# Note to McMillan: Ban Zach's "move"!



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I'm really getting tired of watching Zach Randolph's patented offensive move. You know the one I'm talking about . . . He gets the ball on the right side of the key, swings around to face his man, and stares him down for 10 seconds while trying to decide whether to shoot or drive. Meanwhile, everybody else on the team stops moving . . . and the offense comes to a grinding halt.

Here's the solution: a ban on that move from head coach Nate McMillan. From now on, the minute Zach goes into that ridiculous one-on-one mano-a-mano stance of his, he's out of the game. Period. Tell him he has to get his shots within the flow of the offense, or not at all. And remind him that everyone else on the team is able to get their shots without freezing the offense.

I have a suspicion that Randolph likes the move becauses it puts the spotlight on him. He knows that everybody on the court and everybody in the stands and watching on TV have their eyes glued on him--and it's a big ego trip. Fortunately, however, the Blazers don't have to gratify his ego anymore. We've got other talented players who can put the ball in the hoop and Zach had better adapt or sit his butt on the bench.

BAN THE MOVE, NATE!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I feel bad for all the rediculous posts you are about to recieve praising Zach, and calling him our best player........WHEN CLEARLY HE IS NOT.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I've been saying this since last year! This was exactly the kind of crap Randolph pulled every game last year. 

Zach has clearly reverted back to his old form. And he sustained a high level of play for almost 30 games, so I know it wasn't a "fluke". I don't know if his injury is acting up or if he's just lost his "juice".


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I'm really getting tired of watching Zach Randolph's patented offensive move. You know the one I'm talking about . . . He gets the ball on the right side of the key, swings around to face his man, and stares him down for 10 seconds while trying to decide whether to shoot or drive. *Meanwhile, everybody else on the team stops moving . . . and the offense comes to a grinding halt.*


Another solution would be for the other 4 guys to keep moving and get open, since Zach usually draws 1 or 2 of their defenders off them.

It baffles me why they stop moving, but they continue to do it.

:whoknows:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Another solution would be for the other 4 guys to keep moving and get open, since Zach usually draws 1 or 2 of their defenders off them.
> 
> It baffles me why they stop moving, but they continue to do it.
> 
> :whoknows:



Along time ago I learned a little bit about the low post offense that the Blazers currently run. In order for Zach to go against his man the other players need to "stay at home" so they don't cause their man to cut through the lane on defense and clog the middle. The other reason for it is probably as simple as Zach is such a bad passer that when players move it confuses him. We had a kid in jr high that was like that. He was fine as long as everyone was pretty still, but a lot of movement caused him to make poor decisions.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

all I'll say is that Zach makes those shots a lot and no one can defend that "move."

now, back to your regularly scheduled nate-bashing, featuring special guest star zach-bashing


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> I'm really getting tired of watching Zach Randolph's patented offensive move. You know the one I'm talking about . . . He gets the ball on the right side of the key, swings around to face his man, and stares him down for 10 seconds while trying to decide whether to shoot or drive.


funny, when Tim Duncan does the exact same thing it's "solid fundamentals." if you watch much NBA, anybody who regularly drops 30+ points in a game will at times hold the ball in a triple threat position and see what the defense gives them. 

he's shooting 48%. he's got the highest PER on the team and highest Roland Rating. we've won a ridiculous number of tight games (considering how bad we generally are), which tells me he's a go-to guy. 

does he hold the ball too long? yeah, sometimes. but it's far from our biggest problem. 

for years fans complained about Rasheed. "He doesn't demand the ball enough." "We need a guy in the post who can consistently draw double teams." "We'd be ok if he'd just try to take over." 

now we've got that guy and all you hear are complaints that he's a ball hog and doesn't pass enough. 

a lot of guys are just missing wide open shots that Zach creates for them. that's ok--you expect inconsistency on a team with few veterans. 

the big problem to me is that we are a lousy fast-break team. now, no Zach Randolph team is going to be lightening quick, but we take so few risks on breaks that it's ridiculous. I was astounded last night in the first quarter when Roy went 1 on 4 (and actually scored!) because he saw a crease. we almost never try to score on a break unless we have at least a one man advantage.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

I agree wholehartedly.

A lot of times, this happens because the entry pass when h's down low goes awry and Zach ends up 20' away from the hoop with 10sec on the clock. It's so forced, it isn't funny. When the first option isn't there, lokk elsewhere.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> funny, when Tim Duncan does the exact same thing it's "solid fundamentals."


forgetting that Duncan also plays MUCH better defense, is a MUCH better passer, and shoots MUCH smarter shots, I guess they're the same.


> if you watch much NBA, anybody who regularly drops 30+ points in a game will at times hold the ball in a triple threat position and see what the defense gives them.


I don't think it's the issue that he holds the ball at times, but that he holds it too long, and is predictable. He's not tall enough, fast enough, or long enough to get away with the passes he does out of those situations.



> he's shooting 48%. he's got the highest PER on the team and highest Roland Rating. we've won a ridiculous number of tight games (considering how bad we generally are), which tells me he's a go-to guy.


thats an odd connection you're making there. Because they've won tight games, it tells you he's the go to guy..but that doesn't mean he's the RIGHT go to guy for the team.



> does he hold the ball too long? yeah, sometimes. but it's far from our biggest problem.
> 
> for years fans complained about Rasheed. "He doesn't demand the ball enough." "We need a guy in the post who can consistently draw double teams." "We'd be ok if he'd just try to take over."
> 
> now we've got that guy and all you hear are complaints that he's a ball hog and doesn't pass enough.


different scenario (and one thats easily brought up to condone Zach's poor passing and defense). If Zach had half of Sheeds passing ability, and defensive skills (he'd have twice as much as he does now) and was this "ball hoggish" on offense, I doubt anyone would mind.

But he's a like a drummer who keeps the beat, sounds ok when you mix in the other musical instruments, but really isn't that good of a drummer. And because he has some of the few traits of a really good drummer, doesn't mean he's actually any good.



> a lot of guys are just missing wide open shots that Zach creates for them. that's ok--you expect inconsistency on a team with few veterans.


he creates in the sense that the team uses him as a decoy, not he creates in the sense that BECAUSE of something he directly did *on his own doing* created it.



> the big problem to me is that we are a lousy fast-break team. now, no Zach Randolph team is going to be lightening quick, but we take so few risks on breaks that it's ridiculous. I was astounded last night in the first quarter when Roy went 1 on 4 (and actually scored!) because he saw a crease. we almost never try to score on a break unless we have at least a one man advantage.


The team is run smoother, smarter, and more efficient when Roy is the main guy and not Zach. If the team can get that through Zach's dunder-mifflin head, he might be worth keeping. But until that time, he's just a clubber who thinks he's a good drummer.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

I see mediocre man, maris, yega and mook are all here to do their Rush Limbaugh Show dittohead pre-show warm-ups by dumping on Nate and Zach again.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thats funny, a fly marrying a bumblebee..er..I mean, mook being compared to Limbaugh.

especially since mook *didn't* heap on Zach in this thread.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> thats funny, a fly marrying a bumblebee..er..I mean, mook being compared to Limbaugh.
> 
> especially since mook *didn't* heap on Zach in this thread.




And that I'm a democrat


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I'm not bashing Randolph as much as I'm bashing his signature move. I think he's a fantastic low-post scoring threat--maybe the best in the NBA--but I also think that one move of his stops the offensive flow and bogs things down. I personally hate protracted one-on-one basketball. "Protracted' is the key word there. Roy also breaks his man down, but he does it much more quickly and he's always willing to pass the ball at the last minute if he can't get to the hoop. Zach is like a single-minded beetle who can do nothing but bore through the offense until he reaches his goal--and then force up a difficult shot. Much of the time he makes the shot, which is really impressive, but there are many other times when he takes a bad shot or gets himself surrounded by traffic and doesn't know where to pass it. And then the Blazers have wasted a possession.

I'm from the old school, and my idea of beautiful basketball is the fluid, constantly moving offense that Walton and gang ran in the mid-70's. No one on that team would dare back their man down or stop the whole show just to feint and feint and feint, and then either shoot or drive. It would have been sacrilege to do so.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> I'm not bashing Randolph as much as I'm bashing his signature move. I think he's a fantastic low-post scoring threat--maybe the best in the NBA--but I also think that one move of his stops the offensive flow and bogs things down. I personally hate protracted one-on-one basketball. "Protracted' is the key word there. Roy also breaks his man down, but he does it much more quickly and he's always willing to pass the ball at the last minute if he can't get to the hoop. Zach is like a single-minded beetle who can do nothing but bore through the offense until he reaches his goal--and then force up a difficult shot. Much of the time he makes the shot, which is really impressive, but there are many other times when he takes a bad shot or gets himself surrounded by traffic and doesn't know where to pass it.
> 
> I'm from the old school, and my idea of beautiful basketball is the fluid, constantly moving offense that Walton and gang ran in the mid-70's. No one on that team would dare back their man down or stop the whole show just to feint and feint and feint, and then either shoot or drive. It would have been sacrilege to do so.



You have to remember that you can't say ANYTHING neggative about Zach or Nate without people thinking you hate everything about them. While Blazer Pantheon is still allowed to post here you can't say anything neggative about any black player, coach, front office person or any black person at all for that matter without being a racist or white supremicist


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> But he's a like a drummer who keeps the beat, sounds ok when you mix in the other musical instruments, but really isn't that good of a drummer. And because he has some of the few traits of a really good drummer, doesn't mean he's actually any good.


I looked that definition up in my reverse musical dictionary. All that was there was a picture of another lefty, Ringo Starr.

After Ringo replaced Pete Best, The Beatles had a dynasty for quite awhile there under Brian Epstein and George Martin's guidance.

It's all about doing what you do best. Zach's natural role is to be a 20/10 guy, which he is filling and then some.

Patterson/Epstein and McMillan/Martin need to recognize what they have and concentrate at getting the rest of the band in tune.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> You have to remember that you can't say ANYTHING neggative about Zach or Nate without people thinking you hate everything about them. While Blazer Pantheon is still allowed to post here you can't say anything neggative about any black player, coach, front office person or any black person at all for that matter without being a racist or white supremicist


you sir need a happy pill


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> You have to remember that you can't say ANYTHING neggative about Zach or Nate without people thinking you hate everything about them. While Blazer Pantheon is still allowed to post here you can't say anything neggative about any black player, coach, front office person or any black person at all for that matter without being a racist or white supremicist


Whine me a river, mediocre bubba. We're fed up with the bigoted hate spew. We're fed up with posts put up by you guys saying Nate was only hired because he was black.

You guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact a talented and capable Black man is in a position of management with the Blazers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I looked that definition up in my reverse musical dictionary. All that was there was a picture of another lefty, Ringo Starr.
> 
> After Ringo replaced Pete Best, The Beatles had a dynasty for quite awhile there under Brian Epstein and George Martin's guidance.
> 
> ...


ah..but the Beatles best "player" wasn't Ringo, now was it?

Ringo knew his limitations, and didn't try to force his way into the lead. That team was lead by Lennon and McCartney, with Harrison being the 3rd in line. Ringo was good, but he wasn't the best of that group. not by a long shot.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> I see mediocre man, maris, yega and mook are all here to do their Rush Limbaugh Show dittohead pre-show warm-ups by dumping on Nate and Zach again.


Don't know where this one came from. I'm one of the last guys on this board likely to "dump" on Zach.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Whine me a river, mediocre bubba. We're fed up with the bigoted hate spew. We're fed up with posts put up by you guys saying Nate was only hired because he was black.
> 
> You guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact a talented and capable Black man is in a position of management with the Blazers.


I'm quoting this so that if pantheon deletes it, it is still on record.

but show us where MM said that Nate was only hired because he was black. That was on 1 person, and 1 person only. yega.

and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you just happen to be the same person as yega.

seriously, would a mod please PLEASE do something about this? Call MM a lot of things, but making false racism accusations is crossing a line that I'd hope that the mods here would have the balls to stand up to. It's an insult to him, and it's an insult to anyone who has an IQ above piss.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> I'm quoting this so that if pantheon deletes it, it is still on record.
> 
> but show us where MM said that Nate was only hired because he was black. That was on 1 person, and 1 person only. yega.
> 
> ...




What do you mean "call me a lot of things" :cheers:


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

Hap said:


> I'm quoting this so that if pantheon deletes it, it is still on record.
> 
> but show us where MM said that Nate was only hired because he was black. That was on 1 person, and 1 person only. yega.
> 
> ...


MM defended yega on that thread then MM said in regards to the Terry Bowden article on discrimination in college football...



> "...possible that either
> 
> a. The coaches in possition already are the best candidates
> b. The white candidates for the openings are just more qualified
> ...


MM is shown clear discrimination and goes into right wing "spew talking points" mode trying to justify the practice. That's a person trying to continue discriminatory practices.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> MM defended yega on that thread then MM said in regards to the Terry Bowden article on discrimination in college football...
> 
> 
> 
> MM is shown clear discrimination and goes into right wing "spew talking points" mode trying to justify the practice. That's a person trying to continue discriminatory practices.




It's a person saying that either 

a. The coaches in possition already are the best candidates
b. The white candidates for the openings are just more qualified

or

None of us really know. Don't automatically assume that just because there aren't 88, or roughly half, black coaches in D1 college football that there is discrimination. Maybe others are simply more qualified.


Mo Cheeks isn't qualified to be a head coach ahead of Rick Adelman, but that's exactly what is happening. Is that because Mo is black? No, it's because the people in Philly were more comfortable with him than Adelman. It's not always about race.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> MM defended yega on that thread then MM said in regards to the Terry Bowden article on discrimination in college football...
> 
> 
> 
> MM is shown clear discrimination and goes into right wing "spew talking points" mode trying to justify the practice. That's a person trying to continue discriminatory practices.


are you a ****ing idiot, or do you play one on tv?

quit trying to pull the racism card out of your ***, will yah? Anyone with even the smallest amount of intelligence can see what he actually said. 

seriously, why isn't a mod or a CM or an admin doing something about this? They can suspend a known poster because he 'spammed the site' but when someone is trolling they take their own sweet time doing anything about it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

i love how mook and mediocre man are both now conservatives. 

thats just rich. next thing we'll hear is that I'm a conservative.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> i love how mook and mediocre man are both now conservatives.
> 
> thats just rich. next thing we'll hear is that I'm a conservative.



Well you are defending me. I wonder when I get my NRA card? Wait, do I need to own a gun first?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I think the real problem with the maneuver is that sometimes Zbo just takes too long to make up his mind. When the triple team is there, everybody on the team needs to react. Also when it isn't there, he needs to immediately make his move, as hesitation will kill you. 

As to the people who compare it to Duncan up above, the difference is Duncan does his whole decision/move in 2 to 4 seconds. A lot of the time Zbo takes like 10 seconds, which is way too long.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> I see mediocre man, maris, yega and mook are all here to do their Rush Limbaugh Show dittohead pre-show warm-ups by dumping on Nate and Zach again.


Your ignorance knows no bounds. The only fan of The Big Fat Idiot I know of offhand on this board is Talkhard, whom you cited (not that he gave it or agreed with you) as the only support for your hateful opinions on a previous thread.

Know thy enemy. :lol: 

I have never dumped on Zach. He is one of my favorite Blazers.

While I have criticized Nate for playing certain players over others, I lobbied for his hiring, agree with his tough-love philosophy, and am thoroughly elated that he is here. My favorite Blazers coach since Ramsey.

My political views can be summed up quite simply.

No matter where and when and in what condition they are born, all human beings are born equally free in every way imaginable, by right of life.

Any submissions or surrenders or compromises of their freedoms they may make (by their own accord or through their own inaction or disability) to governments, religions, or peers is what makes their lot in life.

If you perceive your skin color to be a disadvantage that's a real bummer for you but, life is what you make it. Don't blame others for your surrender.

My only self-imposed duty is to live by The Golden Rule.

I often make concessions to general tyranny in my daily life (such as carrying a driver's license, paying taxes...) on a case-by-case basis to avoid hassles but I accept that I only have myself, or my unwillingness to fight, to blame for these losses of freedom. I choose my battles and move on.

Be a man. Quit blaming the world for your inadequacies.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> Be a man. Quit blaming the world for your inadequacies.


Not real courageous for white people born with 90% of the money in US society to tell minorities to... 

"Be a man. Quit blaming the world for your inadequacies."

Are you prepared to back that statement by redistributing all the trust fund money white people hoard and let everyone really start from the same starting line?

Yeah... I didn't think so. So spare us the lectures until you are ready to start everyone evenly.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Whine me a river, mediocre bubba. We're fed up with the bigoted hate spew. We're fed up with posts put up by you guys saying Nate was only hired because he was black.


You're addressing yourself in plural again.



Blazers Pantheon said:


> You guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact a talented and capable Black man is in a position of management with the Blazers.


Sorry his color is the only important thing to you. I'm just happy we have a talented and capable coach.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

please, everyone join me in plonking this troll.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Not real courageous for white people born with 90% of the money in US society to tell minorities to...
> 
> "Be a man. Quit blaming the world for your inadequacies."
> 
> ...


I was born without a penny to my name. The "white people" you allege to have been born with wealth have to this date made no offers to share any portion of it with me. You're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned. Money has never been a priority in my life.

We were all born, so that's pretty much the same starting line. I don't begrudge you for all the extra assistance you have available that I don't have because it's pretty clear you need all the help you can get.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Whine me a river, mediocre bubba. We're fed up with the bigoted hate spew. We're fed up with posts put up by you guys saying Nate was only hired because he was black.
> 
> You guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact a talented and capable Black man is in a position of management with the Blazers.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Not real courageous for white people born with 90% of the money in US society to tell minorities to...
> 
> "Be a man. Quit blaming the world for your inadequacies."
> 
> ...



YOu make a mistake in assuming that all white people are rich. I was born into a poor family and started working when I was 5. I picked blackberries and raspberries, when they were in season, to buy my own clothes and school supplies every year from age 5 to age 15. Do I have a trust fund? Hell no. Do I have an inheritance? Hell no. Do I blame anybody? Hell no. That is the way life is for some people. Am I happy person? Most definately. I would not change a thing. 

prunetang


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> While Blazer Pantheon is still allowed to post here you can't say anything neggative about any black player, coach, front office person or any black person at all for that matter without being a racist or white supremicist


why the hell would you bring race into this already ridiculous and pointless discussion?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

blakejack said:


> why the hell would you bring race into this already ridiculous and pointless discussion?



wasn't it already brought up? If not I apologise.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> wasn't it already brought up?


no, it wasn't. but you got what you wanted, a big thread full of flaming.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

blakejack said:


> no, it wasn't. but you got what you wanted, a big thread full of flaming.



Hey great news. I just looked back in the thread and saw that I made two posts before Pantheon made his statement. Meaning that it was brought up first. 

No reason to apologise, I hold no hard feelings. :cheers:


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I was born without a penny to my name. The "white people" you allege to have been born with wealth have to this date made no offers to share any portion of it with me. You're welcome to it as far as I'm concerned. Money has never been a priority in my life.
> 
> We were all born, so that's pretty much the same starting line. I don't begrudge you for all the extra assistance you have available that I don't have because it's pretty clear you need all the help you can get.


Everybody is born without a penny to their name, where would they get the pennies? The womb?

According to this, your dad worked for the railroad. So your family must have had some money.

http://www.rogermaris.com/biography.htm


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

hmmm...well, the man averages 25/10 a game. were playing better than anyone anticipated. zach is getting all-star press and consideration.

your opinion may not be the same as everyone else. in fact, you could argue that without zach, we wouldn't be winning at all. zach is a certain type of player, and taking away his moves would be stupid. if you have a player averaging numbers like his you dont tell him to stop using his signature moves. 

as a coach your job is to recognize the pieces you have any use them to the best of your ability. if players come to a "grinding halt" when zach gets the ball its because they are not moving. thats not zach's fault. perhaps the team should try to get open maybe?...set some picks? zach could be a great passer as he gets the double team almost every night. if the team learns to distribute off of zach's driving ect., we could use his attention as a positive.

i see you complain just about everytime i log on. zach is nice and his numbers prove it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ryanjend22 said:


> hmmm...well, the man averages 25/10 a game. were playing better than anyone anticipated. zach is getting all-star press and consideration.
> 
> your opinion may not be the same as everyone else. in fact, you could argue that without zach, we wouldn't be winning at all.


just like how people said we wouldn't be doing any good without Darius, huh? 



> zach is a certain type of player, and taking away his moves would be stupid. if you have a player averaging numbers like his you dont tell him to stop using his signature moves.


I'll paraphrase John Wooden. I'd rather have 5 good player on my team, than 1 really good player and 4 players that don't get their chance.



> as a coach your job is to recognize the pieces you have any use them to the best of your ability. if players come to a "grinding halt" when zach gets the ball its because they are not moving. thats not zach's fault. perhaps the team should try to get open maybe?...set some picks?


maybe Zach could set some picks too. or maybe he could try to move around and get open himself, instead of just going to the same 2 places on the court. the paint (and staying there) and 16-18 feet out and driving into the paint.

zach is predictable, and he's not good enough to be predictable.



> zach could be a great passer as he gets the double team almost every night. if the team learns to distribute off of zach's driving ect., we could use his attention as a positive.


Zach could also be a tight rope walker, but he's not gonna be.



> i see you complain just about everytime i log on. zach is nice and his numbers prove it.


Zach is nice offensively, if you just go by the # of points he scores, and don't take into account the slowing down of the game he causes, and the pathetic defense he plays and the passes he doesn't make or the bad passes he does make.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> you could argue that without zach, we wouldn't be winning at all.


Except that we won the only game we played without him


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

ryanjend22 said:


> in fact, you could argue that without zach, we wouldn't be winning at all.


When he was out of the game, we killed the Heat in the first half. That was with Wade going off too. When Zbo was in the 2nd half, the offense grinded to a halt. It's the easiest comparison we've seen all season of what life would be like w/o Zbo.



ryanjend22 said:


> zach is a certain type of player, and taking away his moves would be stupid.


The shots he was putting up last night were pretty awful. Many barely drawing iron. I'd like to see those forced shots taken away. Hell, I'd like ot see all hos shot taken away when we trade him.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> Everybody is born without a penny to their name, where would they get the pennies? The womb?
> 
> According to this, your dad worked for the railroad. So your family must have had some money.
> 
> http://www.rogermaris.com/biography.htm


I should have known YOU'D catch my little joke there yak.:biggrin: 

Although I have heard of some people (only white people I'm sure) being born with a Silver Spoon in their mouth.

As for my family having money, yeah, Dad got so filthy rich swinging a hammer for the RR that he up and moved us lock, stock and barrel to that high-society mecca of the North, Fargo, ND.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> I'll paraphrase John Wooden. I'd rather have 5 good player on my team, than 1 really good player and 4 players that don't get their chance.


By not playing exceptional defense, Zach gives the other 4 guys their chance to stand out on defense, instead of just standing around. I wonder when (or if) they'll ever take advantage of it?



Hap said:


> maybe Zach could set some picks too. or maybe he could try to move around and get open himself, instead of just going to the same 2 places on the court. the paint (and staying there) and 16-18 feet out and driving into the paint.


Maybe he could average 10 assists, 10 steals, and 10 blocks, find a cure for cancer, bring peace to the world, and knock that huge chip off BlazersPantheon's shoulder to go with his 25 points and 10 rebounds. :whoknows: 



Hap said:


> zach is predictable, and he's not good enough to be predictable.


And yet he's good enough to have people predicting he'll be League MVP. That's pretty friggin' good.

:clap: :yay: :clap2: :cheers: :worthy:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> By not playing exceptional defense, Zach gives the other 4 guys their chance to stand out on defense, instead of just standing around. I wonder when (or if) they'll ever take advantage of it?


is that like how a missed shot is just a rebound waiting to happen?

maybe if Zach played defense, the other guys wouldn't have to cover his sorry *** and therefore their guys wouldn't be as open as often?



> And yet he's good enough to have people predicting he'll be League MVP. That's pretty friggin' good.


WHO is predicting him to be MVP!?!? There is no one I've seen who even thinks he'll be in the running. I mean really, who's predicting that??


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I have an idea . . . trade or cut Zach. Groom Aldridge to the point where he becomes a 25/10 player. Then find all of Aldridge's faults, blow them up and bash Aldridge until management trades him to develop the next young player on the bench.

The future will always be bright. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I have an idea . . . trade or cut Zach. Groom Aldridge to the point where he becomes a 25/10 player. Then find all of Aldridge's faults, blow them up and bash Aldridge until management trades him to develop the next young player on the bench.
> 
> The future will always be bright. :biggrin:


that argument is about as tired as my joke about Dianne Cannon being dead for the last 10 years and her face not knowing it.

Maybe if Zach played ANY DEFENSE, wasn't a ****ing idiot, didn't get himself in to trouble often, could pass any good and didn't have a history of pouting, maybe juuuuuuuuuust maybe that wouldn't be a lame counter argument to make.

god that ones such a lame argument.

oh yah, and I hate white people.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> that argument is about as tired as my joke about Dianne Cannon being dead for the last 10 years and her face not knowing it.
> 
> Maybe if Zach played ANY DEFENSE, wasn't a ****ing idiot, didn't get himself in to trouble often, could pass any good and didn't have a history of pouting, maybe juuuuuuuuuust maybe that wouldn't be a lame counter argument to make.
> 
> ...


Your not shy about your opinion or letting others know how you feel about their opinion are you?

So let me take a hap approach . . . your bashing of players gets very tiring. The idea that you think you know more than other posters gets very tiring. Your condecending style of posting gets very tiring.

Maybe if you treated posters with a little RESPECT and stop acting like a computer geek know it all . . . juuuuust maybe you'll stop rubbing posters the wrong way.

God you are so full of yourself. 

Oh yea, you hate far exceeds white people. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Your not shy about your opinion or letting others know how you feel about their opinion are you?


I try not to make my opinions based out of hyperbole.



> So let me take a hap approach . . . your bashing of players gets very tiring. The idea that you think you know more than other posters gets very tiring. Your condecending style of posting gets very tiring.
> 
> Maybe if you treated posters with a little RESPECT and stop acting like a computer geek know it all . . . juuuuust maybe you'll stop rubbing posters the wrong way.


the posters who I "rub the wrong way" are generally the same ones who rub a lot of people the wrong way. I'll take the ratio.



> God you are so full of yourself.


no, I'm full of ****, not myself.



> Oh yea, you hate far exceeds white people. :biggrin:


I hate em I hate em I hate em!!!! 

oops, wrong thread.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> WHO is predicting him to be MVP!?!? There is no one I've seen who even thinks he'll be in the running. I mean really, who's predicting that??


I'm supposed to believe you live in a hermetically sealed bubble?

Give me a break. He's been in the running all season.

Besides every member of Blazers broadcasting mentioning it on a weekly basis for thwe last 2 months:

http://www.nba.com/features/player_rankings.html

http://www.nba.com/features/player_rankings_061226.html

http://www.nba.com/features/player_rankings_070102.html


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Your not shy about your opinion or letting others know how you feel about their opinion are you?
> 
> So let me take a hap approach . . . your bashing of players gets very tiring. The idea that you think you know more than other posters gets very tiring. Your condecending style of posting gets very tiring.
> 
> ...


Yeah.

What he said.:biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> I try not to make my opinions based out of hyperbole.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True to form, you seem to have all figured out in the world according to hap. 

You should try listening to other opinions both about the Blazers and about yourself . . . I doubt that is going to happen, but sometimes a third person perspective can be revealing.

I'm done . . . I don't know what it is about your posts, but you really know how to push my buttons . . . unfortunately I can see a little grin on your face about that . . . but whatever . . . I bet your a blast at parties . . . geek (and I mean that in the most loving way) . . .


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> http://www.nba.com/features/player_rankings.html
> 
> http://www.nba.com/features/player_rankings_061226.html
> 
> http://www.nba.com/features/player_rankings_070102.html


interesting, the first one is for nov 14th, just a tad early, and also just for a *week* long stretch. 

the 2nd one he's dropped to 11th, and the 3rd and the last one he's 8th or 9th. I don't think thats exactly what you implied.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> True to form, you seem to have all figured out in the world according to hap.


the world according to me is more fun.



> You should try listening to other opinions both about the Blazers and about yourself . . . I doubt that is going to happen, but sometimes a third person perspective can be revealing.


you should try lefse, it tastes good.



> I'm done . . . I don't know what it is about your posts, but you really know how to push my buttons . . . unfortunately I can see a little grin on your face about that . . . but whatever . . . I bet your a blast at parties . . . geek (and I mean that in the most loving way) . . .


actually, Im usually not one for parties, so you're wrong. I wouldn't be a blast at them.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> True to form, you seem to have all figured out in the world according to hap.
> 
> You should try listening to other opinions both about the Blazers and about yourself . . . I doubt that is going to happen, but sometimes a third person perspective can be revealing.


Maybe you and others shouldn't be concerning yourself with opinions about the other person and, instead, focus on the basketball points.

You whine about how insufferable Hap is, but you're the only one making this personal.



> I'm done . . . I don't know what it is about your posts, but you really know how to push my buttons . . . unfortunately I can see a little grin on your face about that . . . but whatever . . . I bet your a blast at parties . . . geek (and I mean that in the most loving way) . . .


It's amazing that you can post this kind of garbage and still pretend that you're the victim. Hap didn't post about how you're a geek or speculate about your emotional states...he just posted basketball opinions you disagree with.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Maybe you and others shouldn't be concerning yourself with opinions about the other person and, instead, focus on the basketball points.
> 
> You whine about how insufferable Hap is, but you're the only one making this personal.
> 
> It's amazing that you can post this kind of garbage and still pretend that you're the victim. Hap didn't post about how you're a geek or speculate about your emotional states...he just posted basketball opinions you disagree with.


In KMD's defense, just about everyone here knows what he's talking about.

hap has his own style which he has honed to a razor's edge where he throws out an over-the-top criticism of a player, or sometimes a poster, without supplying any factual support for his statement.

When rebutted with facts he will dismiss your arguement and say the facts don't really address the rebuttal to a degree which is exact enough for his liking.

Somewhere through the grammatical structure of his attack you come away thinking you've been not only insulted, but you're convinced board rules have been broken and lines of decency crossed.

When you go back to find the specific quote to call him on it, it's not there. You swear you remember him calling you names or worse, but it's just not there.

As one who loves to debate I have a deep respect for how he pulls it off.. Pure art.

That's not saying I respect his opinions though, as they are generally hogwash.:biggrin:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> interesting, the first one is for nov 14th, just a tad early, and also just for a *week* long stretch.
> 
> the 2nd one he's dropped to 11th, and the 3rd and the last one he's 8th or 9th. I don't think thats exactly what you implied.


It's a lot closer to what I implied than what you implied.

He's been in the top 15 of NBA.com's MVP Race all season.

He started in 3rd, fell to 11th and back up to 8th. Being a Blazer is all that is dragging him down but he's definitely a contender and if they somehow make the playoffs he's got a legitimate shot.

I only posted those links but if you do a google for Zach Randolph MVP you'll get thousands of hits and find he's a contender in just about every NBA blog or chat room out there.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Maybe you and others shouldn't be concerning yourself with opinions about the other person and, instead, focus on the basketball points.
> 
> You whine about how insufferable Hap is, but you're the only one making this personal.
> 
> ...


Lighten up Francis...I read it as a joke. I read the entire exchange and found it fairly light-hearted. At the risk of offending you...don't take life (or basketball chat rooms) so seriously.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> In KMD's defense, just about everyone here knows what he's talking about.
> 
> hap has his own style which he has honed to a razor's edge where he throws out an over-the-top criticism of a player, or sometimes a poster, without supplying any factual support for his statement.


Many people have a "style" of debate that rubs some people the wrong way. Being frustrated is not license to personally attack the other person. If you don't like the way a person argues, no one's putting a gun to your head to keep on interacting with them. KMD and others purposely argue with Hap, and then rail at him for not arguing the way they want him to, or holding the opinions they do.



> When rebutted with facts he will dismiss your arguement and say the facts don't really address the rebuttal to a degree which is exact enough for his liking.


That, of course, is your opinion. His opinion is that you didn't present facts or that the facts didn't rebutt his argument. This is the crux of those who rail against other people: taking as given that their arguments are valid and crushing, and the other person is using some "dishonest" style of debate if they argue back.



> Somewhere through the grammatical structure of his attack you come away thinking you've been not only insulted, but you're convinced board rules have been broken and lines of decency crossed.
> 
> When you go back to find the specific quote to call him on it, it's not there. You swear you remember him calling you names or worse, but it's just not there.


Because he didn't break any rules or lines of decency. This is part of frustration: you're annoyed by what he's said, so you associate other unpleasant things (which never happened) with his comments. When you go back to quote those unpleasant things, you're surprised not to find them. You don't find them because you invented them.

That's really the issue I have with posts like KMD's. It shows a real inability to handle opposing viewpoints. *So what* if Hap is highly critical of certain players? That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold. But because some people can't handle the disagreement (and can't rationally rebutt the disagreement), they resort to trying to undercut the poster with petty remarks about how they must be anti-social or full of themselves.

It's pretty simple: staying in control and keeping your priorities straight means arguing the basketball points and only the basketball points, and ignoring people who's debating style annoys you. Once you start attacking the other person because you don't like or can't rebutt his/her basketball points, you've lost control.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> Lighten up Francis...I read it as a joke. I read the entire exchange and found it fairly light-hearted.


It's hardly a big deal to me, but I do dislike people undercutting others to make up for being unable to rationally defend their points.

And this isn't an isolated incident. KMD and others keep taking these same shots at Hap (and others, at times) when Hap has said nothing to provoke personal shots.

After a while, it gets grating.



> At the risk of offending you...don't take life (or basketball chat rooms) so seriously.


Very profound.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> ah..but the Beatles best "player" wasn't Ringo, now was it?
> 
> Ringo knew his limitations, and didn't try to force his way into the lead. That team was lead by Lennon and McCartney, with Harrison being the 3rd in line. Ringo was good, but he wasn't the best of that group. not by a long shot.


Harrison was by far the best player in the group, Lennon and McCartney were the creators, but Ringo was the foundation that they needed to build on. He had a unique style of drumming unlike anyone else up to that time and while he had the least talent of the Fab Four, without him they would have been just another band and no one in the US would have ever heard of them.

Zach, like Rasheed, knows his limitations. Neither has ever tried to force their way into the lead. It's always been the coach/management on this team that can't be happy with the gift of having wonderfully talented players. They always want them to be something they are not.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Harrison was by far the best player in the group, Lennon and McCartney were the creators, but Ringo was the foundation that they needed to build on.


interesting hypothesis you're presenting here.



> He had a unique style of drumming unlike anyone else up to that time and while he had the least talent of the Fab Four, without him they would have been just another band and no one in the US would have ever heard of them.


Brian Wilson was the "foundation" of the Beach Boys, and Mile Love was a..well, he was an *** clown..Dennis was the "spunk" of the Beach Boys, and Al and Bruce were the good soldiers..But the glue and the heart and soul of the group was Carl. 

To me, Zach is like Mike Love singing lead. Sure, he could but the group was at it's pinnacle with Brian and Carl sharing lead. 



> Zach, like Rasheed, knows his limitations. Neither has ever tried to force their way into the lead.


I think Sheed knew his limitations, I don't think Zach does. From all that I've heard from people who are closely associated with the team (in one form or another) Zach has an incredibly inflated opinion of his value. While thats not always a bad thing, it is when you're Joe Piscipo thinking you're Tony Danza.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> While thats not always a bad thing, it is when you're Joe Piscipo thinking you're Tony Danza.


Which one is supposed to be the good actor in this analogy?


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

All of this really bizarre debating about race, and the one strong point made about Zach, the Blazers, and "the move" gets ignored. Cheers, hasoos. 



hasoos said:


> I think the real problem with the maneuver is that sometimes Zbo just takes too long to make up his mind. When the triple team is there, everybody on the team needs to react. Also when it isn't there, he needs to immediately make his move, as hesitation will kill you.
> 
> As to the people who compare it to Duncan up above, the difference is Duncan does his whole decision/move in 2 to 4 seconds. A lot of the time Zbo takes like 10 seconds, which is way too long.


I agree that there's some shared responsibility here. The spacing may be partially a coaching issue. The other players on the court not moving is probably also shared between the coach not being clear about what others should do, and them not being creative about getting open - especially when 1 or 2 additional players collapse on Zach. But it's also about Zach recognizing what the defense is giving him and reacting more quickly. OK, thread can be closed now.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> It's hardly a big deal to me, but I do dislike people undercutting others to make up for being unable to rationally defend their points.
> 
> And this isn't an isolated incident. KMD and others keep taking these same shots at Hap (and others, at times) when Hap has said nothing to provoke personal shots.
> 
> ...


For the life of me, pun intended, I can't find the "incident" that you are referring to. If anyone in this thread was "undercutting others to make up for being unable to rationally defend their points" it was hap.

KMD clearly got the better of the basketball arguement with his trade Zach, train LA, trade LA post. A quite rational and somewhat witty response, for which hap had no answer. Then he called hap out for his condescending, disrespectful (factually un-supported) rants implying posts by some others (not KMD) were stupid. KMD broke no rules, called no names (geek does not qualify on a board where BlazersPantheon is allowed to repeatedly call at least 4 different posters White Supremists, racists, bigots...) he simply said he was done.

What IS "grating" is the interference by certain Mods when certain favorite posters are losing a debate or are called out by posters for being overly rude.

Read this thread from the beginning and then tell me there isn't something better you could do from your position.

Seriously.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

OK, I couldn't resist... 



MARIS61 said:


> Harrison was by far the best player in the group....
> 
> [but] knows his limitations...


It's funny - yes, Harrison may have been the best player in The Beatles, but when he wrote a song that was the perfect vehicle for a ripping guitar solo, what's he do? He hands it to someone who can blow his doors off: Eric Clapton.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> KMD clearly got the better of the basketball arguement with his trade Zach, train LA, trade LA post. A quite rational and somewhat witty response, for which hap had no answer.


maybe I missed that post, because I don't recall there being a "witty" response.

oh wait, you mean this post? http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4369359&postcount=47

to which I responded (right after it) with this?
http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4369383&postcount=48

yah, thats the one where he bested me all right.

uh huh..



> Then he called hap out for his condescending, disrespectful (factually un-supported)


please provide some links to these "factually un-supported" rants.



> rants implying posts by some others (not KMD) were stupid.


please do not confuse commenting about someones idea as stuipd as saying the poster is stupid.



> KMD broke no rules, called no names (geek does not qualify on a board where BlazersPantheon is allowed to repeatedly call at least 4 different posters White Supremists, racists, bigots...) he simply said he was done.
> 
> What IS "grating" is the interference by certain Mods when certain favorite posters are losing a debate or are called out by posters for being overly rude.


I called this one, didn't I AR?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> interesting hypothesis
> 
> Brian Wilson was the "foundation" of the Beach Boys, and Mile Love was a..well, he was an *** clown..Dennis was the "spunk" of the Beach Boys, and Al and Bruce were the good soldiers..But the glue and the heart and soul of the group was Carl.
> 
> To me, Zach is like Mike Love singing lead. Sure, he could but the group was at it's pinnacle with Brian and Carl sharing lead.


In both cases, as with most groups and teams, chemistry is needed for it to last. Part of the reason Ringo was recruited was Pete Best liked to go his own way when not playing and the other 3 hung out all the time. So when they got together Pete had no clue where they were coming from, what they were joking about or what their intentions were for the future of the band. He was just a drummer who reported to work when it was time. Ringo was well-liked and popular already around the circuit and fit right in with the guys and their sense of humor.

While Sheed was universally accepted by the other players, I get the feeling Zach is accepted by about half the team and not by some others, mainly due to his "Hoops posse" routine. This could be a problem or maybe it's not.



Hap said:


> I think Sheed knew his limitations, I don't think Zach does. From all that I've heard from people who are closely associated with the team (in one form or another) Zach has an incredibly inflated opinion of his value. While thats not always a bad thing, it is when you're Joe Piscipo thinking you're Tony Danza.


If Zach has an incredibly inflated opinion of his value, you really can't blame that on him. The Blazers told him he was worth $80 million so he'd be shortchanging them if he didn't believe it.

My 2 cents:
Joe Piscopo is a good comedian and a bad actor.
Tony Danza is a good actor and a bad comedian.

Let us hope neither decides to try their luck at singing.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> For the life of me, pun intended, I can't find the "incident" that you are referring to. If anyone in this thread was "undercutting others to make up for being unable to rationally defend their points" it was hap.
> 
> KMD clearly got the better of the basketball arguement with his trade Zach, train LA, trade LA post. A quite rational and somewhat witty response, for which hap had no answer. Then he called hap out for his condescending, disrespectful (factually un-supported) rants implying posts by some others (not KMD) were stupid. KMD broke no rules, called no names (geek does not qualify on a board where BlazersPantheon is allowed to repeatedly call at least 4 different posters White Supremists, racists, bigots...) he simply said he was done.


As you yourself admitted, Hap never actually made any attacks on anyone. You said you feel like surely he did, but you can't find them, and chalk that up to magic that we'll never truly understand, instead of cutting the BS and simply agreeing Hap didn't attack anyone. He called some arguments "lame," but attacking arguments has always been within the rules.

KMD was the one who went on a rant about the poster he disagreed with, rather than going after the points raised



> What IS "grating" is the interference by certain Mods when certain favorite posters are losing a debate or are called out by posters for being overly rude.
> 
> Read this thread from the beginning and then tell me there isn't something better you could do from your position.
> 
> Seriously.


You're a bit misguided. I have no "position," as I'm not a moderator of this forum, and not acting as one. I have no power here and don't claim to or want any. It's just tiresome to see certain posters who can't defend their positions decide to start attacking the poster they disagree with.

KMD couldn't dispute Hap's claims about Randolph. He just wanted Hap to shut up because he doesn't want to hear it. And since Hap didn't shut up, KMD went on his rant about Hap is a geek, must suck at parties and is "full of himself." Sorry, that's just a tantrum.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> My 2 cents:
> Joe Piscopo is a good comedian and a bad actor.
> Tony Danza is a good actor and a bad comedian.
> 
> Let us hope neither decides to try their luck at singing.


iirc, tony is actually a decent singer. I believe he's even starred in some musicals. I wouldn't listen to anything he did tho.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> Another solution would be for the other 4 guys to keep moving and get open, since Zach usually draws 1 or 2 of their defenders off them.
> 
> It baffles me why they stop moving, but they continue to do it.
> 
> :whoknows:


he speaks the truth homes.
but in all honesty, its a bit of a problem on both ends. whilz big-z wastes possesions wit his lil' "move", they wuldnt exactly be wasted possessions if it creates open opportunited for other playa's. 
big-z's just gotta learn to step out of routine and "improvise" , act according to wats happening, not a set play.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> i love how mook and mediocre man are both now conservatives.
> 
> thats just rich. next thing we'll hear is that I'm a conservative.


You mean you're not???


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> maybe I missed that post, because I don't recall there being a "witty" response.
> 
> oh wait, you mean this post? http://www.basketballforum.com/showpost.php?p=4369359&postcount=47
> 
> ...


Yep, that's the one. Glad we're in agreement.



Hap said:


> please provide some links to these "factually un-supported" rants.


The one you provided here will do.

Or any in which you don't bow to my superior points.:biggrin: 



Hap said:


> please do not confuse commenting about someones idea as stuipd as saying the poster is stupid.


Please don't pretend there is a difference.:naughty:

If you would just rip people apart with a touch of kindness, the world would be a better place to post.:lol:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> As you yourself admitted, Hap never actually made any attacks on anyone. You said you feel like surely he did, but you can't find them, and chalk that up to magic that we'll never truly understand, instead of cutting the BS and simply agreeing Hap didn't attack anyone. He called some arguments "lame," but attacking arguments has always been within the rules.
> 
> KMD was the one who went on a rant about the poster he disagreed with, rather than going after the points raised
> 
> ...


Much as in the times you and I have debated, you twist things around to change reality. I never said hap made no attacks on anyone. He does it all the time. But he does it within the convoluted rules of this Bizarro Board. You can't call a poster stupid, but you can tell him every word he posts is stupid. Same thing. You are encouraged to use profanity and banned if you are too embarrassed, or too civil, to actually spell it out correctly.

KMD did not go on any rant. He calmly asked hap to try to accept or at least think about other people's views instead of acting like nobody else's opinion matters. He didn't say hap sucked at parties, he said he must be a blast at parties. Hap being full of himself is self-evident, but that's not necessarily an insult. I'm pretty full of myself too.

This is a rant, or a tantrum IMO:

"that argument is about as tired as my joke about Dianne Cannon being dead for the last 10 years and her face not knowing it.
Maybe if Zach played ANY DEFENSE, wasn't a ****ing idiot, didn't get himself in to trouble often, could pass any good and didn't have a history of pouting, maybe juuuuuuuuuust maybe that wouldn't be a lame counter argument to make.
god that ones such a lame argument.
oh yah, and I hate white people."

It says Moderator by your screen name. When I saw you post I assumed you were here to finally ban BlazersPantheon for the several days of insults and trolling he has reigned upon us. But no, you're here to save Hap from nothing. Could you please pass the word on to someone who actually cares about the rules?

I realize there is a history between these 2 posters but today KMD did no wrong. Hap was the aggressor, KMD surrendered. No harm, no foul. No rules broken. What's your beef?

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=330797&page=4


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Much as in the times you and I have debated, you twist things around to change reality. I never said hap made no attacks on anyone. He does it all the time. But he does it within the convoluted rules of this Bizarro Board. You can't call a poster stupid, but you can tell him every word he posts is stupid. Same thing.


It's not the same thing. Attacking an argument is very different from attacking a poster. 



> KMD did not go on any rant. He calmly asked hap to try to accept or at least think about other people's views instead of acting like nobody else's opinion matters. *He didn't say hap sucked at parties, he said he must be a blast at parties.*


Pretending you don't know what sarcasm is doesn't strengthen your point.

Posting a paragraph about how insufferable a person is, how he's a geek and insinuating that he's anti-social is very much a rant. It means the poster has lost control and is no longer talking about basketball but attacking the other person.



> This is a rant, or a tantrum IMO:
> 
> "that argument is about as tired as my joke about Dianne Cannon being dead for the last 10 years and her face not knowing it.
> Maybe if Zach played ANY DEFENSE, wasn't a ****ing idiot, didn't get himself in to trouble often, could pass any good and didn't have a history of pouting, maybe juuuuuuuuuust maybe that wouldn't be a lame counter argument to make.
> ...


That post is actually addressing the other person's points and on the topic of basketball. It's not an attack on the poster. You're only labeling it a rant because you don't agree with the poster, not because it's a personal attack.



> It says Moderator by your screen name.


Yes, but I'm not a moderator of this forum. I have no editing power here or any policy-making power here. The forum I'm a moderator of is the Political Economy. Here, I'm just another poster.



> When I saw your post I assumed you were here to finally ban BlazersPantheon for the several days of insults and trolling he has reigned upon us. But no, you're here to save Hap from nothing.


I'm not here to save anyone from anything. I'm just a poster giving his opinion, which is that it's pretty strange for KMD to cast himself as the victim, when he's the only one who attacked anyone.

Anyway, as usual, we clearly disagree fundamentally. I'd prefer not to go back and forth for pages, especially since our "debate" isn't basketball-related. So take the last word, and we'll call this done.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Hey great news. I just looked back in the thread and saw that I made two posts before Pantheon made his statement. Meaning that it was brought up first.
> 
> No reason to apologise, I hold no hard feelings. :cheers:


check again, you were the first person to bring race into it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

blakejack said:


> check again, you were the first person to bring race into it.



Technically yes, but he brought it off topic first with his right wing comment....which really is a racial comment since he has used it when accusing some of us as being racist.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That post is actually addressing the other person's points and on the topic of basketball. It's not an attack on the poster. You're only labeling it a rant because you don't agree with the poster, not because it's a personal attack.


Bearing in mind that I take no side in this particular issue, I disagree with your statement...

Your argument has to be the stupidest argument I have ever seen. There are nothing but short, unintelligible words used and the grammar is atrocious. I'm not even sure your argument would be made by a very slow 3 year old because it's such a waste of time and air.

Get the drift? It doesn't have to be personal to be personal.

By the way, welcome back Minstrel..don't know where you've been, but I look forward to seeing many more stupid posts by you. :biggrin:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I'm not here to save anyone from anything. I'm just a poster giving his opinion, which is that it's pretty strange for KMD to cast himself as the victim, when he's the only one who attacked anyone.


Well I just quickly read through this thread since I left last night. Apparently my few posts has got you pretty upset Minstrel.

If you read those posts as me being the only one to atack, then we read the posts in a completely different light.

I thnik Maris hit on my frustration that hap is very good at insulting posters, but when going back to read the posts it is hard to find. What if I called all your posts in this thread lame and clueless posts . . . not calling you stupid, just your posts . . . is that insulting?

Anyways I didn't see it as tense as you made it out to be. Hap and I have gone back and forth before. This time, I didn't appreciate hap's response to my post . . . tried to be witty and get in it with hap . . . quickly conceeded that once again he got the best of me (which I have a feeling he knows and gets a kick out of it).

My posts may have been inappropriate from your standpoint, but relative to the posts happening that day, I don't think I was so over the top.

(Hap, I'll try to start to separate the idea of you calling an idea stupid v. calling the person stupid . . . but why do I feel we are going to have another exchange in the future . . . and some day I might actually get the best of you :biggrin: )


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Somewhere through the grammatical structure of [Hap's] attack you come away thinking you've been not only insulted, but you're convinced board rules have been broken and lines of decency crossed.
> 
> When you go back to find the specific quote to call him on it, it's not there. You swear you remember him calling you names or worse, but it's just not there.


Oh really? Here's just one example of Hap's personal attacks, which happened to be directed at me. 



Hap said:


> Everything you do is embarassingly weak, and insulting to anyone who has the IQ of a zygote. Oh, I know you do it because you think you are winning when you rile up those "damn liberals", but honestly, you come off as an ignorant, bigotted, slow witted simpleton, who barely has the ability to think for himself.


http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=313067&page=3

Were "board rules broken," or "lines of decency crossed?" I'll let you decide.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Well I just quickly read through this thread since I left last night. Apparently my few posts has got you pretty upset Minstrel.


Not pretty upset, I just think the discussions flow a lot better when people limit it to basketball and leave personal evaluations out of it, that's all.

I have nothing against you, personally, KMD. I think you provide a lot of good posts. As I think Hap does. That's why it's frustrating to see things between you two often go from good debates to almost-not-quite-angry-bickering.  That's all.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Not pretty upset, I just think the discussions flow a lot better when people limit it to basketball and leave personal evaluations out of it, that's all.
> 
> I have nothing against you, personally, KMD. I think you provide a lot of good posts. As I think Hap does. That's why it's frustrating to see things between you two often go from good debates to almost-not-quite-angry-bickering.  That's all.


An interesting way to jump back in the board after such a long and missed absence.

How about some Blazer basketball posts?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> You mean you're not???


dear sir, I have been called many things in my life. Lazy, arrogant, smart, jerk, *** clown, pervert and Sheila. 

but I will not stand for that kind of insult. take it back.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> An interesting way to jump back in the board after such a long and missed absence.


Not that interesting. I've been lurking (reading, not posting)...I jumped in when an interesting discussion got sidetracked. Though, I'll take blame for sidetracking it further. I'd just rather see other discussions not be similarly sidetracked.



> How about some Blazer basketball posts?


I haven't been able to see a lot of Blazers games lately. I don't feel too qualified to post about Blazer basketball at the moment.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I noticed that Zach didn't square up against his man very often last night. He faced him down a couple of times, but then made his move to the basket more quickly. I see this as a good sign, though he wasn't as aggressive as I would like last night.

But geez, Zach is a horrid passer! He seems to throw at least a couple of bad passes every game, and they usually get picked off by the other team. I think it's because he doesn't think like a passer--he thinks like a scorer. Any pass he makes is always a forced pass, when he can't think of anything else to do. If he actually anticipated making a pass, instead of waiting until he had to, he would probably have better results.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I wonder if somebody would be willing to look up the data on good low post passers (Webber, Miller, etc) and see if big men can make any progress in assists, and what the likelihood is. 

Urithmo did some great research on point guards, which has really colored my view of both Jack and Rodriguez. it'd be cool if he (or someone else) were willing to do the same with power forwards/centers. 

Why don't you do it, mook? Because I'm lazy as hell. But not so lazy that I wouldn't read what somebody else found out.


----------

