# This roster and "Nate guys"



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Good stuff from today's "Behind the Blazers beat" blog entry:



> McMillan admitted that what some call “Nate guys” are similar to “Sloan guys.” And ultimately, he would like the Blazers roster to be filled with “Nate/Sloan guys.”
> 
> “We gotta get guys who can do things that you feel comfortable doing,” he said. “I think you want your team to take on your identity, and I think the way to do that is to bring in guys that can bring in the style of basketball you want out there.”


-Pop


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

aww mayne. im not trying to be the damn jazz, thats for sure. take it how u want, but the jazz dont win championships.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Nate Guys: Jack, Khryapa, Joel, Blake, Skinner , & Webster.

On the bubble: Telfair, Dixon, Ha, Outlaw, Zach

Gone: Miles, Ratliff 

Too old to matter: Lenard


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

ryanjend22 said:


> aww mayne. im not trying to be the damn jazz, thats for sure. take it how u want, but the jazz dont win championships.


If MJ could hit a fastball, the Jazz would have probably won 2 titles.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

yeah, the Jazz had a pretty nice PG/PF combination back then.....

the Jazz bore me; seriously, watching them makes me want to sleep. The Sonics ate them alive this year, minus the first game of the year. They just don't score, even against the worst defensive team in NBA history.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

myELFboy said:


> yeah, the Jazz had a pretty nice PG/PF combination back then.....
> 
> the Jazz bore me; seriously, watching them makes me want to sleep. The Sonics ate them alive this year, minus the first game of the year. They just don't score, even against the worst defensive team in NBA history.


They are boring. Even with Stockton and Malone they never made you run home from work to turn the game on. That said, I'd take a perennial 60 win, championship contending, "boring" team over what we have now!


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

If you win 60 games, fan won't be bored. Whether it's fast breaks or half-court sets, fans are more interested in wins. Wins come from good execution. Fans appreciate good execution.

But I agree with the first poster who pointed out "McMillan" guys; it just bums me out that it'll be impossible to move all those guys soon. If anything, we might be looking at another year or two of rebuilding before the Blazers even sniff the playoffs while the team tries to get rid of the dead weight.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Nate Guys: Jack, Khryapa, Joel, Blake, Skinner , & Webster.
> 
> On the bubble: Telfair, Dixon, Ha, Outlaw, Zach
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily disagree with this list, but why is Webster a "nate guy" and telfair isn't?

Nate had nothing to do with either one being drafted, and both don't play 100% "nates way" (whatever that is) and need improvement.

If Webster is on the "list", so is Telfair.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with this list, but why is Webster a "nate guy" and telfair isn't?
> 
> Nate had nothing to do with either one being drafted, and both don't play 100% "nates way" (whatever that is) and need improvement.
> 
> If Webster is on the "list", so is Telfair.


Maybe Webster is a Nate guy cuz he has a history with Nate where as Telfair doesn't. Maybe Webster is more of a Nate type player than a flashy Telfair. Maybe I am just post padding or am I?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

the article said:


> Meanwhile, the Blazers looked forward playing Utah on Saturday. This prompted a discussion of McMillan’s admiration of Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, and a hint of McMillan’s personnel goals — *not that they are a big secret *— for the offseason...


Who here knows the secret? Could you post it please?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with this list, but why is Webster a "nate guy" and telfair isn't?
> 
> Nate had nothing to do with either one being drafted, and both don't play 100% "nates way" (whatever that is) and need improvement.
> 
> If Webster is on the "list", so is Telfair.


It's a close call on Webster, but I put him in the "Nate guy" category because he seems to be making an effort to try learn to play the way McMillan wants him to and hasn't griped about it. Telfair has made statements in the press recently about being frustrated with Nate at times. I think Telfair chafes at not being allowed to play the more open style that he likes instead of Nate's halfcourt game. I don't think their relationship is beyond repair, but I'm concerned as to whether it's going to work out in the long run.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> It's a close call on Webster, but I put him in the "Nate guy" category because he seems to be making an effort to try learn to play the way McMillan wants him to and hasn't griped about it. Telfair has made statements in the press recently about being frustrated with Nate at times. I think Telfair chafes at not being allowed to play the more open style that he likes instead of Nate's halfcourt game. I don't think their relationship is beyond repair, but I'm concerned as to whether it's going to work out in the long run.


maybe we have a starbury lb situation.Nate being the hard coach and telfair being starbury.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Zidane said:


> maybe we have a starbury lb situation.Nate being the hard coach and telfair being starbury.


yah, cept that Telfair is absolutely nothing like Marbury, and has shown no inclination that he'll even be remotely like him..However outside of that, it could be the same.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> yah, cept that Telfair is absolutely nothing like Marbury, and has shown no inclination that he'll even be remotely like him..However outside of that, it could be the same.


Hrm...interesting observation, though wrong.

Telfair is a shoot first, pass-second point guard. He has his good points, he drives well, he can pass at times when he drives, and he has speed. He also has worked on some of his weak areas. But to say he's shown no inclination that he'll even be REMOTELY like him? Please. I understand you like Telfair and all, but still...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Hrm...interesting observation, though wrong.
> 
> Telfair is a shoot first, pass-second point guard.


well besides the fact that Marburys problem isn't necessarily that but his unwillingness to change..
What proof do we have of this?

what exactly shows that Telfair is a "shoot first PG" to the degree Marbury is? because we "feel" it?

dude at most shot 10 times a game as a starter (which was just about 2 shots more per game than Blake as a starter).

so is 2-2.5 the difference between shoot first and pass first?



> He has his good points, he drives well, he can pass at times when he drives, and he has speed. He also has worked on some of his weak areas. But to say he's shown no inclination that he'll even be REMOTELY like him? Please. I understand you like Telfair and all, but still...


this has nothing to do with me "liking" him. it has to do with facts. Telfair is nothing personality wise ilke Marbury, or game wise. EVEN if you went per 48 vs what Marbury shot last year (not per 48) Telfair is still shooting 5 shots less a game.

I know that people like throwing out blanket statements to sound like they're somehow more knowledge about a player, but at least compare him to a player he's remotely like (both personality wise and game wise). Telfair isn't even close to what Marbury is. 

So like I said, yah, cept that Telfair is absolutely nothing like Marbury, and has shown no inclination that he'll even be remotely like him..outside of that, this situation could be the same.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Zidane said:


> maybe we have a starbury lb situation.Nate being the hard coach and telfair being starbury.


Because since they're cousins and what? They're both PGs!? They must be exactly the same as far as egos as well. I mean come on, they're related!


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

If being a "Nate guy" is anything like being a "Sloan guy" - we may be in trouble. 

Ten years ago, Sloan could get away with being extremely demanding and inflexible. Players were professionals. And if the Blazers were able to find enough talented guys who were willing to be extremely disciplined, as Sloan found with Malone, Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, Bryon Russell, et al, then fantastic. The only problem is, the culture of the NBA has changed. There just don't seem to be that many guys willing to buy into playing as hard as humanly possible every night, giving up their own numbers to execute the system, giving a hard foul to return one given to a teammate - those are high expectations of players today. 

The Detroit Pistons approach this kind of mindset, but even they have a few extraordinary "team" players, like Ben Wallace and Tayshaun Prince. I think the Blazers could try building around the "Nate guys" like Viktor Khryapa, Jarred Jack, and Joel Przybilla, but come on - you need some serious talent to go along with that, if you want to win some games. But then again, the Blazers don't seem to be getting too far with Darius Miles, Zach Randolph, and the other malcontents running the asylum.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> If being a "Nate guy" is anything like being a "Sloan guy" - we may be in trouble.


Ah come on, PD! All we need to do is find a Karl Malone. And a John Stockton. And then a _better_ supporting cast to win a title (since the original Sloan team couldn't get 'er done).

That shouldn't be so hard, should it? 

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with this list, but why is Webster a "nate guy" and telfair isn't?
> 
> Nate had nothing to do with either one being drafted, and both don't play 100% "nates way" (whatever that is) and need improvement.
> 
> If Webster is on the "list", so is Telfair.



Webster does like to get in and mix it up on the boards, he getsa lot of physical contact, and he gets after the passing lanes defensively. The only thing I don't see Telfair do much is hit the boards.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

So Nate wants a boring team. That's cool I guess as long as they win right? I mean that's what a lot of people have said anyway. Who needs fast breaks and dunking anyway. I think they are vastly overrated. 


My Nate guys on this roster are as follows

Khryapa, Joel, Jack, Blake, Skinner

Sadly none of those guys make me want to buy a single ticket to a game. 


The one bright spot in all of this is that in the draft the one glaring "Nate guy" is Tyrus Thomas. Hard nosed, no offense and defensive oriented.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> well besides the fact that Marburys problem isn't necessarily that but his unwillingness to change..
> What proof do we have of this?
> 
> what exactly shows that Telfair is a "shoot first PG" to the degree Marbury is? because we "feel" it?
> ...


Yes, that IS one aspect of it. That's a 25% difference right there.

Another area to look at is scoring attempts per minute.

Sebastian Telfair
468 (FG) + 143 (3PT) = 611 attempts
1374 minutes

Every .45 minutes of play, some scoring attempt is made.

Steve Blake
414 (FG) + 156 (3PT) = 570
1569 minutes

Every .36 minutes of play, some scoring attempt is made.

Telfair is taking 25% more scoring attempts than Steve Blake in the same amount of minutes.

Stephon Marbury
2184 mins
770 + 104 = 874

Every .40 minutes of play, some scoring attempt is made.

Is Telfair exactly like Marbury? No. But is he even remotely like him? Yes, especially relative to Blake (who you used as a comparison). Could this be because Telfair is the primary option with the second team? Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that he trends that direction.



> this has nothing to do with me "liking" him. it has to do with facts. Telfair is nothing personality wise ilke Marbury, or game wise. EVEN if you went per 48 vs what Marbury shot last year (not per 48) Telfair is still shooting 5 shots less a game.


You've spent a lot of time with them?



> I know that people like throwing out blanket statements to sound like they're somehow more knowledge about a player, but at least compare him to a player he's remotely like (both personality wise and game wise). Telfair isn't even close to what Marbury is.


Blanket, vague statements like "he has intangibles"? Luckily, it's called an opinion that's formated by observation of the game, with which you may feel free to disagree with, and quite often do.

Zidane merely said:



> maybe we have a starbury lb situation.


 Maybe...MAYBE..not "Yeah, that Telfair is a bad apple, let's trade him / bench him / send him to the D-League in Bosnia!" Sheesh...


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> So Nate wants a boring team. That's cool I guess as long as they win right? I mean that's what a lot of people have said anyway. Who needs fast breaks and dunking anyway. I think they are vastly overrated.
> 
> 
> My Nate guys on this roster are as follows
> ...


I thought you liked Jack? And Joel doesn't want to make you buy a ticket with his blocking ability?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok, I'll counter. maybe we have a larry brown and chauncy billups situation then.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> Yes, that IS one aspect of it. That's a 25% difference right there.
> 
> Another area to look at is scoring attempts per minute.
> 
> ...


Actually your math is quite off. 3 point attempts are part of the total field goal attempts, they just separate them out so you can see the difference between 3 point percentage and normal field goals. So their total field goals taken in that column is the true number of shots taken total, not field goals attempted + 3 pointers taken. 

Secondly Sebastian plays with the second unit, which doesn't have a lot of scoring on it. Steve Blake plays a lot more with Zbo and a lot with Juan Dixon, who take a majority of the shots when they are in the game. 

Last but not least, with all the 5 point and under games Blake has had, the problem is actually that Blake doesn't shoot enough, not that Bassy shoots a lot. Blake passes up good shots way too much. Hopefully like most other players who develop, at some point he will start taking them and making people pay for sagging off him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Actually your math is quite off. 3 point attempts are part of the total field goal attempts, they just separate them out so you can see the difference between 3 point percentage and normal field goals. So their total field goals taken in that column is the true number of shots taken total, not field goals attempted + 3 pointers taken.


I noticed that, too. Let's look at just FG attempts per minute, then, and see if his original point stands:

Telfair: 468 FGA/1374 minutes
Blake: 414 FGA/1569 minutes
Marbury: 774 FGA/2193 minutes

Marbury: .35 fga/minute
Telfair: .34 fga/minute
Blake: .26 fga/minute

Hrm... which one looks more like Stephon? Telfair looks a lot like Marbury to me. Doesn't mean he IS Marbury, but he's definitely shaping up to be shoot-first.

But let's look at a couple other stats for the three of them. Let's take into account free throws, estimating that 1 free throw uses up half a possession:

Telfair: 468 FGA + (140/2) FTA/1374 minutes
Blake: 414 FGA + (86/2) FTA/1569 minutes
Marbury: 774 FGA + (326/2) FTA/2193 minutes

Marbury: .427 scoring opps/minute
Telfair: .392 scoring opps/minute
Blake: .291 scoring opps/minute

Marbury gets to the line a _lot_, which is one of his strengths, and while Telfair is pretty good at it for his experience level he lags behind Marbury in terms of the number of scoring opps they consume per minute. Notice, though, how Blake gets separated from the other two when free throws are included.

Now let's take assists, rather than minutes, into account:

Telfair: 468 FGA + (140/2) FTA/201 assists
Blake: 414 FGA + (86/2) FTA/274 assists
Marbury: 774 FGA + (326/2) FTA/382 assists

Telfair: 2.68 scoring opps/assist
Marbury: 2.45 scoring opps/assist
Blake: 1.67 scoring opps/assist

This is interesting. Marbury shoots a lot but he also gets a pretty fair number of assists... Blake gets a fair number of assists but doesn't shoot a lot. Telfair shoots a lot relative to how many assists he gets.

And the beauty of this simple analysis is that one can't merely pass it off as a failure of the Blazers to convert, since Blake somehow manages to get more assists with the same cast.

And finally let's look at points per scoring opportunity:

Telfair: 508 points/468 FGA + (140/2) FTA
Blake: 508 points/414 FGA + (86/2) FTA
Marbury: 977 points/(774 FGA + (326/2) FTA)

Blake: 1.112 points per scoring opportunity
Marbury: 1.043 points per scoring opportunity
Telfair: .944 points per scoring opportunity

Again, Telfair doesn't look so good here.

I think that you're overeager to distinguish Telfair from Marbury, Hap. They *are* both shoot-first point guards. Marbury is much, much better than Telfair but Telfair's young enough to improve, hopefully.

Maybe I should compare a 20 year-old Stephon to a 20 year-old Telfair... of course, Marbury was _much_ better than Sebastian at the same age (getting a lot more minutes and putting up much beter numbers).

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I noticed that, too. Let's look at just FG attempts per minute, then, and see if his original point stands:
> 
> Telfair: 468 FGA/1374 minutes
> Blake: 414 FGA/1569 minutes
> ...


marbury has been traded not because he's a "shoot first PG" (which actually is a really lame way of saying "he's not the king of PG I seem to think TP was" ) but because he's stayed the same and doesn't want to adjust.

Telfair obviously has.

But whatever, Telfair is just a shoot first PG who needs to be traded because Blake walks on water.

one of the ironic (or maybe not) things about Blakes game is he doesn't actually shoot *enough*. Having a PG who can shoot, is willing to shoot and WILL shoot, creates a tougher offense to defend. 

how you ask? (Ok, most of you don't actually ask this). easy, spreading the offense. If Blake never shoots, why would teams defend him? 

I want my PG to be able to shoot 10-12 times a night, and be able to score. It creates an opening for the rest of the team, and keeps the defense honest. If we just have a "pass first PG", who's going to pay attention to him?

How many titles have been won with a pass first PG? At _best_ you could say the Bulls, but in reality, Pippen was that teams PG as much as anyone else was. Plus, we don't have enough talent to have a pass first PG (nor will we probably ever).

And the decrease in shots per minute under Brown (by Marbury) actually shows that maybe he's listening to what Brown says (or he's just slowing down a little).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> marbury has been traded not because he's a "shoot first PG" (which actually is a really lame way of saying "he's not the king of PG I seem to think TP was" )


What do you mean it's lame? It's lame because it totally blows up your assertion that Telfair and Marbury aren't alike?

Each of the players shoot a lot. It has nothing to do with Terry Porter. 



> but because he's stayed the same and doesn't want to adjust.
> 
> Telfair obviously has.


He has? Where's the evidence for that?



> But whatever, Telfair is just a shoot first PG who needs to be traded because Blake walks on water.


I'm not calling for Telfair to be traded. Not in the least.

I'm not even saying that I'm sure that Telfair shooting a lot is a bad thing (although he needs to improve his shooting dramatically for it to not be bad, I think).

I'm just saying that you can't ignore that Telfair shoots a lot more than Blake and at a similar pace to where Marbury does.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What do you mean it's lame? It's lame because it totally blows up your assertion that Telfair and Marbury aren't alike?



because the biggest problem about Marbury ISN'T his game, but his ego.

and TP is the prodigal son PG of the Blazers. He wasn't a pass first PG in the degree that the name implies (whatever that means). 

who are these "pass first PG's"? What makes one a pass first PG? 



> He has? Where's the evidence for that?


well, he's shooting better, he's shooting less, and he's getting praise from the coaches for adjusting his game and maturing a bit.



> I'm not even saying that I'm sure that Telfair shooting a lot is a bad thing (although he needs to improve his shooting dramatically for it to not be bad, I think).
> 
> I'm just saying that you can't ignore that Telfair shoots a lot more than Blake and at a similar pace to where Marbury does.
> 
> Ed O.


my complaint that was that he's nothing like marbury in the negative manner that people reffer to Marbury. I don't think having a PG with Marburys #'s IS a bad thing, quite the opposite. That'd be great. A PG with Marburys personality? thats a different story.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> who are these "pass first PG's"? What makes one a pass first PG?


Do you mean numerically, or are you just being difficult?

Steve Blake is a pass-first PG. He's not a great player, but he's a pass-first PG.

John Stockton was a great pass-first PG. Jason Kidd is a great pass-first PG. Let's compare Kidd's year in the stats I listed above to the 3 guys we're talking about:

Kidd: 802 FGA/2626 minutes 

Marbury: .35 fga/minute
Telfair: .34 
Kidd: .30 
Blake: .26 

Kidd: 802 FGA + (221/2) FTA/2626 minutes

Marbury: .427 scoring opps/minute
Telfair: .392 
Kidd: .347
Blake: .291

Kidd: 802 FGA + (221/2) FTA/596 assists

Telfair: 2.68 scoring opps/assist
Marbury: 2.45 
Blake: 1.67 
Kidd: 1.53 

Do you seriously see no pattern there, Hap?



> well, he's shooting better, he's shooting less, and he's getting praise from the coaches for adjusting his game and maturing a bit.


He's shooting *less*? Are you kidding?

He's jacking up shots at an increased rate lately, including a recent stretch of four straight games in double-digit FGAs.



> my complaint that was that he's nothing like marbury in the negative manner that people reffer to Marbury. I don't think having a PG with Marburys #'s IS a bad thing, quite the opposite. That'd be great. A PG with Marburys personality? thats a different story.


I know very little about either of their personalities. Marbury's certainly had his issues this season, but I feel that might have more to do with the losing and Larry Brown (and losing for Larry Brown) than something inherently wrong with Stephon.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I know very little about either of their personalities. Marbury's certainly had his issues this season, but I feel that might have more to do with the losing and Larry Brown (and losing for Larry Brown) than something inherently wrong with Stephon.
> 
> Ed O.



what about the other coaches and issues he's had? It's not like it just started with Larry Brown.

As for the "pass first" stuff, each one of those guys is also a scorer. And to me, the name "pass first" is being made too much of an issue, since a lot of it's due to the team's system, and also players not being able to score.

what are telfairs #'s as a starter?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Thanks for doing the fix it math Ed O.

I do agree that Telfair is more of a scorer, but I also think he IMO he is still a better player now at the end of the year then he was in the beginning. He just looks a little more in control now then he was earlier in the year when he is out on the court. Progression is what matters to me with Telfair more then anything. The main thing I am concerned about is his field goal percentage is still low. His passing is coming along, and yes there have been many situations where Blazers have dropped passes which should have been scored. But I think that can be said of all the point guards on this team. Portland does not have a lot of good finishers these days. 

Both of these guys have their strengths and weakenesses. There is one point I think we can make about all of them though...They flat out are not cutting the mustard, and that is what matters, is it not? :biggrin: 

I think its to the point that we are splitting hairs on who is out there and who is now, because when it comes down to it they are all not effective enough to win games, each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Speed..experience..shooting..finishing..agressiveness..we can go back and forth all day and night. 

Hell who knows..with Jack playing the way he has the last few games, this might be a flat out "Moot" argument. :clown: 

Also BTW up above when pointing out the Math flaw, I just wanted to say I wasn't wanting to discredit all your work, you did a great job tallying up statistics, it was just tallied wrong was all. Nice effort to try to make a point. :clap:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

IS there something wrong with Telfair being more of a scorer than a pass 1st PG?

I would maintain that Telfair's passing ability and assists are are directly related to his "score 1st" mentality...and I don't think that is a bad thing at all...

I think Telfair is at his best with the ball in his hands, creating...either in transistion or by breaking down his man and forcing the defense to react, where then he can create opportunities for his teamates...

I don't think Blake has nearly the ability to create on his own as Telfair does...or put such pressure on a defense and I do think that having Telfair initiate the offense and then stand around the perimeter waiting for a pass out of the post, completely diregards his strengths...but plays into Blake's...

and that is on McMillan IMO...I don't think he is using Telfair right...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> IS there something wrong with Telfair being more of a scorer than a pass 1st PG?
> 
> I would maintain that Telfair's passing ability and assissts are are directly related to his scoring mentality...
> 
> ...


Well that is a good question Kmurph. I think it depends on who you ask. For me, no it doesn't make a difference, but I do get PO'd when a PG shoots a lot of badly selected shots. Now that being said, certain point guards like Chauncy Billups, who are shoot first, but fairly balanced do not bother me at all. Even though Nash is an assist waiting to happen, he scores a lot too. I think the flat out fact is, however you get your buckets in an efficient manner, go with it as long as it works well.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

LameR said:


> Because since they're cousins and what? They're both PGs!? They must be exactly the same as far as egos as well. I mean come on, they're related!


I was referring to what telfair said in the press about nate wanting him to play a specific type of ball that he doesnt want to play.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

On another note, if Nate had his wish (and I honestly hope he is the final arbitrator on whom the team picks), what player\s do you think he would prefer?

I don't think Adam Morrison would be one...

I think he would prefer a guy like Brandon Roy or maybe Tyrus Thomas, but I don't thinkhe is keen on adding another "young" player....Roy has more experience, has good IQ and plays solid defense...

How much say Nate has will really depend on who the owner\GM is at draft time and that is all so very much in the air right now...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> On another note, if Nate had his wish (and I honestly hope he is the final arbitrator on whom the team picks), what player\s do you think he would prefer?
> 
> I don't think Adam Morrison would be one...
> 
> ...


Totally agreed. I think that the two guys you mention are probably near the top of his list, along with _maybe_ Aldridge because of his size and length.

Ed O.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I noticed that, too. Let's look at just FG attempts per minute, then, and see if his original point stands:
> 
> Telfair: 468 FGA/1374 minutes
> Blake: 414 FGA/1569 minutes
> ...


I think its nice that u went to all the trouble of breaking down the numbers but i don't think that is how we should tell a player is one way or the other.If telfair had his choice he would drive down the lane every chance he gets.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Maybe Zidane. I actually like it when the point guard actually test the defense for penetration before going into a set play, because if there is an easy gimme bucket, you need as many of those as you can get. Most of the players I consider top point guards right now do this constantly. Its not like Steve Nash doesn't just attack and find the open guy. Tony Parker is the #2 scorer in the league in the paint, and for a while was #1. He looks for his own shot more then passing though, and for good reason, very few people can stop him. Billups is probably the only guy out of the bunch that will take his time and run a play most of the time, but thats because he knows he will get his opportunities within the system, as it depends on the whole team to be balanced.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Do you mean numerically, or are you just being difficult?
> 
> Steve Blake is a pass-first PG. He's not a great player, but he's a pass-first PG.
> 
> ...


 Great stuff, Ed - Thanks for taking the time to show your remarkable insight. :clap: 

I do, however, agree with others on this board that Blake should shoot the ball more - and drive more often to the basket; even if he gets stuffed a few times. For Telfair, we need more of a motion offense, where the ball is quickly passed to players cutting towards the basket. This benefits very quick players, like Telfair. Maybe Jack as well.

One other important facette of good PG play, that is not much of a stat, is the "heads-up" mentality. It is important for a PG to keep his head up (not look down), so that they can see opportunities (READ: Assists) developing at all times. For example, In the last game, Blake hit Victor on on a couple of impressive long passes down the court, which can really rattle your opponents. This happened because he keeps his head up when handling the ball.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

All I know is that this teams needs 2 point guards, not 3. We absolutley need to trade one of Blake, Jack and Bassy this summer. My preferance would be Blake because I honestly dont ever see him as a PG on a playoff bound team. Bassy and Jack are still improving and I still believe that Bassy can succeed, we just need to give him the reigns.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> I thought you liked Jack? And Joel doesn't want to make you buy a ticket with his blocking ability?




I do like Jack. I think he and Telfair would make a really good PG tandem for years. I also like Joel, But neither one of them make me say to myself. "man I wish I had tickets to see them play" I mean neither one of them is spectacular. Both steady, both hard working and both lacking the it factor that someone like Telfair or Outlaw bring to the table. They are fun to watch as I think Webster will be soon. Joel blocks shots, but someone like Tyrus Thomas dimoralizes people with his blocks. Even Theo with his two hand blocks are fun to watch. 


As I've said, basketball is an entertainment business and I want to be entertained. Winning is nice, but not 70-65


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> All I know is that this teams needs 2 point guards, not 3. We absolutley need to trade one of Blake, Jack and Bassy this summer. My preferance would be Blake because I honestly dont ever see him as a PG on a playoff bound team. Bassy and Jack are still improving and I still believe that Bassy can succeed, we just need to give him the reigns.


If there isn't any demand for him on the market, though, it doens't hurt to keep Blake on the team as a benchwarmer.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Both of these guys have their strengths and weakenesses. There is one point I think we can make about all of them though...They flat out are not cutting the mustard, and that is what matters, is it not? :biggrin:
> 
> Hell who knows..with Jack playing the way he has the last few games, this might be a flat out "Moot" argument. :clown:


I totally agree hasoos. We just need to find someone, somehow who is going to make the whole unit work better as a team. Obviously our record doesn't reflect a surplus of incredible talent, at least realized talent.

As for Jack, I'm really rooting for him, he's my favorite of the three. But I don't know if his shot is consistent enough to be the starter yet.

Ed - The reason why I didn't throw in FTs initially is two-fold. One is that the PG typically handles the ball more than anyone and if a foul was committed without a shot attempt but they were over the limit, the PG would probably have been the one fouled the majority of the time (though that is, admittiedly, a guess). Secondly, since PGs are usually the prime candidates to shoot T's (illegal defense, etc.) that might artifically inflate the numbers.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> if Nate had his wish (and I honestly hope he is the final arbitrator on whom the team picks), what player\s do you think he would prefer?


You know I read this and I didn't mean I hope that Nate is the final decison maker, quite the opposite in fact, I hope he is NOT the final decision maker...That is what happens when you try to post in b\t working around the house....


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> If there isn't any demand for him on the market, though, it doens't hurt to keep Blake on the team as a benchwarmer.


Their has to be a demand for Blake. Teams such as Atlanta, Houston, Cleveland and Toronto could really use a PG such as Blake.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Their has to be a demand for Blake. Teams such as Atlanta, Houston, Cleveland and Toronto could really use a PG such as Blake.


 :yes:


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> marbury has been traded not because he's a "shoot first PG" (which actually is a really lame way of saying "he's not the king of PG I seem to think TP was" ) but because he's stayed the same and doesn't want to adjust.
> 
> Telfair obviously has.
> 
> ...



Just to put this in perspective, that's nice that that is what YOU want. but unless you are secretly Nate McMillan, that doesn't mean crap. Perhaps Nate tells Blake he wants him to set up his teamates more than looking for a shot himself, perhaps Nate prefers a pg that doesn't look to shoot but rather to run an efficient offense and get the ball to open guys. Also ever think about the fact that Blake is often in there with gimme the ball Dixon and Z-bo? Perhaps he is trying to do his job by listening to his coach, you, sadly, are not his coach. And when Blake does shoot, he is extremely effective, he has the 15th highest three point percentage in the league so I dont' think you can knock a guy who takes smart, good, open shots and makes them. Perhaps when he passes it is because there is someone else MORE open than he?


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

bballchik said:


> Just to put this in perspective, that's nice that that is what YOU want. but unless you are secretly Nate McMillan, that doesn't mean crap. Perhaps Nate tells Blake he wants him to set up his teamates more than looking for a shot himself, perhaps Nate prefers a pg that doesn't look to shoot but rather to run an efficient offense and get the ball to open guys. Also ever think about the fact that Blake is often in there with gimme the ball Dixon and Z-bo? Perhaps he is trying to do his job by listening to his coach, you, sadly, are not his coach. And when Blake does shoot, he is extremely effective, he has the 15th highest three point percentage in the league so I dont' think you can knock a guy who takes smart, good, open shots and makes them. Perhaps when he passes it is because there is someone else MORE open than he?


Blake has done a terrific job this year. Sadly, its likely he will be traded this off-season, as the team has too much vested in Jack & Telfair. Since Nate has made it clear he does not want 3 PGs on next year's roster, that pretty much ices it. The question is whether or not Blake will be traded for another (sic) high draft pic, or as part of a package with either Miles and/or Ratliff.

There is strong demand for a solid PG like Blake. So, the Blazers should be able to get something decent in return. Regardless, should be an interesting off-season.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

southnc said:


> Blake has done a terrific job this year. Sadly, its likely he will be traded this off-season, as the team has too much vested in Jack & Telfair. Since Nate has made it clear he does not want 3 PGs on next year's roster, that pretty much ices it. The question is whether or not Blake will be traded for another (sic) high draft pic, or as part of a package with either Miles and/or Ratliff.
> 
> There is strong demand for a solid PG like Blake. So, the Blazers should be able to get something decent in return. Regardless, should be an interesting off-season.


Actually I tend to disagree. The people vested in Telfair may be gone next year (Nash's contract is up this summer) and Nate is probably vested in whatever point guard he feels is best for the team and given Blake's 50 starts this season as opposed to Jack's 3 and Telfair's 25 it appears he may like Blake the best.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

bballchik said:


> Actually I tend to disagree. The people vested in Telfair may be gone next year (Nash's contract is up this summer) and Nate is probably vested in whatever point guard he feels is best for the team and given Blake's 50 starts this season as opposed to Jack's 3 and Telfair's 25 it appears he may like Blake the best.


I agree Blake is better than Telfair at this point, and even agree that Nate probably prefers Blake as well.

But, there is a problem concerning circumstances: Telfair is a 1st round pic and young, which for some reason, is a big deal in the NBA today. Also, the team has no Bird rights to Blake; so, Blake's tenure would likely end after next year anyway.

Regardless, I'm happy for Blake, as his hard work should translate into a very successful career in the NBA; just not sure on which team.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

southnc said:


> But, there is a problem concerning circumstances: Telfair is a 1st round pic and young, which for some reason, is a big deal in the NBA today. Also, the team has no Bird rights to Blake; so, Blake's tenure would likely end after next year anyway.


I don't think him being a first round pick is all that much of a concern honestly. Your second comment however is right on the spot and the primary reason I believe Blake will be (and should be) the one to go.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> I don't think him being a first round pick is all that much of a concern honestly. Your second comment however is right on the spot and the primary reason I believe Blake will be (and should be) the one to go.


I think blake signed with us because we were the only team that offerd and he wanted to get his name out because behing gilbert arenas he wasnt showing his talent to other teams.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Blake seems like more of a "Nate/Sloan guy" than the other PGs on the team.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Zidane said:


> I think blake signed with us because we were the only team that offerd and he wanted to get his name out because behing gilbert arenas he wasnt showing his talent to other teams.


Somewhat true - since Gil was their primary scorer and was averaging 40+ mins per game, that did not help Blake. But, the acquisition of Atkins & Daniels was the main reason Blake wanted out - and rightfully so.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah blake should be the one to go do that his stock is as high as it will be and we dont hold his bird rights plus he could go to a team that needs expericed pg rather than a young pg out of hs

miles and blake or miles dixon or theo miles blake or theo miles dixon or theo blake or theo dixon 

if we get a good pick and can take noah bargnai morrison thomas keep it otherwide trade the pick.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

southnc said:


> I agree Blake is better than Telfair at this point, and even agree that Nate probably prefers Blake as well.
> 
> But, there is a problem concerning circumstances: Telfair is a 1st round pic and young, which for some reason, is a big deal in the NBA today. Also, the team has no Bird rights to Blake; so, Blake's tenure would likely end after next year anyway.
> 
> Regardless, I'm happy for Blake, as his hard work should translate into a very successful career in the NBA; just not sure on which team.


Your point about Telfair's youth being a big deal might be the exact reason he does get traded, he can command more than Blake might for that reason. And yes, our team wants to hold onto it's youth investments as well but I think they are now realizing you can't get anywhere with an entire team of youth, you need SOME veterans, so why not keep Jack and Webster and Ha and Outlaw but get rid of the one that may command the most and fits the least (playing style wise) and trade out Telfair.

Also true there are no Bird Rights for Blake but there are Early Bird Rights which means we can offer him the MLE, I doubt there are many people on this Blazer board full of Blake haters who think he could command more than that anyway, perhaps management feels the same.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> yeah blake should be the one to go do that his stock is as high as it will be and we dont hold his bird rights *plus he could go to a team that needs expericed pg rather than a young pg out of hs*
> miles and blake or miles dixon or theo miles blake or theo miles dixon or theo blake or theo dixon
> 
> if we get a good pick and can take noah bargnai morrison thomas keep it otherwide trade the pick.


we _need_ a young point guard out of hs? i think that's the last thing we need. we have enough clueless youth running around out there as it is, i think if there is one position in which we need experience it would be at the point guard, a coach, if you will, on the court with them at all times, to help run the offense correctly, keep his head up, spot his teamates, etc.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think trading Telfair would be stupid at this point...

He is only 20 years old, and you want to dump him so he can probably blossom on another team?

BTW, where is Blake's leadership? I don't have anything against Steve per se, and I think he has done a decent job this year, but he certainly wasn't the big difference maker some people here think he is...The team still sucked with him leading it...err starting at PG.

Both Telfair and Blake's stats are closely similiar, the difference is 1 player is what? 5? 6? years older than the other? So, Telfair won't get any better in 5 years? I don't buy that...

And here is another thing...the problem isn't POR youth...Telfair, Webster, Jack, Khryapa & Outlaw are not the main reason why this team sucks....Zach, Miles, Theo, Dixon and yes Blake are...They simply aren't good enough to compete with most teams night in and night out....The problems is the "so-called" vets, and not the young guys...

Yes, the young guys are not ready...but we are talking 19-22 year old, 1st and 2nd year NBA players...3 of whom are directly from HS...yet fans want to dump some of these young guys for lack of performance, which is asinine IMO....

Frankly, I am more pissed about the 24+ year old, so called "vets" who IMO have let this team down WAY more than Telfair\Webster etc....

Now I don't put Blake in the same category of disappointment as our highly overpaid triumviate of Theo, Miles & Zach, but he clearly isn't good enough to make a significant difference in the fortunes of this team...he is an average PG on a severly sub-average team...yeah, he MAY get better, but chances are much greater that either Telfair or Jack, or BOTH will end up as better PG than Blake...

Telfair has SIX years? to reach Blake's age and Jack has 4?...I think that given the opportunity, both by then will prove superior to Blake...heck they both have already shown several flashes of such....but of course, you have to display a shred of patience as a team to benefit, and not make the mistake of dealing them at a whim b\c ...gee...Blake looked pretty decent 1 out of every 3 or 4 games....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kmurph again.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

sorry that you hate telfair but he is young but is almost a good as blake already think about that how good will he be when he is blake's age? 

you give up on young players and trade them you can get burned 

like this:

you are building 2 buildings: one you had to dig the foundation pour the footing place all the steel frame and brick for the walls but nothing for the roof or doors yet so you have to wait for those materials as they are on order.

the second buidling was partially built by another company but you doint have much material for building it higher but it has a roof and all the brick work is already down, right now the buildings are almost the same hieght and elegence.

you can finish the first one it will be big and more elegant but you have to wait with a chance you could run out of money or you can take the almost done that will be a solid nice building but you wont get much more than that from it.


thats how i see the telfair vs blake thing and i would trade blake aka sell the already partially built building


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> I think trading Telfair would be stupid at this point...
> 
> He is only 20 years old, and you want to dump him so he can probably blossom on another team?
> 
> ...


I totally agree, and to back up what you're saying:
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1143860126275820.xml&coll=7


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah but i hope we use blake and miles or theo and miles to bring in that leader but who could we bring in to be that leader? any ideas?


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> I think trading Telfair would be stupid at this point...
> 
> He is only 20 years old, and you want to dump him so he can probably blossom on another team?
> 
> ...


i don't have any desire to debate telfair and blake, who's better, who's what age, who will be better in what years. that is a complete unkown which will be seen in several years and useless in debating at this point. what can be seen now however, is that nate has made it clear he wants to build a team around HIS style. and it has also been made clear that telfair and nate's styles clash. there have been countless documentations in the media as such throughout the entire year. telfair said he tried to change but didn't feel he was playing his best. i'm sure he's great, will be great, whatever, but i don't think he FITS into nate's system so he may not be a "nate" guy, hence the title of this thread......

it might not be fair to the team, to nate, or to telfair to keep him here, he might flourish in a few years and be a great point guard, but considering his style of play he is best suited for and feels more comfortable with, it will no happen on this team, whether he is here or not, so perhaps it will be best to trade him and get a lot for him in return hopefully. i'm not saying don't trade blake either, trade em both if you want, but i don't think telfair fits here and will work here especially given nate's most reccent statements below:




> The thing McMillan clearly envied is how the franchise shapes its roster to fit Sloan’s style. “He’s been one guy that brings in guys that fit his style of play,” McMillan said. “If you look at all of the guys he has on his roster, those are what people would say are ‘Sloan guys.’ Guys that haven’t been able to make it -- there’ve been a few of those guys -- they move pretty quickly.”
> 
> That last sentence ... well, if you’ve been following the Blazers, you can see how McMillan might covet that quality.
> 
> ...


But yes, our vets Theo, Zach and Darius suck, are lazy, useless, and have no leadership skills, blame that on management and keep your fingers crossed we get new management soon.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> what can be seen now however, is that nate has made it clear he wants to build a team around HIS style. and it has also been made clear that telfair and nate's styles clash. there have been countless documentations in the media as such throughout the entire year. telfair said he tried to change but didn't feel he was playing his best. i'm sure he's great, will be great, whatever, but i don't think he FITS into nate's system so he may not be a "nate" guy, hence the title of this thread.





> "I think Sebastian does, no question," McMillan said. "He is vocal. He does speak up, and it's hard for him to speak up because of his inexperience and his age, but he does. And Jack does, too. He will get really frustrated with the way practice is going, and sometimes he will make comments, which is good,* which is what we need*."


First off, I don't think it has been made "clear" at all that Telfair and McMillan can't co-exist successfully....I think you have a very talented young HS player, used to being "the guy" who is learning how to play a more "team" based game....Has he gotten frustrated? Sure he has, but that doesn't mean the two cannot co-exist or find success in common ground....

and did I miss McMillan announce who his "guys" were? I was unaware he did that, and I was unaware that Telfair wasn't one of those guys...

As far as Nate's style compared to Telfair's.....Did Ridnour fit Nate's style? Did Antonio Daniels? Remember, he too was more of a scorer than a passer, what he DID have over Ridnour then and Telfair now, is he was a good defender...I doubt Ridnour will ever be, but Telfair has the speed, IQ and willingness to be a good defneder...and he has already shown flashes of such...



> but i don't think telfair fits here and will work here especially given nate's most reccent statements below:


What exactly does "Sloan guys" imply?

Hard workers? Play within more of a "team" concept? Aggressive at both ends of the floor? Good bball IQ?

Am I missing something here? Which one of these doesn't fit Telfair? b\c I think Sebastian already does show all of those traits...

Quite frankly McMillan is the one who needs to do a BETTER job utilizing the strengths of his players...to have Telfair pound the ball at the top of the key...pass it off and then stand out there waiting for a kick out from the post, where he can shoot a jumper is NOT using him to his strengths, and that is not the players' fault but the coaches....

Last night was one of the 1st nights where I saw POR use Webster effectively...running him off screens etc...instead of having him sit there behind the 3pt line waiting for a pass out of a double team....It isn't just Telfair who isn't being utilized correctly...




> might not be fair to the team, to nate, or to telfair to keep him here, he might flourish in a few years and be a great point guard, but considering his style of play he is best suited for and feels more comfortable with, it will no happen on this team, whether he is here or not, so perhaps it will be best to trade him and get a lot for him in return hopefully.


Yeah...let's trade him where he can flourish elsewhere...I completely disagree with this type of logic....If you think you have a good player, why send him elsewhere? Here is a novel idea, how about utilizing Telfair's strengths.....speed\ability to get by his man at will....to create opportunities for his teamates...

I actually think that Nate wants Telfair to play his style...in fact he stated as much if I recall correctly, but he also wants him to play a little more under control and know WHEN to create for himself and when to create for his teamates...and I think Telfair is learning this.

I agree to some extent that a player "is what he is", but they can adapt a little to suit their coach\team's style of play while still staying true to who they are, and that is what Telfair and McMillan need to do...find that middle ground...

The NBA has a lot of successful "offensive minded" PG, I see no reason why Telfair couldn't be a successful one as well...


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> First off, I don't think it has been made "clear" at all that Telfair and McMillan can't co-exist successfully....I think you have a very talented young HS player, used to being "the guy" who is learning how to play a more "team" based game....Has he gotten frustrated? Sure he has, but that doesn't mean the two cannot co-exist or find success in common ground...
> 
> 
> and did I miss McMillan announce who his "guys" were? I was unaware he did that, and I was unaware that Telfair wasn't one of those guys...
> ...


way to take everything out of context. and contradict yourself in the process. you admit telfair is frustrated with nate's style of basketball and would be better suited to play his own way. that is exactly what i was saying except you took only one part of the "sloan guys" article, the title, and left out all the rest explaining how mcmillan wants to build a team around himself, around his style of basketball, as sloan did. and just as you said that style is not suited for telfair. 

i never said telfair isn't a hard worker bla bla bla, all i'm saying, is what you're saying, he has a different style of play which according to you the coach should cater to, yet unfortunately, he has stated his unwillingness to do so. 

and like i said, he won't flourish here even if we keep him unless nate changes, again, he has said he does not want to do that. and i can't say i blame him for not wanting to change his entire philosophy for one young player that might be good someday. 



> McMillan said that some players simply fit certain styles better





> We gotta get guys who can do things that you feel comfortable doing,” he said. “I think you want your team to take on your identity, and I think the way to do that is to bring in guys that can bring in the style of basketball you want out there.”


nate wants to shape the identity of the team to his own identity and play the way he is comfortable with them playing. doesn't sound to me like a man willing to change for telfair. many may want him to, but i don't think he will, and because of that, telfair would be better elsewhere. there's nothing wrong with telfair, he may be good someday, he's just a different style than what the coach is looking to build upon.

oh and the quote you included about mcmillan saying telfair speaking up is a good thing is irrelavant to this discusion on playing style and will become a moot point next year when we get a real veteran leader in here and get rid of stupid darius and hopefully theo.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i see telfair developing into a player that can play both styles which will make that much more effective and dangerous, go martell he is worth the 6th pick and Jack. The block by martell reminded me of theo's block style, he is starting to get it and that give us hope.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Ya Martell is definatley a bright spot. I am also beginning to think we should deal Outlaw before he looses all value.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah tBguy I feel his value keeps on slipping with each failed rebound and clanked 3 pointer.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> way to take everything out of context. and contradict yourself in the process. you admit telfair is frustrated with nate's style of basketball and would be better suited to play his own way. that is exactly what i was saying that is exactly what i was saying except you took only one part of the "sloan guys" article, the title, and left out all the rest explaining how mcmillan wants to build a team around himself, *around his style of basketball*, as sloan did. and just as you said that style is not suited for telfair.


I didn't take anything out of context, I think you are. Just what exactly is McMillan's style? Again, What is Sloan's style? Did McMilllan tell you? and how does Telfair NOT fit into it? I'd love to hear it....

I think YOU are the one assuming:

1) What Nate's "style" actually is
2) That Telfair is not one of Nate's guys based on assumption #1
3) That Telfair or Nate are incapable\unwilling of adapting to each other

I have seen your comments in SEVERAL threads now on how POR should trade Telfair, so its obvious that you don't want him here, but your reasoning is pretty flimsy IMO...

What I said was having Telfair stand at the top of the key...initiate the offense ...and then wait for a possible pass out of the post (good luck with Zach there).....is ignoring his strengths, just as it is ignoring Webster's strengths when they do the EXACT same thing to him. I guess Martell isn't a Nate guy either, maybe we should trade him too.



> and like i said, he won't flourish here even if we keep him unless nate changes, again, he has said he does not want to do that. and i can't say i blame him for *not wanting to change his entire philosophy * for one young player that might be good someday.


Why can't Telfair flourish? That is hogwash...and where did McMillan state that he was unwilling to change his style in ANY way whatsoever? and why\how does he have to change his ENTIRE philosophy to accomodate Telfair...these are real stretches on your part, particularly when Nate's "style" is pretty undefined at this point....

I find it odd that you refuse to acknowledge that McMillan and Telfair can coexist and adapt certain parts of each others styles to the best benefit of the TEAM...in the end talent trumps all, and Telfair has very good talent, and I am sure (and we are seeing it) that he can adapt PARTS of his game to suit part (if not whole) of what Nate wants from him...just as McMillan can adapt his philosophy to suit his *players* (plural)....just like ALL good coaches do...and I find it pretty ridiculous that you think this is such an...apparently...impossible task....and that both are COMPLETELY unwilling to change in any way whatsoever.

Especially when both have already done the exact opposite..



> oh and the quote you included about mcmillan saying telfair speaking up is a good thing is irrelavant to this discusion on playing style and will become a moot point next year when we get a real veteran leader in here and get rid of stupid darius and hopefully theo.


When we get a REAL veteran leader? Is this a joke? Seriously, I laughed out loud when I read that ridiculous comment...the whole copncept of POR trading for this veteran leader is silly...I would like some names...really...b\c this SOUNDS good in theory...but in reality is not such an easy thing to accomplish...and I think the leaders may in fact ALREADY be on the team, they are just young...and the so-called "vets" show no desire to lead or to listen to leadership....

I think both Telfair & Jack have leadership qualities, the problem is...those qualities won't come through until some of the "vets" like Miles, Theo and possibly Zach are dealt...You can't lead if you have guys on the team who are clearly not listening, and I certainly don't see some probable mid-tier player coming in and suddenly demanding everyone's respect...that is REALLY stretching the limits of hopeful thinking....

You watch, if POR is able to offload Miles and Theo, leaders will emerge from within the team...POR doesn't need to deal\sign such a player...you and others talk like they grow on trees...


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

i couldnt agree with you more about the veteran leader comments.

how can we trade for one? it's almost impossible because first off, nobody is going to want to come here and second, most if not all the "respectable good ones" are taken.

I believe that we do trade the players that dont listen and wont give effort and that will bring out the natural leaders in our PG's.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

morrison is a firey leader to


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

Telfair has the "IQ" over Ridnour to become a better defender? Ok..... :raised_ey

BTW, Nate didn't want to draft Ridnour--he wanted Reece Gaines. SO I suppose Reece Gaines is a Nate type guy....(sarcasm).


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Telfair has the "IQ" over Ridnour to become a better defender? Ok


He is much quicker and has more innate ability than Ridnour EVER will...and that is a fact..

I never implied that Ridnour didn't have good bball IQ, but merely pointed out that Telfair has a very good bball IQ...



> SO I suppose Reece Gaines is a Nate type guy....(sarcasm).


My point exactly...good coaches RARELY make good GM's...ask Larry Brown.


----------

