dozen other schools) and that Morrison would embrace you like a brother on the street *but you also need to realize that this is a Blazer board, Gonzaga is not our minor league team, and therefore many of us tend to take an objective approach to analysis of players.*


so true.

why one poster's emotional investment in a team other then the Blazers is a valid excuse for that poster to throw a public tantrum every time someone weighs in with a counter opinion on our Blazer board is beyond me. Day after day of the same belittling song and dance towards those who dare express a differing opinion... questioning whether they've ever watched a Zags game, distorting their statements beyond recognition, and ultimately labeling them as "haters" who'll be forcefed crow in near future. Poster after poster has attempted to reason with Zags about their opinion(s) with the same result... more of the same wall of noise mixed in with lame personal swipes ("narrow minded" "stroking it"... :whatever: ) usually finished off by a mangling of the _grasping at straws_ phrase over and over and over. 

I wish we could respectfully agree to disagree on this subject, but it's pretty clear that won't be happening.

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I pointed out that he cried as part of the list of things I saw... which was in response to your question about whether I watched the game.


Does this mean you actually WATCHED the game or that you just saw the ESPN\local sports highlights? One is a little more informative than the other....



> but you also need to realize that this is a Blazer board, Gonzaga is not our minor league team, and therefore many of us tend to take an objective approach to analysis of players


And some of you just like to be contrarian for the sake of going against the more popular sentiment....Several of you have posted here already....and "objectivity" is certainly not the reason behind such criticisms of Morrison, but it certainly sounds much better if you tack it on at the end of your bias...

Not liking a poster b\c he repeatedly posts about the same thing over and over again is one thing, not liking the player _because_ of the poster is quite shallow and happens here WAY to often, and while I am sure some of you will of course deny it...that is exactly what is going on here to some extent.....

I do think it is interesting that so many of the apparently *obvious* deficiencies that some of you see in Morrison, don't seem to concern professional scouts to nearly the same degree...unless of course your using Skip Bayless as your barometer.....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> And some of you just like to be contrarian for the sake of being against the norm....Several of you have posted here already....
> 
> Not liking a poster b\c he repeatedly posts about the same thing over and over again is one thing, not liking the player b\c of the poster is quite shallow, and while I am sure some of you will of course deny it...that is exactly what is going on here to some extent.....


what complete BS. 

My not thinking the world of Morrison's game has zero to do with anything that others have said here. I like defense from frontcourt players, and express this bias when I evaluate any prospect. I think building a team around good D is the best way to build a winner. To my eyes, and most everyone else, Morrison's D and athletism are below average for an NBA 3. I don't blame him for the lack of other quality prospects in this upcoming draft and advocate drafting him if he's the best player available when Portland selects, but I do not think he's that amazing of a talent or that he'll compliment whats already in place. You should take that at face value. 

Being confronted with bleep like this doesn't exactly sway me...

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Does this mean you actually WATCHED the game or that you just saw the ESPN\local sports highlights? One is a little more informative than the other....


Did you read my posts?

Did you see the part where I said something along the lines of, "I watched the game." Like when I said, exactly, "I watched the game."

If not, please read my posts before you respond to them.

If so, what the **** is your problem? Why the hell would I lie about that?



> And some of you just like to be contrarian for the sake of going against the more popular sentiment....Several of you have posted here already....and "objectivity" is certainly not the reason behind such criticisms of Morrison, but it certainly sounds much better if you tack it on at the end of your bias...


What a silly, silly assertion. You think that Minstrel is coming here to nitpick on posters?

I understand that you've settled on me being an ******* and a liar, but I think that you don't need to cover all posters with such a damning perspective.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> And some of you just like to be contrarian for the sake of going against the more popular sentiment....Several of you have posted here already....and "objectivity" is certainly not the reason behind such criticisms of Morrison, but it certainly sounds much better if you tack it on at the end of your bias...


What a load...

Morrison doesn't play strong defense and he's not particularly athletic. If you ask me, THAT'S the popular sentiment. 

I rate prospects on defense just as much as on offense, as do a few other posters here. Some people seem to think that offense is all that matters. Fine, I can deal with somebody disagreeing with me, because it happens all the time. Some people can't handle that and they decide that anyone who can see any flaws in Morrison's game must be a 'hater' or isn't being objective.

I watched the UCLA game. I watched 20 Gonzaga games this year. I saw the same stuff in basically each and every game. Morrison isn't very athletic. He doesn't play good defense. He's a great offensive player. I'm not sure his game translates to the NBA. I don't think he's worth a top 3 pick. Yet...I'm not objective. Oooookay.



Kmurph said:


> Not liking a poster b\c he repeatedly posts about the same thing over and over again is one thing, not liking the player _because_ of the poster is quite shallow and happens here WAY to often, and while I am sure some of you will of course deny it...that is exactly what is going on here to some extent.....


I don't dislike ANY player because of who is defending them or how hard they are defending them. I'll admit that I have disliked some of the personal attacks that have flown around because other posters are defending certain players too zealously. Some people seem to feel it's okay to label other posters as 'haters.' I think it's fair game to dislike posts by those folks who pull out personal attacks in defense of a player. 



Kmurph said:


> I do think it is interesting that so many of the apparently *obvious* deficiencies that some of you see in Morrison, don't seem to concern professional scouts to nearly the same degree...unless of course your using Skip Bayless as your barometer.....


Most people, even those who are MOST critical of Adam Morrison's game, say he's probably worth a top 5-6 pick. I personally believe that if we have a top 3 pick, we need somebody who's a solid contributor at BOTH ends of the court. I bet the actual scouts out there feel the same way. They just don't turn it into a personal attack on anyone who dares to offer a differing opinion.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Did you read my posts?


Yeah I did, and that is why I kept asking the question, b\c mainly...as usual...you refused to directly answered it...

Originally however, I asked it b\c while you were attacking the "refuse to lose" tag given to Morrison with such fervor, I seriously wondered how ANYONE who watched that game could find fault with Morrison's efforts...But I should have known that such a thing for an eternal pessimist is commonplace...



> If so, what the **** is your problem? Why the hell would I lie about that?


Why would you indeed....but you can't lie if you never answer the question now can you?



> I understand that you've settled on me being an ******* and a liar, but I think that you don't need to cover all posters with such a damning perspective.


Didn't know it was such a "damming perspective"...But if the shoe fits....

I don't have a problem with Minstrel and I wasn't challenging him per ser...I am pretty sure I said SOME posters, so..... pardon me if I use one of your favorite litte smarmy replies...IF you READ my post you SHOULD have seen that.



> what complete BS.


Are you refering to what I posted? or what you were about to type?


> My not thinking the world of Morrison's game has zero to do with anything that others have said here. I like defense from frontcourt players, and express this bias when I evaluate any prospect. I think building a team around good D is the best way to build a winner. To my eyes, and most everyone else, Morrison's D and athletism are below average for an NBA 3. I don't blame him for the lack of other quality prospects in this upcoming draft and advocate drafting him if he's the best player available when Portland selects, but I do not think he's that amazing of a talent or that he'll compliment whats already in place. You should take that at face value.


On a non-smart-*** note...I agree with some of what you say here about Morrison...just not nearly to the extent you do...and I don't have a problem with that type of opinion...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Yeah I did, and that is why I kept asking the question, b\c mainly...as usual...you refused to directly answered it...


Was the "I watched the game." statement I made unclear in any way?

I have no problem with you asking a question that I didn't answer repeatedly. But since I answered it SO CLEARLY and you asked it again I think it shows that you're not interested in what I have to say but instead in figuring out what you THINK I have to say.



> I don't have a problem with Minstrel and I wasn't challenging him per ser...I am pretty sure I said SOME posters, so..... pardon me if I use one of your favorite litte smarmy replies...IF you READ my post you SHOULD have seen that.


Minstrel is saying the same thing I am. He can speak for himself, of course, but he seems to pretty consistently be restating the same things that I am in this thread.

You're either judging me based on what I say or you're not being fair. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Of course, if you are judging me as being biased and unreasonable based on what I'm saying, that would transfer to Minstrel, too.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Are you refering to what I posted? or what you were about to type?


 to the broad strokes you've been using to degrade those who hold an opinion other then yours. I could have offered speculations as to why exactly you're not able to understand that others disagreeing with you over a player isn't them just being _"contrarian for the sake of going against the more popular sentiment"_... and matched your smarmyness/lack of civility. Being a bleep on the internet is an easy enough act to pull off... this used to be a place where that sort of behavior wasn't the norm.

btw, I agree with Fork that you are misrepresenting what exactly is the popular sentiment. Opinion on how AM will project is at least a mixed bag. If there is a site/paid analyst that doesn't note the same things that concern me, I've yet to see it.

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

My input in this is that we should all refrain (I've been guilty of this myself, I fully admit) from speculating about people's motives. It doesn't add anything to the debate to say, "You only argue that because you..." Either the arguments stand up or they don't. If they don't stand up, point out why they don't.

I don't argue about Morrison because I'm a contrarian. Personally, I don't believe Ed argues about Morrison (or anything else) because he's a contrarian. He argues based on his own beliefs and his sense of logic. It's an evasion to speculate at _why_ he holds a belief, and an attempt to undercut the belief without actually showing it to be incorrect.

Let's elevate the dialogue and the debate and try to avoid making it personal or trying to discredit other people's opinions with accusations of bias, and just debate the merits of the actual positions with logic and evidence.

In that vein, I personally would like to apologize to zagsfan for bringing up that he has an emotional investmen in Morrison. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It doesn't matter, because he can be right or wrong independant of that. So I shouldn't even have brought it up.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kmurph,

It seems as though you've struck a nice little chord with all the people who are continually bashing Morrison on this board, when you said they are taking the contrarian position for going against popular sentiment....

It seems so true, all of those particular posters seem to be taking a lot of offense to that statement....

I think you hit the nail on the head with that assertion....



Btw, a certain posters same old song and dance of pointing fingers and accusing them of breaking rules is sickening...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> In that vein, I personally would like to apologize to zagsfan for bringing up that he has an emotional investmen in Morrison. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It doesn't matter, because he can be right or wrong independant of that. So I shouldn't even have brought it up.


apology accepted.

and I do have an emotional investment, but I also can decipher reality....

He isn't the greatest defensive player and I've never claimed that, but NBA players these days aren't always drafted because of defensive reasons, and you can be a great player without being the greatest defensive player and it isn't like it is something that can't be improved upon....If that was the case Nowitski, Ray Allen, Peja Stojakovic and many many others wouldn't be playing in the NBA....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> apology accepted.
> 
> and I do have an emotional investment, but I also can decipher reality....
> 
> He isn't the greatest defensive player and I've never claimed that, but NBA players these days aren't drafted because of defensive reasons....If that was the case Nowitski, Ray Allen, Peja Stojakovic and many many others wouldn't be playing in the NBA....



The only thing I would add to the above is that all of the players you mentioned are supposedly better athletes than Morrison. Even Peja is supposed to be a good athlete. 

If he is not then I'd like to point out as soon as he was traded for Artest the Kings started winning a lot more because of Artest's defensive abilities. 

Once again I would be happy with Morrison, but I'd rather have a player like Thomas that most insiders now seem to think is a monster on defense and Amare stoudemire (esque)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Btw, a certain posters same old song and dance of pointing fingers and accusing them of breaking rules is sickening...


Whats your point? Are you really contending that calling posters pukes, narrow minded, ect is in any way acceptable by the rules? Part of the reason I frequent this site is *because* we don't allow that crap here.

If you're unwilling/unable to abide by the clear rules here, please consider joining a site that doesn't have any. Or you could just start playing by them. 

STOMP


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Kmurph,
> 
> It seems as though you've struck a nice little chord with all the people who are continually bashing Morrison on this board, when you said they are taking the contrarian position for going against popular sentiment....
> 
> ...


I think you're extremely off-base. People don't like their opinions dismissed as "arguing just to argue" (which is what being a contrarian implies), just as you've complained about your opinion being dismissed as biased.

So please don't be a hypocrite and play by the same rules. Argue the positions only, don't speculate as to _why_ they hold the position and suggest that they don't actually believe their own positions. It's an amateurish way to debate.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Whats your point? Are you really contending that calling posters pukes, narrow minded, ect is in any way acceptable by the rules? Part of the reason I frequent this site is *because* we don't allow that crap here.
> 
> If you're unwilling/unable to abide by the clear rules here, please consider joining a site that doesn't have any. Or you could just start playing by them.
> 
> STOMP


Since when did you become a moderator?....

You're the only person who takes exception or finds any of my posts offensive...

You're the only one who constantly complains....

I think this place as it is, is much better off without you as a moderator....

But thanks for taking the time to try and put a negative light on my posts and trying to bring something enlightening to this topic of conversation...


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Since when did you become a moderator?....
> 
> You're the only person who takes exception or finds any of my posts offensive...
> 
> ...


You mean like when you told Ed to "keep stroking" or should he go and find a few other posts you've made that have ticked people off? Look, I understand you and Kmurph apparently have some thing where you like to just say everyone is off base and has some sort of secret alterior motive, but really enough is enough. Put away your hostility for half a second and show a little maturity. Yes, it is an Internet web site, but geezum, just because you can drive 100 mph on the road weaving and smacking things with a baseball bat doesn't mean you should. You certainly won't endear a lot of people to your cause.

As to Kmurph, yes, everything you said must be obviously true. Because, of course, you think it is.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> You're the only person who takes exception or finds any of my posts offensive.


yeah, it's just me who complains about your tactics. Oh and mgb, LameR, EdO, Samuel, ProZach, SheedSoNasty, Fork, yakbladder, Minstrel, and of course a Mod had to edit one of your posts... and thats just from this one thread! 

The ironic funnies of your _I have a photographic memory_ claim faded a while back.



> I think this place as it is, is much better off without you as a moderator....


Well I have been offered the position...

Just curious, why do you hate our unpaid Mods? Do you think they enjoy the hundreds of editing jobs that your posts have created for them? The dozens of threads you've shut down? When you were suspended for this same sort of crap, that wasn't because the mods didn't find you in violation of the rules. 

And to clarify... I'm not offended by your stuff. I just find it to be the exact O-live juvenile nonsense that brought me here in the first place. It's boring base crap that (IMO) never leads anywhere.

Obviously your _"I've got a life"_ bail job was the pathetic charade I and others called it. You're posting hasn't slowed down one bit. In fact, you've picked up the pace cranking out *63!* posts since you promised (but failed because of the demands of your "life") to provide those imaginary threads. 

but I'm sure you'll get to that when you have a spare moment :wait: 

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think reacting so strongly to a post where no one was specifically named is interesting....

I can understand Ed responding b\c we have been sparring back and forth across several different posts...but a few others here, obviously don't like being called out....

And you can't sit here and tell me how offended you are that someone would dare accuse you of being contrarian, when 99.9% of your flippin posts are of the same grain...

Just who do you think you are kidding?

Seriously....



> Look, I understand you and Kmurph apparently have some thing where you like to just say everyone is off base and has some sort of secret alterior motive, but really enough is enough.


Hey, the truth hurts to some people I guess....and I never stated everyone, just SOME people, and they are pretty much the same people, the only thing that changes are the topics...



> As to Kmurph, yes, everything you said must be obviously true. Because, of course, you think it is


Now your learning...good for you! 

In all seriousness, I agree with many people that Morrison has flaws to his game...I never said he didn't, but overemphasizing his deficiencies while picking apart his strengths really strains the limits of "objectivity" that some posters try to hang their opinions under...

I like Morrison, but he isn't the ONLY player I like....

It just strikes me as funny that when several people start to talk about him as a potential pick for POR, and when several people want him as POR pick, as evidenced by a recent poll if I recall correctly, then all of the sudden the SAME few posters begin their attacks on him as a player....

But no one is contrarian here...

:whatever:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> yeah, it's just me who complains about your tactics. Oh and mgb, LameR, EdO, Samuel, ProZach, SheedSoNasty, Fork, yakbladder, Minstrel, and of course a Mod had to edit one of your posts... and thats just from this one thread!
> 
> The ironic funnies of your _I have a photographic memory_ claim faded a while back.
> 
> ...



Look, I obviously don't like you and you obviously don't like me....

So why haven't you put me on the "ignore" list a while ago?...I haven't put you on mine because I find the crap you spew amusing...

Is it because you enjoy trying to call me out for every post I make, because no one else seriously cares....

So do us all of a favor and stop driveling your crap about me all the time and just put me on ignore...


----------

