# Unimpressed with Telfair



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

He's too short. He's like Damon, but without the jump shot. I've had enough of short point guards. 

He can't finish in the lane, he makes poor decisions. He makes a ton of turnovers. He has no positive impact on the game. 

He's a defensive liability because he's too small and too short. 

He dribbles too much (just like a certain mouse).

He's not a leader. He hangs his head a lot. 

What does he do well? The only thing he's good at is the quick pass. But for every good one he makes, he makes 5 bad ones. 

I know he's young and everything, but I'm not enthused. He has shown virtually no improvement over the season. 

It's like you take Steve Francis and take away the ability to score and you have Telfair. Hello journeyman.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Telfair had a bad game. He played like a PG who just came out of high school, and doesn't have a jump shot. 

Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

C'mon Goldmember, he's a 19 year old rookie who's finally getting consistent minutes after his first 40 games. It's WAY too soon to give up on this guy.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Has he ever had a good game? I mean a really good game? Not like 11 points, 6 assists. I'm talking a game where he made actually made a big impact. I can't think of any.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> He's too short. He's like Damon, but without the jump shot. I've had enough of short, speedy point guards.


so I take it you'd pass on Tony Parker? A whole 2 inches taller, and still not a good 3 point shooter?



> He can't finish in the lane,


he's 19.



> he makes poor decisions.


he's 19.



> He makes a ton of turnovers.


he's 19.



> He has no positive impact on the game.


you must not be watching the games then.



> He's a defensive liability because he's too small and too short.


interesting. One of the consistent things about him is the fact that he's actually much better defensively than most of us thought he'd be, or want to give him credit for being.



> He dribbles too much (just like a certain mouse).
> 
> He's not a leader. He hangs his head a lot.


he's 19. Complaining that he's not a leader (which one really can't say one way or the other) is kind of silly.



> What does he do well? The only thing he's good at is the quick pass. But for every good one he makes, he makes 5 bad ones.


yah...



> I know he's young and everything, but I'm not enthused. He has shown virtually no improvement over the season.


I think you're letting your frustration get the better of you. Because if you honestly don't see any improvement from the start of the season, you must not be watching games.



> It's like you take Steve Francis and take away the ability to score and you have Telfair. Hello journeyman.


you're setting yourself up for a lot of abuse here. 

I'm not saying he's going to be a "star" (so don't bother making it out like I have, or others have). But if you can't see that he's actually doing pretty good for a guy who a year ago was in high school and playing the hardest position in the league...well, I'm not sure what to think.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It's like Goldmember is throwing chum into the water.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> Has he ever had a good game? I mean a really good game? Not like 11 points, 6 assists. I'm talking a game where he made actually made a big impact. I can't think of any.


23 points against the Bobcats. W

18 points, 7 assists and 8-15 against the Suns.

and considering the vast majority of the games he played before Cheeks got himself canned were spot minutes, thats really not a fair question.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Goldmember said:


> Has he ever had a good game? I mean a really good game? Not like 11 points, 6 assists. I'm talking a game where he made actually made a big impact. I can't think of any.


vs. Phoenix he had 18pts, 7asts and really helped Portland play an up-tempo game.

against Bobcats he poured in 23 points, most all in the 2nd half of a game that was close.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

beat me to it.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I don't count the Phoenix game simply because we got blown out by Phoenix so those numbers are the equivalent to garbage time stats. 

So one good performance, against an expansion team. 

If there's a nice point guard (preferably about 6'3" or above) available for us on draft day I would think long and hard about giving him a look.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> Has he ever had a good game? I mean a really good game? Not like 11 points, 6 assists. I'm talking a game where he made actually made a big impact. I can't think of any.


11 pts/6 assist is a good geam on this team. Look who has to pass to? Victor, outlaw or Przybilla. I like those guys but they don't have the best hands/ jumpshots. you add a shooter and he has 16/9 per game. They are all young and rookies. We should have give up on Terry Porter back in '86. This team needs a lot more than 3 rookies. Give him 2 yrs. He will be an all-star.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> I don't count the Phoenix game simply because we got blown out by Phoenix so those numbers are the equivalent to garbage time stats.
> 
> So one good performance, against an expansion team.
> 
> If there's a nice point guard (preferably about 6'3" or above) available for us on draft day I would think long and hard about giving him a look.


good thing you're the GM.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I guess I couldn't do a worse job than John Nash.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> I don't count the Phoenix game simply because we got blown out by Phoenix so those numbers are the equivalent to garbage time stats.



He started that game



Goldmember said:


> If there's a nice point guard (preferably about 6'3" or above) available for us on draft day I would think long and hard about giving him a look.


Sure and buy a few more 1st round picks and get a few more SF. :clap: :clap: :cheers:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> I guess I couldn't do a worse job than John Nash.


unless you're just saying this to either vent, or to just get people to post, thats a pointless statement.

There is absolutely no way any of us *ANY OF US* would do a better job at GM than Nash.

Know how I know this?

_None_ of us are having teams beat down our doors to run teams. Partly because we all are monday night quarterbacks, but mostly because we come up with trades that stand no shot in hell in working or being realistic, and have such short attention spans, that we expect things to change this very minute, and players to be perfect right away. 

You know how many players on this team would be traded instantly with that mentality?

Like I said, there's a reason you, Ed (all 3 of them), Playmaker, myself, Schilly, Howie, Wanker, Trader Bob, Soda and everyone else here isn't a GM. 

We're basically clueless, and like to think we know how good players really are.

I mean, afterall, we do spend time sitting on our asses watching them for 2 hours during games. I mean, watching them in practices doesn't make a difference.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> He's too short. He's like Damon, but without the jump shot. I've had enough of short point guards.
> 
> He can't finish in the lane, he makes poor decisions. He makes a ton of turnovers. He has no positive impact on the game.
> 
> ...


This is the problem with alot of Portland fans, Want Telfair to look like a 5 year veteran in is his first months starting at age 19. First look at the team we are running with...Most of the team is first year starters..

Second the kid cant play his full game with Damon out there, because it seems as soon as damon touches it, he shoots or he handles the ball more during the game. Telfair is being held back with damon still on this team, because it seems the GM's still want Damon show cased or something. 

Also if half the people caught Telfairs passes he would be gaining alot more assists during games.

Im sorry Ill wait for a couple years before we have another Jermaine happen.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

The roller coaster goes on and on....Sebastien is great..Sebastien is awful...Sebastien is great...Sebastien is awful...Sebastien is great...Sebastien is awful....

The real problem is it is hard to watch a bad team when it is your favorite team. You want them to do well, and turn it around, but when it doesn't happen it causes the "Old wound" to cause some pain  The best thing is to watch and slowly see the team turn around, as it will one day. Remember it was just a few years ago the Pistons hit rock bottom..and look at em now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazerfan024 said:


> This is the problem with alot of Portland fans, Want Telfair to look like a 5 year veteran in is his first months starting at age 19. First look at the team we are running with...Most of the team is first year starters..


The starting lineup actually has plenty of experience. Let's look at the rest of the starting lineup's # of career starts (with total career games):

Damon: 665 (712)
Miles: 161 (360)
SAR: 612 (655)
Przybilla: 138 (213)

Joel might be a surprise to people, but he's started the majority of the games he's played in in his NBA career.

I'm not blaming the losing on Telfair by ANY stretch, but the starting lineup's inexperience outside of Bassy certainly isn't to blame.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I agree with you about the experience Ed O. What I would look at though is the quality of player. Shareef is the only guys out of all of those guys who I would expect to be dependable on getting a pass and scoring inside. Miles has shown nothing but inconsistency, with his best games being in open court helter skelter games. Joel has emerged with good limited game, but is far from the offensive threat you want taking the shots inside, as he can pretty much not get anything but a pick and roll dunk to go down. Damon is a guy who gets hot in stretches, but not often enough. He is also not a guy that you pass to cutting down the lane becuase he is too small to finish amongst the trees. Now that being said, there really is only one guy in the starting lineup that has shown he is a good option to pass to on the inside. That is Shareef. 

Think of it this way. Out of the starting lineup...how many of the players were legitimate starters for long periods of time on anther team? Damon and Shareef. Darius is really a 2nd string forward who doesn't play well at all unless he starts for the most part, which makes it a bad situation. Joel was a 2nd string and even 3rd string center in Milwaukee, and he is hardly a primary offensive option, he is mostly a garbage man or pick and roll player. 

What the team is lacking, is players who can create a their own shot.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Think of it this way. Out of the starting lineup...how many of the players were legitimate starters for long periods of time on anther team? Damon and Shareef.


Well, that's half the rest of the starting lineup. That's not too bad.



> Darius is really a 2nd string forward who doesn't play well at all unless he starts for the most part, which makes it a bad situation. Joel was a 2nd string and even 3rd string center in Milwaukee, and he is hardly a primary offensive option, he is mostly a garbage man or pick and roll player.


Joel started 92 of the 141 games that he played for the Bucks. If he weren't injured so much of the time, he might have started a couple dozen more. He was the first-string center for the majority of the time he was in Milwaukee.

I agree that he's not an excellent player, but he's a defensive presence and a pretty good rebounder.

As for Miles: I agree he's limited in many respects, and motivation has been a big issue.



> What the team is lacking, is players who can create a their own shot.


They're lacking a lot of things, but that's one of them. The new and improved all-shorty back court is probably the single biggest factor to me, though; Damon can't stop PGs and he has NO PRAYER of slowing down most 2 guards.

Picking apart why this team is losing is like looking at whether Hitler flossed his teeth regularly, though. 

Ed O.


----------



## bbAlvin (Jun 6, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> He's too short. He's like Damon, but without the jump shot. He can't finish in the lane, he makes poor decisions. He makes a ton of turnovers. He has no positive impact on the game.


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Telfair makes a lot of turnovers trying to create something: either by pinpoint pass or overpenetrating. He also makes a lot of rookie turnovers because he is still getting used to NBA speed and NBA size of players(less room to operate). I think at times he thinks too much as well. Over time, the turnovers will dissipate just from NBA exposure. A lot of Damon's turnovers are because he has never mastered basic entry passes and he dribbles too much trying to create for himself. I dont see Telfair struggling there. I can live with guy making turnovers trying to create a scoring opportunity. Damons types of turnovers are inexcuseable.

He does have problems finishing. I think he'll soon develop the baby runner ala Stockton and Hornacek and that will help him alot. 



> He's a defensive liability because he's too small and too short.


He got used a little by Livingston the other night on a turn-around post shot and he threw that sweet needle over Telfairs head. But how many 6'7" point guards are there? His defensive problems are leaving his man to follow the ball and not always pressuring the ball enough. His defensive intensity has diminished from earlier this year, but he's now playing 30+ minutes a night so I'm sure he's pacing.



> He dribbles too much (just like a certain mouse).


 Right now I think he's using the dribble to create spacing with a teammate, trying to lure defenders. It not the same thing that Damon does. Damon is dribbling to get himself open. Telfair is quick to give it up if the defenders cheat, whereas Damon is quick to shoot if it gets him open. Telfair shoots his fair share, but how many bad shots does he really take? He's usually pretty wide open and his jump shot has noticeably improved of late.[/QUOTE]




> What does he do well? The only thing he's good at is the quick pass. He has shown virtually no improvement over the season.


His 18-20 foot jumpshot has improved. His confidence and on-court comfort have improved. He used to be quick to dish to the nearest wingman in an offensive set--effectively creating nothing. Now he's jabbing and creating space something Outlaw is figuring out too. He's our best defensive guard. He pushes the ball and puts us in fastbreak situations better than any other guard we have. He's one of our best free throw shooters and he may be one of our better players at getting to the line(over 48 minutes). 

I sometimes find myself wishing he'd progress faster too, but then I remind myself of the above things.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> The starting lineup actually has plenty of experience. Let's look at the rest of the starting lineup's # of career starts (with total career games):
> 
> Damon: 665 (712)
> Miles: 161 (360)
> ...


I don't think that is nearly as relevant as what kinds of teams our starters have started on. Whenever Miles started, it was on a poor team, same with Joel and Shareef. The only player that started on a quality team in his career was Damon Stoudamire, and even then it was by default. Sure players can be starters, but what type of team did they start on? That is much more relevant than counting how many games they started in their respective careers.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Geez.....The way the people on this board are acting towards the Blazers, it makes this board feel more like a support group then a message board!


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Geez.....The way the people on this board are acting towards the Blazers, it makes this board feel more like a support group then a message board!


I think people ***** too much honestly, if he gets a lot of points and shoots a high percentage then people will complain about how he shoots too much, if he gets a lot of assists then people will complain that he isn't a good shooter and he knows it, so he passes too much. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what. He's 19 years old, he's probably making a bigger impact than any other high schooler this year other than Howard. Having Stoudamire playing right next to you can't be a good thing either, he's holding the young talent back.


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

I think the Clippers announcers were making very valid points about Telfair. They did not understand how people say Telafir cant shoot, there point was that anybody who has scored the most points in NY high school ball history obviuosly has somewhat of a shot, you cant just make layups all the time. They also pointed out that they felt people only call you a shoooter if you have 3 point range. IMO a point guard does need 3 point range to keep a defense honest. If you can consistently make a shot 2 feet inside the arc and you are as fast as Telfair defenses are going to have a tough time keeping you from driving to the hoop. Telfairs shoot from the top of the key area is becoming very consistent, they dont sag off him as much as they did at the start of the season (when he played).


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Anyone that says Telfair hasn't improved since the start of the season needs to rewatch Telfair. 

At the start of the season, he was virtually unwatchable. Everyone hyped him up and kissed his feet to the point that I wanted to vomit on myself. The worst part - he was pretty awful - yet people here were under the impression that he was the second coming of Christ.

Now, he seems to be a completely different player. His jumpshot is more solid. I've seen him penetrate and kick a lot more. I've seen him break down a defense for an easy dunk for Przy. 

Is he good? Not yet. But you can see that he's headed there fast.

He needs to find the "I'm Not Going To Play Flashy" button and turn it off. Livingston does the same stuff. It's a high school thing that a year of college will take out of you. A simple chest pass and they both turn their entire body away from the receiver of the pass -- to make it "look" nice. Well, that doesn't work well in the NBA. Those mistakes have GOT TO GO.

He does a lot of Stoudamire things - but he also isn't good enough yet to see the right pass. Stoudamire holds the ball on purpose ... Telfair is holding it because he isn't completely comfortable yet.

Play.


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Goldmember said:


> He's too short. He's like Damon, but without the jump shot. I've had enough of short point guards.
> 
> He can't finish in the lane, he makes poor decisions. He makes a ton of turnovers. He has no positive impact on the game.
> 
> ...


Saying he's not a leader and he hangs his head are simply not true. Have you been to a game this year that he has played significant minutes? I suggest you see one live then tell me what you think.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> The roller coaster goes on and on....Sebastien is great..Sebastien is awful...Sebastien is great...Sebastien is awful...Sebastien is great...Sebastien is awful....


but oh can the man sing!

_welcome back...your dreams were your ticket out..._


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> He needs to find the "I'm Not Going To Play Flashy" button and turn it off. Livingston does the same stuff. It's a high school thing that a year of college will take out of you. A simple chest pass and they both turn their entire body away from the receiver of the pass -- to make it "look" nice. Well, that doesn't work well in the NBA. Those mistakes have GOT TO GO.
> 
> Play.


amen! It's the whole Jason Williams type passing that's made the game bad.

Sure, a fancy pass is nice, but when they do a somewhat fancy pass, and turn around and turn away from the passer (to make it look like a "no look pass") it's stupid. They do that because A: the media shows it more and makes them sound like better passes and B: they think that makes them like Magic (who did that, albeit not nearly to the degree).

Did anyone see the play where Livingston saved the ball from going out of bounce, and threw it over his right shoulder, and it went to a Clipper? he came back in bounds, and almost acted like he meant to do that and it went off as planned.

Yah. Sure.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Another thing to consider before bashing Telfair-

The rookie wall. 

This is the time of year that most rookies discover that the length of a NBA season taxes their body and mind beyond anything they could have expected. Couple that with a HUGE jump in minutes and the fact that Telfair never had to endure even a College season, and you could imagine what that kid is going through right now. It's completely unfair to play the "what have you done for me lately" card.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

Ugg, even rookies who went to college 4 years used to get a year or two before they were judged. Now we draft teenagers and judge them their first year?

Telfair also seems to defer to Damon Stoudamire, so we're not really seeing how he could run the team. The other 4 players on the court also stand around too much, and don't cut. Joel Pryzbillia is the only player that seems to have a mind for getting in position where the PG can deliver a play.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

I was half expecting him to say let's draft Chris paul, at the end of his post. LOL.

Telfair is going to be a star. He is a teenager man. PG is one of the hardest positions to adjust to, and he did it out of HS. In one of the first games as starter, he had 18 and 7. That is damn impressive.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> He has shown virtually no improvement over the season.


You were right on some of your comments. But to say he hasn't improved? Evidently you haven't been watching.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Telfair hasn't looked good lately. He does look tired and warn out. BUT... like most mentioned... wait 2-3 years before you decide what he is going to be. Outlaw look horrid last year. Zack had a TON of shots blocked his rookie year. J. O'Neal didn't look good his entire time in Portland. Face it... we are probably 3-5 years from the playoffs... a lot will happen and change in that time. Patience.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Paxil said:


> Patience.


Exactly.

Blazer fans are so used to their team being managed like it's a fantasy squad that we can easily forget that it takes measured decisions, sacrifice, and time to build a long term, championship caliber team.

Take your lumps, and enjoy the ride. Being here from the "beginning" will prove to be quite fulfilling!


----------



## Target (Mar 17, 2004)

From the beginning AND the rebirth ProFan!


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Paxil said:


> Face it... we are probably 3-5 years from the playoffs... a lot will happen and change in that time. Patience.


 :verysad: 



Goldmember said:


> He can't finish in the lane, he makes poor decisions. He makes a ton of turnovers. *He has no positive impact on the game*.


I went to the GS game on New Year's (thanks to B&B :cheers: ). Although I believe Reef led the team in points and rebounds, it was Telfair and Outlaw who I credited with the spark and hustle play that put us over the top to win the game. OK, so it's only one game. But it was exciting. 

These guys are uber young. Patience grasshopper. :meditate:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> Blazer fans are so used to their team being managed like it's a fantasy squad that we can easily forget that it takes measured decisions, sacrifice, and time to build a long term, championship caliber team.


It does? I think this is probably a big misperception. Looking at the past 20 years or so...

The Lakers: got Magic and immediately were a championship-level team for a decade.

The Celtics: got Bird and almost immediately were a championship-level team for about a decade.

The 80's-90's Pistons are an example of a team that was built over time... I'll give you that.

The Bulls took a couple of years after getting Jordan, but that was partly because of Michael's injury his second year and partly because the Pistons were in their way.

Rockets took advantage of Jordan's absence. They weren't exactly "long-term" contenders, even though they won a pair of titles.

The Spurs added Duncan to Robinson and were immediate contenders.

The Lakers added Shaq and Kobe and immediately shot up to 60 wins and were champs within a couple of years.

Last year's Pistons were assembled pretty quickly, with most of their key parts being added within a few years.

Other significant contenders in that time that didn't win titles?

-- Blazers (late 80's): we all know their story. I'm not sure that the way the team was built is a blueprint for success, though.

-- Jazz: Malone and Stockton were really all that mattered. Coaching stability was nice, but whether Eaton or Ostertag were in the middle, and whether Malone or Hornacek were at the 2, or Russell or Benoit were at the 3, the team was good.

-- Blazers/Kings/Mavs (early 2000's): deep, expensive teams that weren't really long-term contenders, as it turns out (although the Mavs' window is still open).

My (longwinded) point: patience is, in and of itself, worthless to building a championship-level team. It's a healthy mental approach for us posters, but having patience doesn't mean our chances for having a good basketball team are any better.

Ed O.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

In my Christmas poem next year... you get to be the Grinch Ed. :biggrin: 

I think it was the great Opus the penguin who once said, 'reality has no place in affairs of the heart'

Or something like that. Maybe.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

> My (longwinded) point: patience is, in and of itself, worthless to building a championship-level team. It's a healthy mental approach for us posters, but having patience doesn't mean our chances for having a good basketball team are any better.


Considering the situation the Blazers are in right now - regardless of how Championship teams have been built in the past - I'd say patience is a very important piece to building a Championship level team. There is no blue print to the process. Each situation is different. Maybe I could have said it differently in my first post. Instead of:

_Blazer fans are so used to their team being managed like it's a fantasy squad that we can easily forget that it takes measured decisions, sacrifice, and time to build a long term, championship caliber team._

I could have said:

*In order for the Blazers to become a championship level team, it's going to take measured decisions, sacrifice, and time to build.*

Bottom line - there are no quick fixes, no band aids, no draft picks or trades that will make this version of the Portland Trailblazers immediate contenders. No matter how hard they try.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Size and power matters in the NBA. I would love to have Jack from GT running the Blazers next year. Now that's a PG that's everything the Blazers need. Pass first, huge frame and a defensive stopper. 

Telfair may have cool no look passes but he's barely taller than Damon and doesn't have a shot. How will he really make the Blazers better in the long run?

Taller pg's will just shoot over him the same way they've done for years and years against Damon.

I imagine Telfair being a great sub for the real PG for most teams.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Size and power matters in the NBA. I would love to have Jack from GT running the Blazers next year. Now that's a PG that's everything the Blazers need. Pass first, huge frame and a defensive stopper.
> 
> Telfair may have cool no look passes but he's barely taller than Damon and doesn't have a shot. How will he really make the Blazers better in the long run?
> 
> ...


being 6 foot tall sure has hurt Allen Iverson...


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I may be wrong but AI is 6"2. On top of that AI has a outside and mid range jumper, Telfair does not. AI did a little college to learn some skill and get a shot, Telfair should have done the same.

Players are getting bigger and stronger every year, 6 feet and under is just to short for this NBA. Portland fans should know that from having Damon for this long. 

I think Telfair would have made a great street court or college player but that's where it ends.

Telfair is not his cousin Stephan. If ya want a real Stephan clone go get Jack. Same college, same size, same type of raw strength.

The upside with Jack is he will pass first where Stephan will shoot.

Telfair is very fun to watch don't get me wrong but he's not an NBA top tier type of player.

With Lebron you knew, Mello and Wade the same. They sprint onto the scene, Telfair is not even jogging at this point.


The closest comparison for Telfair may be Avery Johnson and that's if Telfair gets alot better.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Telfair is not his cousin Stephan. If ya want a real Stephan clone go get Jack. Same college, same size, same type of raw strength.


You fail to mention Jacks' poor jumpshot, something this team desperately needs is jump shooters.....BTW Telfair will be a better pro then Jack....


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I sure hope you are right. A six foot flat PG will have to be AI great to make it in this league.

Think he'll be AI great?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> I may be wrong but AI is 6"2.


you are wrong. NBA.com lists him as 6' even. Same with basketballreference.com



> On top of that AI has a outside and mid range jumper, Telfair does not. AI did a little college to learn some skill and get a shot, Telfair should have done the same.


AI has one now (and really not that good of one). 42% for his career from the floor (including 31% from 3's). And those #s *include* a year were he shot 46% from the floor in his 2nd year. Take that out, and his shooting goes down to 41%.



> Players are getting bigger and stronger every year, 6 feet and under is just to short for this NBA. Portland fans should know that from having Damon for this long.


cept that Damon is significantly shorter than 6'. And he's a defensive sive. Telfair is already more aggressive on defense than Damon is.



> I think Telfair would have made a great street court or college player but that's where it ends.


good thing you're a scout for the nba.



> Telfair is not his cousin Stephan. If ya want a real Stephan clone go get Jack. Same college, same size, same type of raw strength.


who said we wanted Stephon?



> The upside with Jack is he will pass first where Stephan will shoot.
> 
> Telfair is very fun to watch don't get me wrong but he's not an NBA top tier type of player.


no one said he is. Now. But he could become one. I wouldn't say that Marbury is a "top tier" player either.



> With Lebron you knew, Mello and Wade the same. They sprint onto the scene, Telfair is not even jogging at this point.


I doubt that you can tell the difference between a jog and a sprint.



> The closest comparison for Telfair may be Avery Johnson and that's if Telfair gets alot better.


somehow I think you're just trolling.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

I love that anyone is even discussing AI as if he's a PG.

Who cares how tall he is? He isn't a dang PG in any respect other than by title.

Play.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I love that anyone is even discussing AI as if he's a PG.
> 
> Who cares how tall he is? He isn't a dang PG in any respect other than by title.
> 
> Play.


Agreed.....


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Hap,

Most NBA scouts dropped Telfair out of their lotto list. The Blazers take him! I understand why your so edgy with your response, your teams management is sub par on all levels and you the fans are getting defensive. Makes sense, but don't blame the messenger for the message that smart fans like you already know.

The Blazers right now are not a good team. It will take years to get them back to any sort of contender. 

Telfair, Zach, Miles,Outlaw are just waiting for a real superstar to follow. Problem is the Portland management wouldn't know how to get one or hold onto one if their lives depended on it.

From MJ to Jermaine Oneal to Rasheed Wallace. Two decades of mistakes panning out for other teams. 

Portland needs to understand from top management down how to make a team, they don't and it shows.

Great fans, bad team.

Truth hurts!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Hap,
> 
> Most NBA scouts dropped Telfair out of their lotto list. The Blazers take him! I understand why your so edgy with your response, your teams management is sub par on all levels and you the fans are getting defensive. Makes sense, but don't blame the messenger for the message that smart fans like you already know.


please don't act like you're just giving us a message that we're "smart enough" to know. This isn't a case of the team telling us Omar Cook has a great future in this league. Or Rick Brunson is a "starting quality" PG. 

btw, I'm "edgy" because we have people coming in here who think they actually are smarter than the team is (or other scouts or other teams who would gladly take him). Or smarter than us fans who (get this) actually *watch* the team and follow the team. 


> The Blazers right now are not a good team. It will take years to get them back to any sort of contender.


not sure what this has to do with anything. 


> Telfair, Zach, Miles,Outlaw are just waiting for a real superstar to follow. Problem is the Portland management wouldn't know how to get one or hold onto one if their lives depended on it.


yah, cause hyuck, garsh...they're just giving away superstars!


> From MJ to Jermaine Oneal to Rasheed Wallace. Two decades of mistakes panning out for other teams.


For starters, neither Jermaine or Rasheed are superstars.

And secondly, there's a man named Clyde Drexler who would have something to say about that sentance.

And thirdly, the owner wasn't the same guy in 84. Nor was the GM. Or President. Or realistically anyone involved with the franchise in an important factor.



> Portland needs to understand from top management down how to make a team, they don't and it shows.


please expand on this thesis.



> Great fans, bad team.
> 
> Truth hurts!


wow, you showed us!


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)




----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Hap, I'm not trying to show you anything, judging by your writing style it would be futile to do so.

As for the scouts, well they've known to be wrong on many occasions. How many drafts and how many duds have come out of them?

As for Clyde, he left to get a ring and it took all of one year to get one. How many years in Portland and no such luck?

Sheed left and in less than a year got a ring, in Portland no such luck.

Jermaine Oneal rotted on the bench in Portland and in Indi by every voters account and allstar, in Portland no such luck.

These things are not by chance, it's that Portland is not run very well from top down.

Portland to date has not one go to player and hasn't since Clyde. What does that show the managements been doing for so long? This team has gotten worse by year for four years. 

These are facts not opinions and whether you're Portland fan or not it doesn't make them any less true.

Maxing Zach and giving Miles and Theo huge contracts while letting smart players like SAR walk makes little sense. This is why myself and others seriously question the business smarts of the Blazers organization. Judging by some of the posts I've read here many of you do to.


Next year the Blazers will have no outside threat and no smart inside presence with the loss of SAR. Who is going to score the points next year?

Telfair, Outlaw, Zach, Monia and Joel? That team will be lucky to score 80 points a game.

You don't have to agree but it doesn't make it any less untrue.

It Telfair can't make a bucket and the rest of the team can't put their paws on his no look passes what good is he?

I think it makes many very worried that Portland has put all their money on a selfish PF in Zach and a undersized PG who can't shoot in Telfair.

I don't think many would put to much stock in a team led by those two getting anywhere near a playoff run in the near future.

Sorry


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:



> Hap, I'm not trying to show you anything, judging by your writing style it would be futile to do so.


read: I actually can't show you anything. I'm just repeating the same tired (and oft wrong) stories about the team that I hear from 3rd hand sources.


> As for the scouts, well they've known to be wrong on many occasions. How many drafts and how many duds have come out of them?


fans are wrong far more often than scouts.



> As for Clyde, he left to get a ring and it took all of one year to get one. How many years in Portland and no such luck?


considering he won it A: on a team that was the defending champ and B: during the time when the best player in the history of the game was a shell of his former self..I don't see how this really means anything.



> Sheed left and in less than a year got a ring, in Portland no such luck.


again..so?

What does leaving Portland mean? Mychal Thompson left Portland and won 2 titles. So what?



> Jermaine Oneal rotted on the bench in Portland and in Indi by every voters account and allstar, in Portland no such luck.


again..so?



> These things are not by chance, it's that Portland is not run very well from top down.


yah. whatever.



> Portland to date has not one go to player and hasn't since Clyde. What does that show the managements been doing for so long? This team has gotten worse by year for four years.


how many teams have had superstars? Because apparently there's tons of them out there..



> These are facts not opinions and whether you're Portland fan or not it doesn't make them any less true.


but still doesn't really have anything to do with Telfair..now does it?



> Maxing Zach and giving Miles and Theo huge contracts while letting smart players like SAR walk makes little sense. This is why myself and others seriously question the business smarts of the Blazers organization.


people judge the team quickly because they have short attention spans, and no one thinks of the future. Everyone thinks of now now now!



> Judging by some of the posts I've read here many of you do to.


this isn't about that really. This is a thread about Telfair, and you're trying to switch the subject. 



> Next year the Blazers will have no outside threat and no smart inside presence with the loss of SAR. Who is going to score the points next year?


no one. the team will score 0 points next year. 


> Telfair, Outlaw, Zach, Monia and Joel? That team will be lucky to score 80 points a game.


yah, because they're not going to sign anyone, and if they're aren't scoring now (telfair and outlaw) they sure aren't next year! hyuck!



> You don't have to agree but it doesn't make it any less untrue.


you can state vague statements and then act like you're some genius and that doesn't make it anymore true.


> It Telfair can't make a bucket and the rest of the team can't put their paws on his no look passes what good is he?


yah, we should just trade him them. I mean, if after this long he still sucks, sakes alive!



> I think it makes many very worried that Portland has put all their money on a selfish PF in Zach and a undersized PG who can't shoot in Telfair.


cept that his shot is actually improving..and he's 19 years old. No one here (who actually follows the team or has a clue) thinks he's perfect now. No one judges a player based on their first year in the league (and after 12 starts). Because that's short sighted. 



> I don't think many would put to much stock in a team led by those two getting anywhere near a playoff run in the near future.


well it's a good thing you're telling us this. Because it's important to know.



> Sorry


try harder.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

:argue: :cheers:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

YardApe said:


> Hap, I'm not trying to show you anything, judging by your writing style it would be futile to do so.
> 
> As for the scouts, well they've known to be wrong on many occasions. How many drafts and how many duds have come out of them?
> 
> ...



Your using the past to attack the Blazers and talk about how they have been ran poorly for years and we messed up on not drafting Jordan, trading Jermaine, Rasheed and so on......But you fail to mention the 2 NBA finals and the 21 straight playoff appearances in that period of time....

Two bad years after 21 in a row and all of a sudden this franchise is in shambles? People need to put things into perspective....


----------



## statman (Feb 27, 2004)

I haven't consciously given up on Telfair by any means. But subconsciously the thought must be there. How do I know? Cuz' on the way to work today, this movie title just popped into my head: TELFAIR II -- REVENGE OF THE DAMON.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Telfair is not going to be the ticket draw of the Blazers. That type of player isn't there yet. Zach is a very sellfish PF that most know can't pass out of a double team and doesn't make his teamates better. The smartest player you have is SAR and he's going to walk and the Blazers wont get jack in return. The same is true for Damon, leaving DA as the only guy on that team that can hit the rim 2 out of 10 times from down town. Now sure your team can draft a player and trade for another but high impact 2 guards you wont get. Redd will be a Cav. Allen wants more than the Blazers can pay, Pierce may go no where if the Celtics do well in the playoffs and Peja has been given the Kings with the trade of CWebb.

I hope Monia pans out cause DA and Outlaw shooting deep next year might be very painful to watch.

As for Telfair, he may be great but as it looks now he wont be ready for years to be a star let alone a difference maker on your team night in and out.

He does not look like an NBA player yet. I for one think he should have gotten his skills down pat with a few years of college before having all these expectations dropped on his lap after one year. 

As for the Sheed he was on dream teams in Portland with Pippen, Kerr, Bonzi, Smith,Dale, Sabas, DA, Damon and Anthony and couldn't win. He went to a Piston team that couldn't get past Indi the year before and just like that Detroit wins it all.

Drexler was on a Portland team with Porter, Kersey, Uncle Cliffy, Duck and Buck and couldn't win it. One year with Hakeem and rings are here.

As for J Oneal he has been part of that Indi team fighting for the top spot in the East for the last four years. Wasn't till Sheed became a Piston that the Pacers fizzed out.

My point here is simple, the Blazers as a whole can not put it all together. That's a skill set that needs a proper balance of savvy front office people and a coach that can see how to create a great chemistry team.

This is not a money issue cause LORD knows Allen loves to spend a bunch. Right people, right jobs is the first step in fixing the Blazers.

I don't think Telfair and Zach is a strong conerstone to compete in the west.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Telfair is not going to be the ticket draw of the Blazers.


didn't know thats the only criteria for a player. Good to know.



> That type of player isn't there yet. Zach is a very sellfish PF that most know can't pass out of a double team and doesn't make his teamates better. The smartest player you have is SAR and he's going to walk and the Blazers wont get jack in return.


unless he wants to get the MLE...



> The same is true for Damon,


if Damon walks, it will be an improvement.



> leaving DA as the only guy on that team that can hit the rim 2 out of 10 times from down town.


hitting 3's isn't the end all be all. Viktor actually is a good shooter, so is Travis. 



> Now sure your team can draft a player and trade for another but high impact 2 guards you wont get. Redd will be a Cav. Allen wants more than the Blazers can pay, Pierce may go no where if the Celtics do well in the playoffs and Peja has been given the Kings with the trade of CWebb.


well then we should trade telfair. After all, you think he'll be a backup.



> I hope Monia pans out cause DA and Outlaw shooting deep next year might be very painful to watch.


why would outlaw be painful to watch? He's actually one of the better shooters on the team (and yes I realize thats not saying much). He actually can create shots, unlike Derbrick.

and I like how you assume that Telfair won't improve at all.



> As for Telfair, he may be great but as it looks now he wont be ready for years to be a star let alone a difference maker on your team night in and out.


didn't know we expected him to be a star right away. Terry Porter started long before he was a 'star'..let alone "a difference maker".



> He does not look like an NBA player yet.


which is why he's actually putting up 11 points and 6 assists as a starter, right?



> I for one think he should have gotten his skills down pat with a few years of college before having all these expectations dropped on his lap after one year.


the *only* people who are "dropping these expectations" on his lap are people who are people who are purposely taking the other side, and implying that those who ARE fans fo Telfair, are saying he'll be a "star". 

None of us are expecting him to be a 'star' next year. None of us are expecting him (or the team) to be great next year. It's called "growth".



> As for the Sheed he was on dream teams in Portland with Pippen, Kerr, Bonzi, Smith,Dale, Sabas, DA, Damon and Anthony and couldn't win.


they also ran into shaq and kobe..who *no one* could beat for 3 years.



> He went to a Piston team that couldn't get past Indi the year before and just like that Detroit wins it all.


yah, and the pistons beat a Lakers team that was imploding before our eyes..

Detroit beat Indiana partly because Ron Artest imploded in game 6. 



> Drexler was on a Portland team with Porter, Kersey, Uncle Cliffy, Duck and Buck and couldn't win it. One year with Hakeem and rings are here.


he also played in a finals in a year where Jordan was basically a shell of himself, and didn't have enough time to incorporate himself back into the bulls system.

Notice that Hakeem and Clyde didn't make it back to the finals again, right? And notice that the Bulls won the next 3 titles. 

Had the Blazers played a team that had never been to the finals in 92 (orland had never been in 95) than I bet the Blazers would've won.



> As for J Oneal he has been part of that Indi team fighting for the top spot in the East for the last four years. Wasn't till Sheed became a Piston that the Pacers fizzed out.


when Jermaine was traded to the Pacers, they weren't fighting for the top spot in the east. Infact, *last year* was the first year the Pacers were a really good team with Jermaine.

Oops, I guess thats not right.



> My point here is simple, the Blazers as a whole can not put it all together. That's a skill set that needs a proper balance of savvy front office people and a coach that can see how to create a great chemistry team.


which takes time...so we should be *****ing and moaning beacuse of how the team is in the future, when we don't even know how the team wil lbe next year? We don't know who they're picking, where they're picking, who they sign, who they trade for...



> This is not a money issue cause LORD knows Allen loves to spend a bunch. Right people, right jobs is the first step in fixing the Blazers.


or realizing that it takes a little time to "fix" things. 



> I don't think Telfair and Zach is a strong conerstone to compete in the west.


well it's a good thing the team is done building then.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well put this thread in the useless tread catagory, in a word LAME!


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I can't believe anyone actually believes Telfairs size will allow him to be abused. He is not paper thin and most PG in the NBA are 6'2" and some of those sizes are over not true. Anyone watching Telfair, hasn't seen his size be exploited, except for maybe once. He is quick, his shot is up and down(very common for a rookie), He turns the ball over too much(again not uncommon for a rookie), and has pretty good defensive pressure. I think his defense is excellent for his age. 
For all you people who think we need a 6'6" PG, name one who is starting? That is right, there isn't any. Most that have been drafted are second string or are bust. Nash, Tony Parker, Kidd, Marbury, Baron Davis, Bibby, Andre Miller, Sam Cassell all must suck, because not one of them except Kidd is 6'4". Livingston doesn't even start on the Clippers yet, even though he is a excellent prospect. I wondering if some of you are reading box scores and not watching the games. Telfair is doing fine for a rookie on a bad team. At least he isn't trying to boost his stats, since there is no hope for the playoffs.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Peaceman said:


> Nash, Tony Parker, Kidd, Marbury, Baron Davis, Bibby, Andre Miller, Sam Cassell all must suck, because not one of them except Kidd is 6'4".


Nash: 6'3"
Parker: 6'2"
Kidd: 6'4"
Marbury: 6'2"
Davis: 6'3"
Bibby: 6'1"
Miller: 6'2"
Cassell: 6'3"

I don't think that Telfair is too small to succeed at the PG spot, but it speaks volumes that so many of the top PGs in the NBA are significantly over 6' tall.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Nash: 6'3"
> Parker: 6'2"
> Kidd: 6'4"
> Marbury: 6'2"
> ...


I don't know if I'd say that 2 inches is "significantly" over 6' tall tho. 

Would any of us refuse Mike Bibby because he's 6'1"?

I also think we should realize that he could still be growing. David Lucas arrived at OSU as a 6'3" player. He's now 6'7-8". I know when I was 18, I was about 6'1". Now Im almost 6'4". 

If Sebastian grows another 2 inches (not impossible) are those who ***** about him being short, going to stop complaining? Nope. They'll still find stupid things to complain about because they just like complaining (not singling out Edwardo here, as he isn't who Im talking about).


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Are those heights accurate? I realize that those are the players' listed heights but as we all know, that doesn't say much.

By all accounts, Telfair appears to be a legit 6' tall (according to NateB and other sources). We also know that Damon is more of a 5'8 than a 5'10, so I wouldn't be that surprised if many of these point guards "significantly over" 6' tall are actually hovering right around there...

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I'd be willing to bet that at least a couple of those guys tacked at least an inch onto their listed height.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Are those heights accurate? I realize that those are the players' listed heights but as we all know, that doesn't say much.
> 
> By all accounts, Telfair appears to be a legit 6' tall (according to NateB and other sources). We also know that Damon is more of a 5'8 than a 5'10, so I wouldn't be that surprised if many of these point guards "significantly over" 6' tall are actually hovering right around there...
> 
> Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but I'd be willing to bet that at least a couple of those guys tacked at least an inch onto their listed height.


I believe the heights listed are accurate. The only one that's questionable is Telfair as I believe he is *under * 6 feet tall.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

tlong said:


> I believe the heights listed are accurate. The only one that's questionable is Telfair as I believe he is *under * 6 feet tall.


We know. Problem is, there's someone on this board who sees him face to face on a regular basis who believes that he isn't. Do you also believe that Al Jefferson is 8'?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Nash: 6'3"
> Parker: 6'2"
> Kidd: 6'4"
> Marbury: 6'2"
> ...



When they were listed on NBAdraft.net, here were their heights


Parker 6'1", 6' even on his profile
Davis 6' 2", not 6'3"
MIller 6'2"


The rest are too lold to have a draf height listed on that site anyway. 

I just think you guys should all settle down. It's easy to make your point if you aren't using all the facts. 


I'm the lovliest human being on the planet. See there, I can spout off things too, but it doesn't make it correct.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> We know. Problem is, there's someone on this board who sees him face to face on a regular basis who believes that he isn't. Do you also believe that Al Jefferson is 8'?



I see Telfair on a regular basis as well. I'm 6-1 and I'm at least 2 inches taller than him.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

What pick will 5' 11' Chris Paul be taken with?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

You guys keep talking about Sebastian's height but not once have I ever seen his height being exploited by another point guard, not once. Run off now.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> You guys keep talking about Sebastian's height but not once have I ever seen his height being exploited by another point guard, not once. Run off now.


Have you watched *any * games this year?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

tlong said:


> Have you watched *any * games this year?


I've watched plenty, and I was even at one game which was Blazers vs Clipps, in LA.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Hap, 

Your entire last response to my post was the largest set of excuses I've ever read!

The Bulls were rotten before Jordan and in under 8 years were champions.

Portland had Clyde for how many years and nothing happened?

Detroit was stripped to nothing after the Bad Boy era that beat Portland in the finals, and have already rebuilt and won another championship with a GM that Portland faced 10 years ago as a player.

The real dagger is they did it with a key Portland piece in Rasheed.

What has Portland been doing for 12+ years?

Hell the Baby Bulls are even doing better than Potland right now and they were totally gutted and left for dead.

You can say Portland needs more time till your fingers fall off but it comes down to bad management decisions that continue over the decades to keeping biting the Blazers in the butt.


Case in point:

Max Zach Randolph one of the worst team players I've seen
Extend Theo a player with no offense who has in most peoples eyes been replaced in one year by Joel. That's smart!
New contract to Miles a streaky player at best,who has been a mistake with every team he's been on.

Let the smartest player in SAR walk for nothing at the end of the year, think that wont come back to smack Portland?

The most important part is the Blazers don't have the money to get a Ray Allen or Redd or any top notch shooting guard over the summer. However I'm sure Zach and Theo will lover their new houses in the tropics with their guaranteed money.

These are several rotten decisions in a row that will keep Portland from being competitive for years to come. That's your teams management and they are not good.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I agree with much of what YardApe says. Blazer management SUCKS A$$!


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

tlong said:


> I see Telfair on a regular basis as well. I'm 6-1 and I'm at least 2 inches taller than him.


You're always wearing high heels, though, right? :clown:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Hap,
> 
> Your entire last response to my post was the largest set of excuses I've ever read!
> 
> The Bulls were rotten before Jordan and in under 8 years were champions.


whats this prove? that Portland should've taken the next jordan with #13?


> Portland had Clyde for how many years and nothing happened?


I'm beggining to think you know nothing.



> Detroit was stripped to nothing after the Bad Boy era that beat Portland in the finals, and have already rebuilt and won another championship with a GM that Portland faced 10 years ago as a player.


They also faced a team that was no where near the 2000 lakers, or the 2001 lakers. Those teams would've whipped the PIstons.



> The real dagger is they did it with a key Portland piece in Rasheed.


not sure what this means. So had we kept Rasheed we would've won the title!?

SUH-WEEEET!!!!



> What has Portland been doing for 12+ years?


Let's see, 10 straight playoff appearances and 4 WCF's appearances in a time when each time they peaked, they faced a team that was muuuch better.

THe pistons title is a lot like the rockets title. right time, right place. 



> Hell the Baby Bulls are even doing better than Potland right now and they were totally gutted and left for dead.


again, what does this have to do with anything? Could you at least stick with one thing, instead of wandering and comparing teams in different stages of the rebuild with other teams in different stages?



> You can say Portland needs more time till your fingers fall off but it comes down to bad management decisions that continue over the decades to keeping biting the Blazers in the butt.


yah, them not signing Shaq in 95 was a bad mistake.



> Case in point:
> 
> Max Zach Randolph one of the worst team players I've seen


you haven't seen many players then.



> Extend Theo a player with no offense who has in most peoples eyes been replaced in one year by Joel. That's smart!


they over paid him, yah. But so what? They didn't know that Joel was going to be as good as he is when they signed Theo



> New contract to Miles a streaky player at best,who has been a mistake with every team he's been on.


*yawn*



> Let the smartest player in SAR walk for nothing at the end of the year, think that wont come back to smack Portland?


for starters, if Shareef walks for nothing, thats not the end of the world. Secondly, his "smarts" sure has done us good, huh? 


> The most important part is the Blazers don't have the money to get a Ray Allen or Redd or any top notch shooting guard over the summer. However I'm sure Zach and Theo will lover their new houses in the tropics with their guaranteed money.


um, you might not know this, but even if they didn't sign Theo to his extention, they would've had to sign Zach to one (or risk losing him for nothing)..And if they lost Zach, that'd mean they kept Shareef..and that'd mean they'd *STILL HAVE NO MONEY TO SIGN THOSE GUYS*..


> These are several rotten decisions in a row that will keep Portland from being competitive for years to come. That's your teams management and they are not good.


neither is your presentation of facts.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

CanJohno said:


> You're always wearing high heels, though, right? :clown:


**Bad Post**


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Hap,

You're and excuse maker, nothing more!

I've made it very clear that good organizations and teams have won championships, rebuilt COMPLETELY, and won again in the same amount of time it's taken Portland to just tread water and now drown.

That's bad management! 

BTW-

Telling someone they know nothing only proves you've lost this debate.

I'm done!


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

YardApe said:


> Hap,
> 
> You're and excuse maker, nothing more!
> 
> ...


Ape dude, let the sack breathe. Stop typing up a Bible's worth of anti-Blazer responses. It makes you look threatened at the team's future.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Hap,
> 
> You're and excuse maker, nothing more!
> 
> I've made it very clear that good organizations and teams have won championships, rebuilt COMPLETELY, and won again in the same amount of time it's taken Portland to just tread water and now drown.


1 franchise has (detroit). Name the others, because in the time that Portland last went to the finals, no other team has won a title, and gone into the crapper, and won a title.

LA didn't win a title since we went to the finals, gone in the crapper, and won another.

Houston hasn't either.

Chicago hasn't either.

So..who are these teams? 



> That's bad management!
> 
> BTW-
> 
> ...


since you have stated half-truths, inconsistent premises and missleading criteria, what are we supposed to think?


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Hap said:


> 23 points against the Bobcats. W
> 
> 18 points, 7 assists and 8-15 against the Suns.
> 
> and considering the vast majority of the games he played before Cheeks got himself canned were spot minutes, thats really not a fair question.


Interesting. Telfair's two best games were under the coaching of CHEEKS but then you turn around and bash Cheeks for not playing him enough? Shady..... The bottom line is that Telfair AIN'T READY TO START and Cheeks was giving Telfair the minutes he deserved. Telfair's best games were under CHEEKS, not under Pritchard.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

NathanLane said:


> The bottom line is that Telfair AIN'T READY TO START


Why because you say it in capital letters? Okay.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Okay....

Well... let's put in this way... he's not ready to start on a team that has any designs on actually WINNING a basketball game. If you want to put him on the floor, let him dribble around and not give a darn whether or not we win the game, then sure, he's ready to start. But if you care about WINNING.... he needs to be sitting on the pine. I mean, is there a worse starting PG in the league? No. And don't tell me he's only 19. He will soon be 20. I've seen 19 year olds play MUCH better than Telfair.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

NathanLane said:


> Okay....
> 
> I mean, is there a worse starting PG in the league?


Yes. Damon Stoudamire, when he was starting PG, now he takes the position of worst starting SG. Chucky Atkins, Keith McCloud to name a couple. Telfair is by far not the worst starting PG in the league, at 19 years old he's definitly holding his own. No point guard has made Telfair look incompetent when playing them. Damon however let CBA players have career nights on him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I agree that Telfair isn't good enough (right now) to start on a winning team. But who cares? This isn't a winning team with our alternatives, and Magic Johnson in his prime isn't going to walk through those doors, fellas.

Ed O.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Damon is better than Telfair. Deal with it. Damon's stats are better, we win the more he plays, and his +/- is better. Deal with it. You know who else is better? DA. When DA plays more than 30 minutes, we're a pretty decent team. This goes back to last season as well.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

NathanLane said:


> Damon is better than Telfair. Deal with it. Damon's stats are better, we win the more he plays, and his +/- is better. Deal with it. You know who else is better? DA. When DA plays more than 30 minutes, we're a pretty decent team. This goes back to last season as well.


A decent team that won't make the playoffs, and when the season is over the veterans like Damon will leave, so what is there to gain by playing him big minutes? We lose the development of our players AND miss out on a good draft pick. I guess winning 8 more games is more important than the developing of our youngsters and a good pick.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> A decent team that won't make the playoffs, and when the season is over the veterans like Damon will leave, so what is there to gain by playing him big minutes? We lose the development of our players AND miss out on a good draft pick. I guess winning 8 more games is more important than the developing of our youngsters and a good pick.


It's AMAZING how *some* people can't see the bigger picture (a.k.a. EXACTLY what you just said).


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

CanJohno said:


> It's AMAZING how *some* people can't see the bigger picture (a.k.a. EXACTLY what you just said).


Thanks man, it's great to see that there is at least another Blazer fan with his head on straight.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I agree that Telfair isn't good enough (right now) to start on a winning team. But who cares? This isn't a winning team with our alternatives, and Magic Johnson in his prime isn't going to walk through those doors, fellas.
> 
> Ed O.


Exactly, it's all about patience with us. Which, of course, is much easier said than done.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

LOL... do you think Damon will be better than Telfair 3 years from now Nathan? Pretty silly to be better at this point.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

NathanLane said:


> Damon is better than Telfair. Deal with it. Damon's stats are better, we win the more he plays, and his +/- is better. Deal with it. You know who else is better? DA. When DA plays more than 30 minutes, we're a pretty decent team. This goes back to last season as well.


Well, most experienced veterans are supposed to be better than rookies. 

In this case, Stoudamire wasn't exactly leading this team to the promised land. To the dismay of many on this board, Stoudamire isn't the worst PG in the league, but he is among the worst STARTING PGs in the league.

Telfair isn't BETTER than Stoudamire is right now. But, Stoudamire isn't going to be a Blazer next year, Telfair is. He needs to start working his game. 

Also, pointing out that the team "wins more when he plays" is kind of a misnomer. He played with a full roster and his team was far superior to what is being fielded in the Telfair era. On a side note, Stoudamire's win% is worse than Telfair's win% with this new roster ... by the way.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

NathanLane said:


> Interesting. Telfair's two best games were under the coaching of CHEEKS but then you turn around and bash Cheeks for not playing him enough? Shady..... The bottom line is that Telfair AIN'T READY TO START and Cheeks was giving Telfair the minutes he deserved. Telfair's best games were under CHEEKS, not under Pritchard.



so what about the other games where telfair didn't play? or the fact he's putting up decent #'s now as a starter?


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Hap said:


> so what about the other games where telfair didn't play? or the fact he's putting up decent #'s now as a starter?


Telfair's numbers are FAR from decent. FAR, FAR, FAR from decent.

And I'm sick of the age excuse. Yo, if you're not ready for the NBA, then don't PLAY in the NBA. 

Telfair's numbers tonight: 6 pts, 1 assist, loss. Beautiful.

He's not good, yo. Don't make excuses for him.

If there's a good PG in the draft, I suggest we snap him up!


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Well, most experienced veterans are supposed to be better than rookies.
> 
> In this case, Stoudamire wasn't exactly leading this team to the promised land. To the dismay of many on this board, Stoudamire isn't the worst PG in the league, but he is among the worst STARTING PGs in the league.
> 
> ...


Damon's numbers have ALWAYS been better than the so-called "decent" numbers that Telfair is putting up now.

Interesting.... if Telfair puts up crap numbers, they are "decent." If Damon puts up ACTUAL decent numbers, he is "among the worst starting PGs in the league."

Yo, the worst starting PG in the league is Sebastian Telfair. And like I said, I don't care if he is 19. No one forced him to go pro this year.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

NathanLane said:


> Damon's numbers have ALWAYS been better than the so-called "decent" numbers that Telfair is putting up now.
> 
> Interesting.... if Telfair puts up crap numbers, they are "decent." If Damon puts up ACTUAL decent numbers, he is "among the worst starting PGs in the league."
> 
> Yo, the worst starting PG in the league is Sebastian Telfair. And like I said, I don't care if he is 19. No one forced him to go pro this year.


Actually, I wouldn't say that Damons years in Portland (outside of this year, when he basically was one of the only options period) have been siginificantly better than Telfairs putting out now. 

Damon is a veteren who isn't putting up much better #'s (outside of this year) than Telfair is. THats why it's not really favorable to act like Damon's so much better. 

Thats the bottom line.

Btw, Kobe's rookie year wasn't exactly that great. I dont think one can condemn a player based on their rookie year. God knows Jermaine would be out of the league by now.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Hap said:


> Actually, I wouldn't say that Damons years in Portland (outside of this year, when he basically was one of the only options period) have been siginificantly better than Telfairs putting out now.


But Damons years in Portland HAVE been better than the one Telfair is putting out now, regardless of whether or not you say it.



> Damon is a veteren who isn't putting up much better #'s (outside of this year) than Telfair is. THats why it's not really favorable to act like Damon's so much better.
> 
> Thats the bottom line.


Damon's stats are better. Damon's win-loss percentage is better. Damon's +/- is better.



> Btw, Kobe's rookie year wasn't exactly that great. I dont think one can condemn a player based on their rookie year. God knows Jermaine would be out of the league by now.


Kobe's rookie year was 100 times better than Telfair's. Kobe showed the ability to take over a game and score 30+ in his rookie year. And his team went to the second round of the playoffs. (P.S. Kobe ain't exactly that great NOWadays so he's a bad example for your argument)

Jermaine O'Neal showed more promise in his rookie year, in my opinion, and was rightfully asked to sit on the bench since he wasn't ready to start at the time. (P.S. JO ain't exactly that great NOWadays either. He's fine. Chokes in the playoffs all the time and destroyed his franchise by sucker punching a fan. He feasts on the East, but would never have beaten out Duncan, Dirk, or KG for an All Star spot if he had stayed in Portland.)


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

NathanLane said:


> Damon's numbers have ALWAYS been better than the so-called "decent" numbers that Telfair is putting up now.


Damon also had more experience under his belt. 

It isn't about who is CURRENTLY better or who isn't. It is about getting the kid experience. He didn't go to college, which I think he should have, but he didn't. So - he has to start getting minutes.



> Interesting.... if Telfair puts up crap numbers, they are "decent." If Damon puts up ACTUAL decent numbers, he is "among the worst starting PGs in the league."


I ask you to find where I said Telfair was putting up "decent" numbers. I don't care what Hap said or what any other guy said ... you are talking to me ... and I have never said that.

I will say it now though - he's putting up decent numbers. I still don't like a lot of what he does on the court - but the difference from the beginning of the year and now ... heck, even from mid-season and right now ... is NIGHT AND DAY.

Damon's numbers are inflated garbage. Damon is like Randolph (and everyone here knows my love for the fat guy). He gets empty stats. His assists don't actually PUT the ball in the hands of a guy in position to score. He doesn't make people better. He just "LOOKS FOR HIS". He's done this since he was a rookie.

That doesn't mean Damon isn't a good PLAYER. Heck, he's a very good PLAYER. He just isn't a good PG for a team like the Blazers. It's like Jason Terry. Terry is a terrible PG in Atlanta, but by all accounts, in a different system Terry is a much more solid PG.



> Yo
> 
> 
> > Stop it with the ****ing yo's now. It's really, really stupid.
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

NathanLane said:


> But if you care about WINNING.... he needs to be sitting on the pine.


Fair enough. We don't care about winning (or, at least, I don't think most of us do, this season). We care about younger players getting a chance to develop and make mistakes and learn from them in a real game environment.

Making the playoffs is a bit of a longshot at this point.  The chances for a championship only exist in obscure branches of math that are generally used to calculate quantum probabilities.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

NathanLane said:


> But Damons years in Portland HAVE been better than the one Telfair is putting out now, regardless of whether or not you say it.


so the year he averaged 6 ppg? that was better?

or is it about the TEAM is better?

so we're faulting Telfair for not having other players to save his bacon?

I doubt that Damon would be leading us to victories if he was the PG and Derek Anderson was the SG...

this is a faulty rationale for why you think Telfair isn't that good. This team would be bad with Telfair starting, with Telfair coming off the bench, with Telfair not playing. This team is bad regardless of what Telfair does. that doesn't mean that Telfair is bad. 



> Damon's stats are better. Damon's win-loss percentage is better. Damon's +/- is better.


Damon = been there, done that. He's leaving. get over it.



> Kobe's rookie year was 100 times better than Telfair's. Kobe showed the ability to take over a game and score 30+ in his rookie year.


As I suspected, you're pulling that stat out of your ***. He actually didn't score 30+ in his rookie year. Nor did he really take over that many games. He scored over 20 4 times in that year, with a career high of 24. 24 is less than 30+...

ah..but I see...you are being vague. You didn't say that Kobe SCORED 30+..you said that he showed he COULD..

well, so has Telfair. 

And he was FAAAR more likely to play under 10 minutes and score under his average than anything.



> And his team went to the second round of the playoffs. (P.S. Kobe ain't exactly that great NOWadays so he's a bad example for your argument)


i don't know why you keep comparing what a *team* does with other teams. Does it matter that Kobe's team went to the 2nd round? nope.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

NathanLane said:


> Damon's stats are better.


And we all know that statistics are the best indicator of whether or not a player is good or not.

WRONG!

Statistics tell you about performance in certain aspects of the game. If you want to know if Damon hits a certain percentage of shots ... go look at stats.

What stats don't tell you is if he is initiating the offense properly. (which Damon doesn't do very well)
It doesn't tell you if he is getting on his man properly on defense. (which Damon also doesn't do very well)
It doesn't tell you if he is actually setting up players for good shots or if the player is just hitting shots. (Damon rarely gets players involved on offense and rarely gets guys good looks by breaking down the defense. Reef and DA are FAR superior ... than Damon, our PG)
It doesn't tell you if the shots being taken are good. (Damon constantly takes ill-advised shots and might have one of the worst eyes in basketball. He's a GREAT shooter, it is just too bad he launches so many DUMB shots. I love his patented on the run 3)




> Damon's win-loss percentage is better.


That's certainly comparing apples to apples isn't it. 

How about we look at the games played since Telfair was named a starter. Oh wait --- Telfair's W/L% is BETTER than Damon's when you compare apples to apples.



> Damon's +/- is better.


There you go comparing apples to oranges again.

Damon had a whole season of riding on the coattails of Reef/Randolph doing their thing ... while Telfair has had the honor of being on the floor with Reef/Outlaw ... something tells me you will probably do a "little" better with Reef/Randolph.



> Kobe's rookie year was 100 times better than Telfair's. Kobe showed the ability to take over a game and score 30+ in his rookie year. And his team went to the second round of the playoffs. (P.S. Kobe ain't exactly that great NOWadays so he's a bad example for your argument)


Kobe:
15.5 MPG
7.6 PPG
1.5 APG
1.6 TO/G

Telfair:
15.5 MPG
5.5 PPG
2.5 APG
1.6 TO/G

Pretty similar, my friend.

Play.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> so the year he averaged 6 ppg? that was better?


He got 6.9 ppg (not including the playoffs, where he got 15.3 ppg, and yes he was better than Telfair. Factor in that it was roughly half of what he got the rest of his career (and therefore clearly an aberration) and Damon's clearly been much better statistically than Telfair has been to date.

Not very surprising, but your refusal to acknowledge it looks a bit silly.



> or is it about the TEAM is better?


Both.



> As I suspected, you're pulling that stat out of your ***. He actually didn't score 30+ in his rookie year. Nor did he really take over that many games. He scored over 20 4 times in that year, with a career high of 24. 24 is less than 30+...
> 
> ah..but I see...you are being vague. You didn't say that Kobe SCORED 30+..you said that he showed he COULD..
> 
> ...


Telfair will almost certainly have played more minutes in fewer games than Kobe did as a rookie... I'm not sure that it's true at all that he was far more likely to play under 10 minutes than Kobe was.

I haven't seen Telfair demonstrate the ability to take over a game yet. Dell Harris was saying that Kobe was his best one-on-one offensive player as a rookie, and he clearly had the ability to take over a game even at age 18.

And while you nitpick about the 30 points figure, Kobe did apparently break the 20 point mark 4 times. By the time he was Sebastian's age I bet it was a lot more than that.

I'm not sure why, exactly, we're comparing Telfair to Kobe because Sebastian is simply not on the same level Bryant was at the same point.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I haven't seen Telfair demonstrate the ability to take over a game yet.


He took over in Charlotte and Phoenix, she shot better than 50% and had his way, the loss in one of the games can be attributed to the talent level on the team. 



> Dell Harris was saying that Kobe was his best one-on-one offensive player as a rookie, and he clearly had the ability to take over a game even at age 18.


Took over like those 4 air balls against Utah in the Playoffs? Oh. 



> I'm not sure why, exactly, we're comparing Telfair to Kobe because Sebastian is simply not on the same level Bryant was at the same point.


We don't really know because Kobe was pretty much given the green light, Sebastian hasn't despite the coach being fired. Sebastian is working on playing a more team oriented game, unlike Kobe did in his rookie season.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> He got 6.9 ppg (not including the playoffs, where he got 15.3 ppg, and yes he was better than Telfair. Factor in that it was roughly half of what he got the rest of his career (and therefore clearly an aberration) and Damon's clearly been much better statistically than Telfair has been to date.
> 
> Not very surprising, but your refusal to acknowledge it looks a bit silly.


it wasn't about accumulative. It was about how he had a bad season here.

He siad his #'s had *ALWAYS* been better. Well, they haven't always been better. 

I think had Damon come to the NBA as a high school SR, his #'s would've been attrocious (faaaaar worse than Telfairs). but that wouldn't have been indicitive of his potential.


> Both.
> 
> Telfair will almost certainly have played more minutes in fewer games than Kobe did as a rookie... I'm not sure that it's true at all that he was far more likely to play under 10 minutes than Kobe was.


I went through each of the box scores, and it was surprising how many 3 minutes, 2 minutes, 8 minutes, type games he had.


> I haven't seen Telfair demonstrate the ability to take over a game yet. Dell Harris was saying that Kobe was his best one-on-one offensive player as a rookie, and he clearly had the ability to take over a game even at age 18.


and yet, he didn't..



> I'm not sure why, exactly, we're comparing Telfair to Kobe because Sebastian is simply not on the same level Bryant was at the same point.
> 
> Ed O.


it's not about being on the same level, and you *know* that. It's about not pinching a loaf because he's not doing what certain posters project on him already. I.E., those who dislike Telfairs pick hold him to a much higher standard than those who DO like him, because those who dislike him try to act like those who do like him, are praising him to the hills.

Kobe as a rookie was inconsistant, made stupid plays, shot stupid shots, and wasn't that good. He'd have an occasional good game, but most of the time, he was like Telfair was this year. You see glimpses, but not what he is now.

Am I saying that Telfair will be as a good as Kobe? Nope. And anyone with a horses' IQ knows thats not what I am saying (or anyone else is) by comparing his rookie season to Kobe's. What I am (and we are) saying is that bad rookie seasons don't mean they'll always be bad.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

This is beyond old....

If you don't like Telfair..then get lost (that means you troll...err...N.Lane) b\c he isn't going ANYWHERE anytime soon. Deal with it.


----------

