# Blazers/Wizards game thread



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

I have a feeling this will be a good one. 

BTW, Utah is down by 5.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Starting lineup for them:

Jared Jeffries
Kwame Brown
Etan Thomas
Gilbert Arenas
Larry Hughes

and us

Sebastian Telfair
Demon of Stademayr
Darius Miles
Shareef Abdur Rahim
Joel Przybilla

I think we're going to get destroyed, even though Derek Anderson is out.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

7 assists on 9 baskets? Go team! :biggrin:


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

Fork said:


> Demon of Stademayr


 :laugh: 

Hey look at that we're winning what a surprise. Telfair 4-4!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr. Darius is looking good.


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

Oh crap. I'm listening to this through a radio feed. Can anyone who's watching it explain how that last Outlaw dunk looked like? Sounded pretty damn exciting.


----------



## ballerchick (Feb 22, 2005)

'Kryhapa looking to shoot.' he's 3 for 3 and you gotta be loving this! :clap:


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

I <3 Khryapa.


----------



## Miksaid (Mar 21, 2005)

AHHH OK I'm serious now. What was that last one like?!?!


----------



## ballerchick (Feb 22, 2005)

back door lob to outlaw for the backwards dunk! assist to bassy!!!!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Darius 15 points, 4 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal. Nice job Darius.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Frahm is shooting great...

Which Dunk by OUtlaw?

The give and go with Patterson? That was nice..baseline jam.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Frahm is MONEY!!!!

I like watching the youngin's play,,,so entertaining......


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

DAMN!!!! That BASSY to OUTLAW alleyoop was DOPE..they just replayed it....

Bassy lobs it from outside, to Outlaw who does a reverse pump slam!

:banana:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

ok..not quite a pump slam, but IMPRESSIVE nonetheless...perfect read....


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

BASSY GOES DOWN!!!!


Relax, he just got hit in the face by SARs by accident... 

:curse:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Virtually a perfect game. Telfair, Outlaw, Frahm, Khryapa, and Miles all had a good game, the Blazers look pretty good much of the game *and* still manage to pull off the loss. Presuming the injury to Telfair isn't very serious, all's gone pretty well. :clap:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Miles didn't play a lot 2nd half (only caught the 2nd half).....


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

what was the final?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

DrewFix said:


> what was the final?


114-106

Another nice game by Khryapa


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Virtually a perfect game. Telfair, Outlaw, Frahm, Khryapa, and Miles all had a good game, the Blazers look pretty good much of the game *and* still manage to pull off the loss. Presuming the injury to Telfair isn't very serious, all's gone pretty well. :clap:


 And it looks like GS is going to win....


That's puts us behind the Warriors by 1/2 game, with Utah only 3 losses behind.


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

How in the hell can a starting 2 guard go 0-0 from the line and have 0 personal fouls???

He must have cooties or something.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Man I wish this one was tv. Seemed like all the young gunz played excellent. As much as I love Ruben, Viktor shows why Ruben is expandable. If we could only add Bogut or Marvin to this team next year :gopray:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I didn't catch the game, but looking at the boxscore, it seems real obvious why we lost. Hughes and Arenas just abused our midgets on defense! 

This is the biggest reason I won't miss Damon. Nearly anyone we bring in has to be an upgrade on defense. I will cut Telfair some slack for lack of experience, but does Damon even *try*?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I think that Damon does try, he just is physically limited. He can't fight through screens, he can't keep his guy in front of him, and at SG most guards just shoot jumpers over him like they are in practice. When Portland finally starts stopping guys from coming down the lane at will so the shot blockers only have to kick into action when somebody actually truly breaks down the defense, that is when the team will start to turn things around. They can already score enough points, and if they can cut down on turnovers (which has happened lately), then all they have to do is get some stops, and the wins will start again.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Do you think Outlaw will ever get a start along side bassy this season as Damon comes off of the bench? Prolly not because the organization has a full on boner for Mouse. I love the guy but he is no 2 guard. If management wants to go youthful and have a better chance of being competitive, you want a bigger palyer at the 2.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Outlaw had some nice dunks. It seemed like he was shooting the ball every time he touched it (and he got off 13 shots in 13 minutes).

Sebastian hit his first 4 jumpers, and he had a couple nice passes (one on a transition fast break after a Etan Thomas dunk, and another one where he got it close enough for Outlaw to reverse dunk it on the oop)... but I didn't like the way he played tonight. He fell in love with his jumper a little bit and he didn't attack the basket as much as he should have. He also is starting to remind me of Damon II a little bit with his inability to convert at the rim. One big difference is that Telfair gets to the line, at least, whereas Damon usually fails to convert when he's in the key but he does so while managing to avoid contact.

One other thing I noticed: Kwame Brown has horrible hands. I've read, and noticed before, that he has small hands (like Rasheed Wallace) but last night he was fumbling and stumbling on tons of rebounds and catches. He was in the right places, and when he got two hands on the ball he seemed to be OK, but I don't know if he's going to be able to compensate for an apparent physical shortcoming like that.

It's sad that the Wizards can beat us in Portland without 3 of their top 6 or 7 players (Jamison, Haywood, and Hayes were all out). But that's the way life is nowadays for the Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's sad that the Wizards can beat us in Portland without 3 of their top 6 or 7 players (Jamison, Haywood, and Hayes were all out). But that's the way life is nowadays for the Blazers.


I think Zach Randolph and Van Excel would have made the game more competitve. I don't think its fair to point out that they were missing Jamison, Haywood, and Hayes while ignoring the fact that we were missing our best player and a guy who will be remembered as one of the clutchest player to play the game.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> I think Zach Randolph and Van Excel would have made the game more competitve. I don't think its fair to point out that they were missing Jamison, Haywood, and Hayes while ignoring the fact that we were missing our best player and a guy who will be remembered as one of the clutchest player to play the game.


It's "not fair"?

What person reading this board doesn't know that Zach and NVE weren't playing tonight? Do you think *anyone*?

I doubt it.

Is it possible that some didn't know that those three guys from the Wizards weren't playing, especially since the game evidently wasn't broadcast in the Portland area?

I think it's possible.

I don't know what's unfair about it... but if you'd like to amend my statement so that it would have been "more competitive" if we had all our guys healthy and the Wizards had three of their top six or seven players: go ahead. It's equally, and perhaps MORE of, a sad statement about the current level of our team.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> I think Zach Randolph and Van Excel would have made the game more competitve. I don't think its fair to point out that they were missing Jamison, Haywood, and Hayes while ignoring the fact that we were missing our best player and a guy who will be remembered as one of the clutchest player to play the game.



That being said, I don't think Portlands problem was scoring, which is both of the players you listed, strengths. Portlands problem is getting stops. Neither one of the players you listed would have helped there, in fact I would have to guess, it would have been an even more lopsided score, since both are poor defenders.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's "not fair"?
> 
> What person reading this board doesn't know that Zach and NVE weren't playing tonight? Do you think *anyone*?


That's not what you were suggesting. You were stating that it was sad we couldn't beat a team missing three of its players. Sad is the reason for your post, suggesting the team is in a sad state when we lose to a team without 3 good players. I think it would only be right to suggest a PART of the reason we are in such a sad state is because our best player (Zach Randolph) and probably our best defensive player did not play. Or is it not? 



> Is it possible that some didn't know that those three guys from the Wizards weren't playing, especially since the game evidently wasn't broadcast in the Portland area?


Well, the best player you suggested is their 3rd best player, he is the only one of serious significance. I think it is also possible that many didn't know Theo Ratliff didn't play, but you didn't suggest him missing because you wanted to pack more punch into the meaning of your post. 



> I don't know what's unfair about it... but if you'd like to amend my statement so that it would have been "more competitive" if we had all our guys healthy and the Wizards had three of their top six or seven players: go ahead. It's equally, and perhaps MORE of, a sad statement about the current level of our team.


Aahh, and finally you don't dumb it down. You show your true meaning, to make the team look bad. Zach Randolph is the most significant player missing from the game, Jamison second, one can argue Van Excel/ Ratliff/Haywood, and Hayes would be the least. I don't see sad, I see understandable. If you're going to try and discredit the team and its performance, at least state the injuries to BOTH teams, not just one. Maybe then it will make your post most credible.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

hasoos said:


> That being said, I don't think Portlands problem was scoring, which is both of the players you listed, strengths. Portlands problem is getting stops. Neither one of the players you listed would have helped there, in fact I would have to guess, it would have been an even more lopsided score, since both are poor defenders.


Given Zach Randolph's performances in the past against the Wizards, I think it is entirely possible he could have significantly changed the outcome of the game, considering we only lost by 8. Antawn Jamison nor Hayes are good defenders but their presence would have significantly effected the game. Plus you're leaving out Ratliff. I'm not saying we would have won or we would have lost with full rosters, I'm just saying that if you want to take shots at the team's performance then at least do so without leaving significant issues out to one team and not the other.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> That's not what you were suggesting. You were stating that it was sad we couldn't beat a team missing three of its players. Sad is the reason for your post, suggesting the team is in a sad state when we lose to a team without 3 good players. I think it would only be right to suggest a PART of the reason we are in such a sad state is because our best player (Zach Randolph) and probably our best defensive player did not play. Or is it not?


I wouldn't say it's that big of a deal. Neither one of the players are going to play the rest of the year, so woulda-shoulda's aren't very relevant.

We COULD look and ponder how well the Blazers would have done tonight if they still had Rasheed instead of SAR, but we didn't because it's not relevant.



> Well, the best player you suggested is their 3rd best player, he is the only one of serious significance.


Are you serious? Haywood has started 64 games for the team, is a defensive interior presence and shoots 56% from the floor. Hayes is a guy who's one of their best perimeter shooters and plays close to 30 minutes a game. Those guys aren't of serious significance?



> I think it is also possible that many didn't know Theo Ratliff didn't play, but you didn't suggest him missing because you wanted to pack more punch into the meaning of your post.


I didn't want to pack "punch" into anything. I don't get why some people have to read agendas into everything that some people type.

I didn't post that Theo didn't play for the same reason that I didn't mention that DA didn't play: I don't think that either of them would have made a lick of difference.



> Aahh, and finally you don't dumb it down. You show your true meaning, to make the team look bad. Zach Randolph is the most significant player missing from the game, Jamison second, one can argue Van Excel/ Ratliff/Haywood, and Hayes would be the least. I don't see sad, I see understandable. If you're going to try and discredit the team and its performance, at least state the injuries to BOTH teams, not just one. Maybe then it will make your post most credible.


*yawn*

To be honest, I don't post to be credible generally, and I don't post to be credible by YOUR standards in the least.

I shared my thoughts on the game. If you disagree with me, that's cool. Calling me out for some perceived agenda or slight on the current team is just silly and a waste of both of our time.

Back to the comparisons: the Wizards have recently lost all three players to injury. Portland has been playing without NVE and Zach for weeks now. The Wizards should get all three back before the end of the year. Portland will get neither of their guys back this season (and almost certainly never, in the case of Nick).

"Sad" and "understandable" aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not surprised that the team lost tonight, and I'm not surprised that they weren't really competitive while they lost. The team just isn't very good. That goes to the "sad" part.

If you don't think it's sad that the team just got its teeth kicked in at home by an understaffed mid-level Eastern conference team playing on the second night of a back-to-back on the road, then I don't know what to say.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I wouldn't say it's that big of a deal. Neither one of the players are going to play the rest of the year, so woulda-shoulda's aren't very relevant.


From what I understand Theo Ratliff WILL be back this season, so it is relevant. 




> Are you serious? Haywood has started 64 games for the team, is a defensive interior presence and shoots 56% from the floor. Hayes is a guy who's one of their best perimeter shooters and plays close to 30 minutes a game. Those guys aren't of serious significance?


Haye's shoots 39% from the field, his departure was no more significant than Derek Anderson's departure, not to mention his replacement filled in quite adequately. 





> I didn't want to pack "punch" into anything. I don't get why some people have to read agendas into everything that some people type.


There was no reading agendas, it was the way you put it out there. 



> I didn't post that Theo didn't play for the same reason that I didn't mention that DA didn't play: I don't think that either of them would have made a lick of difference.


Derek Anderson wouldn't have made a difference? Funny, the last game he played he put up 18 points and 7 assists and shot higher than 50% from the field. Theo Ratliff sure would have made a difference, as Hasoos stated prior to this post, we were having trouble getting stops on the defensive end, Theo would have at least had some effect on that end of the court. 




> *yawn*
> 
> To be honest, I don't post to be credible generally, and I don't post to be credible by YOUR standards in the least.


It's not about my standards, it's about making a post and stating ALL the facts on the injuries of both teams. Ignoring one teams' injury problems weakens the argument. 



> Back to the comparisons: the Wizards have recently lost all three players to injury. Portland has been playing without NVE and Zach for weeks now. The Wizards should get all three back before the end of the year. Portland will get neither of their guys back this season (and almost certainly never, in the case of Nick).
> 
> Hayes has been on the injured list for almost a month. Jamison has at least been on the injured list, I think the chance of not knowing if those guys are playing or DA and Theo are playing, it is less likely that we know DA/Theo aren't playing, simply because they aren't on the IL.
> 
> ...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Given Zach Randolph's performances in the past against the Wizards, I think it is entirely possible he could have significantly changed the outcome of the game, considering we only lost by 8. Antawn Jamison nor Hayes are good defenders but their presence would have significantly effected the game. Plus you're leaving out Ratliff. I'm not saying we would have won or we would have lost with full rosters, I'm just saying that if you want to take shots at the team's performance then at least do so without leaving significant issues out to one team and not the other.


I think you are missing the point. Portland has been scoring enough points for the most part, in all its games, to win. Portland has not been stopping any of its competition from scoring big points, in ANY of the games. Those two players you listed, would not have helped them defensively. Randolph is a wash in my opinion with Shareef offensively, he would not have made that big of a difference. Just because he has had big games against the wizards in the past, is not a reason to assume he would tonight. Portland offensive production is fine right now, and probably better at any time then when Zbo and his offensive stagnation post game which brings the Blazers half court game to a grinding halt, ever has been. Nick only plays well in half the games he is in, if that, and is streaky at best. He is slow as hell when it comes to defending, and there is a good chance Arenas would have got 40 plus if Nick was defending him instead of Telfair. Assuming Nick would have put up better statistics then Telfairs, when Sebastien put up 17 points and 6 assist on over 50% shooting, is a reach at best. He would have probably faired a little better then Damon at shooting guard, because Larry Hughes would have schooled either one of them and kept them on their heels all game long. Its hard to get your offensive production giong when you are physically overmatched.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> From what I understand Theo Ratliff WILL be back this season, so it is relevant.


I said "neither" referring to two players: NVE and Zach. I apologize for being unclear.



> Haye's shoots 39% from the field, his departure was no more significant than Derek Anderson's departure, not to mention his replacement filled in quite adequately.


That's bogus on a couple fronts:

1. Ask Wizards fans how they feel about Hayes. I guarantee you they won't feel the same way Blazers fans feel about DA.

2. Jared Jeffries didn't do anything tonight. Maybe you don't know much about the Wizards, but that's the guy who Hayes battles for playing time.



> There was no reading agendas, it was the way you put it out there.


Ah. That makes no sense. Sorry.



> Derek Anderson wouldn't have made a difference? Funny, the last game he played he put up 18 points and 7 assists and shot higher than 50% from the field.


He would have played that way again, rather than the way he's played the REST of the year?

And if he HAD played that well, would he would have been better than Frahm?



> Theo Ratliff sure would have made a difference, as Hasoos stated prior to this post, we were having trouble getting stops on the defensive end, Theo would have at least had some effect on that end of the court.


I doubt it. Joel was contesting a lot of shots, which is all that Theo does. The Wizards were simply hitting open jumpers, going over Joel, or hitting the offensive boards. Theo wouldn't have had much of an impact.



> It's not about my standards, it's about making a post and stating ALL the facts on the injuries of both teams. Ignoring one teams' injury problems weakens the argument.


Is that the way the board works now? Full disclosure for every post, irrespective of whether the audience knows the background or not?

Should I lay the foundation that the two teams were playing basketball tonight? Or that it was played in Portland OREGON?

After all, we need to state all the facts, right? Or is that just about injuries? Shall I call up the teams and see which players have bumps and bruises, to make sure that you are entirely satisfied with my unbiased posts?



> Hayes has been on the injured list for almost a month. Jamison has at least been on the injured list, I think the chance of not knowing if those guys are playing or DA and Theo are playing, it is less likely that we know DA/Theo aren't playing, simply because they aren't on the IL.


But the thing is this: DA and Theo _aren't any good_. They are both bench players. Hayes is a bench player for the Wizards, but Haywood and Jamison are each starters. You're expecting me to compare apples and oranges for some reason, and I'm just not going to do it.



> Agreed that their play wasn't good, but it isn't so sad they lost when considering they were missing their best player and a number of other effective players. Just tell the whole story next time, don't do the whole FOX News thing.


Telling the whole story is impossible. Giving my opinion on a game I watched is something that I enjoy doing and I'd bet that 90% of the people I care about on this board appreciate me doing. You are NOT a person that I particularly care about, and not a person whose opinions I value highly, so I don't really care about your opinions of my writing style nor of my approach to posting.

In any event, the Blazers are now 4-19 in their last 23 games. Are you seriously, *seriously* saying that's not a sad state of affairs? 

There are investments being made, and someday the team might be better off for this time, but that doesn't make it any less sad in the present.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ahhhh yes, the good old back and forth battle of wits, trying to beat the other into submission......These are hard to end because usually everybody wants the last word, but eventually one will get carpal tunnel and have to retire for the night.....


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I'm not going to bother going back and finding the quote, but someone said DA would have made a differenace...yea a negative differance. Outlaw is already better then our fragile friend :biggrin:


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I said "neither" referring to two players: NVE and Zach. I apologize for being unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Quick summary from a Wizards fan.

Jeffries battles Hayes for PT, Laron is a sometime sub, gathering DNP-CDs when people are healthy. Damon Brown has been getting some of the time Hayes would have played as well.

Hayes is sorely missed because he stretches the defense, allowing the Wizards to run the offense they haven't run much since he went down, and Jamison started coming up gimp.

Without Hayes and Jamison to stretch things, the Wizards are a two man team of Arenas and Hughes. Without Haywood, one of their better rebounders, the best offensive rebounding team in the league, mostly due to missed jumpers and not necessarily skill, are missing a key guy to help in that department. They are also missing that shot blocking. 

This is not an indictment of Portland. I just want to let you know how Hayes and Haywood fit in to the Wizards. They are key guys, less so that Jamison obviously, but key regardless. Without Jamison, this is pretty much the same Wizards team that stunk last year.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

BCH said:


> Quick summary from a Wizards fan.
> 
> Jeffries battles Hayes for PT, Laron is a sometime sub, gathering DNP-CDs when people are healthy. Damon Brown has been getting some of the time Hayes would have played as well.
> 
> ...


Whatever BCH said is true but the only thing that I find wrong is that Hayes stretches the defense. Hayes is supposed to stretch the defense because he is supposed to be able to shoot. However, you see many 5-15, 3-13 shooting nights from Hayes.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Hayes shoots a low percentage sometimes because he thinks he can post and do turn around jumpers. When he gets the ball and shoots off the pass on the wing, he can hit it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BCH said:


> Quick summary from a Wizards fan.
> 
> ...
> 
> This is not an indictment of Portland. I just want to let you know how Hayes and Haywood fit in to the Wizards. They are key guys, less so that Jamison obviously, but key regardless. Without Jamison, this is pretty much the same Wizards team that stunk last year.


Thanks for the perspective, BCH.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Doesn't matter how the fans feel. The majority of Blazer fans felt Rasheed needed to be traded, and the majority of Wizards fans love Hayes, does that mean Hayes is a better player? I don't like Derek Anderson but he can contribute more to a basketball team than Damon, just my opinion. His stats are nearly identical to Hayes' stats, so it isn't very bogus.


Well, since his stats are similar, he MUST be just as good, right? And just as important to the team? Please. 



> Well Jeffries did score Hayes' season average.


Man, it must be easy to live in the universe where you can unilaterally declare that 7=10.



> Maybe YOU don't know much about the Wizards considering Jeffries isn't the only guy Hayes' battles time with, Laron Profit is there too and he exceeded Hayes' season average for points tonight. Hayes and Profit can play the two position as well, Jeffries isn't the only guy that subs for Hayes'.


Profit played well, no doubt. As BCH said: Profit rides the pine when Hayes is healthy, and I think that there's a reason for that.



> Wizards hitting open jumpers? Perhaps over the midget backcourt consisting of Damon? Don't you think Derek Anderson could have limited that?


I don't think so. 



> I think anyone reading your post would see it is biased, they may not admit it though, considering you are a large part of this board. You have to go out of your way to state Jamison, who's been on the IL for 2 or 3 weeks, Hayes, who has also been on the IL(nearly a month), and Haywood has bee on the IL and it is sad that we lost to that team without those guys but not mentioning we were missing several players is indeed biased. Then you go and say you were just letting people who didn't know they weren't playing, that they weren't playing! What about Derek? Theo? At least those guys WEREN'T on the IL, so chances are more people wouldn't know they were missing from the game than the others you mentioned. Get it?


I get what you're saying, but it's an inane position that seems rooted in a purely argumentative approach.

Anyone who looked at a boxscore can see that Theo and DA didn't play. It even gives the reasons (sore right shoulder, back spasms) right on NBA.com. Unless people have the time and the energy to pay attention to the Wizards' entire roster, they might not have been aware that Washington was missing 3 of their top 6 or 7 guys, because none of them were listed on the boxscore and because only Jamison is really much of a household name.



> Shareef was a bench player too, would that mean his overall value and impact to a game is less than say Kwame Brown? Just because someone is a bench player, it doesn't mean there worth or impact is less than any starter in the league.


Who said it was ONLY because they were bench players? Not me. They're not good. They haven't helped us win in a significant way this season (although they have in the past and I hold out hope they will in the future). For your to think that they would have magically impacted the game last night after stinking up the rest of the year boggles my mind.



> Call me crazy but I don't see it as sad. It's what some call rebuilding. If it really was sad then I wouldn't look forward to the future. There are many reasons why this is not sad. Sebastian Telfair, Outlaw, Viktor, Sergei, Darius, Zach, Joel, and our future 1st round pick. Far from sad, imo.


It would be more sad if we had no hope; that's totally true. But the pace this team is on is historic in proportions... this is one of the worst Blazers teams ever and might be the worst team in the NBA right now (with the exception of the Hawks, I think they probably are).

This is an all-time low point for the Blazers. If someone is not sad about it at some level, then I think they need to lay off the happy pills. It doesn't mean that the future is hopeless or that we shouldn't care about the team... just that I don't see how someone can not be a bit depressed (in terms of NBA fandom; not in real life) by the team's constant losing.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Uhhhh, sorry to interrupt the Ed and Sam show, but....

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet, and was the thing about the game that jumped out at me - Ruben Patterson had the worse game I have seen him play. I am sure he has been this bad before, but the coach (at the time) realized what was going on and didn't put him back in. For some odd reason, Pritchard kept beating the Patterson dead horse - obviously looking for defense.

Unfortunately, nothing - and I mean NOTHING - Ruben did turned out good. He made every mistake possible and completely obliterated any momentum the Blazers had. Truly a one-man wrecking crew on both sides of the floor. Sometimes it is just not your night.

And as others have noted, the single key reason why the Blazers couldn't stop the Wiz - Damon. Hughes and (mostly) Arenas demolished the midget. God I can't wait to get a real SG.

All those who were drooling with jealousy over the Wizards terrific backcourt raise your hands. Boy I sure was. :drool: :drool: :drool: Can you imagine Arenas and Hughes along with our frontcourt guys. Playoffs baby!!


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It would be more sad if we had no hope; that's totally true. But the pace this team is on is historic in proportions... this is one of the worst Blazers teams ever and might be the worst team in the NBA right now (with the exception of the Hawks, I think they probably are).
> 
> This is an all-time low point for the Blazers. If someone is not sad about it at some level, then I think they need to lay off the happy pills. It doesn't mean that the future is hopeless or that we shouldn't care about the team... just that I don't see how someone can not be a bit depressed (in terms of NBA fandom; not in real life) by the team's constant losing.
> 
> Ed O.


I know it may not be right, but I'm really not sad about it. I loved all the years making the playoffs, but at the starting of last year, I knew things had to change drastically because we were going down hill fast. Even if we kept Sheed, Bonzi and Trader Bob, this team would have still been going down hill I believe. It was time for a change.

With the changes needed, I realize it's going to take a while. As the arguement already going on in this thread, some of our inept play is due to injuries. Even if you throw out Nick and DA, Theo and Zach not playing has hurt the team a lot. Obviously we are lacking any SG play, but the injuries have played a part in this season. Yes, we're pretty bad now, but maybe the injuries, Nick protesting, and all the bad play his a blessing in disguise. We'll be getting a new coach and our young guys are getting some minutes. Even with the losing, most people seem to be more interested in the games to see what the young guys can do. 

If we didn't have any of the young guys with the potential they have, no one was injured, and we still played like this? Then yes, it would be sad. 

With only a few games left, it would be sad to win out the rest of the games, IMO. Yeah, yeah, what am I talking about.. I don't expect us to be down like this for very long. So while we're here, why not get the best pick in the draft possible? The pick and seeing some improvement is about all I'm trying to get out of this season.

Honestly, this season has been a little easier than some of the recent ones in the past. I'm as passionate about the team as the next fan, but some of those recent teams were just to stressfull to watch. They had the talent, they should have won, but they would always disappoint.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I like this year to the Mariners last year.

They had a good season (116 wins...WCF's game 7)...were competitive after that point still, but never made it out of the playoffs (or in them).

Last year, the Mariners were decimated by injuries, poor trades, stupid trades, and just the team realizing they had to give up.

The Mariners had one of the worst seasons in their history. They got rid of some very popular players last year, and some very talented ones. Garcia, Carlos and John Olerud (among others). The Mariners stunk to high heaven last year..But like the Trail Blazers, there were some building blocks made. The Mariners tho, were able to sign free agents that we aren't (realistically) able to do. But it's kind of the same thing. There are certain similarities that can't be denied though. 

The Mariners really sucked, and look to be much better this season. The Blazers sucked, and look to be better next season. It's generally easier to go from crapper to king in MLB, than it is in the NBA though.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> I like this year to the Mariners last year.
> 
> They had a good season (116 wins...WCF's game 7)...were competitive after that point still, but never made it out of the playoffs (or in them).
> 
> ...



Mariners lost most of their old pitchers and have reloaded through the draft with an up and coming solid core of pitchers......

Something the Blazers are doing with their roster....

I see a lot of similarities in the Blazers team of this year and the Mariners team of last year.....However the Mariners have an Ichiro and we dont have that Ichiro type of player.....And the Mariners also have a more attractive place for free agents to sign. Not necessarily the city/weather but the recent success and of course Ichiro....

If Portland can get that ONE superstar through the draft (hopefully Marvin Williams or Sebastian if he lives up to his potential) IMO it will make other superstars more prone to want to sign here to play with that player.....


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ahhhh, the Mariners! A team I can be *positive * about! If they can get some decent pitching they will be in the hunt this year. They are stacked on offense with Ichiro, Reed, Beltre, Sexson, Boone, and Ibanez.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Mariners lost most of their old pitchers and have reloaded through the draft with an up and coming solid core of pitchers......


Not to nitpick, but no they didn't.

They kept Jaime Moyer (age 42). They still have Guardado (age 34). They *added* Aaron Sele (age 34). They still have Hasegawa (age 36) and Ron Villone (age 35) and Ryan Franklin (age 32).

They got rid of Freddy Garcia, who's still only 29. 

Meche and Pineiro are 26, Putz is 28 and Madritsch is 29... and they form the "young core" in the rotation but only Putz and Madritsch weren't fixtures on the team the past couple of seasons.

The DO have some nice youngsters on the horizon, with Rafael Soriano (assuming he comes back from TJ surgery) and (obviously) Felix Hernandez, but they had some nice youngsters on the horizon a few years ago with Ryan Anderson and Matt Thornton and didn't have it pan out (although Thornton's not done like Anderson appears to be).

The Mariners should be better this year, but it's not primarily because of what they did last year or because they retooled... they just finally spent some money to get some offense after sitting on their wallets while Edgar was around. Further, part of the reason they sucked last year was because of the HORRIBLE Carlos Guillen deal... he should be the starting SS for the Mariners, but they blew it.

With the Garcia trade, they made a move to get young players at the expense of their best pitcher. They got Reed, who's a stud (and whom I have in my keeper league at $5) and they got Olivo, who should prove to be a good catcher.

The Blazers, on the other hand, did NOT get pieces that would help them in the future when they traded Rasheed. They got two guys who are good players now, but probably won't be around by the time the Blazers are good again.

The Mariners knew the season was over last year and moved Garcia to get value for him (even though they would have received picks had they offered him arbitration and he left via Free Agency)... the Blazers sat on their hands at the trade deadline as three big expiring contracts were begging to be moved.

The rules between the two leagues are very, very different, but conceptually it's interesting to see how the two teams faced with lost seasons reacted.

Ed O.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

tlong said:


> Ahhhh, the Mariners! A team I can be *positive * about! If they can get some decent pitching they will be in the hunt this year. They are stacked on offense with Ichiro, Reed, Beltre, Sexson, Boone, and Ibanez.


But, I heard their shortstop was only 4'7"... at THE MOST! Many scouts say he could be as short as 4'3", in cleats. How will they EVER be competitive? They could've drafted the 7'2" catcher... and didn't... what idots! I mean... HELLO... dude is 7'2"... SEVEN-TWO!!! Clearly he's the best catcher to EVER set foot in the league. That short guy won't ever amount to nothin' because he's, well, short. I know EVERYTHING when it comes to baseball, just ask me. It's still beyond a mystery to me, as to why I haven't landed the highest paying scouting gig around Major League Baseball. After all, I DO have the best eye for talent that man kind has ever been associated with. Hell, I can just look at a guy on TV and tell you EVERYTHING you ever wanted to know about him... AND THEN SOME! SER-I-OUS-LY..., all I have to do is look at him, and "WHAM-O," my Miss Cleo skills kick in and I can instantly provide those who're in my (internet) presence, the information they, so certainly, are too ignorant to have discovered any other way.:wink:



























(Of course, I'm only jokin'! :clown: )


----------

