# Gut reaction - who do we end up with?



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Now that the order is set, how do you see the top 4 picks going down?

1 - Bargnani
2- Aldridge
3- Thomas
4- Brandon Roy


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

If POR mgmt passes on both Gay and Morrison to take Roy then they are idiots...

1) Bargnani
2) Aldridge or Thomas
3) Gay
4) ?????

I'd say Morrison


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Blazers need size.

Aldridge or Thomas, whichever is available. Thomas may actually be OK... perhaps a Ben Wallace type?

Gay and Morrison are not for this team. Roy is a good "safe" pick when that is not what we need at the SG. And Bargnani will be taken before we pick.


iWatas


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> 2006 NBA MOCK DRAFT
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not sure how it all plays out, but it would appear that Toronto isn't picking the way that this mock has it all played out. And if they didn't pick Andrea Bargnani would Portland take Morrison over him? I doubt it. :whoknows:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

1. Aldridge
2. Thomas
3. Morrison
4. Gay


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

My gut is that Roy is the guy. That makes me in need of Pepto-Bismol


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Mike Rice has the Bobcats taking Morrison at 3 so Portland could get a decent BIG in this draft.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Personally I think that our pick is going to be either Aldridge or Thomas, whichever is left on the board. Morrison is gone at 3. Personally I could live with that.


----------



## laxbro2k (May 24, 2006)

I don't see what is so bad about taking Roy at #4. He is BY FAR the most complete player in the draft. Not only does he have great offenseive capabilities, but he is a force on defense as well. His only weakness is very minor in that he has no real standout ability. He isn't feakishly athletic, doesn't have an amazing jumpshot, isn't amazingly fast, but is just good. Not amazing. Just good. I still think he is worthy of going at #4. If you are considering Bargnani at #4, he is waaay to much of a project for the Blazers to draft. I think Aldridge will be taken by #4 but if he fell to us I think I would take him over Roy. But it would be close. Those of you who consider Rudy Gay, although he is talented, just watch... he'll score 7 points a game and grab 4 rebounds during his whole career compared to Roy's 15 points, 5 rebounds, and 3 assissts.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

The only team that Bargnani will be playing for next season won't be the Timberwolves. It will be the Raptors.

The first three picks, and I can guarantee this, will go like this:

1. Andrea Bargnani (punk *** *****)
2. Lamarcus Aldridge
3. Adam Morrison
4. who ****in' knows


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

Tor - Bargnani

Chi - Aldridge

Cha - Morrison

Por - _Brandon Roy_ / Tyrus Thomas / Rudy Gay


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> The only team that Bargnani will be playing for next season won't be the Timberwolves. It will be the Raptors.
> 
> The first three picks, and I can guarantee this, will go like this:
> 
> ...



charlotte has supposedly been interested in gay, personally if i'm then i take morrison but i think bickerstaff takes gay.
that leaves portland taking morrison. one more thing gentleman lets get off this bargnani said this or that, that is all speculation. cut the kid a little slack.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

rainman said:


> charlotte has supposedly been interested in gay, personally if i'm then i take morrison but i think bickerstaff takes gay.
> that leaves portland taking morrison. one more thing gentleman lets get off this bargnani said this or that, that is all speculation. cut the kid a little slack.


Okay, I want you to think about who the Bobcats have selected in the last two drafts, and then rethink your post. The obvious choice is Morrison.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

laxbro2k said:


> Those of you who consider Rudy Gay, although he is talented, just watch... he'll score 7 points a game and grab 4 rebounds during his whole career compared to Roy's 15 points, 5 rebounds, and 3 assissts.


I'm not sure where you getting this from. If you want to compare a 19 year old who is playing on an elite team in the toughest conference with a senior in the weak Pac-10, then you can, but it doesn't make much sense. 

I love Roy, I think he's going to be a solid player in the NBA. Gay has superstar potential, but IMO will be solid as well. It appears to me that both guys will be solid, so why wouldn't you take the guy with superstar potential?

Roy is a great defender --- Gay is a great defender.
Roy has developed a nice shot --- Gay has a great shot.
Roy can create and finish down low --- Gay is great at creating and has a soft hook down in the lane.

I could go on and on, and Gay can match Roy in just about every aspect of the game. You can't compare their hearts, especially when one is older, has had a better understand of his system, and two more years of experience. As a sophomore Roy was not a leader and would often have poor statistical games, so it's very likely Gay would fill the role as leader if he were in the same position as Roy was this past year at UW.

Roy is a great value pick around 6-8, but there is no way you can pass up on Gay, Aldridge, or Morrison to take him. If you like him, fine, trade down and take him (I don't agree with it), but don't take him at #4.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> Okay, I want you to think about who the Bobcats have selected in the last two drafts, and then rethink your post. The obvious choice is Morrison.


i want to say okafor,may and felton without looking, what's your point. gay and morrison are both wing players and i hear they like gay. remember i said i would take morrison but my prediction is bickerstaff takes gay.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

this year has been a f'ing disaster...

if we take Roy i will lose all faith in our management.


...as if i have much left in the first place.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

My guess:

1. Andrea Bargnani
2. LaMarcus Aldridge
3. Adam Morrison
4. Rudy Gay


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

rainman said:


> i want to say okafor,may and felton without looking, what's your point. gay and morrison are both wing players and i hear they like gay. remember i said i would take morrison but my prediction is bickerstaff takes gay.


Sorry for the way I wrote that last post out. It sounded totally demeaning, but I didn't mean it that way. lol

I just meant for you to take a look at the pattern the Bobcats have been following in the two drafts that they have participated. They take proven college players that can contribute right away. Not to say that Gay isn't either of those, but Morrison just seems to fit the 'Cat mold mo' betta.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd agree it'll be either Aldridge or Thomas, whichever is left. I'd guess that Chicago gambles on Thomas's potential, so that leaves Aldridge for Portland, which would be A-OK with me.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think POR taking Gay could potentially be a fantastic move..IF he develops and shows that fire that he is preaching about now during workouts..

I think Tyrus Thomas would be a decent choice as well...albeit a bit of a project...at least offensively...

Obviously I would prefer Morrison...

I am just not sold on Aldridge or Roy at all...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Another thing: taking Roy at #4 would be a mistake, IMO. I don't consider him to be a superior prospect to Aldridge, and given our investment in the back court the last two lotteries, adding Roy with such a high pick would be a bad idea.

Ed O.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I think it'll be Thomas, Alridge or Roy.

I'm fine with Thomas or Roy.

That's if the Blazers even pick. Pritchard said awhile back that this is a +/-7 draft (I think that was the name), which means the guy who is available at #4 could theoretically still be there at #11 ... it's such an even class, there aren't very many standouts. So you might see Portland make some moves to get their guy at #6-9.

Last year, no one knew who the Blazers would take until they brought in Martell and everyone started gushing about him. Then it was pretty obvious. So the workouts will be very interesting.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I'd be satisfied with Gay, I had him at #2 behind Bargnani.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

bargnani will go to toronto

aldridge will go to bulls

bobcats wont pass on morrison

that leaves us with whatevers left

i say we take thomas because is the best big man left adn thats what we need the most...we dont need roy...we dont need gay...we dont even need morrison...we dont need williams...so we need a big man

thomas is the best big man
maybe shelden williams is a good choice but thats a little high to pick him...maybe we trade down...or maybe he has good workouts to prove he can be a top 5 pick

but i say we pick big no matter what!!!


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

but i really should have voted we select the best player available and trade down


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Another thing: taking Roy at #4 would be a mistake, IMO. I don't consider him to be a superior prospect to Aldridge, and given our investment in the back court the last two lotteries, adding Roy with such a high pick would be a bad idea.


Management has had worse ideas IMO... of course there always could be things about the top guys known only to the scouts that gives real concern, drug rumors, poor work habits, etc... and Roy is a pretty decent prospect IMO. I'm concerned about his size, and the pre-draft results could change my opinion one way or another, but I like that he's excelled at both a supporting and a lead role. I also like that he's a playmaker. As far as projecting onto the Blazers, I think Martell is big enough to get some of his minutes at the 3, so projecting 30+ minutes for both isn't a problem (if they can earn it). 

Anyway, with the pre-draft, lack of knowledge on Bargnani, and normal rumorama, it's a bit early for me to really state my feel on how the draft will go. Today I guessed that Gay turns out to be #4, but I wouldn't be mad if Roy was their pick. I doubt he's a star, but...

all that said, I sure would hope that if Aldridge was available that they'd select him. He has vastly more upside then Roy and is at a need position. I really doubt he falls below #2 though.

STOMP


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> My gut is that Roy is the guy. That makes me in need of Pepto-Bismol


I agree 100% with both of those things.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'd agree it'll be either Aldridge or Thomas, whichever is left. I'd guess that Chicago gambles on Thomas's potential, so that leaves Aldridge for Portland, which would be A-OK with me.
> 
> Ed O.


You really think that will happen? I just don't see a situation where Chicago would pass up Aldridge.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

dwood615 said:


> bargnani will go to toronto
> 
> aldridge will go to bulls
> 
> ...


I'm glad you aren't our GM. Thomas would not be a good pick for us. We have. too many. projects. as it is.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

laxbro2k said:


> I don't see what is so bad about taking Roy at #4. He is BY FAR the most complete player in the draft. Not only does he have great offenseive capabilities, but he is a force on defense as well. His only weakness is very minor in that he has no real standout ability. He isn't feakishly athletic, doesn't have an amazing jumpshot, isn't amazingly fast, but is just good. Not amazing. Just good. I still think he is worthy of going at #4. If you are considering Bargnani at #4, he is waaay to much of a project for the Blazers to draft. I think Aldridge will be taken by #4 but if he fell to us I think I would take him over Roy. But it would be close. Those of you who consider Rudy Gay, although he is talented, just watch... he'll score 7 points a game and grab 4 rebounds during his whole career compared to Roy's 15 points, 5 rebounds, and 3 assissts.



One of the rare people that think Roy may in fact be a solid pick! I agree. :cheers:


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Another thing: taking Roy at #4 would be a mistake, IMO. I don't consider him to be a superior prospect to Aldridge, and given our investment in the back court the last two lotteries, adding Roy with such a high pick would be a bad idea.
> 
> Ed O.


 :krazy:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think Roy will be a dissapointment...he doesn't excel at any part of the game...

Using the #4 pick on a guy like that would be a waste...and then your forcing Webster to play at SF...and I guess drop kicking Miles (of course) and Outlaw or Khryapa to the curb as well...

It would be a dumb decision by POR mgmt...and I doubt mgmt just drafts whomever Nate wants...

I wonder if Roy has the stones to go head to head against Gay or Morrison? I bet you both guys take it to him....Just like they did in college

Roy=Overated


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

My gut feeling is that we'll end up with Ruddy Gay. Again, since that was the question, that's my GUT feeling.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> I think Roy will be a dissapointment...he doesn't excel at any part of the game...
> 
> Using the #4 pick on a guy like that would be a waste...and then your forcing Webster to play at SF...and I guess drop kicking Miles (of course) and Outlaw or Khryapa to the curb as well...
> 
> ...


You obviously have not watched Roy play...he single handedly lead UW in the tourney to 2 big wins. He also averaged 20 pts, 5rbds, 4asts, 1.5st and shot 50% from the field and 40% form 3 pt. land. Hum yeh he sucks way "overated".

While not as attractive as Aldridge or Bargani or maybe Morrison he is still damn good.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> If POR mgmt passes on both Gay and Morrison to take Roy then they are idiots...
> 
> 1) Bargnani
> 2) Aldridge or Thomas
> ...


I agree. Roy will likely be a useful player, but he would be worth more to a good team in need of depth. The Blazers need someone who can make an impact. I don't know if such a player will be available at #4....but they need to try. Roy would be a gutless pick.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I think Roy is the kind of pick you make when you have a solid starter already and don't need to be depending on your pick to be a huge factor on your team.

I think, and I might be the only one who thinks this, that our rookie needs to be in the running for (if not flat out win) rookie of the year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> You obviously have not watched Roy play...he single handedly lead UW in the tourney to 2 big wins. He also averaged 20 pts, 5rbds, 4asts, 1.5st and shot 50% from the field and 40% form 3 pt. land. Hum yeh he sucks way "overated".


Well, no one said he sucks, but I think Kmurph is right when he says Roy doesn't do anything at a high level. I think maybe the better term is that Roy isn't _dominant_ at anything, and doesn't project to be truly superior at anything in the NBA.

I think a fair NBA comp for Roy is a prime Doug Christie or a prime Robert Horry. Below star-level, but a very useful piece.

If Portland were picking between 5 and 10, I'd actually love to get Roy. And in fact, I'd be perfectly satisfied trading down for Roy. I think, though, that Roy doesn't have the upside you'd like at #4.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> I think Roy is the kind of pick you make when you have a solid starter already and don't need to be depending on your pick to be a huge factor on your team.
> 
> I think, and I might be the only one who thinks this, that our rookie needs to be in the running for (if not flat out win) rookie of the year.


Giving him the playing time and I think he will be...Roy is currently the most complete player in the the top 6. Roy or Morrison will win ROY next year depending on who plays more. I have a feeling it will be Roy.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Well, no one said he sucks, but I think Kmurph is right when he says Roy doesn't do anything at a high level. I think maybe the better term is that Roy isn't _dominant_ at anything, and doesn't project to be truly superior at anything in the NBA.
> 
> I think a fair NBA comp for Roy is a prime Doug Christie or a prime Robert Horry. Below star-level, but a very useful piece.
> 
> If Portland were picking between 5 and 10, I'd actually love to get Roy. And in fact, I'd be perfectly satisfied trading down for Roy. I think, though, that Roy doesn't have the upside you'd like at #4.


Did you watch the NCAA tourney...Roy dominated UW 3 games with 28, 21 and 20 points respectively. His mid-range jumper and ability to get to the hole were unstoppable. He also averaged 6rbds, 4asts and 2stls in those games. Keep in mind that two of those games were against top college teams in Ilinois and Uconn. 

I agree #4 may be a bit high for Roy yet what is the alternative? Sure we could try to trade down a few spots but if that's not possible and Aldridge, Bragani and Morrison are gone then Roy is a solid pick IMO. 

Gay has never proven he can dominate on a consistent basis and Thomas is a project player at best which we certainly do not need. Roy is at worst Robert Horry (no guarantee on big shot ability) and at best Michael Finley.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Did you watch the NCAA tourney...Roy dominated UW 3 games with 28, 21 and 20 points respectively.


Yes, i did, but two games doesn't provide a good measure of talent. None of the facets of his game were consistently dominating during his college career.



> I agree #4 may be a bit high for Roy yet what is the alternative? Sure we could try to trade down a few spots but if that's not possible and Aldridge, Bragani and Morrison are gone then Roy is a solid pick IMO.


In my opinion, you can't take Roy over Aldridge, Bargnani, Gay or Morrison. All four guys are clearly superior as prospects, and many consider Tyrus Thomas to be clearly superior as well (I don't, though).



> Roy is at worst Robert Horry (no guarantee on big shot ability) and at best Michael Finley.


I don't think Roy is a can't-miss, that the worst he'll be is a very successful NBA player. I'd say his worst is to be a marginal bench player who gets a few minutes a game and his most likely outcome is an Horry type. Finley could very well be his ceiling though. I just don't think he's likely to reach that ceiling.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> You obviously have not watched Roy play.


I have watched him play...several times.

I remember watching UCONN game...he played pretty well...until he pissed off Gay and for a 5-10min span there he was dominated by Rudy....

I watched him score 10pts on 3-9 shooting against UCLA

I watched Adam Morrison light up both him and Bobby Jones for 43pts...Roy fouled out with 10pts and 5 TO...

I think he is an average college player...who had his best year as a senior...who will be a mediocre NBA player...Sorry I just don't see it with him...He does some nice things on the court but nothing that makes him stand out...and in the NBA...you need to stand out at something if you ever want to be an All-Star....I don't think he ever will be....

and I DO think there will be other players to choose from who have a lot more potential to be an All-Star than Roy does...

On a sidenote that UW\Zags game was something else....I give Morrison a lot of credit...Who else on that team has a remote chance to get drafted? Maybe Batista? He played w\o a lot of support all year IMO and he took it to some of the best players\defenders in the nation....I find it ridiculous that some people suggest that he won't be able to score in the NBA..

Interesting comment from Lorenzo Romar and it was repeated time and again throughout the year...



> "He's the best offensive basketball player since Carmelo Anthony," said Washington coach Lorenzo Romar, reciting recent college basketball history. "What do you do to stop him?"





> The fans tried. Fate tried. Frantic Washington defenders tried, too.
> 
> The heckling of Morrison was as loud as it was constant. Batista, Gonzaga's second-leading scorer, was silenced for 8 minutes of the second half. He was on the bench with four fouls. Third-leading scorer Raivio had been out since midway through the first half after bruising his lower back in a collision with rugged Washington defender Bobby Jones, who spent the rest of his night with two hands in Morrison's face and often an elbow in his side.
> 
> ...


I find it ridiculous that he won't be able to have success in the NBA

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=253380264


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I don't think Roy is a can't-miss, that the worst he'll be is a very successful NBA player. I'd say his worst is to be a marginal bench player who gets a few minutes a game and his most likely outcome is an Horry type. Finley could very well be his ceiling though. I just don't think he's likely to reach that ceiling.


Why is Gay more likely to reach a All-star type "ceiling?" IMO his work ethic, mental toughness and concentration all seem to be pretty weak.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> I find it ridiculous that he won't be able to have success in the NBA
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=253380264


Never said I would draft Roy over Morrison..I simply don't think Morrison will be around at #4.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Why is Gay more likely to reach a All-star type "ceiling?" IMO his work ethic, mental toughness and concentration all seem to be pretty weak.


I think they're more unknown than weak. Gay is more likely to reach an All-Star ceiling because he has the material to work with in the first place. While issues over concentration and mental toughness are definitely dicey, not having the ability in the first place is significantly worse...if what you want is a star. If you want the best chance at a useful player, then Roy may be the better choice.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I think they're more unknown than weak. Gay is more likely to reach an All-Star ceiling because he has the material to work with in the first place. While issues over concentration and mental toughness are definitely dicey, not having the ability in the first place is significantly worse...if what you want is a star. If you want the best chance at a useful player, then Roy may be the better choice.


Hum..I guess the difference lies in how we look at Gay. I see star potential but I also see alot of mediocrity. And to me it seems that Rudy is content with that.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> I'm glad you aren't our GM. Thomas would not be a good pick for us. We have. too many. projects. as it is.



you must have seen what else i wrote


we need a big man!!!!

i dont care who we take but i want a big man....we need one bad


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

If Bargnani is available at #4, I hope he's available at #5.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

SA - 

Here is something worthy of note when discussing Gay's inconsistentcies...

He played on a LOADED team

Think about this...UCONN will most likely have FOUR 1st round picks this year (Gay, Williams, Armstrong & Boone) and SIX players drafted overall (Brown, Anderson)..

When has that happened before?

Also remember that Gay (and Boone) were the youngest of the six (both sophmores) and that Gay was the leading scorer for UCONN...a team loaded with seniors (Brown, Armstrong and Anderson)...Williams was a Jr.

and I challenge anyone to show me where he has ever been accussed of being a bad kid...in fact it is quite the opposite...many say he is a very good kid....

I think he is a product of unrealistic hype...He has so much takent and upside that people expected him to be better than he was, and when he wasn't then they started labeling him as inconsistent...

I think if reports are true and he is projected as falling outside of the top 3, then he would be a very good choice for POR...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> SA -
> 
> Here is something worthy of note when discussing Gay's inconsistentcies...
> 
> ...


All great and valid points, I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

gut instict tells me you guys will end up with morrison..
think the first 3 teams will pick big, in thomas, aldridge and bargnani (not in that order).
and you guys get mustachio at 4


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Avalanche said:


> gut instict tells me you guys will end up with morrison..
> think the first 3 teams will pick big, in thomas, aldridge and bargnani (not in that order).
> and you guys get mustachio at 4


 I think the Bobcats could go with Morrison and have Wallace defend the opponents best SG or SF depending on the team.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

check out the Rudy Gay video thread,,

Some impressive moves there (and many many dunks...lol)


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

GUT:

Bargnani
Aldridge
Roy

and the blazers get morrison still, which would rock.

I'm getting more and more convinced that the bobcats are going to either draft roy at 3, trade down (maybe with Portland) to get Portland Morrison, or even trade the pick to obtain JJ Reddick.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Tince said:


> I think the Bobcats could go with Morrison and have Wallace defend the opponents best SG or SF depending on the team.


true, but i have a feeling toronto is going to completely mess things up for themselves and take bargnani... bulls will take aldridge, and i think the cats will take thomas to pair with okafor.
just a thought.. morrison seems to be the guy the blazers have been looking at the most


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Avalanche said:


> true, but i have a feeling toronto is going to completely mess things up for themselves and take bargnani... bulls will take aldridge, and i think the cats will take thomas to pair with okafor.
> just a thought.. morrison seems to be the guy the blazers have been looking at the most


 As a Blazer fan, I like that scenario where we have the choice between Morrison and Gay.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> As a Blazer fan, I like that scenario where we have the choice between Morrison and Gay.


I concur...the top 2 players in the draft IMO..


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I selected Thomas. Now remember this is for who we think we'll end up with not who we want to select at #4. I've said all along I wanted three players, Bargnani, Morrison, or Aldridge. So of course we had to get the #4 pick and most likely they'll be gone. I hope not, I'd love for us to get Morrison. I have a feeling he's going to be special. Of course we might have got the #1 pick and not selected one of those players and then I would have really been pissed. Just as I will be if one of those are available when we pick and we don't take him. Ya, that's what's going to happen. You can put your money on it. Par for course.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

lol mustachio!!!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

:meditate: Wait! I am having - a vision! :meditate: 

(OK, maybe it's just heartburn)


Patterson: "I say we draft Roy. That way, when we suck again, we can blame Nate!"

Nash: "No, no, no - we need to draft Tyrus! Then we can blame the fans for being impatient!"

Pritchard: "Either works with the new marketing campaign - God hates us, so you might as well too!"


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

yes good points kmurph


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I would like to get Aldridge out of all this.... but voted for Morrison. I do not see Aldridge falling to #4. I think Chicago or Charlotte may surprise us with an odd pick though so we get the stache


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> :meditate: Wait! I am having - a vision! :meditate:
> 
> (OK, maybe it's just heartburn)
> 
> ...



If you want God to hate us, you have to draft Rudy Gay, then the Westboro Baptist Church can picket.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

crandc said:


> If you want God to hate us, you have to draft Rudy Gay, then the Westboro Baptist Church can picket.


Remember when the St Louis Cardinals of the NFL traded Bobby Moore because he had changed his name to Ahmad Rashaad? The ex-duck merely became one of the best WRs in the league!

Would the Blazers ever be THAT idiotic? I would like to hope not........but I wouldn't bet the rent on it! :wink:


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

All the factors that go with Rudy Gay, I think he has the most potential to become the best out of this draft. I think he can do it. The same things said about Rudy Gay were being said about Charlie V last year and they spent a year together at UCONN. I say we draft Gay!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i would like to trade up for tiago or sheldon too as whoever is left over at 4th and i will be happy!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> i would like to trade up for tiago or sheldon too as whoever is left over at 4th and i will be happy!


We won't need to trade _up_ to get either of those guys...


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> We won't need to trade _up_ to get either of those guys...


He may mean with the 30/31 pick to get either of those players and then whoever we get with the 4th pick will make him happy.

So, Zags, do you think Morrison will fall to us?


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> We won't need to trade _up_ to get either of those guys...


 I think he's talking about our second 1st round pick.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> He may mean with the 30/31 pick to get either of those players and then whoever we get with the 4th pick will make him happy.
> 
> *So, Zags, do you think Morrison will fall to us?*


Yeah, I think so.

The way I look at it is that Toronto is definetly going to pick Bargnani, Chicago needs bigs so they're most likely going to pick either Aldridge or Thomas....Then that leaves Charlotte and they are set at SF, in fact their Gerald Wallace represented them at the lottery the other night, usually they only do that to people they expect to be with the club for awhile...They wouldn't have him represent as an ambassador to the team like that if they were planning on going out and picking Morrison, a player who plays the same position....

I'm not really sure who the Bobcats are going to take but I highly doubt its going to be Morrison, unless they think he's going to be a SG, which he is not...

With a month to go there's a lot of things that can change though...It wouldn't surprise me if there was a trade involving one of the top 3 teams that could totally throw everyone's projections out of wack...

There is also a lot of workouts to be done, measurements and all that good (and sometimes irrelevant) stuff that the guru's evaluate with players...Who knows, by the time all is said and done Patrick O'Bryant could become a top 3 pick and a guy Tyrus Thomas could drop out of the top 10...


----------

