# Ammo workout notes -- draftexpress.com



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Ammo Workout 

The more I read, the more I would hate to miss out on him. If the future of the NBA is offense, he has plenty.

Morrison haters should really read this. The guy cans 82% from NBA 3pt range in a workout, and does even better when being guarded one-on-one? Webster/Morrison could kill other teams with their shooting/slashing. 

If I had the first pick in the draft, I really don't know who I would take. Aldridge doesn't appear to be anything special, but Morrison, Gay, Bargnani? Right now I'm thinking that Morrison and Gay will be the two guys down the road that look the best out of this draft.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

IMO- Portland would be foolish NOT to draft Morrison. 


Not only will he drop 15-22 ppg, he will instantly add 2000 butts into Rose Garden seats. Including me. 

Draft Tyrus Thomas or Brandon ROy? Yawn....


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Yeah baby. All the Young Guns need to get over the top is some Ammo.

"Young Guns & Ammo", I'm filing on that one today.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Nice article. After reading that, all I have to say is, "Will he be there at #4?"


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I really like this kid. His commitment to his craft is incredible, and highly unusual. He's the perfect antidote to Wallace-Rider-Wells, and just what we need in Portland. Imagine the kind of offense we could have with Webster and Morrison on the court together.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Interesting article. Bad math.

He shot 75/110, not 90/110. Still a very nice 68%, but not the 82% they credited him with... given their scale, he almost hit the "excellent" mark.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

as long as he (or whoever they draft) lives up to their hype (or exceeds it) he'll put butts in the seats..and it won't be because he's local.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Interesting article. Bad math.
> 
> He shot 75/110, not 90/110. Still a very nice 68%, but not the 82% they credited him with... given their scale, he almost hit the "excellent" mark.
> 
> Ed O.


I thought the percent looked a little high, but didn't do the math. Thanks Ed. I still like the though of him and Webster on the wings, extending the zone.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Yes I agree that he would be a lot of fun to watch on offense. I don't really think people should dwell too much on his defense, or lack there of. People in Portland will like the kid just as they did Kiki.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Interesting article. Bad math.
> 
> He shot 75/110, not 90/110. Still a very nice 68%, but not the 82% they credited him with... given their scale, he almost hit the "excellent" mark.
> 
> Ed O.


I too noticed how that seemed a tad bit generous..but I sure as hell wouldn't turn down a guy who can hit almost 70% of the three' pointers he shoots when he's open.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

nbadraft.net has him going at #1 now... I wonder how serious the rumors are about us trading for the pick in order to draft him. I'd definitely take him at #4, but I'm not so sure he'll last that long.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

dam i really hope we get him before i didn't care but we really need him.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Did anyone listen to the fan of Friday. Apparently Morrison's agent was going to give an interview about the growing concern of Morrison's health.

Recap anyone?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I'm sold. If Morrison is there at #4, the Blazers need to take him. Trade Zach and Miles for a handfull of role-players who know how to play team defense.

And if he won't be there at #4, I hope it's because the Blazers traded up and took him at #1 - #3.

Telfair
Jack
Webster
Khryapa
Morrison
Outlaw
Przybilla

:drool:

The future looks bright. Just hope they can keep Przybilla, beat some sense into Zach (or trade him for that box of rocks that racked up a higher SAT score than his), and trade Darius for someone who actually cares about the game let alone winning.

PBF


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I would be happy with the Blazers taking Morrison, but I don't think he'll be there at #4.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I really don't think pryz will stay.We will make some kind of rush trade like oh noes we lost pryz what do we do 1111!111 where it gets us a old center or we start theo and that would suck.We need to trade miles and z-bo and theo and hope for the best.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I like Morrison, and have moved him to #2 on my draft board. He has an amazing and rare offensive IQ, and the passion to become a big time player. I think the workout against Roy, Gay and Foyle will be very important, most notably how well he performs against the athletic Gay. If he outperforms Gay, or even comes up about equal, he should probably be our pick.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Telfair, Webster, Morrison, Randolph, Przybilla 

Jack, Dixon, Khryapa, Skinner, Ratliff for the 2nd unit

does not sound too bad... there are worst players we coudl draft

at least we can score more...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I like Morrison, and have moved him to #2 on my draft board. He has an amazing and rare offensive IQ, and the passion to become a big time player. I think the workout against Roy, Gay and Foyle will be very important, most notably how well he performs against the athletic Gay. If he outperforms Gay, *or even comes up about equal*, he should probably be our pick.


Why should Adam be the choice if a guy over 2 years younger then him is already his equal? 

STOMP


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

if u consider gay to be the same level with morrison u are in space.Adam is so far ahead offensively.His jumper is amazing aswell as 3pt shot.Webster and him have incredble shooting touchs and could kill defenses with their range and jumper.Instead of doublt teaming zach or whomever out forward is they have to play legit.If they do cheat on defense either of them could make them pay.If u look at adams stats at his workout they are impressive.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> I too noticed how that seemed a tad bit generous..but I sure as hell wouldn't turn down a guy who can hit almost 70% of the three' pointers he shoots when he's open.


It's good, but the article makes it sound like it's not THAT big of a deal.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

chromekilla said:


> if u consider gay to be the same level with morrison *u are is space*.Adam is so ahead offensively.His jumper is amazing aswell as 3pt shot.Webster and him have incredble shooting touchs and could kill defenses with their range and jumper.Instead of doublt teaming zach or whomever out forward is they have to play legit.If they do cheat on defense either of them could make them pay.If u look at adams stats at his workout they are impressive.


u are is space right back atcha dude. 

The obvious counter to what I'd guess you're saying is that Adam's D is as poor as his offense is good... heck like everywhere else, this article points to this and paints him as seeming disinterested/unable to contend the J of a scrub I've never heard of before. I seriously question the logic of putting together a team with a weak defender at more then 1 position, and Portland already has Zach. But really, I'd much rather have the question I asked *ThatBlazerGuy* answered. If Adam can't outshine a guy over 2 years his junior, why should he be the pick? That seems an odd statement to make.

STOMP


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

My post says in not is.I think adam can improve his defense .If he is available we will pick him.If not then roy which sucks.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

chromekilla said:


> My post says in not is.I think adam can improve his defense .If he is available we will pick him.If not then roy which sucks.


so you edited your stupid bleep insult... congradulations! it's still pathetic.

I can't think of one player who was a poor defensive player in college who became a decent one in the pros... but more power to Adam, I hope that he does just that where ever his career starts. 

lastly, I see no reason to believe that Portland has to select between those two... heck at this point it's only guesses that either will be available. I'm sure that the PTBs will have a wide variety of options open to them this offseason.

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I can't think of one player who was a poor defensive player in college who became a decent one in the pros


Chris Mullin? Mitch Richmond? Ray Allen? Steve Nash?

define decent? I define it as acceptable...not good defense, but acceptable...and I do think zone defenses help players like Morrison...


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

It wasn't meant for u anyways it was meant to be a general thought of mine.If i would of said something like u are stupid or meant that post to u i most likely would of been warned for insulting someone so i made a general thought on the subject.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Chris Mullin? Mitch Richmond? Ray Allen? Steve Nash?
> 
> define decent? I define it as acceptable...not good defense, but acceptable...and I do think zone defenses help players like Morrison...


Well I don't have much of a recollection of Mitch's D in college, but I don't think the rest of your examples hold water, especially Chris Mullin. He was an absolutely terrible defender throughout his career. With his quick hands he got a few steals, but overall teams went at him because for a reason. Geez Kersey always went off on him... despite Mullins HOF numbers, I actually considered that match up advantage Blazers and a big part of the reason Portland usually won those games.

In general, teams that play zone D do so because they've defensive players who are too slow/weak to guard guys strait up, or they have shotblockers to guard the paint. Sure the zone keeps one player from being exploited every time down the court, but relying on it is not desirable. Teams that can execute will get a good look against it every possession. Unfortuantely their are more weak defenders on the Blazer roster then just Zach. Telfair is less then decent/acceptable too IMO... maybe he's to be Stoudamire to JJ's Greg Anthony in the future rotation? Potencially subtracting Joel from the mix (free agency) and Theo (injury to be named later), and the zone Portland runs will be as soft as Charmin.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Mitch Richmond was actually a pretty good defender at KSU. Not nearly the same level that he was on the offensive end, but as a college defender--and particularly a guy with his offensive game--he was pretty good.

Maybe his early days with the Warriors shaded the memory of some...

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

But Stomp POR wouldn't be drafting Morrison for his defense, now would they? So as long has he can be adequete on defense...and he can....his offensive abilities make him valuable out there on the floor...

I don't agree with the premise that Morrison is unathletic....He may not have the visually athletic qualities that many look for...but he has a lot of deceptive offensive abilites...fakes...footwork...quickness etc....

Nor do I agree with the premise that he is incapable of playing adequete defense....

Defense is as much if not more predicated on IQ, anticipation, recognition and effort as it is on athleticism...Morrison has all 4 of those qualities and he would be playing for a coach who stresses his players play "both ends of the floor"...

Let me ask you this...Would you take Chris Mullin in his prime at #4...knowing what you know now about him? I think most people would....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Let me ask you this...Would you take Chris Mullin in his prime at #4...knowing what you know now about him? I think most people would....


I'm sure you meant Mullin as a 22 y/old (with a drinking problem), but it depends on what else is available. In some past drafts I might have taken him #1 in this hypothetical, in others much later. But that doesn't address my stated concerns. I'm mostly hoping for the Blazers to win games, not accumulate gawdy offensive stats. As the saying goes, offense puts butts in the seats, defense wins games. Zach and Telfair are not good defensive players, and it gives me concern that Portland is potencially putting together a team like that.

I've seen nothing to indicate that Adam is concerned with improving his defense. Dude has floated around seemingly unconcerned on that end in every game I've watched. He doesn't even give improving his maligned D lip service in interviews. From what I've observed, he's given me (and apparently every evaluation outlet) good reason to question whether he'll ever be close to decent/acceptable on that end... 

While I respect that you feel that he's a better athlete then he's given credit for, we'll soon have some cold hard pre-draft statistics to look at and compare to others. I'll be sure to compare him to some other SFs stats that were put up in past years. We'll also get to see if he's really 6'9 as you're relaying... to my eye 6'7 is more like it. I'm very interested to see those stats for all of the prospects, as to me they are an important part of the evaluation process.

STOMP


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Whatever we have to do to draft him (well, almost whatever), we do it. Telfair/Webster/Morrison sounds AWESOME.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Agreed. Morrison will be number 1. sadly enough.....for us.....

lets hope we can make a deal


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

blue32 said:


> Agreed. Morrison will be number 1. sadly enough.....for us.....
> 
> lets hope we can make a deal


... not involving Jarret Jack (or Webster or Telfair).


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

*Zebo*

Well I will say this, Adam Morrison is probably the only player in the draft that could get Zebo to play hard enough for the Blazers to not have to trade him. However, I don't know if that is necessarily a good thing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Zebo*



Blazed said:


> Well I will say this, Adam Morrison is probably the only player in the draft that could get Zebo to play hard enough for the Blazers to not have to trade him. However, I don't know if that is necessarily a good thing.


How is Morrison going to motivate Zach? By yelling at him and shooting a lot?

Juan Dixon tried that tactic early in the year and we saw how well that worked 

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Zebo*



Ed O said:


> How is Morrison going to motivate Zach? By yelling at him and shooting a lot?
> 
> Juan Dixon tried that tactic early in the year and we saw how well that worked
> 
> Ed O.



cept, I think that Dixon was just seen as a small pest, whereas Morrison is almost as big as Zach, and can back up what he says..whereas Dixon just whines and pouts.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

*Re: Zebo*

patterson said that ammo is a great scorer and almost said "and thats what we need"


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I don't think the problem is necessary with Morrison's D (though I'd describe it as below-average as opposed to these generous "average" tags). I think the problem is, if your entire team, or the majority of it, suck at D, you'd better improve somewhere in that category.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Zebo*



Utherhimo said:


> patterson said that ammo is a great scorer and almost said "and thats what we need"


I thought it was interesting to hear steve jones basically say that the team needs to get scoring first, and defense later...because it's not like this team is going to all the sudden be better with a defensive player, and that it's harder to get someone who's not used to being a scorer at will..to well..become a scorer at will.

Think about it...there's NO ONE on this team who you can go "ok, he'll get us 15-20 a night every night, and it won't just be streaky or a freak thing".


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Steve Jones promoted scoring over defense? Ya don't say? :biggrin: 

We'll take what we can get. If there is an awesome defensive/rebounding force available take him. If there is an awesome offensive/scoring force, take him.

It doesn't look like there is going to be a great big defender available to us. If we end up with Morrison, we'll definitely be able to score the ball with Telfair, Webster, Morrison and Zach. Then we can move up to the mid-teens to take a chance on a big defender/rebounder, or try to trade for one, or both. 

Don't forget, we already have our enforcer in HA! :biggrin: And don't forget too (seriously), we will probably have a very, very good chance to get a big defender in next year's draft.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I heard that too Hap...and couldn't agree more...This team definitely needs a guy they can count on to get them 15-20ppg a night...a guy..as Jones' put it..."Can wreck havoc on opposing defenses"

I see only 3 players capable of doing that...Morrison...Gay and Bargnani...


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Zebo*



SMiLE said:


> Think about it...there's NO ONE on this team who you can go "ok, he'll get us 15-20 a night every night, and it won't just be streaky or a freak thing".


What is Zach's scoring average? And he's not particularly freaky and streaky. 

barfo


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Zebo*

I think that both Zach and Martell are able to give us solid scoring. And how exactly does Ranolph not qualify into the 15-20 a night when he averages about 19?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Zebo*



barfo said:


> What is Zach's scoring average? And he's not particularly freaky and streaky.
> 
> barfo


but I dont think he's one they can depend on to get his points no matter what. Not saying who's in this draft can, but I think Morrison has a much bigger (and better) arsenal than Zach does.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Zebo*



SheedSoNasty said:


> I think that both Zach and Martell are able to give us solid scoring. And how exactly does Ranolph not qualify into the 15-20 a night when he averages about 19?


think of how many times Zach would have horrible shooting games, and be a non factor on O...or be like "holy crap, zach has 23 points tonite? how the hell?"

I want someone (and I believe Steve was implying he wants someone) who when he scores, you KNOW he had those points and there's little teams can do to stop him.

not saying that's a player in this draft necessarily. It's just that that player isn't on our team, and until martell proves if he is or isn't that player, we don't know if we'll ever have that player with our current team.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I think defense can really be taught. If he works half as hard at that end of the floor as he does the other, he'll easily be a Rookie of the Year candidate.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I'm sure you meant Mullin as a 22 y/old (with a drinking problem), but it depends on what else is available. In some past drafts I might have taken him #1 in this hypothetical, in others much later. But that doesn't address my stated concerns. I'm mostly hoping for the Blazers to win games, not accumulate gawdy offensive stats. As the saying goes, offense puts butts in the seats, defense wins games. Zach and Telfair are not good defensive players, and it gives me concern that Portland is potencially putting together a team like that.


Phoenix made it to the Western Conference finals this year by playing offense and they didn't even have a presence in the middle like we have...



> I've seen nothing to indicate that Adam is concerned with improving his defense. Dude has floated around seemingly unconcerned on that end in every game I've watched. He doesn't even give improving his maligned D lip service in interviews. From what I've observed, he's given me (and apparently every evaluation outlet) good reason to question whether he'll ever be close to decent/acceptable on that end...


He hasn't had to, his team won games by him scoring the ball... I'm sure when he makes it to the NBA he's going to improve especially if Nate's his coach because he won't play...People were knocking his 3 point shot in years previous so he spent last offseason working on it and he was lights out from 3 land this year....He has a definite chip on his shoulder to improve, lets face it, this is the same kid who wasn't even recruited out of high school and went on to become a NPOY type player despite having type 1 diabetes...I'm sure working himself into an average defender in the league isn't out of the realm of possibilities...



> While I respect that you feel that he's a better athlete then he's given credit for, we'll soon have some cold hard pre-draft statistics to look at and compare to others. I'll be sure to compare him to some other SFs stats that were put up in past years. We'll also get to see if he's really 6'9 as you're relaying... to my eye 6'7 is more like it. I'm very interested to see those stats for all of the prospects, as to me they are an important part of the evaluation process.


those cold hard pre-draft statistics don't mean squat when measuring players who just know how to play the game....Give me a Mullin, Rip Hamilton, Larry Bird, Adam Morrison anyday of the week over Harold Miner, Stromile Swift, Hakim Warrick (and all the other athletic freaks)....

btw, Morrison is a legit 6'8"...


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Phoenix made it to the Western Conference finals this year by playing offense and they didn't even have a presence in the middle like we have...


Yeah, but they made it there by playing the Lakers and the Clips, neither of which is assembled for typical playoff basketball.

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Morrison is a legit 6'8"...


the tape won't lie... we shall see.

as for the rest of your opinions on AM, I didn't read them because, well, I've heard that record quite a few times now...

Hey *dkap* good to see you around again!

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Zebo*



SMiLE said:


> think of how many times Zach would have horrible shooting games, and be a non factor on O...or be like "holy crap, zach has 23 points tonite? how the hell?"
> 
> I want someone (and I believe Steve was implying he wants someone) who when he scores, you KNOW he had those points and there's little teams can do to stop him.
> 
> not saying that's a player in this draft necessarily. It's just that that player isn't on our team, and until martell proves if he is or isn't that player, we don't know if we'll ever have that player with our current team.


It sounds like you're talking about a guy who will get you 25-30 points every night. I don't think anyone thinks of a 15-20 ppg scorer as someone you can't stop. That's a supporting player.

The fact is that Zach has been very consistent in scoring at least 15-20 points. It doesn't make much sense to argue otherwise, or to say things like... well, it didn't seem like he scored that much. What the heck does that mean?

I think you would get your point across better if you stopped getting hung up on arguing that Zach is not a consistent scorer (he is and it's a fact), and focused on the fact that he's the only one the team has... they definitely need MORE of them. If that's your point, I agree 100%.

I would even go so far as to say that on the rare occasions where Zach was kept from getting his points (that were unrelated to recovering from injury) were a result of not having enough consistent help on offense. It was easier for him earlier in the year when Miles was grabbing 18ppg. When he went down, there was a real void there...


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Hey dkap good to see you around again!


Thanks. I've been checking in semi-regularly, but like several others, I've found the tone of the place to be a bit uninviting of late, so I haven't felt much of a desire to post. Maybe the Blazers can do something positive for a change this summer and rekindle that spirit.

Dan


----------

