# Utah @ Portland: Game Thread



## WebZen (Oct 10, 2005)

Thought I would start a game thread. 
Martell is starting at the 2 tonight, Monia goes to the 3.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Martell with the 3!!!!!

NICE shot...he's playing good D.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

We'll see. Utah's 2 guards are fairly weak. Its a good night to get his first start, he's not thrown into the fire so to speak.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

THis sounds pretty brutal so far.....

Could I get a little defense???

Or a made shot?

Or a posession or two without a turnover? C'mon now.....


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

RPCity said:


> We'll see. Utah's 2 guards are fairly weak. Its a good night to get his first start, he's not thrown into the fire so to speak.


Giricek is doing really well...Martell quieted down after missing a few shots....he's not even getting the ball. Blazer defense is bad...esp. on Memo Okur....sloppy ball movement. 

Rueben got cheered, not booed!

:banana:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ha and Outlaw in.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

RUEBEN!!!!! Getting the Blazers more agressive. WOO!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

LOTS of empty seats. DAMN Portlanders...go to the game!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Weak boarding! Kind of expected with Jack, Outlaw, Ha, Dixon, Patterson in there.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

OUCH 13 points in the first qtr.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

What happened to our defense? This is kinda depressing...


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Patterson is the only one playing well so far this game! Go RUBES!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

RPCity said:


> What happened to our defense? This is kinda depressing...


Jazz are hitting lots of short jumpers....the Blazers aren't playing good D....very slow. No interior presence at all. Good..they put in KHRYAPA


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Bassy 4 Three!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Xericx said:


> Bassy 4 Three!


AGAIN!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Few things:
Zach hasn't posted up once. 
Martell needs to move better away from the ball. He stays in one spot.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Viktor is doing WELL. Nice outside shooting....


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

1st half update for those of you who can't watch the game-

You notice the void in Portland's offense without someone like Miles to create, but it's the lack of Miles on defense that is really hurting Portland. Zach can't be productive as the #1 option, he needs to feed off another quality player to really be a weapon. Miles really appears to be this teams MVP, like it or not. 

Ruben and Victor were the only players to really take charge on the offensive end, both played very well.

Telfair got his usually two quick reaching fouls in the 1st. Neitehr Telfair or Jack looked that good, Telfair making more good and bad plays, with Jack laying low.

Webster has a sweet stroke (as everyone already knows), but is often stuck in the corner and makes it very easy for other teams to defend.

Joel and Ha have been ok, but nothing to write home about.

Dixon kills us on defense, and is ok on offense, so I'd just assume he's not out on the floor.

Monia played very well in the first quarter, really creating for others by taking the ball strong to the hoop and dishing. I don't know what he can't get back in the game, but Nate does this every night, so I guess it's not going to change.

Overall we're lucky to have 45, and I would be surprised if Utah put up another 55 on us this half. We're playing defense with our hands, not our feet, and the Jazz are taking advantage of it.

Let's hope Portland figures it out at halftime and comes out with a victory.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Webster is getting more agressive. He can get to the basket easily...he has 10 pts now...7 points FAST. He's gonna be DAMN good once he learns how to pick his shots on the floor.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

2 point game!!!! Patterson is getting the crowd into the game!!! WOOOOOO! :banana:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Webster and Ruben playing very well to start the 2nd half. 

Okur is hitting some tough jumpers with Joel right in his face. Hopefully he'll cool off here soon.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Telfair with his 4th PF. Yikes.....he was playing well too...hopefully Blazers won't miss a beat. Portland up by 3....


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Nice HUSTLE for Patterson! Nice fast break on the previous posession!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Viktor sounds like he's doing well.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

HOLY CRAP...you've GOTTA see the PATTERSON Dunk on the Dixon MISS. OH MY GAWD!!!!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

There's no Center in the game.....Memo is eating the Blazers up inside...yuck. Nate got a Tech.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Dear Nate, 

Please take Juan Dixon out. 

THANK YOU!!!! 

TELFAIR AND WEBSTER BACK IN THE GAME


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Come on Blazers! Get this win!!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Nooooooooo! Three pointer and foul?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Webster missed a few open jumpers. Oh well, at least he's taking them. He seems way too intent on taking the first shot he gets....I wish he'd consider taking the ball to the hole more.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

This injury to Miles will hurt us in the wins column but it may be a better way to have a lot of these young players progress more, particularly Martell and Sebastian. With D Miles gone I think Nate will give Sebastian more of a green light to create.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

****!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Utah up by 5, still 40 seconds left. 

If the Blazers lose, I still commend them for staying in there. Honestly, win or lose, as long as the effort and potential is there, I'm happy. Lots of positives, esp. in the 2nd half.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> This injury to Miles will hurt us in the wins column but it may be a better way to have a lot of these young players progress more, particularly Martell and Sebastian. With D Miles gone I think Nate will give Sebastian more of a green light to create.


Yea, Viktor too.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Or Patterson...great game tonight. 

I do agree about the willingness of Telfair to attack the basket...he did that ALOT tonight....driving to the hole to create a shot or an open jumper. 

Just need to hit them jumpers.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Blazers lose. 

Good games by Telfair and Patterson. 

Webster shot too many random shots out of the offense...otherwise he played OK. 

Randolph played ok too....same with Khryapa in short spurts.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Nice effort from Ruben but looks like he picked up some tips from Miles on turning the ball over. With the exception of Ruben they only had 7 TO's. Much better. They will sloooowly start improving......I hope.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

It'll be a long year but worth it. I can't wait till next game I'm going to next Sunday.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Juan Dixon is just killing us. Even if he doesn't play bad directly, the team always seems to do worse with him on the court. I have no idea what Monia did wrong in the first quarter that caused him to get benched the rest of the game, I thought he played well.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Przybilla and Patterson were the only guys that played well. Joel had 17 boards....not too bad.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ya, Joel had a monster game on the boards!

Glad to see five of the next six games are on tv. Really sucks not being able to watch the game.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

tlong said:


> Przybilla and Patterson were the only guys that played well. Joel had 17 boards....not too bad.


Telfair played well...just got in foul trouble.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Few thoughts after listening and looking at the Box score..

Monia needs to be more aggressive to score. (Same as Viktor last Year). I assume it is the fundamental way they play in Europe leaving it's imprint.

Martell needs to keep getting the starts, at least for a couple more games. 2-11 won't be what we are used to from Martell, but he needs a few more starters minutes games to get teh feeling of the NBA. 

Continue to bring Ruben off the bench with Darius out, 2 reasons 1) Spark 2) Don't give in yet.

I cringed everytime Dixon checked in, muttering "Dixon can shoot us out of a game in a hurry".


The Rotation I'd Like to see Starters listed First
PG Telfair/Jack
SG Webster/Monia
SF Monia/Patterson/Outlaw
PF Randolph/Khyrapa/Outlaw
C Joel/Ha/Randolph

SOmetimes Dixon can be good, but he needs to look to creat matchup problems by getting open then passin as the defense recovers. Usually if he's open I want to see him shoot, but he still shoots too much.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Tince said:


> I have no idea what Monia did wrong in the first quarter that caused him to get benched the rest of the game, I thought he played well.


Same thing he does every game. No idea what that thing is, but he must average the fewest minutes of any starter in the NBA.

Possibly he does the same thing that Victor does, that kept him out of the games until the last couple.

barfo


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Xericx said:


> Telfair played well...just got in foul trouble.


Cuz those damn refs call ticky-tack fouls..


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

Anyone know what was up with Deron Williams? I tuned in during the 4th quarter and didn't see him at all but I noticed he had about 4 points.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> Przybilla and Patterson were the only guys that played well. Joel had 17 boards....not too bad.


I think Khryapa had a very good game.

barfo


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Telfair played well...just got in foul trouble.


Telfair was 4 for 14. That is not playing well imo.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Good game but Ruben is just gonna think he was right becasue he got more time and he did better.Id rather have Ruben at home but thats just me.If we had a trade for pf i would do it.Hopefully playing him will showcase him and we can trade him.Monia is always gonna get benched because he doesn't have all the experience and dixon will get mad because he won't get time.Nate is most likely just keeping him happy for the time being.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

tlong said:


> Telfair was 4 for 14. That is not playing well imo.


 While I agree Telfair didn't play well...stats don't always tell the entire story.

Webster plays better than the boxscore indicates


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

barfo said:


> Same thing he does every game. No idea what that thing is, but he must average the fewest minutes of any starter in the NBA.
> 
> Possibly he does the same thing that Victor does, that kept him out of the games until the last couple.
> 
> barfo


I know why, they just play good smart ball and they don't want that type of a example.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Tince said:


> While I agree Telfair didn't play well...stats don't always tell the entire story.
> 
> Webster plays better than the boxscore indicates



I agree that the boxscore doesn't tell the whole story, but nobody can tell me that someone that shoots 4 for 14 had a good game.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I keep hearing that put back jam by Patterson on KXL. I hope I get to see it on the news.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Something interesting I stumbled upon the other day....Jerome James started 80 of 80 games he played in last year under Nate. He averaged 16mpg.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> Przybilla and Patterson were the only guys that played well. Joel had 17 boards....not too bad.


Khryapa actually had the best night in terms of efficiency per minutes. And his defense was better too. 

name efficency per minute
V. Khryapa .78
J. Przybilla .58
S. Monia .56
R. Patterson .48
S. Telfair .45
Z. Randolph .44
T. Outlaw .2
J. Jack .18
H. Seung-Jin .17
J. Dixon .1
M. Webster .09


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Something interesting I stumbled upon the other day....Jerome James started 80 of 80 games he played in last year under Nate. He averaged 16mpg.


That's very interesting. Wonder why Nate does that? As a game strategy, it isn't clear what the purpose would be, or whether it is working. 

barfo


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Fork said:


> Khryapa actually had the best night in terms of efficiency per minutes. And his defense was better too.
> 
> name efficency per minute
> V. Khryapa .78
> ...


That is true, but since he only played 18 minutes I ignored him.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Tince said:


> While I agree Telfair didn't play well...stats don't always tell the entire story.
> 
> Webster plays better than the boxscore indicates


Wow...didn't check the stats.....didn't seem like he was playing that bad! He hit some key 3's and sparked the blazer run with Patterson and Webster.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> I agree that the boxscore doesn't tell the whole story, but nobody can tell me that someone that shoots 4 for 14 had a good game.


I agree that the boxscore doesn't tell the whole story, but nobody can tell me that someone that turns the ball over 5 times had a good game.

Yet...you said that about Patterson. 

The fact is, they both played decent, yet flawed games.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Fork said:


> I agree that the boxscore doesn't tell the whole story, but nobody can tell me that someone that turns the ball over 5 times had a good game.
> 
> Yet...you said that about Patterson.
> 
> The fact is, they both played decent, yet flawed games.


It didn't seem like Patterson played badly. I wonder if they counted his two lane violations as turnovers....Patterson had a great game, despite what the boxscore says. He was diving for lose balls, finishing fast breaks, starting fast breaks, and everything else in between. Unlimited energy tonight.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> That is true, but since he only played 18 minutes I ignored him.


Patterson only played 9 more minutes, yet you singled him out as having had a good game. But Khryapa's efficiency rating TOTAL was 14...Patterson's was 13. Khryapa played better per minute and better overall.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ok, I think Antonio is high. He's saying Martell had such a great game that he deserves to start
from here on, in place of Monia. 

I say let's give Monia a starter's minutes and see what happens.

barfo


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Tince said:


> Webster plays better than the boxscore indicates


He did, and he didn't. The thing about Martell is that he had some NASTY looking layups...one went in..they were circus shots...almost all of his non-jumpers. I'm not complaining....but what Martell needs to do is to continue shooting...he's basically a black hole whenever he gets the ball...shoots the shot....most of his shot attempts I thought were pretty good...he was just off on them.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Fork said:


> Patterson only played 9 more minutes, yet you singled him out as having had a good game. But Khryapa's efficiency rating TOTAL was 14...Patterson's was 13. Khryapa played better per minute and better overall.


The thing is, that you can't quantify what Rueben does out there on the floor in numbers. Diving to get jump balls, etc.

Khyrpapa played well...but Rueben had a great game tonight.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

barfo said:


> Ok, I think Antonio is high. He's saying Martell had such a great game that he deserves to start
> from here on, in place of Monia.
> 
> I say let's give Monia a starter's minutes and see what happens.
> ...


The thing is, I think Martell will be much more agressive than Monia...Monia sometimes seems disinclined to shoot.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Ok, I think Antonio is high. He's saying Martell had such a great game that he deserves to start
> from here on, in place of Monia.
> 
> I say let's give Monia a starter's minutes and see what happens.
> ...


I think Martell should get another couple startes on the heel s of this one simply cause this was his first star and IIRC first game with meaningful minutes. HE needs a chance to get teh feel of starting and he needs teh confidence fromt he coach that he should be starting.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Fork said:


> Patterson only played 9 more minutes, yet you singled him out as having had a good game. But Khryapa's efficiency rating TOTAL was 14...Patterson's was 13. Khryapa played better per minute and better overall.



Patterson played *50% more * minutes than Khryapa.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I agree Webster should get a few more starts just to allow the butterflies to get out of his system so we'll have a better idea what he can do as a starter.

Rueben does have turnovers but he brings energy and gets the other Blazers charged up which isn't in the boxscore.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

mgb said:


> I agree Webster should get a few more starts just to allow the butterflies to get out of his system so we'll have a better idea what he can do as a starter.
> 
> Rueben does have turnovers but he brings energy and gets the other Blazers charged up which isn't in the boxscore.


Crowd was lovin' it....even Martell got super excited....it was funny when Martell was out on the court, he was just as animated as he would be on the bench as a cheerleader....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Heh. 5th Quarter guys calling out the Ron Tonkin type fans for not buying tickets now that the 'bad guys' are gone...

barfo


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Finally got to see the Patterson put back jam on espn news and man it was a monster jam!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

barfo said:


> Heh. 5th Quarter guys calling out the Ron Tonkin type fans for not buying tickets now that the 'bad guys' are gone...
> 
> barfo



:banana: 

SUPPORT THIS TEAM! They are finally putting out a good product!

:banana:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Something interesting I stumbled upon the other day....Jerome James started 80 of 80 games he played in last year under Nate. He averaged 16mpg.


I've wondered about that. maybe it's the coach's way of de-emphasizing the importance of starters in general. unless you are a key player (Ray Allen/Rashard Lewis/Darius Miles/Zach Randolph), a starting job entitles you to nothing more than the first five minutes of the first half and the first five minutes of the second half. everything else is based on your production every night. 

I'm not too familiar with his rotations in Seattle. I'd be interested to see a Sonic fan cofirm/refute this idea. 

Anyway, even though we lost, I'm once again so glad Cheeks is gone. Overall, I thought Nate did a fine job of managing player minutes. We got beat because we just had worse players, not because Sloan out-coached us. 

I'd liked to have seen Ha more, but they were killing us with midrange jumpers, and Ha wouldn't have helped much.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> SUPPORT THIS TEAM! They are finally putting out a good product!


5-11 is a good product???


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

NBAGOD said:


> 5-11 is a good product???


Good in the way that momma's boys are good, not good in the way that the Bugatti Veyron is good.

barfo


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> 5-11 is a good product???


They're playing fairly well and learning along the way and growing. I'd rather watch this team than the Damon Stoudamire train wreck or a bunch of primadonnas.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> They're playing fairly well and learning along the way and growing. I'd rather watch this team than the Damon Stoudamire train wreck or a bunch of primadonnas.


Which team is playing "fairly well"? The Blazers?

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> Patterson played *50% more * minutes than Khryapa.


Thanks for completing my argument for me tlong. For once, you're on the right side of an argument. 

Patterson played more, yet Khryapa did more net positive things on the court. 14 to 13. Considering how much more time Patterson played, Khryapa clearly outplayed him.

You're right so rarely...you should really savor this one.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Which team is playing "fairly well"? The Blazers?
> 
> Ed O.


They're playing about up to expectations. Considering Zach is not 100% yet, Ratliff has been out a few games for injuries and Patterson out a few of games for having a mental age of 6, I'd say they are playing 'fairly well,' at least when compared to where some thought they'd be at this point.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> They're playing about up to expectations. Considering Zach is not 100% yet, Ratliff has been out a few games for injuries and Patterson out a few of games for having a mental age of 6, I'd say they are playing 'fairly well,' at least when compared to where some thought they'd be at this point.


Hrm. I don't see that. Theo getting injured was just a matter of time, and Ruben getting deactivated is no big shocker, either.

The team is on a pace to win 26 games, and 40% of their wins have come against Atlanta. 

While it's conceivable that some expected them to be worse at this point than they have been, I certainly wasn't one of them... and my expectations were pretty low.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Hrm. I don't see that. Theo getting injured was just a matter of time, and Ruben getting deactivated is no big shocker, either.
> 
> The team is on a pace to win 26 games, and 40% of their wins have come against Atlanta.
> 
> ...


Damn, if only we could schedule a few more games against Atlanta! :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Damn, if only we could schedule a few more games against Atlanta! :biggrin:


That's Nash's fault, right?

Or Telfair's?

Or maybe Bonzi's...

We gotta blame SOMEONE. 

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Which team is playing "fairly well"? The Blazers?
> 
> Ed O.


I'm very satisfied with the direction and the play of the team. I really am. The effort and flashes are there. 

Some people are just so quick to dismiss losses as "the sky is falling", but I'm just sitting back and enjoying. There have been blowouts...but overall, I think they are playing well. 

For example...last night's game against Utah....if they played the entire game like they did in the first half, I would have said they had a horrible game. But the redemption in the second half made up for it, although they did fall a little short. 

Hey, at least we aren't the Lakers!

:clap:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Hey, at least we aren't the Lakers!
> 
> :clap:


The Lakers have expectations and hopes for success. Even if they fall short of that, I'd prefer to have hope than not to.

And, for all their struggles, theyre still two games better than Portland so far. 

I'd change teams with the Lakers in a heartbeat.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ed O said:


> The Lakers have expectations and hopes for success. Even if they fall short of that, I'd prefer to have hope than not to.
> 
> And, for all their struggles, theyre still two games better than Portland so far.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't at all. They have their talent supposedly at their peak with a hall of fame coach and they're only 2 games better (and playing MUCH worse, mind you) than a team with little to no college experience, 2nd youngest in the league, with a coach in his first season? The team chemistry on the Lakers is horrendous...their plan is to wait for capspace in 2007..whoop de doo. 

I am not disappointed with the Blazers at all right now, quite the opposite. For what we are, I think we're playing well...I could give a damn about our record this season...as long as I see improvement and development, which I am seeing. We'll have a high draft pick next year, where hopefully we get a young PF...woot. 

What, primarily are your cheif concerns? We're a lotto team...there's no denying that....but we have some young players that are going to develop into SOLID NBA Players...hopefully together. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Khryapa played very well when his was in EXCEPT that Utah isolated AK47 on Vik several times, which resulted in a near immediate foul by Vik.

AK obviously knows he can take Vik anytime he wants and proved it last night.

Vik also committed a couple of silly TO's in the 4th quarter that appeared to cause Vik to lose confidence.

Monia let Harpring EAT HIS LUNCH in the 1st quarter, which is why Nate went to Juan so quickly.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> What, primarily are your cheif concerns? We're a lotto team...there's no denying that....but we have some young players that are going to develop into SOLID NBA Players...hopefully together. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.


Heh.

We're a lottery team, for sure. There is no ride to enjoy when it comes to missing the playoffs as far as I can tell. Just like last year, we're going to be hoping we get lucky in the draft and/or that our GM is able to pull out a miracle. I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if we're in the same spot next year... except that Oden will at least be a bit potential prize if we stay this bad.

I'm just not excited that we have some young players that are going to develop into solid NBA players. Solid NBA players can be had as free agents or relatively easily through trade. They're not enough, on their own, to bring wins, either. The youngsters that Portland has on its teams seems to be missing a potential star, and the way we're going we need at least one of them to emerge as that in the next few years.

The Lakers have Bryant and they have Odom. Each of those two players is significantly better than anyone the Blazers have... and both of them are just entering their prime. Will they make the playoffs this year? Maybe not. I prefer "maybe not" to "absolutely not" any day of the week.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Heh.
> 
> We're a lottery team, for sure. There is no ride to enjoy when it comes to missing the playoffs as far as I can tell. Just like last year, we're going to be hoping we get lucky in the draft and/or that our GM is able to pull out a miracle. I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if we're in the same spot next year... except that Oden will at least be a bit potential prize if we stay this bad.
> 
> ...


Bryant's been playing so inconsistent...I really think he's past his peak. He certainly hasn't been improving...he's been shooting 30+ shots per game at a low percentage...watch the games...he is forcing up his shots. Odom is Dr. Jekyl, Mr. Hyde. BAD for a string, then decent for a game. He's playing BAD. Randolph, and arguably Miles, is at his level or better. The Lakers are in a limbo. I live here in LA, and you won't believe how much the fans are pissed at this team...they are absoltuely disgusted...listen to the sportstalk...and this team is supposedly "built to win". 

I'm a bit more patient. We are doing a complete rebuild and now that the trash (aka Damon) is gone and we have a young team, we're going to be fine. 

I think Telfair and Webster definitely have "star" quality to them. We have a lot of young role players like Monia and Khryapa....


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

theWanker said:


> I've wondered about that. maybe it's the coach's way of de-emphasizing the importance of starters in general. unless you are a key player (Ray Allen/Rashard Lewis/Darius Miles/Zach Randolph), a starting job entitles you to nothing more than the first five minutes of the first half and the first five minutes of the second half. everything else is based on your production every night.
> 
> I'm not too familiar with his rotations in Seattle. I'd be interested to see a Sonic fan cofirm/refute this idea.


In the case of Jerome, I think it was more about getting the most out of him. He was a difficult player to motivate, but he had a tendency to play harder if he was scoring. So Nate would start him and run an early post up or two, to see if he could get him going. 

The other thing JJ brought was size on defense. If someone was beat, he could either block the shot, or hack them with a hard foul. Usually the latter, which helped set a physical tone.

Nate does seem to like starting the lesser roleplayers though. Then he'll bring the better overall roleplayers off the bench. Maybe he think's he'll get better production from certain players if they can play off of the 'stars', or maybe he just wants to have a stronger second unit. :whoknows:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Heh.
> 
> We're a lottery team, for sure. There is no ride to enjoy when it comes to missing the playoffs as far as I can tell. Just like last year, we're going to be hoping we get lucky in the draft and/or that our GM is able to pull out a miracle. I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if we're in the same spot next year... except that Oden will at least be a bit potential prize if we stay this bad.
> 
> ...


Plus there is the unknown factor: Will Phil be able to get Kwame to play when he comes back from his IR. If he can get Kwame to play well, they are probably a playoff team, as Kwame could easily be the only good PF they had besides Malone over the last 10 years.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Being a lottery team sucks.
Missing the playoffs sucks.
Losing in the playoffs sucks.

I think the team is pretty much playing to my personal expectaions. My main hope every night is that they play hard, more often than not they do. There are lapses in effort, for all teams. I also hope to see the young players improve throughout the duration of the season. If those 2 things occur then it is a fairly successful season, given the current situation..


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The Lakers have expectations and hopes for success. Even if they fall short of that, I'd prefer to have hope than not to.
> 
> And, for all their struggles, theyre still two games better than Portland so far.
> 
> ...


LMAO. No, just no. Besides Kobe who do they have? Kwame Brown who has still done ZILCH in the NBA. Smush Parker? I like him but his potential has maxed out. Deaven George? AWESOME! Lamar Odom? A guy who can't put more than 4 or 5 consecutive games together. Not to mention they are being lead by a Hall of Fame coach and they are only 2 games ahead of us. Hilarious.

We are the second youngest team with an array of star quality talent in Webster and Telfair. Also have one of the only 20 and 10 guys in the league, along with Darius Miles who is just breaking out. I think most Laker fans would take us in the future over their own team.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Lamar Odom? A guy who can't put more than 4 or 5 consecutive games together.
> .


I wouldn't understate Odom... A guy has to be pretty steady to average 15ppg, 10rpg and 5apg.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

So apparently it's better to have delusions of grandeur like the Lakers, based on nothing, than to realize that the year will be tough but to work on developing young players.
Personally, I like reality.
Reality is the wonderful Lakers are in last place. With a bigger payroll, a so-called top talent, a so-called top coach, a big market and games on TV every week.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I wouldn't understate Odom... A guy has to be pretty steady to average 15ppg, 10rpg and 5apg.


He's a very very talented player but he's not the a quarter of the player he should be.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Being a lottery team sucks.
> Missing the playoffs sucks.
> Losing in the playoffs sucks.


I'll agree with all three, although there are definite degrees of suckage. 

Missing the playoffs/being a lotto team (redundant?) surely sucks a lot worse than losing in the playoffs. 

All but one playoff team eventually loses in the playoffs. No shame in that.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Something interesting I stumbled upon the other day....Jerome James started 80 of 80 games he played in last year under Nate. He averaged 16mpg.


There is a non-sinister explanation for this: didn't he lead the league in fouls per minute by a large margin? He probably fouled out in that time. It doesn't explain Monia. Has he EVER been brought back into a game after the first yank? That's GOT to have him looking over his shoulder the whole time.

Talking of teams we're glad we aren't - add the Hawks. Yes, they're young and they've got players with potential, but they'll never get over picking Marvin Williams over Chris Paul. Now they have a bazillion swingmen and nobody better than Tyronn Lue to play PG. Plus Williams has that rancid odour of bustography.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> He's a very very talented player but he's not the a quarter of the player he should be.



Sounds like some Blazers.. two in particular..

But I agree, I would never change teams with the Lakers right now. I think we have more reason to hope than they do, even though we'll be worse this year.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I don't want the Lakers to be worse than us this year. I want them to be mediocre -- too good to get a top draft pick and too bad to be worth caring about. Forever.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> I don't want the Lakers to be worse than us this year. I want them to be mediocre -- too good to get a top draft pick and too bad to be worth caring about. Forever.


Honestly that's the worst place an NBA team can be.....it can take years to get out of mediocrity, even longer than it can from the bottom of the league. The jump from high lottery to playoffs is much easier to make in my opinion than the jump from mediocre to playoffs. Its no man's land.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

RPCity said:


> Honestly that's the worst place an NBA team can be.....it can take years to get out of mediocrity, even longer than it can from the bottom of the league. The jump from high lottery to playoffs is much easier to make in my opinion than the jump from mediocre to playoffs. Its no man's land.


I don't agree. The Lakers have an MVP candidate in Bryant and an all-star caliber player in Odom.

If they add another lottery pick and are able to clear cap space to add another max-type player, they're going to be very good, very soon.

The "lottery to contender" route that some think is wise appears to me to just be a wive's tale... especialy when you consider that lottery teams are much more likely to remain lottery teams than they are to become mediocre (let alone contenders).

A team has to be mediocre before it can be good, so by refusing to go from mediocre to bad, a team is closer to being good. Making the step from bad to mediocre isn't much, if any, easier, IMO, than from mediocre to good. Therefore a team should fight to remain as competitive as possible while being realistic about their future.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I don't agree. The Lakers have an MVP candidate in Bryant and an all-star caliber player in Odom.
> 
> If they add another lottery pick and are able to clear cap space to add another max-type player, they're going to be very good, very soon.


The Lakers have one huge impediment to their rebuilding plans: Kobe Bryant. Not only is the guy a ball hog of epic proportions, but he's a salary hog as well. This season, Bryant and Odom combine for about 2/3 of the salary cap. It gets progressively worse from this point forward. Throw in Kwame Brown, assuming the Lakers will want to re-sign him when his contract runs out, and there will be absolutely no chance of them being able to clear enough space to sign another max-type player. The Lakers have few, if any tradeable assets that could bring them another such player, so they're stuck with rebuilding through the draft and trying to entice aging vets to come fill out their roster. Unless they get extraordinarily lucky (which has certainly happened in the past), I don't see them being contenders for the foreseeable future.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

let's look at recent contending teams, and what they were like before contending:
Pistons - mediocre
Lakers - mediocre
Spurs - really really bad
Blazers - mediocre
Kings - mediocre
Suns - mediocre
Jazz - mediocre
Sonics - mediocre
Mavs - mediocre

just a small sample. I'm sure I missed some other contenders. 

the lottery-to-contender storyline (completely bypassing mediocrity) has really only happened once since I started following hoops (around 1990). that involved the freak event of David Robinson missing the season, and the Spurs drafting Tim Duncan. had San Antonio won the lottery in a year where Olowakandi or Kwame Brown were the plum choices, they'd probably still be non-contenders. 

as for Bryant, as much as I can't stand the guy, I'd love to have him on my team. how many All Stars in the league are there with 3 championships and one other NBA finals under their belt? the guy is just a proven winner. 

it just sucks for him that his team isn't really built for him. he and Odom just don't work.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

theWanker said:


> let's look at recent contending teams, and what they were like before contending:
> Pistons - mediocre
> Lakers - mediocre
> Spurs - really really bad
> ...



I think you and I have different definitions of the word "mediocre". I would certainly not call the Kings or Lakers (the two that jump out at me first) mediocre before they became contenders. 

To me, a mediocre team is one that is never really out of the playoff hunt, but one that doesnt really have a legitimate shot at them either, especially no hope of escaping the first round. That, in my opinion, is NBA no-man's-land. 

Each team you looked at, for the most part, had a step in between being at the stage I just described and being title contenders. The Kings and Lakers are the two examples I'm going to use here, but they're not the only ones.

Before the Richmond trade, the Kings were a mediocre to bad team. They then brought in Webber and combined him with Jason Williams and a few tough vets and they became a promising young team, one that took Utah to the limit as a lower seed two years in a row. That is not mediocre, thats certainly progressing. They let the team grow together, and got stronger every year before finally becoming legit title contenders. Now they're on the backslope of that title window and are trying to get back up again. They still are not a mediocre franchise in my opinion.

The Lakers, pre-Phil, had Shaq and Kobe. With those two players on the same team, even a pre-peak Kobe, there's no way you can tell me its a mediocre franchise. They lost to the eventual Conference Champion a few years in a row I believe. Everyone knew they were good, they just had no coach. They then brought in Phil and the rest is history. They did not go from medicore to contender, they went from being a Good team to being a Great team.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Ed O said:


> A team has to be mediocre before it can be good, so by refusing to go from mediocre to bad, a team is closer to being good. Making the step from bad to mediocre isn't much, if any, easier, IMO, than from mediocre to good. Therefore a team should fight to remain as competitive as possible while being realistic about their future.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm not gonna argue with you much here Ed.....I think e_blazer said a lot for me. But I think a lot of how a bad team rebuilds will tell you just where they will end up for a long time once they make the step from being bad. 

If a team tries to hold on to something for too long, like the Lakers and Celtics did back towards the early 90s (correct me if I'm wrong here, I was quite young at the time), they risk being stuck in a rut of mediocrity. If a team builds from the ground up, I think they have a better shot at skipping the mediocre stage all together. I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before, so I won't dwell on it too long. 

The basis on where our opinions differ is this: I don't think a bad team has to be mediocre before it can be good. Maybe for a year, perhaps two....but certainly not long term. The longer a team is mediocre, the harder it is for them to get good without tearing things down and starting anew.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

theWanker said:


> the lottery-to-contender storyline (completely bypassing mediocrity) has really only happened once since I started following hoops (around 1990). that involved the freak event of David Robinson missing the season, and the Spurs drafting Tim Duncan. had San Antonio won the lottery in a year where Olowakandi or Kwame Brown were the plum choices, they'd probably still be non-contenders.


It also happened in 1974-1975 with the Blazers....

1974-1975: 38-44
1975-1976: 37-45
1976-1977: :cheers:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> The Lakers have one huge impediment to their rebuilding plans: Kobe Bryant. Not only is the guy a ball hog of epic proportions, but he's a salary hog as well. This season, Bryant and Odom combine for about 2/3 of the salary cap. It gets progressively worse from this point forward.


I reject that Kobe is any kind of albatross or impediment. He's one of the best players in the NBA and he's 27.

There's no guarantee that the Lakers are going to win because of him, but if they cannot build a winning team with him, then they wouldn't be able to without him, either. He is the player that we PRAY that one of our swing men can become.

The Lakers are locked into Brian Grant's contract through next year... in the summer of 2007 they're not going to have a ton of space, either (they're currently at about $48.6m if they keep Brown). But that's less salary than Portland's committed for 2007-08, and depending on where the cap is they should be better situated to add a significant free agent than Portland.

And as I've mentioned they've got two very good players and I believe that having two very good players now is FAR superior to having a bunch of guys who maybe--possibly--could be very good players someday.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I reject that Kobe is any kind of albatross or impediment. He's one of the best players in the NBA and he's 27.
> 
> There's no guarantee that the Lakers are going to win because of him, but if they cannot build a winning team with him, then they wouldn't be able to without him, either. He is the player that we PRAY that one of our swing men can become.
> 
> ...


Kobe puts up the numbers and can score. But he has not shown the ability to get his other teammates involved when SHAQ isn't there. Kobe continously forces up bad shots...defenses have learned his fakes and jukes. Kobe did not receive ONE MVP vote last season. Not ONE. This team was supposedly BUILT around Kobe. They went out got a banger/rebounder in Kwame. They got a SF that can help bring the ball up. Near allstar...mentored by Pippen. They gave him his coach TWO years in a row (Rudy T...didn't work...so they paid PhilJax 10 million a year to come back...out of desparation). 

Face it. Kobe is uncoachable and a bad teammate. He's a great individual player, but so is T-mac and a host of other players. 

Kobe has to be the second banana...he is incapable of leading a team as many of his teammates don't even like him or trust him. He's still a ballhog, he is playing worse and worse every year, and the Lakers are basically stuck in a rut with him there as "the man". 

If they have two very good players...one of the BEST in the game + someone who is a "near allstar", along with one of the greatest coaches in history....then why are they just simply mediocre. What will it take for them to get to the "next" level? A veteran presence? Another scoring option? A superstar?

Isn't that what Portland needs? At least with Portland, the guys playing are at the start of their careers and skill levels/experience. With the Lakers, they're ALREADY AT THEIR PEAK with supposedly good players and experienced coaches and players. 

Lakers are hosed. They will be until they get another superstar. 

Portland is in the same boat, but at least our players are getting better.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> If they have two very good players...one of the BEST in the game + someone who is a "near allstar", along with one of the greatest coaches in history....then why are they just simply mediocre. What will it take for them to get to the "next" level? A veteran presence? Another scoring option? A superstar?


Anything resembling a decent set of big men, for a start. A decent veteran PG would help. 

This is a team that's relying on Smush Parker to play heavy minutes (3rd on the team in minutes played). Chris Mihm is the closest thing that they've had to a servicable big guy (4th on the team in minutes played).

Kwame Brown _might_ emerge as a decent starter, but right now it's Kobe and Odom and a bunch of stiffs. They should be able to upgrade their talent level around those guys simply by spending their MLE reasonably.



> Isn't that what Portland needs? At least with Portland, the guys playing are at the start of their careers and skill levels/experience. With the Lakers, they're ALREADY AT THEIR PEAK with supposedly good players and experienced coaches and players.


I disagree. Odom and Kobe are just entering their prime, and the rest of the team is either too young, too old, or doesn't have a prime to speak of.



> Lakers are hosed. They will be until they get another superstar.


Hah.



> Portland is in the same boat, but at least our players are getting better.


The situations are entirely different. The Blazers are much worse at the moment, for one. And they don't have ANY superstars, for two.

If you honestly think that the Lakers need another superstar in addition to Kobe and Odom in order to succeed then Portland must be even farther away from competing than most of us had thought they were.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

All Portland needs is time and a little tweaking of the roster. We just need patience, something that many blazer fans don't seem to have. Its going to be a year or two for this team to gel. Our last team that played well went from mediocrity to talent pretty fast...assembling young talent right away...getting Rasheed, JR Rider, Bonzi Wells, etc.....then we added veterans to round off the edges....this is the same gameplan, but with supposedly more moral and stable players. 

I never said we were close to competing versus a team like the Lakers. But their plan is to wait until 2007 for the free agent market when a Chris Bosh may be available. How is that so different? Kobe Bryant is past his prime...he's certainly NOT gotten better from years past. He hasn't learned to get his teammates involved still. Lamar Odom's always been waiting for his big break..but on this team, its not gonna happen. They are hosed. We are not. We have a young roster of guys that can play together. We have potential stars and role players in good numbers. 

We've uprooted the team and started over. You can't expect a contending team in one or two years....it may happen...it may not. Several years ago, we had a young team of no "superstars"...I think our current roster has more potential than that one. We're in a very good position.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I reject that Kobe is any kind of albatross or impediment. He's one of the best players in the NBA and he's 27.


I was primarily referring to Kobe's salary as an impediment to rebuilding quickly. Here are his numbers:

2005-06: $15,946,875 2006-07: $17,718,750 2007-08: $19,490,625 2008-09: $21,262,500 2009-10: $23,034,375 20010-11: $24,806,250 (Player Option)

From 2008-09 on, Kobe commands about 1/2 of the Lakers' salary cap space. Anyway you look at it, that's an albatross in terms of planning for an free agent signings, which is what your post indicated the Lakers need to do to bring in one more max contract type of player.



> There's no guarantee that the Lakers are going to win because of him, but if they cannot build a winning team with him, then they wouldn't be able to without him, either. He is the player that we PRAY that one of our swing men can become.


Talent-wise, Kobe is probably the best 2G in the league. Unfortunately, IMO, his ego and his predominant concern with his own stats does not translate into him being a player who makes his team better. If one of our swing men can develop a basketball skill set similar to Kobe's, but without his negative personality attributes, I'd be thrilled. If I had to take the entire Kobe package, I'd pass.



> The Lakers are locked into Brian Grant's contract through next year... in the summer of 2007 they're not going to have a ton of space, either (they're currently at about $48.6m if they keep Brown). But that's less salary than Portland's committed for 2007-08, and depending on where the cap is they should be better situated to add a significant free agent than Portland.


How do you figure that? They'll have nowhere near enough money to add a significant player and they'll have no tradeable assets to use in acquiring one. Portland isn't planning on playing the free agent market (much to my regret), but is planning on rebuilding entirely around the existing young core, through the draft, and perhaps with a trade or two. 



> And as I've mentioned they've got two very good players and I believe that having two very good players now is FAR superior to having a bunch of guys who maybe--possibly--could be very good players someday.


Kobe and Odom don't seem like a matched set of franchise players to me. Regardless of that, however, the Lakers have gaping holes throughout the rest of their roster and no significant assets to use to fill those holes. They're going to have to do it through the draft and through whatever signings they can get with their standard exceptions. To me, it doesn't look like either team can expect to become a contender quickly.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Kobe=Stephon, both very talented but won't ever get their teams anywhere because of their egos and own selfishness. Also, Odom is no superstar or franchise player, he's not even a good second fiddle to Kobe.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Xericx said:


> Kobe puts up the numbers and can score. But he has not shown the ability to get his other teammates involved when SHAQ isn't there. Kobe continously forces up bad shots...defenses have learned his fakes and jukes. Kobe did not receive ONE MVP vote last season. Not ONE. This team was supposedly BUILT around Kobe. They went out got a banger/rebounder in Kwame. They got a SF that can help bring the ball up. Near allstar...mentored by Pippen. They gave him his coach TWO years in a row (Rudy T...didn't work...so they paid PhilJax 10 million a year to come back...out of desparation).
> 
> Face it. Kobe is uncoachable and a bad teammate. He's a great individual player, but so is T-mac and a host of other players.
> 
> ...




So true, so very true.....

Couldn't have said it better myself! :clap:


----------

