# anyone else excited?



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

anyone else excited about this team?They have won 3 straight against philly,division leading minny,and the kings the other 2 games were in reach and felt like wins to me.
Everything seems to be clicking for this team i didn't think we would win this one but they gutted it out and they won.The sonics lost tonight to minny and i think thats ironic that they won the division and know they are below 500 arent they?I really think that reggie evans would be a spectacular back up to z-bo and would provide some great rebounding.We still have to win 9-10 more to become 500 but im not thinking of that we are playing some great ball lately and im so excited to watch this team now.What do u think made them score more and win 3 straight right now.Maybe the season isin't so bad afterall.Blake is the pg that needs to be running this offense nothing flashy but can get the job done.Telfair we need to hold onto though because Jack backing up Blake and Telfair i shudder at the thought.Telfair needs to come off the bench he could provide a spark that could help this team.I had a feeling that Blake would help the team somehow.Dixon is playing good Z-bo is playing pretty well shut down another good pf who scored 35 i believe the night before.
Ruben is playing great.Outlaw needs some work.Webster i thought he was supposed to be a pretty good shooter little to early i spose but i figured he would hit more shots then he does.
Team grade A-.
Oh yeah anyone hear mike rice saying Ha give Ai a wack right in the face and use those elbows.That cracked me up.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

THey are playing good...The thing about this team, they have been within 10 in the 4th 80% of the time this season. They are staying in most games. They have been shooting well. They are getting better and better. 

Playoff team? Probably not. I suspect they will still finish around 30 wins and around 5-8 in the draft.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

I'm so excited, I just can't hide it! Go, go, go, go, go, go! Give it to me baby, I'm attracted to you!


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

HELL YAH IM EXCITED....EXCELLENT JOB BY ZACH, RUBEN, DIXON, AND NATE. Major credit to Nate....i loved the hiring and was right. Nate makes this group so much better. If Cheeks was the coach we would have maybe 3 wins. 

Webster still cant make a shot to save his life while Paul is dishing out 15 assists but im happy we are winning although it will probaly screw us from getting a top player in the draft...although reddicks name might get kicked around if we keep winning.

IMAGINE IF THIS TEAM HAD PAUL...we'd make the playoffs! also if webber could make a wide open shot we would not be biting our nail with 3 minute sleft. I hope thsi kid proves me wrong but its odd he misses so many.

Bottom line....No Telfair....we are 4-2 since we started Blake. Thats says ALOT. :clap:


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm excited too - funny considering we still have the worst record in the west. I like watching the team without telfair, because everytime I see him I kick myself knowing he was the reason management passed on drafting chris paul.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

mixum said:


> Bottom line....No Telfair....we are 4-2 since we started Blake. Thats says ALOT. :clap:



It says nothing. 

Nothing.

It says that the team....the TEAM....is playing better. I like Blake.....but I'm sick of hearing how much greater he is than Telfair.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

RPCity said:


> It says nothing.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> It says that the team....the TEAM....is playing better. I like Blake.....but I'm sick of hearing how much greater he is than Telfair.


Chemistry majors out there, where are you at!? Please explain to RPCity that chemistry is an important part of basketball, just look at the Pistons, even good chemistry will make Rasheed behave. The Blazers are playing great right now due to great chemistry, bring in Telfair and you risk the chemistry going bad.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

chemistry is major here

blake isnt as talented as telfiar in regards to flair etc or the chance of 'greatness' but as it stands at the moment blake is the better pg option for the blazers - and as much as some people want to marginalise it his performaces and play have made some big impacts and he can take a lot of the props for the increased teamwork.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I was excited when the Blazers were flirting with .500 early on, and we all know what happened then.

It's hard to get really excited. Don't get me wrong - I was still yelling at my TV tonight, giving each player coaching advice and tips, but do I think this is indicative of any long-term success? Not yet.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

The more I think about it, the more I think its not the point guards necessarily that are responsible for our sudden good play....Zach has been a beast and he's learned how to pass out of double teams..and Juan Dixon has been the scoring threat that we would have hoped for him to be.....Ruben is playing gritty ball and we as a team are outrebounding and out hustling our opponents.....Maybe this is a sign of things to come or maybe this is just a phase...


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

The more you think about it the more you are wrong...it's all about the pg. Blake is a team first guy who doesn't care about proving himself any other way than through the team playing well. Telfair, as good as he is, isn't there yet. He's at a different point in his career. His perspective is "me first" right now and no one can blame him. Blake's maturity is the reason this team is clicking and it's done wonders for Dixon. He is exactly what this team needs right now. Has an hoops IQ that is off the charts. What a beautiful thing after watching Damon all these years...finally a true pg!

Hopefully they will find a way get Telfair some time gradually without messing up the chemisty we have going. Might be tough.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Definitly seeing some signs of life on the team that is for sure. I think a lot of you make valid points up above, and could easily be argued either way. I do think that overall it is a chemistry issue, not a single player issue. Right now every facet of Blazer play is better then it was about 6 games ago. The main things I notice so far:

1. Turnovers are down. Portland has actually been the team that turned the ball over less a few times over the last few games.

2. Rebounding is up. Zbo, Patterson, and Outlaw have started hitting the boards on the defensive end of the floor and not letting opponents get tons of offensive boards.

3. Guard production is up. The guards are getting shots they are comfortable with, and look to be at ease on offense. 

4. The Blazers have added more plays to their offense, Zach is actually cutting to the bucket on pick and pops and pick and rolls, and the Blazers have added a 2-3 Zone trap to shake things up.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

This is a ragtag group of players who may be fun to watch, but offer nothing but heartache for the future of the Blazers. This team is in trouble for quite a while.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Hasoos, voice of reason on the board. I agree with everything you said. And I also agree with Zidane, it is fun. I had a great time at the game Monday and it's fun reading box scores with the Blazers on the winning side. 
To compare this team to Detroit is absurd; Detroit is a team of veterans who have played together, the core at least, for years. They added pieces like Rasheed Wallace to a functioning unit. This is what Portland hopes to build.
It is also wrong to say that Telfair's injury is the reason Portland is winning. Blake is more experienced and IMO should start for now. But Telfair is not disrupting chemistry. 
And how about a nod to Coach McMillan? He has drilled and drilled a team made up of inexperienced hs students and young guys who breezed for 2-3 years with an "easy" coach. We are seeing fewer mistakes and more fundamental play. Think the coaching may have something to do with it?
Yes, the team has a poor record. But direction of movement is just as important as position. The direction of movement is up. Not a straight line; there will be ups and downs, but the overall curve is upward. This is not one of the NBA's hopelessly bad teams by any means.

But I guess those who expected and wanted this to be a terrible team are bound to be unhappy now.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I like what I'm seeing.

Cudos to Nate and the entire coaching staff. Seeing big guys set "real" screens and roll off them the correct way - makes me smile.

Blake and Dixon have performed of late - with poise. Ruben has been a beast off the bench in his new b/u PF role. I called that one.

Good job baby Blazers!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Chemistry majors out there, where are you at!? Please explain to RPCity that chemistry is an important part of basketball, just look at the Pistons, even good chemistry will make Rasheed behave. The Blazers are playing great right now due to great chemistry, bring in Telfair and you risk the chemistry going bad.


well I guess it's kind of funny that Sheeds acting no different now than he did in 97-2001.

hm...oops!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

This is not a case like when Pippen replaced Blamon at the PG spot. This is a case where Telfair was playing when the team was still trying to accept the system (and in some cases, not even want to play it) and getting bupkiss out of our SG spot.

When you have a PG who does not have a counter guard to help ease his game (and therefore, the rest of the teams) it makes him have to do more than he should. Teflair would be better suited with a better "proven" SG (Dixon for example) than 2 rookies (Webster and Monia) and a 156 year old CBA scrub (Smith). 

Considering now that Zach is playing like the Zach we all hope he can play like (and not the 9 points and 2 boards lackluster Zach that plagued the team for about 6-8 games) and they are getting positive production out of their STARTING SG, well, I think that is a bigger reason why the team is playing better AND Blake looks so much better.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> This is not a case like when Pippen replaced Blamon at the PG spot. This is a case where Telfair was playing when the team was still trying to accept the system (and in some cases, not even want to play it) and getting bupkiss out of our SG spot.
> 
> When you have a PG who does not have a counter guard to help ease his game (and therefore, the rest of the teams) it makes him have to do more than he should. Teflair would be better suited with a better "proven" SG (Dixon for example) than 2 rookies (Webster and Monia) and a 156 year old CBA scrub (Smith).
> 
> Considering now that Zach is playing like the Zach we all hope he can play like (and not the 9 points and 2 boards lackluster Zach that plagued the team for about 6-8 games) and they are getting positive production out of their STARTING SG, well, I think that is a bigger reason why the team is playing better AND Blake looks so much better.


Hap as coach: Starts Telfair when he comes back.

Nate as coach: Brings Telfair off the bench when he comes back.

I think I will side with Nate.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Hap as coach: Starts Telfair when he comes back.
> 
> Nate as coach: Brings Telfair off the bench when he comes back.
> 
> I think I will side with Nate.


please locate where I've said that I want Telfair to start when he comes back.

because you can't. Ive said that he should come off the bench till he gets back up to snuff.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Hap as coach: Starts Telfair when he comes back.
> 
> Nate as coach: Brings Telfair off the bench when he comes back.
> 
> I think I will side with Nate.


Nate has never said he will be bringing Telfair off the bench when he comes back. He said he'd cross that bridge when he comes to it. But he has also said he wouldn't change anything if the team is playing how they are playing now and that he doesn't like having Dixon and Telfair in at the same time because of both of them being short relatively speaking.

I like Blake but I don't think his play means he's better than Telfair. I think Blake and Dixon playing together for so long makes a big difference and that he has learn the nuances of the game that Telfair hasn't completely grasp yet. Telfair said sitting on the bench has open his eyes to different stuff that is available on the floor. So that should help his game. 

I also think it's a lot more than just Blakes play that has made us better. There are a lot of factors and I don't think his not starting would change much. He's going to get a lot of playing time as will Telfair when he comes back so who starts isn't that important.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

Hell ya!!
i'm excited. 
:bbanana::banana::banana::twave::twave:

I think it would be good for ST to come off the bench. It would make him hungry. Same with Miles. Both those guys could use some Motivation.


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

not really. not to be a downer, but we are 10-19. if we get to .500, then i will be excited. they run off 10 in a row like they did a few years ago, then we can talk.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

The team is playing pretty well right now. I believe this is primarily due to Nate's coaching. Unfortunately this could screw up our draft position.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

IMO it would be prefferable to win more and have to trade for a good pick.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> please locate where I've said that I want Telfair to start when he comes back.
> 
> because you can't. Ive said that he should come off the bench till he gets back up to snuff.


Well from the way you have been talking about Telfair it seemed to me you wanted him to start once he gets healthy. I think the recent good play has to do with Telfair not playing and you disagree with me. When he does get back up to snuff I still don't think he will start until Blake doesn't play well.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

I think that some of Nate's work is payimg off. I don't think that it is that any player has stepped heads and shoulders above the rest. I think that Nate is just gettign player to fit into their roles better. Zach is staying in the post where he is in much better position to get rebounds, he is also kicking it out when he is double teamed. The PG's are getting the ball into the post earlier to set up Zach and to give more time for the inside-out game. Our SG's have stepped up and started shooting better making the inside out game even more effective. There is a semblence of an offense and I think that the defense wil come into its own here in a little while. What we are seeing now is Nate taking what we have 1 semi star and role players and putting the roles together to support our star. Telfair and Miles can be plugged in easily and the backups just shift down on the depth chart. I think with Miles back there will be a marked improvement as he will give a lot more offensive punch to the SF position and will help allieviate doubles onto Zach. 

With Denver sucking it up here I think that we can make a good run to at least be in the chase for a playoff spot. There is almost no chance we make it but we wont be mathmaticly eliminated in January.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

tlong said:


> The team is playing pretty well right now. I believe this is primarily due to Nate's coaching. Unfortunately this could screw up our draft position.


This isn't the NFL where the worst your record the better pick you get, that's why we have a lottery system. Granted you have a better chance to get a good pick the more you lose. I'm just glad we aren't the NFL, fans actually want their teams to lose to get Reggie Bush.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> please locate where I've said that I want Telfair to start when he comes back.
> 
> because you can't. Ive said that he should come off the bench till he gets back up to snuff.



How about this...



Hap said:


> intrigued, yes. want him to be a starter over telfair? no. This is just omar cook all over again (minus the sub-par shooting). A lot of people (yourself included, iirc) got their panties in a bunch over Omar, saying how the team should've kept him, etc. He was a great find, etc..
> 
> where is the guy now? Let's not be annointing Blake anything just yet.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2965058#post2965058


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> This isn't the NFL where the worst your record the better pick you get, that's why we have a lottery system. Granted you have a better chance to get a good pick the more you lose. I'm just glad we aren't the NFL, fans actually want their teams to lose to get Reggie Bush.



Actually I'm happy the team is playing well right now. I don't like the talent available in the 06 draft. The 07 draft will be a different story.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> How about this...
> 
> 
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2965058#post2965058


too bad that actually doesn't show that I wanted him to start the minute he comes back.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> too bad that actually doesn't show that I wanted him to start the minute he comes back.


the words are right there for everyone to see. you didn't include any caveats about "well, when Telfair comes back he should come off the bench until he earns his way in." 

how much more crystal clear can your opinion be than: "intrigued, yes. want him to be a starter over telfair? no." 

there's no shame in changing your mind. it's kind of embarrassing, though, when you won't admit it.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

hasoos said:


> Definitly seeing some signs of life on the team that is for sure. I think a lot of you make valid points up above, and could easily be argued either way. I do think that overall it is a chemistry issue, not a single player issue. Right now every facet of Blazer play is better then it was about 6 games ago. The main things I notice so far:
> 
> 1. Turnovers are down. Portland has actually been the team that turned the ball over less a few times over the last few games.
> 
> ...


Great post Hasoos!

I might add that the team (coaches) have added plays that better isolate Zack so he can get to the basket. He has proved that he is nearly unstoppable by anyone one-on-one. They enter the ball from the SF or 2GD and then cut to the basket and the defense has to respect an outlaw that could throw it down if they do not go with him or Web. Dixon too. Zack is now playing at an All-Star level at the moment. We all really need to consider voting for him if this continues.

gatorpops


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> the words are right there for everyone to see. you didn't include any caveats about "well, when Telfair comes back he should come off the bench until he earns his way in."
> 
> how much more crystal clear can your opinion be than: "intrigued, yes. want him to be a starter over telfair? no."
> 
> there's no shame in changing your mind. it's kind of embarrassing, though, when you won't admit it.


want him to be a starter over Blake does not mean now, it meant period. 

thus why I said the following



> where is the guy now? Let's not be annointing Blake anything just yet.


What that means is let's not be giving him the perm starting job, because he hadn't earned it. It didn't meant that he shouldn't start when Telfair comes back (I have said on a couple occasions that Telfair shouldn't start till he gets the hang of things), it means that as a perm basis, Blake isn't the answer. You'll also remember I said that Blake was doing what a good role player does, and thats playing his role (when given the chance) really really good.

To pull out of that thread proof that I said Telfair should start when he comes back from an injury is quite a stretch, even for tlong, and especially for you. I know that it's common for people to scrounge around looking for contradictory statements that someone makes (to make someone look foolish) but at least come up with statements I made that ACTUALLY say something contradictory.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

mixum said:


> HELL YAH IM EXCITED....EXCELLENT JOB BY ZACH, RUBEN, DIXON, AND NATE. Major credit to Nate....i loved the hiring and was right. Nate makes this group so much better. *If Cheeks was the coach we would have maybe 3 wins*.


Amen, brother.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

hey, I wasn't scrounging around. I was just looking at what tlong pointed out. and in that I thought you were pretty clear about your opinion. why not just say "intrigued, yes. want him to be a *permanent *starter over telfair? no."

anyway, it doesn't really matter. I'm not really into "gotcha" stuff. it just seems to me that you are trying to adjust to the reality that Blake is (at least so far) the better PG for this team without really admitting it to yourself. 

I don't see why people make such a big deal about changing their opinions. I'll freely admit that I overestimated Omar Cook, that I was wrong to want to swap Jermaine O'Neal for Dale Davis, that Shawn Kemp was a really really bad idea. 

it seems to me that in our current society people are becoming terrified of "flip flopping." the world changes all the time. why shouldn't I?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> want him to be a starter over Blake does not mean now, it meant period.
> 
> thus why I said the following
> 
> ...


Nice spin control Hap! :laugh:


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

theWanker said:


> hey, I wasn't scrounging around. I was just looking at what tlong pointed out. and in that I thought you were pretty clear about your opinion. why not just say "intrigued, yes. want him to be a *permanent *starter over telfair? no."
> 
> anyway, it doesn't really matter. I'm not really into "gotcha" stuff. it just seems to me that you are trying to adjust to the reality that Blake is (at least so far) the better PG for this team without really admitting it to yourself.
> 
> ...


John Kerry wishes he didn't flip flop LOL.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> hey, I wasn't scrounging around. I was just looking at what tlong pointed out. and in that I thought you were pretty clear about your opinion. why not just say "intrigued, yes. want him to be a *permanent *starter over telfair? no."
> 
> anyway, it doesn't really matter. I'm not really into "gotcha" stuff. it just seems to me that you are trying to adjust to the reality that Blake is (at least so far) the better PG for this team without really admitting it to yourself.
> 
> ...


people were talking about blake as though he was our perm starter, and I said I didn't think he should be (nor do I currently think that way). Why would I be "flip flopping" if I had said, on multiple occasions and again right now, that Telfair shouldn't start right off the bat, until he's got a hang on things? The arguement is more about how people were all the sudden jumping onto Blakes bandwagon, and acting like he, and he alnoe, is the reason why the team was playing better, and that if the team was ever to take him out of the lineup, the team would start sucking. And that we should be trading telfair (or keep him buried on the bench) now that Blake is starting and the team is playing better.

My point was, and is, that we shouldn't be too quick to annoint a new starter, because of how he's playing now. He's not really playing different than Telfair (although shooting a better %) but it's comparing different scenarios. One is starting with a Zach who's playing better (better than all season) and a SG who's not a non entity on offense. 

We hear how Blake is a "pass first PG" and people pointed to the 13 assists he had against the Sonics as proof. Take out that game, and his assist #'s aren't any better (and just as inconsistant) as Telfairs were (who was playing without a decent SG and a lax PF). 


I, again, stand by what I said. When Telfair is ready to be the starter, I want him to be the starter.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> John Kerry wishes he didn't flip flop LOL.


so I take it you dont think that Bush flip flopped, eh?


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> so I take it you dont think that Bush flip flopped, eh?


Let's stick to basketball.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> people were talking about blake as though he was our perm starter, and I said I didn't think he should be (nor do I currently think that way). Why would I be "flip flopping" if I had said, on multiple occasions and again right now, that Telfair shouldn't start right off the bat, until he's got a hang on things? The arguement is more about how people were all the sudden jumping onto Blakes bandwagon, and acting like he, and he alnoe, is the reason why the team was playing better, and that if the team was ever to take him out of the lineup, the team would start sucking. And that we should be trading telfair (or keep him buried on the bench) now that Blake is starting and the team is playing better.
> 
> My point was, and is, that we shouldn't be too quick to annoint a new starter, because of how he's playing now. He's not really playing different than Telfair (although shooting a better %) but it's comparing different scenarios. One is starting with a Zach who's playing better (better than all season) and a SG who's not a non entity on offense.
> 
> ...


Telfair will be the starter once he learns how to play like Blake. Blake was brought here to teach the younger PGs how to play in this league. With that being said Blake is a competitor just like Telfair and will want to start.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Let's stick to basketball.


dont bring up something you cant begin to defend then.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Chris paul ah yeah i wish we would have drafted him now.Telflair shouldnt be our pg we need a pg who can play the pg position not some one who can show flair and cool moves.Webster and Jack are less then spectacular to me and if only we had chris paul.
Dude had 15 assists last night.Blake is out starting pg if he gets taken out to put Bassy in then ill be mad.Blake is responisble for out good play i wanted him to get the starting job when Bassy was in i don't really like to say this but i wished that Bassy would have been hurt with a sprained thumb and i got my wish im not very proud of it though.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Zidane said:


> Chris paul ah yeah i wish we would have drafted him now.Telflair shouldnt be our pg we need a pg who can play the pg position not some one who can show flair and cool moves.


so I take it you'd pass on Steve Nash then? Or Jason Kidd? 

What exactly is "playing the PG" position anyways? who says what is the PG?




> Webster and Jack are less then spectacular to me and if only we had chris paul.
> Dude had 15 assists last night.Blake is out starting pg if he gets taken out to put Bassy in then ill be mad.Blake is responisble for out good play i wanted him to get the starting job when Bassy was in i don't really like to say this but i wished that Bassy would have been hurt with a sprained thumb and i got my wish im not very proud of it though.


Blake isn't responsible for the good play, he's part of the good play. The team is growing as a team, and they're getting good production out of their SG and PF now. 

Is Chris Paul not flashy?


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Tom said:


> This is a ragtag group of players who may be fun to watch, but offer nothing but heartache for the future of the Blazers. This team is in trouble for quite a while.


STFU!


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Interesting discussion here.

Here are some of my observations.

-Nate deserves the most credit - he has gained "control" (critical) over his team, and then used that control to steer the team in the right direction.

-I do not agree that Dixon (who I admire very much) is main reason for success (over Blake). Prior to Blake's "promotion", Dixon did get plenty of playing time without the recent success the team is now having with Blake.

-It is still a good point to note that it may have been possible that Telfair would have done better with Dixon starting with him, instead of the others.

-Blake did have the advantage of getting a "coach" perspective whilst sitting on the bench (watching and listening) - considering how smart he is, he may have figured out what Nate was seeing or trying to achieve. Perhaps Telfair has picked up on some good points while sitting as well. But, I doubt it, since Telfair has made it clear he will NOT change the way he plays - he implies that everyone else is just playing better.....hmmmmmm?

What makes the team exciting is that the wins by and large are TEAM wins. With 76ers, you got to watch what happends when 2 guys have to carry the entire load.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Hap said:


> so I take it you'd pass on Steve Nash then? Or Jason Kidd?
> 
> What exactly is "playing the PG" position anyways? who says what is the PG?
> 
> ...


Yep i would pass on Steve Nash and Jason Kidd.
Kidd is all we would need got in trouble with the law and would bring back the Jailblazer era.Steve Nash never liked him never will seems like a hippie with his long hair to me.Just incase u say something about Bill walton i never saw him play so i can't say if i like him or not even though he was a hippie.It seems like Blake is responsible for the teams good play.I dont understand how telfair can be in the lineup one week and the team does so poorly and when blake comes in they all of a sudden do better.I don't think a team grows up in the matter of days when all before that they were so bad.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Zidane said:


> Yep i would pass on Steve Nash and Jason Kidd.
> Kidd is all we would need got in trouble with the law and would bring back the Jailblazer era.Steve Nash never liked him never will seems like a hippie with his long hair to me.Just incase u say something about Bill walton i never saw him play so i can't say if i like him or not even though he was a hippie.It seems like Blake is responsible for the teams good play.I dont understand how telfair can be in the lineup one week and the team does so poorly and when blake comes in they all of a sudden do better.I don't think a team grows up in the matter of days when all before that they were so bad.



then you got a lot to understand.


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *Zidane *
> 
> Yep i would pass on Steve Nash and Jason Kidd.
> Kidd is all we would need got in trouble with the law and would bring back the Jailblazer era.Steve Nash never liked him never will seems like a hippie with his long hair to me.Just incase u say something about Bill walton i never saw him play so i can't say if i like him or not even though he was a hippie.It seems like Blake is responsible for the teams good play.I dont understand how telfair can be in the lineup one week and the team does so poorly and when blake comes in they all of a sudden do better.I don't think a team grows up in the matter of days when all before that they were so bad.


:jawdrop:


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

CanJohno said:


> STFU!


No.

This team doesn't have much to deal...it has to get lucky in the draft or hope that someone slips up from another team to give them a better scoring option....at almost any position.

I'm not trolling it is just the roster. This team has spunk and i like to watch, but damn the cupboard is bare.


----------



## Fiddy (Dec 14, 2005)

wow @ Zidane


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Zidane said:


> Steve Nash never liked him never will seems like a hippie with his long hair to me.Just incase u say something about Bill walton i never saw him play so i can't say if i like him or not even though he was a hippie.


Why do you dislike hippies? Were your grandparents hippies? 

barfo


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Nope my grandparents were born before that.The town we lived in was a town that didn't like hippies.So there was none around.I dislike hippies because they smoke pot,wear pachuli(Sp),drive old beater vw bus's,pretty much because i just don't like them at all.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Zidane said:


> Nope my grandparents were born before that.The town we lived in was a town that didn't like hippies.So there was none around.I dislike hippies because they smoke pot,wear pachuli(Sp),drive old beater vw bus's,pretty much because i just don't like them at all.



And they have facial hair... I'm sure you're jealous. 
Wait on passing judgement on an entire lifestyle until you're old enough to shave at least.  :clown: :biggrin:


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Zidane said:


> Nope my grandparents were born before that.The town we lived in was a town that didn't like hippies.So there was none around.I dislike hippies because they smoke pot,wear pachuli(Sp),drive old beater vw bus's,pretty much because i just don't like them at all.


Gee whiz. I'm not crazy about ******** and their ways and habits, but your vitriol towards hippies takes the cake! Maybe I should take lessons in venting anger towards subcultures (for lack of a better term to use there).

But anyway, from my perspective (Wizards/Terps fan living in Norman, OK for the last 10 years) I'm just slightly jealous of Portland because of Dixon and Blake. I sorta wish they were still Wizards, but the Wiz didn't step up and let them walk away. I'm not gonna scream for Ernie Grunfeld's head or anything because of that because for the most part he has made good decisions while in control of the Wizards' front office, but you know ... so I watch Portland as they go through this season and its kind of cool to watch the team grow and evolve under Nate McMillan, and whatever happens in the future (as far as when Telfair and Miles regain their health) just makes it more interesting to look out for. Watching a team -- especially a relatively young team -- grow and evolve is always something that should excite basketball fans.

Yeah I know this doesn't add crap to this discussion I'm just trying to get my post count up.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

soonerterp said:


> Gee whiz. I'm not crazy about ******** and their ways and habits, but your vitriol towards hippies takes the cake! Maybe I should take lessons in venting anger towards subcultures (for lack of a better term to use there).
> 
> But anyway, from my perspective (Wizards/Terps fan living in Norman, OK for the last 10 years) I'm just slightly jealous of Portland because of Dixon and Blake. I sorta wish they were still Wizards, but the Wiz didn't step up and let them walk away. I'm not gonna scream for Ernie Grunfeld's head or anything because of that because for the most part he has made good decisions while in control of the Wizards' front office, but you know ... so I watch Portland as they go through this season and its kind of cool to watch the team grow and evolve under Nate McMillan, and whatever happens in the future (as far as when Telfair and Miles regain their health) just makes it more interesting to look out for. Watching a team -- especially a relatively young team -- grow and evolve is always something that should excite basketball fans.
> 
> Yeah I know this doesn't add crap to this discussion I'm just trying to get my post count up.


I'm right with you on that, I love seeing the team and players grow. I really hated when for years we were first round and out. I mean most of the times they got to the playoffs you knew they were going to be eliminated. I'd much rather see us break it down and rebuild it intead of continually trying to rebuild on the fly. I can understand doing it the other way too, but at times I think it's best to do exactly what Portland is doing.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Zidane said:


> Nope my grandparents were born before that.The town we lived in was a town that didn't like hippies.So there was none around.I dislike hippies because they smoke pot,wear pachuli(Sp),drive old beater vw bus's,pretty much because i just don't like them at all.


lmao! and yet you have the University of Oregon in your avatar? man, I graduated from there in '95, so I suppose it could've changed some by now, but back in my day I'd guess that a pretty sizeable percent of the student body that paid for the sports programs you seem to love were *gasp* pretty much pot smoking, pachuli stinkin' hippies. I guess I'm kind of an ex-hippy myself.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

soonerterp said:


> ....so I watch Portland as they go through this season and its kind of cool to watch the team grow and evolve under Nate McMillan, and whatever happens in the future (as far as when Telfair and Miles regain their health) just makes it more interesting to look out for. Watching a team -- especially a relatively young team -- grow and evolve is always something that should excite basketball fans..


Nice. :greatjob:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I don't know if Steve Nash smokes pot (he'd hardly be the only NBA player to do so), he is unlikely to drive a beat up van and I hope he does not wear patchouli oil. But Zidane, you say you never knew any "hippies" but you don't like them?

At any rate, back to the topic. I am amused, really, by how we all, myself included, scratched our heads at the signing of Steve Blake. What for, we asked? Then when he didn't play in November, what a bust, what a waste, obviously just on the team for trade filler.

What a difference a month makes. Anyone now saying what a dumb move it was to sign Steve Blake?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

crandc said:


> I am amused, really, by how we all, myself included, scratched our heads at the signing of Steve Blake. What for, we asked? Then when he didn't play in November, what a bust, what a waste, obviously just on the team for trade filler.
> 
> What a difference a month makes. Anyone now saying what a dumb move it was to sign Steve Blake?


i didn't really think a third point guard was a waste of space. I remember all too well how we forced to use Qyntel Woods as our backup because we didn't have a third PG at the time. especially with two relatively unproven kids at the position. 

however, I thought Blake was utter garbage when he first got minutes. I was wrong. he's clearly at least a quality backup. 

I'm still not completely sold on Dixon, but I can see now why Nash thought highly enough of him to give him a cheap three year deal. if he can keep up his 17 ppg/45% fg/4.5 assist production as a starter, he's Allen Houston quality at a Smush Parker price. I'm doubtful he can keep it up, but it's not like he's had a lot of opportunities to start in his career so maybe that starting job is just what he's needed all along.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I was watching the Wizards/Heat playoff game 4 on NBATV a little bit ago....and Blake and Dixon were main players on that Wizards team....Blake got nearly all the minutes in the 4th quarter and Dixon has 35 points or something like that and played nearly the entire game....These guys are competitors and despite being relatively young they bring a lot of good basketball experience to the team...not only past pro experience but college experience as well....which not a lot of guys on our team have...


----------

